[House Report 104-631]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-631
_______________________________________________________________________


 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  1997

                                _______
                                

 June 19, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


Mr. Wolf, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3675]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997.


                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action......................     1
                                                                      2
Program, project, and activity.............................
                                                                      3
        Title I--Department of Transportation:
                Office of the Secretary....................     2
                                                                      4
                Coast Guard................................     6
                                                                     13
                Federal Aviation Administration............    11
                                                                     34
                Federal Highway Administration.............    16
                                                                     65
                National Highway Traffic Safety 
                    Administration.........................    18
                                                                    101
                Federal Railroad Administration............    21
                                                                    113
                Federal Transit Administration.............    26
                                                                    126
                Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
                    Corporation............................    34
                                                                    167
                Research and Special Programs 
                    Administration.........................    35
                                                                    168
                Office of Inspector General................    36
                                                                    173
                Bureau of Transportation Statistics........
                                                                    174
                Surface Transportation Board...............    37
                                                                    174
        Title II--Related Agencies:
                Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
                    Compliance Board.......................    37
                                                                    176
                National Transportation Safety Board.......    38
                                                                    176
                Panama Canal Commission....................
                                                                    178
        Title III--General Provisions......................    38
                                                                    179
        Title IV--Miscellaneous Highway Provisions.........    55
                                                                    181
        House Report Requirements:
                Inflationary impact statement..............
                                                                    181
                Rescissions................................
                                                                    182
                Transfers of funds.........................
                                                                    182
                Changes in existing law....................
                                                                    184
        Appropriations not authorized by law...............
                                                                    189
                Comparison with budget resolution..........
                                                                    189
                Five-year projections of outlays...........
                                                                    190
                Financial assistance to state and local 
                    governments............................
                                                                    190
                Tabular summary of the bill................
                                                                    192

                          Summary of the Bill

    The accompanying bill would provide $12,460,311,000 in new 
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies, a decrease 
of $167,604,627 below the $12,627,915,627 requested in the 
budget.
    The Committee has also recommended limitations on 
obligations for a number of programs that are, for the most 
part, financed by multi-year contract authority in legislative 
acts. The total of the limitations on obligations for these 
programs is $22,422,450,000. This is $367,160,000 above the 
levels enacted in fiscal year 1996, and $630,922,000 below the 
levels requested in the budget. An additional $2,055,000,000 is 
estimated to be obligated for federal-aid highway programs 
exempt from the obligation limitation in the bill.
    The total recommended obligational authority (new budget 
authority, limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations) 
amounts to $36,937,761,000. This is $263,755,021 more than 
comparable fiscal year 1996 enacted levels, and $58,328,627 
less than the budget request.

                         Major Recommendations

    Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill 
are:
          (1) A provision providing for total obligations, 
        including exempt obligations, of $19,605,000,000 for 
        federal-aid highways;
          (2) A provision providing for $1,300,000,000 for 
        grants-in-aid for airports;
          (3) An appropriation of $4,900,000,000 for operations 
        of the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of 
        $254,288,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level, 
        including funds to provide a net increase of 250 
        additional air traffic controllers, 100 additional 
        airline operations inspectors, 54 additional air 
        worthiness inspectors, 75 additional engineers and 
        pilots, and 29 additional manufacturing certification 
        inspectors;
          (4) An appropriation of $2,609,100,000 for operating 
        expenses of the Coast Guard, an increase of $30,109,000 
        above the fiscal year 1996 level;
          (5) An appropriation of $462,000,000 for grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), 
        to cover operating losses and capital expenses, and an 
        appropriation of $80,000,000 for high-speed rail 
        trainsets and facilities;
          (6) A total of $2,052,925,000 for the Federal Transit 
        Administration's formula grants program, including 
        $400,000,000 for transit operating assistance;
          (7) A provision providing for obligations of not to 
        exceed $1,665,000,000 for the discretionary grants 
        program of the Federal Transit Administration;
          (8) An appropriation of $200,000,000 for construction 
        of the Washington, D.C. metrorail system;
          (9) A total of $204,637,000 for the Office of the 
        Secretary, $28,926,000 below fiscal year 1996 and 
        $28,535,000 below the budget request;
          (10) The bill includes a total of $51,300,000 in 
        offsetting collections for Coast Guard, Acquisition, 
        construction, and improvements; Federal Aviation 
        Administration, Operations; Research and Special 
        Programs Administration, Research and special programs; 
        and Bureau of Transportation Statistics, airline 
        statistics; and
          (11) The bill includes $2,400,000 for a National 
        Civil Aviation Review Commission.

                            Tabular Summary

    A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 
1996 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 
1997 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end 
of this report.

                           Committee Hearings

    The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the 
programs and projects provided for in the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 
fiscal year 1997. These hearings are contained in eight 
published volumes totaling approximately 10,000 pages. The 
Committee received testimony from officials of the executive 
branch, Members of Congress, officials of the General 
Accounting Office, officials of state and local governments, 
and private citizens.
    The bill recommendations for fiscal year 1997 have been 
developed after careful consideration of all the information 
available to the Committee.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 1997, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions 
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or 
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory 
statements of the committee of conference. This definition 
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) 
authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants, 
Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage 
reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds 
appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and 
improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each 
``budget item'' that is listed under said accounts in the 
budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent 
appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, 
conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the 
committee of conference.

                            Safety Programs

    In this bill, the Committee has worked hard to protect 
funding for essential safety-related programs of the Department 
of Transportation and the independent agencies. This has been 
difficult, but not impossible, given the budget constraints 
faced by the Federal Government this year. In some cases, funds 
have been added to the administration's request for safety-
related activities. However, if, in the judgment of 
departmental officials any of the Committee's recommendations 
would significantly harm transportation safety, or if 
unanticipated safety needs arise during the course of the 
appropriations process, the Committee welcomes discussions with 
the administration to adjust individual funding levels and 
provide the funding needed. The bill also allows significant 
flexibility through the reprogramming process, which requires 
no further legislative action. The Committee will work with 
administration officials to reprogram funds for safety programs 
if that should be required.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................     $56,189,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      55,376,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      53,816,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      -2,373,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -1,560,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $2,365,352 to comply with working capital 
fund, awards, and administrative reductions, and $78,000 to comply with 
the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    The bill provides $53,816,000 for salaries and expenses of 
the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary 
(OST). This is $2,373,000 below the level enacted last year, 
and $1,560,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee 
recommendation assumes the following reductions from the budget 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
estimate:

Reductions in staff:
    -2 public affairs specialists.......................       -$150,000
    -2 congressional affairs officers...................        -150,000
    -2 attorney advisors................................        -200,000
    -1 staff assistant, immediate office of the deputy 
      secretary.........................................         -60,000
    -10 procurement analysts, office of acquisition.....      -1,000,000

    Reductions in staff.--The Committee recommendation 
eliminates a number of positions in the office of the 
secretary, including 2 public affairs specialists (-$150,000), 
2 congressional affairs officers (-$150,000), 2 attorney 
advisors (-$200,000) and 1 staff assistant in the immediate 
office of the deputy secretary (-$60,000). In light of severe 
budget constraints and government downsizing, it is the 
Committee's belief that these positions can be eliminated 
without affecting the core responsibilities, functions and 
duties of the department.
    The Committee recommendation also eliminates 10 procurement 
analysts from the office of acquisition and grants management. 
While the Committee once supported the department's intended 
aggressive initiative to improve acquisition oversight at the 
departmental level, the Committee now questions the value added 
by limited, informal secretarial overviews. For example, the 
Coast Guard indicated to the Committee that within the past 
year no formal oversight reviews of its major acquisitions were 
performed. Further, the FAA, which is responsible for the vast 
majority of the department's major acquisitions, was provided 
new acquisition authorities over the past year, and as a 
result, the administrative offices of the secretary have little 
if any oversight role.
    Electronic tariff filing.--The bill includes a provision 
that permits the Office of the Secretary to credit $1,000,000 
in user fees to support the electronic tariff filing system.
    Hispanic serving institutions.--The Committee applauds the 
Department of Transportation on its efforts to enhance 
educational and career opportunities for minority students in 
the areas of science, technology and transportation matters. 
The Committee acknowledges the activities of the Office of 
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), 
university transportation centers (UTCs), and the Research and 
Special Programs Administration (RSPA) in this regard. The 
Committee strongly encourages the department, especially in its 
planning and research components (including, but not limited, 
to OSDBU, UTCs, and RSPA), to include participation by Hispanic 
serving institutions in any current or future plans to increase 
its pre-designated or targeted research, development and 
education funds.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The 
Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), 
similar to provisions in past Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which limits the number 
of political and Presidential appointees within the Department 
of Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 1997 is 107 
personnel, which is an increase of seven personnel from the 
fiscal year 1996 ceiling. The budget estimate included 117 
personnel. The bill specifies that no political or Presidential 
appointee may be detailed outside the Department of 
Transportation.
    Advisory committees.--As in previous years, the Committee 
has again limited the funds used for the expenses of advisory 
committees of the Department of Transportation. This year the 
Committee has limited to $850,000 the expenses of advisory 
committees, the same as enacted in fiscal year 1996.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................      $6,554,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................       5,574,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       5,574,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................        -980,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

\1\ Excludes reductions of $927,000 to comply with working capital fund, 
awards, and administrative reductions, and $9,000 to comply with the 
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    The Committee recommends $5,574,000 for the office of civil 
rights, the same level as the budget estimate and $980,000 
below last year's appropriation. In fiscal year 1995, the 
management of internal civil rights activities was consolidated 
in the office of the secretary with transfer authority provided 
in the ``salaries and expenses'' account. Reductions from the 
previous year's appropriations are associated with one-time 
start-up costs that are no longer needed. The appropriated 
level will support 76 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.
    The office of civil rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and 
ensuring full implementation of civil rights and equal 
opportunity precepts in all of the department's official 
actions and programs.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................      $8,220,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................       7,919,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       3,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      -5,220,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -4,919,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $301,000 to comply with working capital fund, 
awards, and administrative reductions, and $13,000 to comply with the 
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    This appropriation finances those research activities and 
studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information 
development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities 
in the formulation of national transportation policies. The 
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with 
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit 
research organizations, and private firms.
    The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for this appropriation, 
which represents a decrease of $5,220,000 below the funding 
level provided for fiscal year 1996. The recommended level 
holds transportation and planning studies to $2,757,000 
(-$51,000) and permits the annualization and other pay-related 
costs for 17 FTEs, as requested in the budget. The Committee 
has included $100,000 to continue the department's ongoing 
analysis of impacts on Mexico and the United States related to 
motor carrier impacts of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. The recommendation deletes funding for planned trade 
promotion activities which should be provided by the Department 
of Commerce.
    The recommended level reflects elimination of further 
funding for the transportation automated procurement system 
(TAPS) (-$2,511,000) and the docket management system (DMS) 
(-$1,100,000). The TAPS pilot test program and evaluation have 
yet to be completed within the office of the secretary and, as 
a result, further departmental conversion and full 
implementation are premature. While the Committee agrees that 
further improvements may be desirable, they must be deferred 
due to the high outlays associated with this account and the 
tight budget constraints facing Congress. The recommended level 
deletes funding for the development of GPS augmentation 
(-$1,000,000), holds ``other costs'' to the 1996 level 
(-$257,000), and assumes the transfer of aviation information 
management to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, fiscal year 1996 \1\........................  ($103,149,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \2\...................   (124,812,000)
Recommended in the bill \3\.............................   (124,812,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1996........................   (+21,663,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................            (--)

\1\ Excludes reductions of $7,506,000 to comply with working capital 
fund and awards provisions.
\2\ Proposed without limitation.
\3\ In fiscal year 1997, the limitation on transportation administrative 
service center expenses is also addressed in a general provision 
(-$10,000,000).

    The Committee has agreed with the budget request to create 
a transportation administrative service center (TASC) to 
finance common administrative services that are centrally 
performed in the interest of economy and efficiency in the 
department. The fund is to be financed through negotiated 
agreements with the department's operating administrations, and 
other governmental elements requiring the center's 
capabilities.
    The Committee, however, has denied the department's request 
to eliminate all appropriations language and has instead 
included a limitation on activities financed through the TASC 
at the level requested in the budget. In addition, the 
Committee has included two language provisions. The first 
provision limits activities transferred to the transportation 
administrative service center to only those approved by the 
agency modal administrator; the second would limit special 
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those 
assessments or reimbursable agreements presented to and 
approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    To ensure smooth operations and accountability of the TASC 
in its nascent stages of development and organization, the 
Committee directs the department to submit with the 
department's Congressional budget submission an approved annual 
operating plan of the TASC and quarterly status reports for the 
Committee's review. Quarterly reports and approvals of the 
Secretary's management council shall also be provided to the 
Committee.
    The Committee does not view the TASC as an opportunity to 
increase the number of departmental administrative staff. The 
Committee directs the department not to hire any new staff 
above a GS-12 level for the TASC in fiscal year 1996 until 
after the director of the TASC is hired. In addition, the 
department is not to hire any TASC staff in fiscal year 1997 in 
excess of the end-of-year, on-board level in fiscal year 1996.
    General provision.--The Committee has included a general 
provision (sec. 321) which provides that amounts budgeted for 
the transportation administrative service center in this bill 
are reduced, on a pro rata basis, to the limitation level of 
$114,812,000.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                                                                        
                                    Liquidation of                      
                                       contract          Limitation on  
                                     authorization        obligations   
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.       ($22,600,000)       ($22,600,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year                                            
 1997...........................        (21,922,000)        (21,922,000)
Recommended in the bill.........        (10,000,000)        (10,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
     1996.......................       (-12,600,000)       (-12,600,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
     1997.......................       (-11,922,000)       (-11,922,000)
                                                                        

    The essential air service program was created by the 
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to 
continue air service to communities that had received federally 
mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program 
currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small 
communities that meet certain criteria. Subsidies, ranging from 
$4 to $322 per passenger, currently support air service to 74 
communities (excluding Alaska) and serve about 600,000 
passengers annually. This program was established to provide a 
smooth phaseout of federal subsidies to airlines that service 
small airports.
    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the essential air 
service program. The recommendation is $12,600,000 below last 
year's level and $11,922,000 below the budget estimate. The 
House-passed budget resolution called for the termination of 
this program.
    The Committee has not imposed a legislative local matching 
requirement, as was proposed by the House last year. The 
Committee, however, directs the Office of the Secretary to give 
preference to those communities that provide a local cost share 
without unduly disadvantaging the most rural communities.
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama.--The Committee is aware that the 
carrier providing service to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, has proposed 
to discontinue service in fiscal year 1996. Because Tuscaloosa 
Municipal Airport is currently benefiting from the essential 
air service program, the Committee urges the department to work 
with the carrier to ensure continued operations.
    The following table lists the projected subsidized air 
service points in fiscal year 1997:

                                    CURRENTLY SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES \1\                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Average                            
                                                               Estimated      daily       Current               
                                                               mileage to  enplanement     annual    Subsidy per
                     States/communities                       nearest hub     at EAS      subsidy     passenger 
                                                               (S, M. or   point (YE 3/ rates (June             
                                                                   L)         31/95)      1, 1996)              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:                                                                                                        
    Tuscaloosa..............................................           61         32.1        (\2\)  ...........
Arizona:                                                                                                        
    Kingman.................................................          103         10.5      $94,663       $14.40
    Page....................................................          274         23.3      129,560         8.87
    Prescott................................................          103         37.8       94,663         4.00
Arkansas:                                                                                                       
    El Dorado/Camden........................................          108         11.1      474,453        68.15
    Harrison................................................          139         10.0      412,931        66.05
    Hot Springs.............................................           54         14.9      412,931        44.34
    Jonesboro...............................................           71         10.5      474,453        71.98
California:                                                                                                     
    Cresent City............................................          233         15.2      151,450        15.91
    Merced..................................................          118         22.1      182,121        13.14
    Visalia.................................................          202         17.0      182,121        17.16
Colorado:                                                                                                       
    Cortez..................................................          253         27.0       92,976         5.49
    Lamar...................................................          162          4.4      190,987        69.93
Hawaii:                                                                                                         
    Kamuela.................................................           39          5.6      215,361        61.30
Illinois:                                                                                                       
    Mt. Vernon..............................................           92          6.3        (\2\)  ...........
    Sterling/Rock Falls.....................................          105          4.1        (\2\)  ...........
Iowa:                                                                                                           
    Ottumwa.................................................           92          5.9      268,410        72.64
Kansas:                                                                                                         
    Dodge City..............................................          156         14.9      113,693        12.19
    Garden City.............................................          209         25.4      190,987        12.01
    Goodland................................................          190          3.0      190,987       102.79
    Great Bend..............................................          116          6.0      113,693        30.24
    Hays....................................................          175         16.6      113,693        10.92
    Liberal/Guymon..........................................          162         10.5      190,987        28.95
    Topeka..................................................           76         22.9      102,362         7.13
Maine:                                                                                                          
    Augusta/Waterville \3\..................................           71         21.5      288,516        42.92
    Bar Harbor..............................................          164         16.9      259,243        24.57
    Rockland................................................           79         14.8      259,243        28.02
Michigan:                                                                                                       
    Ironwood/Ashland........................................          218         13.4        (\2\)  ...........
Minnesota:                                                                                                      
    Fairmont................................................          153          3.9      247,771       100.39
    Fergus Falls............................................          185         13.5      146,508        17.38
    Mankato.................................................           75          5.1      247,771        77.04
Missouri:                                                                                                       
    Cape Girardeau..........................................          133         20.4      164,027        12.85
    Fort Leonard Wood.......................................          130         14.5      196,606        21.69
    Kirksville..............................................          158          8.5      224,382        42.24
Montana:                                                                                                        
    Glasgow.................................................          279          6.4      303,956        76.07
    Glendive................................................          223          2.7      511,909       308.19
    Havre...................................................          251          4.9      439,972       143.41
    Lewistown...............................................          129          3.7      439.972       189.32
    Miles City..............................................          145          3.2      511,909       257.76
    Sidney..................................................          273          7.2      511,909       113.86
    Wolf Point..............................................          295          4.7      303,956       103.70
Nebraska:                                                                                                       
    Alliance................................................          242          2.7      346,863       203.68
    Chadron.................................................          301          2.7      346,863       207.33
    Hastings................................................          160          2.8      317,496       183.95
    Kearney.................................................          186         10.1      317,496        50.04
    McCook..................................................          259          3.3      657,724       322.73
    Norfolk.................................................          109         11.2        (\2\)  ...........
Nevada:                                                                                                         
    Ely.....................................................          236          7.4      508,759       109.74
New Hampshire:                                                                                                  
    Keene...................................................           56          7.2      382,283        84.67
New Mexico:                                                                                                     
    Alamogordo/Holloman AFB.................................           92         12.7      166,705        20.91
    Clovis..................................................          106         15.0      200,332        21.31
    Silver City/Hurley/Deming...............................          163         11.2      263,458        37.62
New York:                                                                                                       
    Massena.................................................          149         20.5      132,540        10.34
    Ogdensburg..............................................          127         10.0      132,540        21.15
    Watertown...............................................           69         15.8      132,540        13.44
North Dakota:                                                                                                   
    Devils Lake.............................................          403         12.4      208,119        26.81
    Dickinson...............................................          313         11.9      141,502        18.95
    Jamestown...............................................          304         10.3      208,119        32.20
Oklahoma:                                                                                                       
    Enid....................................................           91         12.0      301,400        40.28
    Ponca City..............................................           88         13.7      301,400        35.24
Pennsylvania:                                                                                                   
    Oil City/Franklin.......................................           91         27.0       89,916         5.32
South Dakota:                                                                                                   
    Brookings...............................................          211          5.6      247,771        70.61
    Mitchell................................................          245          3.6      247,771       110.32
    Yankton.................................................          159          9.0      268,875        47.78
Texas:                                                                                                          
    Brownwood...............................................          153          7.1      372,426        83.58
Utah:                                                                                                           
    Cedar City..............................................          257         19.1      292,882        24.55
    Moab....................................................          241          6.0      367,713        98.69
    Vernal..................................................          171         19.2      194,466        16.18
Vermont:                                                                                                        
    Rutland.................................................           67         10.4      382,283        58.54
Virginia:                                                                                                       
    Staunton................................................          108         31.4      225,029        11.46
Washington:                                                                                                     
    Ephrata/Moses Lake......................................          122         26.3      177,628        10.80
West Virginia:                                                                                                  
    Beckley.................................................          186         12.0      137,229        18.25
    Princeton/Bluefield.....................................          145         15.6      137,229        14.09
Wyoming:                                                                                                        
    Worland.................................................          164          8.3      145,239        27.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The above list of communities is based on currently available data, and is subject to change for a number of
  reasons. Subsidy rates change as their two-year terms expire throughout the year. In addition, air carriers   
  submit passenger traffic data on a quarterly basis. Changes in both subsidy rates and traffic levels will of  
  course change subsidy-per-passenger calculations. Further, some communities currently receiving subsidy-free  
  service may require subsidy in the future while some currently subsidized communities may attain profitability
  and no longer require subsidy. Finally, Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in
  the Airport Activities Statistics.                                                                            
\2\ Rate under negotiation.                                                                                     
\3\ Enplanements based on less than a full year's passenger data annualized.                                    

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (Rescission of contract authorization)

Rescission, fiscal year 1996............................    -$16,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     -16,678,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     -28,600,000
Bill compared with:.....................................
    Rescission, fiscal year 1996........................     -12,600,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................     -11,922,000

    The bill includes a rescission of contract authority of 
$28,600,000. This rescission removes contract authority which 
is not available for obligation due to annual limits on 
obligations. A similar rescission of $16,000,000 was made in 
fiscal year 1996.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                              (rescission)

Rescission, fiscal year 1996............................     -$6,786,971
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      -1,133,373
Recommended in the bill.................................      -1,133,000
Bill compared with:
    Rescission, fiscal year 1996........................      +5,653,971
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................            +373

    The bill includes a rescission of balances of general funds 
from prior years. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, section 
419, included a subsidy program to ensure scheduled air service 
to specified communities. Prior to fiscal year 1992, funding 
for this subsidy was provided from the general fund. Starting 
in fiscal year 1992, this program has been funded from the 
airport and airway trust fund. For the past several years, 
balances have been carried forward in the general fund account. 
These balances are no longer required as the program is now 
funded from the trust fund account.

                            Rental Payments

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................    $135,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\...................     137,581,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     127,447,000
Bill compared with:.....................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      -7,753,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................     -10,134,000

\1\ Rental payments for the Federal Highway Administration are 
separately budgeted but reimbursed to this account.

    The bill provides $127,447,000 in a consolidated 
appropriation for rental payments to the General Services 
Administration (GSA). These funds are used to pay GSA for 
headquarters and field space rental and related services. In 
addition to these consolidated funds, the bill provides that 
$17,294,000 shall be provided to GSA from the Federal Highway 
Administration's ``Limitation on general operating expenses''. 
This brings total funding to $144,741,000. The Committee has 
been concerned for some time over the spiraling growth in these 
expenses, and has accordingly limited to 8,580,000 square feet 
the amount of space that the department may lease from the GSA.
    The Committee notes that fiscal year 1995 through 1997 
space utilization rates are higher than in prior years because 
the department has not been able to release space back to the 
General Services Administration proportional to workforce 
reductions. These reductions have involved several individual 
office locations which have heretofore not allowed the 
department to capture contiguous blocks of space that can be 
released. However, in response to evaluations of the Nassif 
building's heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems 
and the health and comfort of its occupants, the department now 
anticipates extensive cleaning of the Nassif building. Because 
of the significant disruption that this will cause, the 
department will relocate employees beginning in May 1996 and 
continuing throughout the summer. This presents the department 
a significant, unexpected opportunity to consolidate its space 
requirements in the Nassif building, reduce its space 
utilization rates in fiscal year 1997, and release unused space 
to the General Services Administration.
    The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 326) 
that will permit the Secretary to transfer funds from salaries 
and expenses to ``Rental payments'' to cover space utility 
charges and other related expenses in excess of the amounts 
provided in the bill.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

                                                                        
                                                          Limitation on 
                                         Appropriation    direct loans  
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996........    $1,900,000      ($15,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997......     1,900,000       (15,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................     1,900,000       (15,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996....  .............  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..  .............  ................
                                                                        

    The minority business resource center of the Office of 
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides 
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding 
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The 
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime 
interest rates for transportation-related projects.
    Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were 
funded by the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made 
by the Credit Reform Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal year 1993 
a separate appropriation was proposed in the President's budget 
only for the subsidy inherently assumed in those loans and the 
cost to administer the loan program.
    The recommendation fully funds the budget request, which 
provides a limitation on direct loans of $15,000,000 and 
subsidy and administrative costs totaling $1,900,000, the same 
levels as last year.

                       Minority Business Outreach

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................      $2,900,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................       2,900,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       2,900,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

\1\ Excludes reduction of $4,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated 
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    This appropriation provides contractual support to assist 
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in 
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects 
that involve Federal spending. It also provides grants and 
contract assistance that serve DOT-wide goals and not just 
office of the secretary purposes. The Committee has provided 
$2,900,000, the same level as provided in fiscal year 1996 and 
included in the budget estimate.

                              COAST GUARD

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program

    The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on 
January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter 
Service and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by 
transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse 
Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and 
Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary 
responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the 
high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding 
navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining 
a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of 
the Navy in time of war.
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$3,708,319,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 
1997. This is $42,405,000 (1.1 percent) less than the budget 
estimate, and $32,931,000 (1 percent) more than the fiscal year 
1996 program level.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program 
levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--                          
                                                              ----------------------------------  Recommended in
                                                               1996 enacted\1\   1997 estimate       the bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses...........................................   $2,278,991,000   $2,637,850,000   $2,609,100,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements..................      362,375,000      411,600,000      358,000,000
Offsetting collections.......................................  ...............      -20,000,000      -20,000,000
Rescissions..................................................  ...............  ...............       -3,755,000
Environmental compliance and restoration.....................       21,000,000       25,000,000       21,000,000
Alteration of bridges........................................       16,000,000        2,000,000       16,000,000
Retired pay..................................................      582,022,000      608,084,000      608,084,000
Reserve training.............................................       62,000,000       65,890,000       65,890,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation..................       18,000,000       20,300,000       19,000,000
Port safety development......................................       15,000,000  ...............  ...............
Boat safety..................................................       20,000,000  ...............       35,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................    3,375,388,000    3,750,724,000   3,708,319,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $300,000,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996, reductions to comply with      
  working capital fund and administrative provisions, and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and              
  Appropriations Act of 1996.                                                                                   

                           Operating Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................  $2,578,991,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \2\...................   2,637,850,000
Recommended in the bill.................................   2,609,100,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................    + 30,109,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................    - 28,750,000

\1\ Includes $300,000,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act, 1996.
\2\ Includes $118,500,000 for defense-related activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       budget by mission category

    The following data is based on the Coast Guard budget 
submission and summarizes, by Coast Guard mission, the expected 
resources to be provided for each major Coast Guard mission for 
fiscal years 1995 through 1997. Because of the nature of the 
service's accounting systems and unknown changes in operational 
needs, these figures are estimates.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          1995 actual        1996 estimate       1997 estimate  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search and rescue...................................        $385,326,000        $383,716,000        $390,573,000
Aids to navigation..................................         524,180,000         499,113,000         513,058,000
Marine safety.......................................         330,467,000         311,998,000         320,129,000
Marine environmental protection.....................         235,711,000         236,494,000         241,719,000
Enforcement of laws and treaties....................         947,567,000         952,636,000         974,216,000
Ice operations......................................          91,082,000          90,669,000          94,016,000
Defense readiness...................................         110,505,000         101,304,000         104,139,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................       2,624,838,000       2,575,930,000       2,637,850,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total of $2,609,100,000 for 
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 1997. 
This is $28,750,000 (one percent) below the budget request, and 
$30,109,000 above the fiscal year 1996 program level. The 
following table compares the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, 
the fiscal year 1997 estimate, and the recommended level by 
program, project and activity: 


    The recommended reduction from the budget estimate includes 
the following adjustments:

                                                                  Change
Excessive funding for maintenance.......................    -$14,307,000
District offices........................................      -3,689,000
Miscellaneous supplies..................................      -3,700,000
Ammunition and small arms...............................      -2,000,000
Offset for boating safety grant increase................        -304,000
Non-operational travel..................................      -1,000,000
Professional training and education.....................      -2,000,000
Maintenance and Logistics Command administration........      -1,750,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     -28,750,000

                           pay and allowances

    The bill includes $1,597,856,000 for pay and allowances of 
Coast Guard military and civilian personnel, the same amount as 
included in the President's budget. The bill includes funds for 
a 3.0 percent pay raise for both military and civilian 
personnel, as requested. Within the amount provided, the bill 
includes all funds requested for special pays for military 
personnel.

                        depot level maintenance

    The bill includes $361,937,000 for depot level maintenance, 
a reduction of $14,307,000 from the budget estimate. The budget 
assumed approval of a proposed reprogramming during fiscal year 
1996 involving the transfer of maintenance funds to other Coast 
Guard activities, and requested restoration of those funds to 
the base funding for maintenance in fiscal year 1997. Since the 
reprogramming has neither been approved by the department, the 
Senate, nor the House at this late point in the fiscal year, 
the Committee believes the Coast Guard should continue using 
those funds for maintenance, as originally appropriated. With 
this action, the $14,307,000 is excess to requirements in 
fiscal year 1997.

                         Operations And Support

    The bill includes $405,636,000 for operations and support, 
which is $13,765,000 (3.5 percent) more than the level provided 
for fiscal year 1996. This budget activity funds operations of 
medium- and high-endurance cutters, area offices, district 
offices, air stations, maintenance and logistics commands, and 
other operational units.
    Maintenance and logistics command administration.--The 
Committee recommends $121,663,000, a reduction of $1,750,000 
below the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget 
constraints. The Committee has attempted to allocate reductions 
to administrative activities such as these in order to preserve 
funding, to the maximum extent possible, for high priority 
operational support activities. the recommended funding level 
is 1.8 percent below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level.
    District offices.--The Committee recommendation of 
$54,037,000 provides an increase of 1.5 percent to handle non-
pay inflationary cost increases. The President's budget 
requested $57,726,000, an increase of 8 percent. The Committee 
believes this level of funding will be sufficient, especially 
considering the Coast Guard is in the process of eliminating 
two district offices as part of its overall streamlining plan.
    Ammunition and small arms.--The Committee recommendation of 
$2,667,000 is $2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The 
Committee understands that, due to recent changes in the Coast 
Guard's military readiness plans, a permanent decrease in the 
requirement for ammunition and small arms is justified.
    Coast Guard Auxiliary.--The Committee is supportive of 
efforts to increase the use of the Coast Guard Auxiliary to 
supplement active duty military and civilian personnel in 
carrying out vital Coast Guard missions. In that regard, the 
Committee is disturbed to note that the Coast Guard's fiscal 
year 1997 budget reduces funding for Auxiliary support, just at 
the time the Auxiliary is being asked to do more. The fiscal 
year 1997 budget reduces those funds by 13 percent, from 
$11,500,000 to $10,000,000. According to the Coast Guard, 
Auxiliary-responded search and rescue cases declined by 16 
percent between fiscal years 1993 and 1995. The Committee is 
concerned that, with boating activity now bouncing back from 
the recession of a few years ago and the Coast Guard 
downsizing, there will be a widening gap between the boating 
public's needs and the services provided. The Committee 
encourages the Coast Guard to provide additional funding for 
Auxiliary support, above the $10,000,000 shown in the 
President's budget, if at all possible during the year.
    Supervisory span of control.--Currently, the government-
wide supervisory span of control is approximately 1 manager for 
every 7 employees. The goal of the national performance review 
(NPR) is to double that, to reach a level of 1 manager for 
every 14 employees. Currently, the Coast Guard employs 1 
officer (including chief warrant officers) for each 3.9 
enlisted employees. This is far lower than the level achieved 
government-wide in the civilian workforce or expected under NPR 
initiatives. While the Committee notes the Coast Guard's 
opinion that such measures should not be applied to a military 
workforce, the Committee also notes that the Coast Guard's 
officer-to-enlisted ratio is lower than any other military 
service (excluding the Air Force, which does not keep 
comparable records). As streamlining consolidates activities 
both geographically and organizationally, there is significant 
opportunity to reduce layers of middle management and 
supervision, thereby improving the supervisory span of control 
and lowering overall costs. The Committee urges the Coast Guard 
to examine this situation as the service implements its ongoing 
streamlining program.
    Mackinaw.--The bill includes the requested funding of 
$5,872,000 for continued operation and maintenance of the 
icebreaking cutter Mackinaw during fiscal year 1997. A recent 
study of Great Lakes icebreaking by the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center concluded that the Coast Guard's 
annual expenditure of $8,800,000 in icebreaking on the Great 
Lakes saves American industry approximately $78,000,000 each 
year.
    Abandoned barges, Houston, TX.--The bill includes 
$2,000,000 for Coast Guard removal of abandoned barges in the 
Houston ship channel and the San Jacinto River, and the Coast 
Guard is directed to use such funds only for that purpose.
    Multi-mission small boat stations.--Funding has been 
provided to keep in operation all existing multi-mission small 
boat Coast Guard stations. The Committee expects no stations to 
be closed.
    Defense readiness activities.--The Coast Guard's operating 
budget request, and the Committee recommendation, provide total 
funding of $328,000,000 for drug interdiction activities during 
fiscal year 1997. In order to bolster specific anti-drug 
operations, the Committee directs that, within the amount 
provided, the following specific allocations be provided:

Outboard motors--riverine operations....................      $2,000,000
Boston whalers, hovercraft, and maintenance.............      12,000,000
Shoreline monitoring....................................      10,000,000
HU-25 falcon jet operations.............................      10,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      34,000,000

    The Committee recommendation is based upon recent findings 
of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee as 
discussed in House Report 104-486 (March 19, 1996). The 
Committee believes these are high priority initiatives. The 
balance of drug interdiction funding (90 percent of the total) 
is to be distributed at the discretion of the Coast Guard 
Commandant.

                    Recruiting And Training Support

    The bill includes $66,429,000 for recruiting and training 
support, a reduction of $2,206,000 (3 percent) below the fiscal 
year 1996 enacted level, and $2,000,000 below the budget 
request. This budget activity funds recruiting and training 
activities including support for the Coast Guard Academy and 
Coast Guard training centers in Yorktown, Virginia; Petaluma, 
California; and Cape May, New Jersey.

           Coast Guard-Wide Centralized Services And Support

    The bill includes $182,246,000 for Coast Guard-wide 
centralized services and support, an increase of $5,114,000 
(2.9 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level and no 
change from the budget request. This budget activity finances 
certain Coast Guard units managed at headquarters and bills for 
items such as telecommunications and workers compensation, 
which are paid centrally by headquarters.

                        Account-Wide Adjustments

    The Committee recommends account-wide reductions totaling 
$5,004,000, as discussed below.
    Miscellaneous supplies.--The Coast Guard budgets for such 
items as dining supplies, office supplies, periodicals, 
commissary supplies, and shore facility housekeeping items in a 
budget category called miscellaneous supplies. Given the 
significant downsizing under way in the Coast Guard, the 
Committee believes these costs should be going down. However, 
the Coast Guard requested a 6 percent increase in this area. 
The Committee recommendation holds those costs to the fiscal 
year 1996 level of $61,229,000. The Committee has reviewed the 
Coast Guard's lengthy list of routine in-house publications, 
and believes the service could start by reviewing costs in that 
area.
    Boat safety administration offset.--During consideration of 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1995, the Coast Guard 
indicated its willingness to forgo their administrative 
drawdown from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund in order to 
provide additional funding for boating safety grants. In this 
way, funds for boat safety could be raised without taking funds 
from sport fish restoration activities. In fiscal year 1996, 
the trust fund contribution to Coast Guard operating expenses 
was $20,000,000. While the Committee considered transferring 
the full $20,000,000 from Coast Guard ``Operating expenses'' to 
boating safety grants in order to finance the higher level of 
funding in the latter program, the Committee recommendation 
instead retains the majority of those funds in operating 
expenses, for the service to maintain and improve boating 
safety across the country. The Coast Guard proposed a 
significant increase in funding for boating safety grants, 
while at the same time restoring the full trust fund 
contribution to their general fund operating budget. Given the 
50 percent increase in total funding for boating safety grants 
in fiscal year 1997 (from $30,000,000 to $45,000,000), the 
Committee believes this modest reduction will be more than 
offset by a lower level of required activity due to the success 
of state public information and education activities funded by 
boating safety federal grants.
    Non-operational travel.--The Committee received a 
disturbing report from the DOT Inspector General this year 
regarding travel by senior officials in the department. Some of 
this travel was taken by Coast Guard officials, including the 
apparently routine use of actual expenses to go to conferences 
and meetings. The Committee has seen no evidence that Coast 
Guard policy or monitoring efforts have changed as a result of 
these IG findings. Given this issue, as well as the reduced 
numbers of Coast Guard personnel from downsizing efforts, the 
Committee believes non-operational travel should be declining. 
The Committee recommends $48,935,000 for non-operational 
travel, a reduction of $1,000,000 below the budget estimate and 
approximately the same as the level provided for fiscal year 
1996 ($49,005,000). Although travel costs are expected to 
experience some inflationary growth in fiscal year 1997, the 
Committee believes closer monitoring of travel expenses will 
enable the Coast Guard to engage in all necessary travel during 
the coming fiscal year.

                             Bill Language

    Executive order 12839.--The bill specifies that the 
Commandant shall reduce both military and civilian employment 
for the purpose of complying with executive order 12839. This 
provision has been included in the bill for several years 
without change.

                           General Provision

    Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San 
Francisco.--The bill continues as a general provision (Sec. 
313) language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or 
implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic 
safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa 
Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic 
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published 
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the 
originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide 
fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil 
rigs could be built if lease sale 119 goes forward. Under this 
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to 
oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could 
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The 
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could 
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the 
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language 
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.
    Conveyance of Light Station, Montauk Point, New York.--The 
bill includes a general provision (Sec. 339) which requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to convey to the Montauk Historical 
Association the U.S. Government's interest in Light Station 
Montauk Point, located in Montauk, New York. Relating to this 
matter, the bill incorporates by reference and in their 
entirety the provisions of section 423 of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, as passed the House of 
Representatives on May 9, 1995. Although this conveyance has 
been approved by the House of Representatives, final 
Congressional action on the Coast Guard Authorization Act has 
been delayed. To ensure the timely conveyance of this property 
without further delay, the Committee believes it important to 
include such a provision in this bill.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................    $362,375,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\...................     411,600,000
Recommended in the bill \1\.............................     358,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.................      -4,375,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\...............     -53,600,000

\1\ Excludes proposed asset sales.

    The bill includes $358,000,000 for the capital acquisition, 
construction, and improvement programs of the Coast Guard for 
vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and 
related administrative expenses, of which $20,000,000 is to be 
derived from the oil spill liability trust fund. Of the total 
provided, $9,600,000 represents offsets from proposed sale of 
Coast Guard assets. In addition, the bill includes a proposal 
to sell Coast Guard property in Wildwood, New Jersey, which is 
estimated to add another $20,000,000 in offsetting collections.
    Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes 
language distributing the total appropriation by budget 
activity and providing separate obligation availabilities 
appropriate for the type of activity being performed. The 
Committee continues to believe that these obligation 
availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term 
unobligated balances.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The following table compares the fiscal year 1996 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 1997 estimate, and the recommended level 
by program, project and activity: 


                                Vessels

    The Committee recommends $205,600,000 for vessels, an 
increase of $38,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal 
year 1996. Approximately 60 percent of this amount 
($124,000,000) is to continue production of the Coast Guard's 
new seagoing and coastal buoy tenders, which the Committee 
considers a high priority due to the age of the current buoy 
tender fleet.
    Seagoing buoy tender (WLB).--The Committee recommends 
$50,000,000 to purchase one additional seagoing buoy tender, a 
reduction of $9,500,000 from the amount requested. Last year, 
the Congress provided $65,000,000 for two vessels. While 
supportive of this program, the Committee is disturbed to note 
the significantly increased unit sailaway costs budgeted for 
the full production oceangoing buoy tenders. Since the current 
contractor is producing 2 ships for approximately $32,000,000 
each in fiscal year 1996, it strains credibility to believe 
that the same ship--built to the same design--will cost almost 
twice as much in the coming fiscal year, especially after going 
through a new competition. The Coast Guard believes that full 
and open competition will result in much higher costs for the 
first full production vessel. To the contrary, the Committee 
believes the competition should result in savings, particularly 
since five vessels are already under contract and all 
contractors are being required to build to the same 
specification. The bill provides $50 million for this vessel, 
still a large increase over the amount provided for each vessel 
in fiscal year 1996.
    Coastal buoy tender (WLM).--The Committee recommends 
$74,000,000 for this program, a reduction of $6,000,000 from 
the level requested. The Committee notes that as of March 31, 
1996, this program had an unobligated balance of $91,600,000.
    Buoy boat replacement (BUSL).--The Committee recommends no 
funding for the stern loading buoy boat (BUSL) in fiscal year 
1997, a reduction of $8,500,000 from the budget request. The 
Coast Guard planned to obligate the fiscal year 1996 funds in 
fiscal year 1997, then put an additional five boats under 
contract at some future time during the year. Given the 
slippage in this program due to termination of the boatbuilding 
contract last year, the $9,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 funds 
(to build five boats) provides sufficient work to maintain this 
program during fiscal year 1997. The Committee will consider 
additional funds next year, after experience has been gained on 
these first five production models.
    82-foot coastal patrol boat (CPB).--The Committee 
recommends $35,000,000 for continued replacement of the 82-foot 
coastal patrol boat, a reduction of $2,800,000 from the budget 
request. The modest reduction reflects the large unobligated 
balance in this program. When combined with the $9,985,000 in 
fiscal year 1995 funds planned for obligation in August 1996, 
the Coast Guard will have $44,985,000 to sustain the 
boatbuilding effort throughout the following fourteen months. 
The Committee is very supportive of this program, and believes 
that this level of funding is sufficient to run an economical 
program.
    Surface search radar.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 
for this project, a reduction of $4,600,000 due to budget 
constraints. While a worthwhile project, there is no compelling 
justification to significantly raise this funding above the 
$3,500,000 provided for fiscal year 1996.

                                Aircraft

    The Committee recommends $18,300,000 for aircraft, an 
increase of $6,300,000 (53 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 
enacted level.
    Global positioning system installation.--The Committee 
recommends $1,900,000, the same level of funding as provided in 
fiscal year 1996. The Coast Guard requested $2,900,000.
    HC-130 engine conversion.--The Committee recommends 
$6,800,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget request. 
No funds were provided in fiscal year 1996. This project seeks 
to improve the reliability and maintainability of the C-130's 
T56 engine by upgrading it from the series II version to the 
series III version. The budget proposed to produce and install 
22 of the required 52 kits in fiscal year 1997. While a 
meritorious program, the Committee believes this can be phased 
in at a slower overall pace due to budget constraints and the 
need to fund higher priority activities.
    HH-65 kapton rewiring.--The Committee recommendation of 
$3,500,000 is $1,500,000 above the budget request. According to 
the Coast Guard, kapton wiring in the HH-65 helicopter poses a 
serious safety risk to Coast Guard flight crews. There have 
been 13 in-flight fires in the past 4 years due to kapton 
wiring, including 5 resulting in total loss of power to the 
aircraft. Even though the Coast Guard stated ``this safety of 
flight issue will escalate with time as the kapton wiring 
continues to decompose'', the service proposed a slow, lengthy 
program to address the issue. The Committee recommends a faster 
replacement schedule, applying some of the savings from other 
programs to accelerate a fleet-wide fix for this serious safety 
problem.
    VC-11A sale.--The Committee has reduced the request by 
$600,000 in recognition of funds credited to this appropriation 
from the recent sale of the VC-11A aircraft.
    HU-25 sale.--The Committee's recommendation assumes that at 
least $1,000,000 in offsetting collections are credited to this 
appropriation in fiscal year 1997 from sale of Coast Guard HU-
25 (Falcon) jet aircraft. The service is pursuing the sale of 
some of this inventory, but has assumed no financial resources 
resulting therefrom.

                            Other Equipment

    The Committee recommends $39,900,000 for other equipment, a 
reduction of $6,800,000 below the budget estimate.
    Vessel traffic service (VTS) system 2000.--The bill 
includes no funding to continue this program, a reduction of 
$6,000,000, and rescinds $3,755,000 in unobligated prior year 
funding. In addition, the bill includes a limitation 
prohibiting funds from being used to continue the VTS 2000 
program. It is the Committee's firm intention that this program 
be terminated by the Coast Guard, and that the service 
immediately begin exploration of low-cost, off-the-shelf 
alternatives to VTS 2000 in cooperation and close coordination 
with affected port authorities, waterway operators, and other 
system users. The Committee's recommendation is based on the 
following:
    GAO testimony that, after several years of study, the Coast 
Guard does not know how many VTS 2000 systems will be needed, 
and will not know for at least four more years;
    Evidence that low-cost private and federal VTS systems are 
operating today with similar performance to that envisioned for 
VTS 2000;
    Testimony that economic benefits of the system are not 
clearly established in many of the locations under 
consideration;
    GAO's statement that ``we did not find widespread support 
for VTS 2000 among the interviewed stakeholders at the eight 
ports where we conducted site visits * * * many who opposed VTS 
2000 said the proposed system would likely be more expensive 
than necessary for their port''; and
    Coast Guard's continued slippage of the program schedule, 
and their ongoing evaluation of how to finance the system's 
high operating costs in a declining budget environment, make 
the program's future prospects highly questionable.
    In summary, this system lacks the support of the 
communities in which it would need to be installed, appears to 
be gold-plated in design, and involves an unnecessarily high 
cost in both acquisition and operations. The GAO recommended 
that, given the high development cost and the large number of 
proposed sites that show relatively low net benefits, the Coast 
Guard ``determine whether the safety benefits of VTS 2000 can 
be achieved more inexpensively by installing other VTS 
systems''. The Committee agrees. The Committee urges the Coast 
Guard to develop a follow-on program as soon as possible, in 
order to prevent further delay.
    Personnel management information system/joint uniformed 
military pay system II.--The Committee believes this upgrade to 
the Coast Guard's payroll and accounting system can be phased 
over a longer period of time in order to fund higher priority 
initiatives within the resources available. The Committee 
recommends $800,000, half of the $1,600,000 included in the 
budget request. No funds were provided in fiscal year 1996.

           Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation Facilities

    The Committee recommends $47,950,000 for shore facilities, 
a reduction of $11,550,000 below the budget estimate.
    Coast Guard Yard ship handling facility.--The Committee 
recommends $3,950,000 for this project, a reduction of 
$1,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee believes 
given the long-term nature of the requirement meant to be 
addressed by this project, the overall work can be phased in a 
more gradual manner.
    Support Center Portsmouth, VA sandblasting facility.--The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000, a reduction of $550,000 from 
the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget 
constraints.
    San Juan, PR base consolidation.--The Committee recommends 
$10,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget 
estimate. This is the first year of a multiyear, $24,400,000 
project to upgrade and consolidate Coast Guard base facilities 
in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Noting the long-term nature of this 
project and past schedule difficulties in the family housing 
project in Puerto Rico, the Committee believes the existing 
schedule may be unattainable, and that a slower pace of funding 
will not undermine attainment of the overall project's goals.
    Upolu Point, HI offset from sale.--The Coast Guard advised 
the Committee this year that the General Services 
Administration is preparing to sell the former Loran station at 
Upolu Point, Hawaii. There is evidence that the sale of this 
property could result in significant offsetting collections 
being credited to the Coast Guard's appropriation, lessening 
their need for new budget authority. The Committee bill assumes 
an offset of $8,000,000 from the sale of this property.

                     Personnel and Related Support

    The bill includes $46,250,000 for AC&I personnel and 
related support, an increase of $1,550,000 (3.5 percent) above 
the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, and a reduction of $750,000 
from the budget estimate. Given the program reductions in this 
bill, the Coast Guard's requirement for acquisition personnel 
will be less than budgeted. For example, the President's budget 
includes 20 staff years to manage the VTS 2000 program, which 
has been terminated in this bill.
    Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Coast Guard is directed 
to continue submission of the quarterly acquisition reports to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Coast 
Guard is to continue including with each such report an up-to-
date listing of unobligated balances by acquisition project and 
by fiscal year, a Congressional direction first implemented in 
fiscal year 1996.

                             Bill Language

    Wildwood, NJ asset sale.--The bill includes language 
requested by the administration allowing proceeds from the sale 
of property in Wildwood, New Jersey to be credited to this 
appropriation as offsetting receipts, and stipulating that such 
proceeds shall be included in the budget baseline required by 
the Budget Enforcement Act. This provision saves $20,000,000 in 
budget authority and outlays.
    Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision 
first enacted in fiscal year 1996 crediting to this 
appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast 
Guard's surplus real property. This provision was requested in 
the President's budget.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

                             (Rescissions)

Rescissions, fiscal year 1996...........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................     -$3,755,000
Bill compared with:
    Rescissions, fiscal year 1996.......................      -3,755,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -3,755,000

    The bill includes a rescission of $3,400,000 from the 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1996 (P.L. 104-50), and a rescission of 
$355,000 from the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-331). These 
represent the unobligated balances from the ``VTS 2000'' 
Program, which is being terminated. Discussion of this 
recommendation is under ``Acquisition, construction, and 
improvements''.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................     $21,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      25,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      21,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -4,000,000

    The Committee recommends $21,000,000 to bring Coast Guard 
facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and 
environmental regulations; to conduct facilities response 
plans; to develop pollution and hazardous waste minimization 
strategies; to conduct environmental assessments; and to 
conduct necessary program support. These funds permit the 
continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental 
problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks 
containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program 
focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes 
third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed 
to environmental problems.
    The recommended funding level is the same as the fiscal 
year 1996 enacted level, and a decrease of $4,000,000 below the 
requested level. The recommendation fully funds the requested 
levels for site-specific cleanup and restoration projects 
($15,500,000). A table comparing the recommendation to the 
budget estimate follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Budget       Committee 
                  Activity                      estimate     recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup and restoration projects............   $15,500,000   $15,500,000
Environmental compliance....................     3,834,000     2,500,000
Personnel...................................     5,666,000     3,000,000
                                             ---------------------------
    Total...................................    25,000,000    21,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sites to be addressed.--The funds in this bill are 
sufficient to finance the budgeted amount of $15,500,000 for 
cleanup and restoration projects at specific sites. The sites 
for which funds are included are as follows:

        Project site                                              Amount
Support Ctr Kodiak, AK (RCRA consent order).............      $3,200,000
Support Ctr Elizabeth City, NC (RCRA part B permit).....       2,530,000
Air Station Cape Cod, MA (Installation restoration).....       2,120,000
Air Station Brooklyn, NY (JP-4 fuel farm soil/
    groundwater)........................................         700,000
Agency-wide, initial assessment surveys.................         850,000
Agency-wide, aids to navigation (ATON) battery cleanup..       4,000,000
Air Station Traverse City, MI...........................         350,000
Coast Guard Academy, CT.................................         195,000
Training Ctr Petaluma, CA...............................         185,000
Air Station Miami, FL...................................         175,000
Support Ctr Alameda, CA.................................         175,000
Air Station San Francisco, CA...........................         125,000
Group San Diego, CA.....................................         120,000
Station Depoe Bay, OR...................................         115,000
Reserve Training Ctr Yorktown, VA.......................         100,000
Station Wilmette Harbor, IL.............................          75,000
Station Neah Bay, WA....................................          75,000
Station Humboldt Bay, CA................................          70,000
Base Ketchikan, AK......................................          65,000
Loran Station, Kodiak, AK...............................          50,000
Coast Guard Yard, Baltimore, MD.........................          50,000
Loran Station, Tok, AK..................................          40,000
Loran Station, St. Paul, AK.............................          40,000
Air Station Clearwater, FL..............................          35,000
Station Siuslaw River, OR...............................          30,000
Station Juneau, AK......................................          30,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      15,500,000

    Allocation of reductions.--The Committee expects the Coast 
Guard to allocate the reduction, to the maximum extent 
possible, against program administrative support and general 
training activities. In this way, funds can be made available 
for identified environmental compliance problems at specific 
sites.

                         Alteration of Bridges

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................     $16,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................       2,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      16,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................     +14,000,000

    The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed 
a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. 
The Committee does not agree with the approach taken by the 
103rd Congress and supported by the administration, that 
highway bridges and combination rail/highway bridges should be 
funded out of the Federal Highway Administration's 
discretionary bridge account. This approach is unfair to some 
states which, under existing highway formulas, have a more 
difficult time competing for discretionary bridge grants and 
are therefore less likely to apply. In addition, the purpose of 
altering these bridges is to improve the safety of marine 
navigation under the bridge, not to improve surface 
transportation on the bridge itself. Since in some cases, there 
are unsafe conditions on the waterway beneath a bridge which 
has an adequate surface or structural condition, Federal-aid 
highways funding is not appropriate to address the purpose of 
the Truman-Hobbs program. The Coast Guard believes programs 
such as alteration of bridges and boating safety grants are a 
lower overall priority, and should not compete with the Coast 
Guard's operating budget for resources.
    The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for three bridges. 
Each of the bridges for which funds are recommended is 
authorized and has been issued an order to alter by the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Committee's specific 
recommendation is as follows:

                                                               Committee
        Bridge and location                               recommendation
Burlington, IA, Burlington Northern RR Bridge...........      $2,000,000
Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier HW Bridge..................       7,000,000
New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue RR/HW Bridge............       7,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      16,000,000

                              Retired Pay

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................    $582,022,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     608,084,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     608,084,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................     +26,062,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    The Committee has approved the budget estimate of 
$608,084,000 for retired pay of military personnel of the Coast 
Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also included are payments 
to members of the former Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries 
pursuant to the retired serviceman's family protection plan and 
survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical care of 
retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents 
Medical Care Act. This compares to an appropriation of 
$582,022,000 for fiscal year 1996, an increase of 4.5 percent.

                            Reserve Training

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................     $62,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      65,890,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      65,890,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      +3,890,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    This appropriation provides for the training of qualified 
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or 
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in 
the performance of peacetime missions. The program activities 
fall into the following categories:
    1. Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training 
for three categories of non-prior service trainees.
    2. Continued training.--The training of officer and 
enlisted personnel.
    3. Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The 
day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training 
facilities.
    4. Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve 
forces program.
    The bill includes $65,890,000 for reserve training. The 
amount recommended represents an increase of $3,890,000 (6 
percent) above the fiscal year 1996 level and will support a 
selected reserve of approximately 8,000 personnel.
    Assessment for operating expenses.--The Coast Guard 
testified this year that they ``assess'' the reserve training 
appropriation for estimated operating and maintenance services 
incurred at active duty units in support of the reserve 
program. Given the small size of the reserve training 
appropriation, the Committee wishes to ensure the reserves are 
not assessed inappropriate charge-backs to the Coast Guard 
operating budget. The Coast Guard is requested to provide a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no 
later than December 31, 1996 describing the methodology used to 
calculate such assessments.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................     $18,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      20,300,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      19,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      +1,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -1,300,000

    The bill includes $19,000,000 for applied scientific 
research and development, test and evaluation projects 
necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for 
the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this 
amount, $5,020,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund. The following table summarizes the fiscal 
year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation for 
the various research areas:

                             COAST GUARD RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION                             
                                               [Fiscal year 1997]                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year  Fiscal year                   
                            Program area                                 1996         1997           House      
                                                                       enacted      estimate      recommended   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Search and Rescue Capability...............................     $932,000   $1,872,000         $1,872,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Search planning................................................      100,000      185,000            185,000
    Search process, platforms and sensors..........................      400,000    1,245,000          1,245,000
    Personnel......................................................      432,000      442,000            442,000
                                                                    ============================================
Waterways Safety and Management....................................    2,189,000    1,385,000          1,385,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Waterways management...........................................      400,000            0                  0
    Advanced vessel traffic systems/services.......................      275,000      300,000            300,000
    Integrated navigation systems..................................      450,000      150,000            150,000
    Short range aids to navigation.................................      200,000       50,000             50,000
    Personnel......................................................      864,000      885,000            885,000
                                                                    ============================================
Marine Safety......................................................    2,700,000    3,825,000          3,825,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Marine safety research.........................................      200,000      385,000            385,000
    Human factors analysis.........................................    1,050,000    1,200,000          1,200,000
    Fire safety for commercial vessels.............................      750,000    1,245,000          1,245,000
    Personnel......................................................      700,000      995,000            995,000
                                                                    ============================================
Ship Structure Committee...........................................            0      437,000            223,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Support for Committee..........................................            0      400,000            186,000
    Personnel......................................................            0       37,000             37,000
                                                                    ============================================
Marine Environmental Protection....................................    1,354,000    1,791,000          2,291,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Planning, management and training..............................      150,000            0                  0
    Oil pollution response.........................................      625,000    1,075,000          1,075,000
    Personnel health and safety....................................       75,000            0                  0
    Port demonstration project.....................................            0            0                  0
    OPA90 regional grant program...................................            0            0                  0
    Aquatic nuisance species control...............................            0      200,000            700,000
    Personnel......................................................      504,000      516,000            516,000
                                                                    ============================================
Maritime Law Enforcement...........................................    1,229,000      791,000            791,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Surveillance...................................................      725,000            0                  0
    Vessel search..................................................            0      200,000            200,000
    Off the shelf technology.......................................            0       75,000             75,000
    Personnel......................................................      504,000      516,000            516,000
                                                                    ============================================
Servicewide Safety and Environmental Compliance....................    2,318,000    2,652,000          2,452,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Cutter fire safety technology..................................      586,000            0                  0
    Pollution prevention...........................................      500,000      700,000            500,000
    Aviation engineering support...................................            0            0                  0
    Vessel loss exposure and risk analysis methodology.............      620,000    1,325,000          1,325,000
    Personnel......................................................      612,000      627,000            627,000
                                                                    ============================================
Human Resource Management Effectiveness............................      100,000      147,000            147,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Training techniques and technologies...........................      100,000            0                  0
    Staffing standards development.................................            0            0                  0
    Personnel......................................................            0      147,000            147,000
                                                                    ============================================
Command, Control, Computers and Intelligence.......................      928,000    1,014,000            928,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Information systems............................................      280,000            0                  0
    Advanced communications systems................................            0      350,000            264,000
    Personnel......................................................      648,000      664,000            664,000
                                                                    ============================================
Technology Base....................................................      500,000    1,600,000            550,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Future technology assessment...................................            0      400,000                  0
    Coast Guard standard cost model................................            0      100,000            100,000
    Select projects................................................      300,000      800,000            200,000
    Personnel......................................................      200,000      300,000            250,000
                                                                    ============================================
R&D Personnel, Program Support, and Operations.....................    5,750,000    4,786,000          4,536,000
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Admin/support personnel and related costs......................    2,850,000    2,571,000          2,321,000
    Support and operations.........................................    1,600,000    1,685,000          1,685,000
    R&D management info system development.........................      450,000      250,000            250,000
    Modernization of F&SFD test facilities.........................      850,000      280,000            280,000
                                                                    ============================================
        Total appropriation........................................   18,000,000   20,300,000         19,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ship Structure Committee.--The Committee continues to 
believe that much of the Coast Guard's support for the ship 
structure committee is not needed, given financial constraints. 
Some of the planned activities include development of robotics 
technology and weldable primers for shipyard construction; 
development of alternative stiffening systems for double skin 
tankers; and development of risk assessment methods associated 
with the use of polymer matrix composites. The Committee 
believes these activities can be sufficiently carried out by 
the shipbuilding and boatbuilding industries. The 
recommendation for this program is $223,000, a reduction of 
$214,000 from the budget request. Last year the Committee 
recommended no funding for this program.
    Servicewide safety and environmental compliance.--The 
recommended level holds funds for the pollution prevention 
activity to the fiscal year 1996 level. Overall funding 
recommended is 5.8 percent above fiscal year 1996.
    Advanced communications systems.--The reduction of $86,000 
is due to budget constraints.
    Technology base.--The recommendation provides $550,000, an 
increase of $50,000 (10 percent) over the amount provided for 
fiscal year 1996, but a reduction of $1,050,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee continues to believe such activities are 
of a low priority.
    Ballast water management program.--Of the funds provided 
under ``aquatic nuisance species control'', $700,000 is only 
for the ballast water management program.
    Research and development personnel.--The reduction of 
$250,000 is due to budget constraints. This reduction in 
management support is consistent with the reductions in program 
activities in the bill.

                              Boat Safety

                     (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................     $20,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................      35,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................     +15,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................     +35,000,000

    The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the 
Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended, provide for the 
transfer of highway trust fund revenue derived from the motor 
boat fuel tax, excise taxes on sport fishing equipment, and 
import duties on fishing tackle and yachts to the aquatic 
resources trust fund. The Secretary of the Treasury estimates 
the amounts to be so transferred and appropriations are 
authorized from the fund for recreational boating safety 
assistance and other programs as authorized by the Federal Boat 
Safety Act of 1971, as amended, and Public Law 98-369 (the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984). These funds are used primarily 
to provide grants to states to help enforce boating safety laws 
and to expand boating education programs.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $35,000,000 for the 
boat safety program. When combined with an additional 
$10,000,000 in permanent indefinite appropriations from the 
Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-587), total program 
funding of $45,000,000 is provided for fiscal year 1997. This 
is an increase of 50 percent over the total funding of 
$30,000,000 provided for fiscal year 1996. This program 
provides between 15 and 20 percent of total boating safety 
expenditures when state and federal resources are combined.
    Once again this year, the Committee cannot support the 
Coast Guard's proposal to convert this program to mandatory 
spending. According to an April 1993 study by the National 
Transportation Safety Board, recreational boating accidents 
result in the highest number of transportation fatalities 
annually after highway accidents. Over 900 people are killed 
each year in boating accidents, and over 350,000 are injured, 
more than 40 percent of which require treatment beyond first 
aid. The number of boats, especially high speed boats, is 
increasing each year. The Safety Board still includes boating 
safety on their list of ``most wanted'' safety improvements. 
Federal support and direction will be needed to ensure 
implementation of initiatives raised in the Safety Board's 
study as well as to continue other boating safety activities.
    Loss of authorized funding.--In this year's hearing, the 
Coast Guard stated a major concern that unless the boating 
safety program is funded at the authorized level, those 
resources are lost forever, because a provision in the 
authorization statute requires they be reallocated to the sport 
fish restoration program and spent in the same fiscal year. The 
Committee acknowledges that this feature of the boating safety 
grants program is unlike the financing of other trust fund 
safety programs. In those cases, as with general fund 
authorizations, funds not appropriated remain authorized for 
appropriation in a future fiscal year. The Committee notes that 
the boating safety program is up for reauthorization in fiscal 
year 1998, and encourages the department and the Coast Guard to 
recommend elimination of this provision in the statute. Such a 
change would prevent the diversion of funds intended for 
boating safety programs to sport fishing activities.
    Discretionary grant program.--The bill includes language 
providing that $5,000,000 of the total amount is available only 
for issuance of discretionary grants to states and other 
appropriate entities for the targeted improvement of boating 
safety across the country. At the present time, all boating 
safety grant funds are distributed by formula. Perhaps because 
of this, the Coast Guard is not active in using grant funds to 
provide incentives for poorer-performing states to make 
improvements in their boating programs. This is in contrast to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal 
Transit Administration, and the Federal Aviation 
Administration, all of which use their discretionary grants 
programs to facilitate improvements in safety. The Committee 
believes it is time for the Coast Guard to take a more active 
role in promoting and shaping improvements in boating safety in 
the various states. The boating public looks to the Coast Guard 
for leadership in boating safety, and this is one way the Coast 
Guard can demonstrate that leadership. With the recommended 
increase of 50 percent in total funding, the time is right to 
begin a discretionary grant element of the overall program in 
fiscal year 1997, since formula funds will increase without 
regard to creation of the discretionary grants program. The 
Committee directs the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to 
determine, through public input, appropriate criteria for the 
discretionary grants program, in consultation with the states 
and other interested parties. In addition, the Coast Guard is 
to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, not later than March 15, 1997, outlining the 
objectives of the discretionary grant program and the criteria 
upon which decisions will be made.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible 
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the 
evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the 
activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations 
in fiscal year 1997. The grants-in-aid for airports program, 
however, will be financed under contract authority with the 
program level established by a limitation on obligations 
contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes 
reinstatement of the aviation ticket tax and other related 
aviation taxes in time to prevent shutdown or significant 
curtailment of FAA's trust fund-financed activities.
    The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 1997 amounts to $8,155,000,000, including a $1,300,000,000 
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is 
$52,331,000 (1 percent) above the President's request level and 
$61,343,000 below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The 
following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program levels, 
the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the Committee's 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Recommended in 
                                                          1996 enacted\1\     1997 estimate         the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................     $4,645,712,000     $4,918,269,000     $4,900,000,000
User fees..............................................  .................       -150,000,000        -30,000,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      1,934,883,000      1,788,700,000      1,800,000,000
Research, engineering, and development.................        185,698,000        195,700,000        185,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports \2\.........................      1,450,000,000      1,350,000,000      1,300,000,000
Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program...............             50,000  .................  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      8,216,343,000      8,102,669,000      8,155,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund and awards provisions, and Omnibus Consolidated     
  Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 and 1996 rescission in facilities and equipment.                   
\2\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  

                      Aviation Trust Fund Spending

    This year the Committee has had to make a judgment about 
whether the aviation taxes used to finance the majority of 
FAA's programs will be available to provide financial resources 
during fiscal year 1997. These taxes expired on December 31, 
1995. During fiscal year 1996, the FAA has been utilizing the 
airport and airway trust fund's unobligated balance. Although 
this balance is sufficient to finance FAA activities throughout 
fiscal year 1996, it is estimated that the trust fund will be 
depleted in January 1997. Trust fund resources finance 
approximately 75 percent of the FAA's budget, including the 
entire capital improvement program, airport development grants, 
and half of the agency's operating budget. Although some have 
suggested that user fees could be collected in place of the 
aviation taxes, the FAA has only requested authority to collect 
$150,000,000 in new user fees next year--a fraction of total 
required trust fund spending. It is clear that without 
restoration of the aviation taxes, the FAA would not be able to 
carry out its responsibilities during the coming year.
    If the FAA's budget were financed entirely from the general 
fund, the agency could proceed to operate its programs without 
disruption, and without the fear of a systemwide shutdown 
should the aviation taxes not be reinstated. However, since the 
Committee is not allocated general fund budget authority for 
the airport development (AIP) program, such a recommendation 
would by necessity include no funds for that important program. 
Secondly, such levels of funding from the general fund are not 
authorized, and run counter to the objectives of the Congress 
in establishing the airport and airway trust fund. The 
Committee realizes this is the only course which, at the 
present time, could guarantee a full budget for the FAA next 
year. However, given the issues presented by this approach, the 
Committee has decided to assume timely resumption of the 
aviation taxes, prior to January 1997.

               National Civil Aviation Review Commission

    The bill includes $2,400,000 for activities of a National 
Civil Aviation Review Commission. On October 30, 1986, Public 
Law 99-591 established a Presidentially-appointed Aviation 
Safety Commission. This panel released a final report in April 
1988, and made several recommendations to improve aviation 
safety in this country. It has now been a decade since issuance 
of this report, and serious concerns have once again arisen 
over the adequacy of aviation safety in this country. Although 
FAA statistics show that, in the aggregate, the U.S. has the 
safest aviation system in the world, a number of accidents, 
incidents, Inspector General reports, and media investigations 
over the past three years raise questions about certain aspects 
of FAA's regulatory oversight in the area of safety. For 
example, the DOT Inspector General has been warning about the 
use of fraudulent or undocumented aircraft parts for many 
years, but the FAA has been slow to act. FAA inspectors have 
inadequate training and do not utilize management systems which 
would enable them to focus resources on the highest safety 
needs or ensure effective follow-up action on past 
deficiencies. These problems have been made worse over the past 
few years due to increased air travel and the emergence of a 
large number of ``start-up'' air carriers, often operating with 
slim financial margins and aggressive pricing.
    Secondly, over the past eighteen months the Department has 
put forth the view that the FAA's long-term budget requirements 
are too great to be satisfied through the annual appropriations 
process. The agency forecasts the need for significant annual 
increases in its operating budget due to incorporation of newer 
and more costly technologies, additional staffing resulting 
from increased air travel, and higher maintenance requirements 
for air traffic control equipment as the system expands and 
equipment ages. Although the administration supports moving the 
FAA out of the appropriations process through collection of 
user fees, this proposal has a number of serious problems. To 
date, however, there has been no complete and independent audit 
of the agency's most likely budget requirements, and the FAA 
itself has decided not to update the 1995 financial projections 
on which the current policy decisions are being made.
    Lastly, the FAA continues to experience schedule slippage 
and cost overruns on its major development programs, even as 
the agency is working to implement the major new changes in 
acquisition polices and procedures provided in the Department 
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1996. This is especially troublesome given the FAA's declining 
budget requests for facilities and equipment over the past two 
years. Cost growth in the past occurred in an expanding budget 
environment, thereby lessening its impact. In the future, cost 
overruns will have a more harmful effect, because the budgetary 
competition is more severe.
    Therefore, the Committee believes it is time for a 
comprehensive, independent review of FAA safety oversight, 
financial prospects and options, and acquisition policy. The 
bill includes a general provision (Sec. 338) which appropriates 
$2,400,000 for activities of the Commission, to include an 
independent and objective contract audit of FAA's long-range 
financial requirements. The Committee will work with the 
authorizing committee over the coming weeks to establish a 
legislative authorization for this critical effort. The 
Committee believes that this review will set the stage for new 
aviation policy directions in the next century, with the 
objective of providing a more effective and stable FAA and a 
greater degree of confidence among the flying public in the 
safety of our aviation system.

     Additional Funds For Safety And Capacity Enhancement Programs

    The bill includes a total of $139,584,000, above the budget 
estimate, for new operational activities, air traffic control 
equipment and systems, site preparation and installation, and 
research to improve aviation safety and airway capacity around 
the country.
    Once again this year, in setting priorities for this bill 
the Committee has placed the strongest emphasis on maintaining, 
and improving wherever possible, transportation safety around 
the nation. Because of significant concerns over the past year 
regarding the state of aviation safety, the Committee feels 
strongly that additional funding emphasis should be placed on 
new safety-related capabilities and equipment. Among other 
things, this equipment will provide controllers, pilots, and 
airline dispatchers a more accurate and up-to-date 
understanding of dangerous weather conditions and provide a 
clearer picture of potential conflicts between aircraft 
maneuvering on airport surfaces. The bill includes additional 
funds to maintain the schedule for satellite navigation systems 
development, which promises improvement in both aviation safety 
and systemwide capacity.
    The programs for which the Committee recommends additional 
funding, and the associated increases above requested levels, 
are as follows:

        Program Name                                              Amount
FAA Operations:
    Aviation safety reporting system....................      $1,000,000
Facilities and Equipment:
    Wide area augmentation system for GPS (WAAS)........      34,000,000
    National satellite test bed for GPS.................      11,500,000
    Surface movement advisor build II...................       2,000,000
    Spectrum auction impact.............................      45,000,000
    Ground to air replacement radios....................      20,000,000
    Loran-C upgrades....................................       5,650,000
    NAS equipment installation..........................       5,100,000
    Automated weather observing system (AWOS)...........       1,000,000
Research, Engineering, and Development:
    Local area augmentation system for GPS (LAAS).......       5,427,000
    Aviation weather research...........................       6,589,000
    Human factors safety research.......................       2,318,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................    $139,584,000

    The Committee directs the FAA to pursue these improvements 
aggressively as a high priority. While the administration has 
proposed substantial user fees to help resolve problems in the 
FAA's budget, the Committee believes that even within existing 
resources, the highest priority should be placed on replacement 
of aging and antiquated safety equipment. According to 
departmental and agency officials, the air traffic control 
system is becoming increasingly debilitated by old, antiquated 
equipment. While much of the old equipment is scheduled for 
replacement over the next two or three years with systems 
already under contract, the Committee's recommended funding 
level would accelerate efforts to revitalize the technological 
state of the ATC system in this country by providing additional 
funds to get systems procured and installed in the field more 
quickly than under current schedules. Included in the bill are 
funds to begin immediately installing air traffic safety 
equipment which is currently warehoused due to lack of funds.

                               Operations

               (Including Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................  $4,645,712,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................   4,918,269,000
Recommended in the bill.................................   4,900,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................    +254,288,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................     -18,269,000

    This appropriation provides funds for the operation, 
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air 
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers 
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, 
airports, medical, engineering and development programs.
    The operations appropriation includes the following major 
activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a 
national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance 
of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment 
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in 
aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations 
governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the 
administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) 
administration of the research and development program; and (6) 
administration of the federal grants-in-aid program for airport 
construction.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $4,900,000,000 for FAA operations, 
an increase of $254,288,000 (5.5 percent) above the level 
provided for fiscal year 1996. This compares to a level of 
$4,918,269,000 in the President's budget request. The 
recommendation fully funds the request for air traffic 
controllers and aviation safety inspectors.
    User fees.--The bill assumes the collection of $30,000,000 
in additional user fees, and specifies that those fees may only 
be collected for services to aircraft flying in U.S.-controlled 
airspace but without takeoff or landing points in the United 
States. These ``overflight'' fees have the support of FAA and 
the administration. Language is included in the bill allowing 
the fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting 
collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a 
dollar for dollar basis as the fees are received and credited.
    The Committee has not approved the extensive and 
unspecified fee proposal in the President's budget request. The 
Committee is not generally supportive of new fees based on 
current evidence, and believes that much more justification is 
required before the FAA could transition to an all user fee-
financed system. Many of the fees proposed by the 
administration appear to resemble not fees, but taxes. The FAA 
even admitted in this year's budget hearing that there is no 
cost accounting system in the agency today which provides an 
adequate basis for allocating costs fairly among system users--
a key test for delineating fees from taxes. With the authority 
requested by the administration, the FAA could easily become a 
ratemaking agency once again, with the administrator spending 
significant time and energy negotiating fee rates among the 
various sectors of industry. This is time better spent on 
improving safety and system capacity. Furthermore, since some 
of the proposed fees disproportionately harm one industry 
sector relative to another, these ratemaking decisions could 
upset the delicate competitive balance in the airline industry 
today, undermining the high level of competition which resulted 
from airline deregulation.
    The Committee is also concerned that, where aviation user 
fees have been instituted around the world, cost control has 
been very difficult. Until these and other concerns are 
addressed, the Committee cannot support the extensive 
imposition of aviation user fees.
    A breakdown of the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year                      
                    Budget activity                     --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1996 enacted      1997 estimate     1997 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services...................................     $3,623,132,000     $3,827,137,000     $3,816,471,000
Aviation regulation and certification..................        437,848,000        487,911,000        487,289,000
Civil aviation security................................         67,453,000         71,921,000         71,921,000
Airports...............................................         41,328,000         45,367,000         43,367,000
Research and acquisition...............................         75,781,000         78,034,000         78,034,000
Commercial space transportation........................          5,757,000          6,169,000          6,049,000
Administration.........................................        324,809,000        332,499,000        329,865,000
Staff offices..........................................         67,624,000         69,230,000         66,430,000
Account-wide adjustments...............................                  0                  0           +574,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      4,643,732,000      4,918,269,000      4,900,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity 
are discussed below.

                          Air Traffic Services

    The Committee recommends $3,816,471,000 for air traffic 
services, an increase of $193,339,000 (5.3 percent) above the 
fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The recommendation provides a 
net increase of 250 additional air traffic controllers, of 
which 200 are expected to be assigned to FAA's en route 
centers. The recommendation also provides an increase of 
$68,038,000 (8.9 percent) in field maintenance. The Committee 
believes these increases are needed as air traffic activity 
continues to increase, and as FAA struggles to maintain both 
old and modernized air traffic control systems simultaneously.
    Adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows:

        Program                                                   Change
Air Traffic Subactivity:
    Air traffic details.................................     -$3,500,000
    DOL wage determinations.............................        -500,000
    Aviation safety reporting system....................      +1,000,000
    ATM facility lease, Herndon, VA (transfer from F&E).      +3,300,000
Systems Maintenance Subactivity:
    Air traffic systems maintenance training (transfer).      -2,366,000
Leased Telecommunications Subactivity:
    WAAS support (transfer to F&E)......................      -8,600,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................     -10,666,000

    Air traffic details.--The FAA estimates that approximately 
450 air traffic controllers (about 3 percent of the workforce) 
are currently detailed outside the controller workforce (CWF) 
and not available for controlling air traffic. These details 
cost the FAA an estimated $33,750,000 each year. The Committee 
believes the agency should not have so many controllers on 
detail in overhead positions outside the CWF, at the same time 
the agency is requesting large increases in controller staffing 
to handle air traffic requirements. The Committee's 
recommendation reduces these detail positions by approximately 
ten percent, resulting in a savings of $3,500,000.
    Department of Labor wage determinations for level one 
towers.--Several years ago, Congress and the FAA worked 
together to establish the contracting out program for level one 
towers. The DOT Inspector General, the national performance 
review, the FAA, and the Congress all agreed that this program 
could result in significant cost savings without affecting 
safety or efficiency. Last year, however, the Committee was 
advised that the Department of Labor was preventing the FAA 
from realizing these savings by establishing both retroactive 
and prospective wage determinations, even though the Service 
Contract Act allows waivers from those provisions. This was 
causing lengthy delays and raising program costs. The FAA asked 
the Department of Labor to waive the requirements of that 
process, but their request was denied. At the initiative of the 
Senate, Congress directed FAA to cease conducting these wage 
determinations; however, the agency ignored that direction, and 
has instead been negotiating with the Department of Labor over 
an acceptable solution. The Committee finds this situation 
unacceptable. The FAA testified this year that wage 
determinations raise costs in the contracted out towers by an 
average of sixty percent, undermining the cost savings which 
are the primary reason for the program. Therefore, the bill 
assumes FAA receives from the Department of Labor a waiver from 
meeting the requirements of the Service Contract Act at all 
contract tower locations where there are five or fewer 
employees. Because freeing the FAA from this restraint will 
result in lower cost operations, the Committee also recommends 
a reduction of $500,000.
    Aviation safety reporting system.--For many years, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration has managed the 
aviation safety reporting system (ASRS). The ASRS provides a 
means for pilots, air traffic controllers, and other users of 
the airway system to file safety-related incident reports 
anonymously. NASA collects and analyzes the data, and produces 
regular reports on the most relevant safety issues. Ignoring 
the recommendations of a 1994 study by the National Academy of 
Public Administration, the FAA's fiscal year 1997 budget still 
underfunds this critical safety program. The Committee 
recommends $3,400,000, an increase of $1,000,000.
    ATM facility lease, Herndon, VA.(transfer)--The Committee's 
recommendation transfers $3,300,000 to the operations 
appropriation from facilities and equipment in order to more 
accurately reflect the nature of the costs being incurred. FAA 
has been including costs to lease the air traffic management 
facility in Herndon, Virginia in the F&E budget even though the 
facility has been in operation for some time. Leases for 
operational facilities such as this one should be included in 
the operating budget of the agency.
    Air traffic systems maintenance training (transfer).--The 
Committee believes that training costs should be included under 
``human resource management'' in order to provide stronger 
management control and oversight. The FAA has instead allowed 
managers of the major lines of business to include 
supplementary funds for training in their own budgets. The 
Committee recommends a transfer of $2,366,000 from this budget 
activity to human resource management.
    Wide area augmentation system support (transfer).--The 
Committee transfers the $8,600,000 budgeted for wide area 
augmentation system (WAAS) telecommunications support from the 
operating budget to facilities and equipment. This system is 
still under development. All costs should be borne by the F&E 
appropriation at this time.
    Weather observations, El Paso International Airport.--
During the FAA hearing this year, several Members expressed 
concern over the reliability of weather reporting performed by 
the automated surface observing system (ASOS) in the absence of 
contract weather observers. During this hearing, it was noted 
that some airports may be experiencing false readings due to 
construction or meteorological activities. The Committee is 
especially concerned about false readings that have occurred at 
El Paso International Airport (EPIA). The Commitee expects the 
FAA to reinstate contract weather observers at EPIA and 
continue to provide contract weather observation at this 
facility.
    Milwaukee General Mitchell Airport.--The Committee is aware 
that General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin has experienced power outages to the ASR-9 radar 
system. Due to public safety concerns, the Committee directs 
the FAA to take necessary measures to determine the cause of 
these outages. To help ensure that recent power outages do not 
recur, the Committee expects the FAA to consider options for 
correcting the problem, including installing a power 
conditioning system, and report back to the Committee in a 
timely manner with actions taken.

                 aviation regulation and certification

    The Committee recommends $487,289,000 for aviation 
regulation and certification, a reduction of $622,000 from the 
budget request but an increase of $49,441,000 (11.3 percent) 
above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The recommendation 
funds 5,295 staff years, an increase of 367 above fiscal year 
1996. The bill fully funds the requested employment increases 
for clerical/administrative support (+152), airworthiness 
inspectors (+54), airline operations inspectors (+100), 
certification engineers and pilots (+75), and manufacturing 
certification inspectors (+29). The Committee sees evidence 
that this additional staffing is needed, even considering the 
significant increases in staffing provided over the past two 
years.
    Office of rulemaking.--The Committee recommends a reduction 
of $622,000 in the office of rulemaking. Over the past year, 
the FAA-commissioned ``Challenge 2000'' study team took a 
comprehensive look at FAA's regulatory process and found 
significant inefficiencies. The FAA requested $3,464,000 for 
this office in fiscal year 1997, an increase of 9.7 percent. 
Given the findings of the ``Challenge 2000'' study and the 
Committee's view that only essential regulations should be 
undertaken, the Committee recommends $2,842,000, a 10 percent 
reduction from the fiscal year 1996 level.
    Expanded parameter flight data recorders.--The Committee 
does not believe the FAA has worked as diligently as possible 
to encourage the retrofit of expanded parameter flight data 
recorders (FDRs) into existing aircraft. The National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) testified before the 
Committee this year that these improved FDRs provide critical 
data to the NTSB in their investigation of aviation crashes and 
incidents. Therefore, the Committee directs FAA to work closely 
with NTSB over the coming year to develop a plan for the 
retrofit of expanded parameter FDRs into commercial aircraft.
    Flight and duty time regulations.--The Committee directs 
the FAA to closely examine the impact of its proposed new 
flight and duty time regulations on part 135 on-demand air 
charter operators. In particular, the Committee is concerned 
about the effect of these new regulations on those operators 
providing critical transportation services such as emergency 
medical services, organ donor/procurement flights, emergency 
responses to natural disasters, just-in-time critical 
transportation for business emergencies, and carriage of 
lifesaving vaccines, drugs, and medical professionals and 
specialists. The Committee is concerned that the advanced 
notice requirements and duty time restrictions could hamper 
safety and endanger lives if pilots are unable to respond 
quickly in an emergency. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
FAA to review this issue thoroughly, and ensure in its 
promulgation of these regulations that safety is not 
compromised in any way.
    Safety of ATR aircraft.--The Committee requests the FAA to 
further review the safety and airworthiness of the ATR-47 and 
ATR-72, to make certain the aircraft are safe to fly in the 
conditions in which they are being flown, and to report back to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 
1, 1996.

                        civil aviation security

    The Committee recommends $71,921,000 for civil aviation 
security, the same as the budget request. The recommendation 
represents an increase of $4,468,000 (6.6 percent) above the 
level provided for fiscal year 1996.
    Explosive detection canine programs.--The Committee is 
concerned that there may exist duplicative and unnecessary 
canine explosive detection programs in the Federal Government. 
Furthermore, universal guidelines and standards are not 
available for these various programs. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the FAA to establish a joint canine explosives 
detection program with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms (BATF) at either Washington National or Dulles 
International Airports, or both, in order to foster cooperation 
between the two explosives detecting canine programs. The FAA 
and BATF shall submit a joint report on the results of this 
activity to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
by April 1, 1997.

                                airports

    The Committee recommends $43,367,000 for administration of 
the FAA airports program, an increase of $2,039,000 (4.9 
percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The budget 
included $45,367,000, an increase of 9.8 percent. The Committee 
recommendation holds staffing to the fiscal year 1996 level. 
The budget included an additional 26 staff years for this 
program. Given the declining resource levels for the airport 
grants program and no new programmatic initiatives proposed by 
the FAA, the Committee believes additional staffing for this 
office is not justified.
    Expanded East Coast Plan.--The Committee directs the FAA to 
work with affected representatives from the New York-New Jersey 
region, including appropriate citizens groups, to develop the 
most feasible and cost-effective noise mitigation solution for 
the expanded East Coast plan. Although the FAA promulgated a 
final environmental impact statement in 1995 for the expanded 
East Coast plan, this has not satisfactorily addressed the 
concerns of citizens in the State of New Jersey, and further 
analysis of noise mitigation remedies seems appropriate.

                        research and acquisition

    The Committee recommends $78,034,000 and 697 staff years 
for research and acquisition, the same as the budget request. 
The recommendation represents an increase of $2,253,000 (3 
percent) and one staff year above the fiscal year 1996 enacted 
levels. This activity finances the planning, management, and 
coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs.

                    commercial space transportation

    The Committee recommends $6,049,000 for the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), a reduction of $120,000 
below the budget request. The fiscal year 1996 enacted level 
for this office was $5,757,000. The Committee notes the large 
number of vacancies in the licensing and safety division, as 
well as the large number of support staff in this office. 
Because of this, the Committee believes the additional three 
positions requested in the fiscal year 1997 request are not 
adequately justified. Staffing levels are held at the fiscal 
year 1996 level.
     The Committee views with concern the lack of progress made 
by the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the 
issuance of regulations for launch site operators. Launch 
operations are to begin at three of the nation's five 
spaceports in less than twelve months, yet proposed regulations 
for launch site operators have not yet been published. The 
continued lack of such regulations will have an adverse impact 
upon both the nation's spaceports and the commercial launch and 
satellite industries they support. The Committee therefore 
requires that OCST issue launch site operator regulations as 
soon as possible, but not later than ninety days after 
enactment of this Act.
    The Committee is also concerned over the allocation of 
resources with OCST. The primary duty of this office, as 
provided in the Commercial Space Transportation Act of 1984, is 
to license launches and launch site operators. However, a 
disproportionate amount of the resources in OCST, including 
personnel and travel funding, are being allocated to non-
licensing functions. The Committee therefore directs the office 
to shift its resources in fiscal year 1997 to provide a larger 
share of overall staffing to licensing activities.

                             administration

     The Committee recommends $329,865,000 for administration, 
an increase of $5,056,000 (1.6 percent) above the fiscal year 
1996 enacted level. The President's budget requested 
$332,499,000. The recommendation includes $78,380,000 for the 
FAA to reimburse the Department of Labor for workers' 
compensation claims. This is the same as the budget estimate. 
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed 
below.
     Air traffic systems maintenance training (transfer).--The 
recommendation to transfer $2,366,000 to this activity was 
previously discussed, under ``Air Traffic Services''.
    Mid-America aviation resource consortium.--The Committee 
expects the FAA to continue the agency's commitment to the Mid-
American Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) in Minnesota, and 
has included $1,700,000 in the bill for this purpose. By all 
accounts, MARC has been a great success--training en route 
controllers in a cost-effective manner, increasing the number 
of minority and women controllers, and assisting the FAA in 
training controllers, among other things, on new equipment. The 
Committee urges the FAA and MARC to work together on developing 
a long-term plan for training en route controllers. These funds 
are to be used in Minnesota to support the air traffic 
controller training program and to continue research for the 
FAA. Since funds were already budgeted to train these students 
at the FAA's own in-house facility, the Committee's 
recommendation does not provide increased funding, but 
redirects a portion of the planned work to the MARC activity.
    Personnel system streamlining.--The budget request includes 
$52,230,000 for the FAA to administer its human resource 
management system, including conduct of staffing analyses, 
career planning activities, recruitment, pay and benefits 
administration, and labor relations oversight and management. 
Given the streamlined personnel systems being designed now by 
the FAA pursuant to the Department of Transportation 
Appropriations Act, 1996, the Committee believes some 
efficiencies in program administration are available. For 
example, the FAA no longer has to follow many of the lengthy 
and detailed rules, procedures, and guidelines of the Office of 
Personnel Management which apply to the civilian workforce 
generally. The Committee recommends a reduction of 10 percent 
in this activity.

                             staff offices

    The Committee recommends $66,430,000 for certain 
headquarters staff offices funded in this budget activity, a 
reduction of $1,194,000 (1.8 percent) below the fiscal year 
1996 enacted level. The President's budget included 
$69,230,000, an increase of 2.4 percent. Specific adjustments 
to the President's budget are discussed below.
    Workers compensation program oversight.--The Committee's 
recommendation provides $200,000 in funding, not included in 
the request, for more intensive monitoring of long-term workers 
compensation cases, similar to a program instituted by the U.S. 
Postal Service. The FAA has 3,497 former employees receiving 
workers compensation, including 1,158 who are at least 60 years 
old. These mandatory payments impact the FAA's budget 
particularly hard, relative to other federal agencies. For 
example, an air traffic controller's average workers 
compensation payment is $39,000, which is 73% more than the 
government-wide average of $22,500. By comparison, government-
wide, civil service retirement costs federal agencies 
approximately $18,800 per person. FAA's fiscal year 1997 budget 
for workers compensation is $78,380,000--enough to hire an 
additional 1,000 controllers above the levels in the 
President's budget. The increase alone for fiscal year 1997 is 
$2,833,000 (+3.8%). The recommendation provides short-term 
resources to try to lower these costs, which should pay 
dividends in two years, when the Department of Labor's fiscal 
year 1997 workers compensation bills are submitted to the FAA 
for reimbursement. The increase provides enough resources for 
the FAA to establish a small office (5 staff years), or 
alternately, to conduct the work by contract.
    Headquarters staffing.--The 584 staff years budgeted for 
FAA headquarters appears excessive, based upon a review of 
specific position listings. The Committee reduces this by 5 
percent (29 staff years), resulting in savings of $2,000,000. 
In distributing these reductions, the Committee directs that no 
reductions be allocated against FAA's overseas offices, 
including those in London, Brussels and Singapore, since these 
offices already sustained significant reductions specific to 
overseas offices in fiscal year 1996.
    Foreign affairs administrative support increase.--Each 
year, the FAA pays the Department of State for their 
administrative support of FAA's overseas offices. In fiscal 
year 1996, the Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act 
required the Department of State to use a new formula in 
calculating these assessments, which requires them to charge 
agencies the fully allocated cost. Since submission of the 
budget, the FAA's estimate of required funding in fiscal year 
1997 for foreign affairs administrative support has declined by 
$1,000,000 due to more recent estimates. These funds are no 
longer needed by the FAA in the coming year.

                        Accountwide Adjustments

    The Committee recommends accountwide adjustments resulting 
in a net increase of $574,000 above the budget estimate. These 
adjustments are discussed below.
    Permanent change of station moves.--According to the DOT 
Inspector General, FAA's controls over ``return rights'' 
permanent change of station (PCS) moves within the continental 
United States is very weak. For example, even though return 
rights are designed to give priority to federal employees 
stationed overseas who want to return to the continental United 
States, FAA has been using about 70 percent of these high-
priority PCS moves to move people from within the continental 
U.S. to Washington, D.C. and Oklahoma City. In addition, the 
FAA has never fully realized savings from recommendations made 
years ago in the home sale relocation service. The Committee 
now understands that FAA has established a working group to 
study areas of possible savings in administration of PCS moves. 
The recommended reduction of $2,700,000 assumes that through 
the efforts of this working group, FAA can reduce costs to 
$40,000 per move, down from estimated fiscal year 1997 cost of 
$48,859. The Committee believes much of this could be realized 
from more judicious use of the home sale service.
    Pay incentives.--After the fiscal year 1997 budget request 
was submitted, the FAA announced a new pay incentive program 
for personnel in certain hard-to-staff air traffic facilities. 
This decision resulted in a significant amount of unbudgeted 
costs which the FAA has now committed to pay its employees. 
Given this commitment, without appropriation of these funds, 
FAA will have to reprogram other funds from equipment 
maintenance, controller hiring, or other areas. This would 
cause disruption to those activities, and possibly delay in 
implementation of the new pay incentives. The Committee 
recommendation fully funds that initiative for fiscal year 
1997, an increase of $15,300,000 above the budget estimate.
    OST reimbursables.--For fiscal year 1997, the FAA is 
budgeting $8,500,000 for reimbursables to the Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation. Reimbursable agreements are 
documents signed by the agency at the request of OST, where the 
agencies agree to be assessed for initiatives perceived to be 
of common benefit to the whole department. This includes such 
things as ``National Transportation System outreach'', the OST 
diversity education program, the DOT newsletter, and GPS 
oversight. Many of these activities appear to provide little or 
no benefit to the FAA. Given budget constraints, the Committee 
believes FAA's contribution to all of these activities is no 
longer affordable. The recommended level allows $7,500,000, a 
reduction of 11.7 percent.
    National airspace system (NAS) handoff.--The President's 
budget requests an additional $90,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 
to operate and maintain new NAS systems and equipment. The 
Committee's detailed review of each of these items raises 
questions over the justification for some elements of the 
request. For example, FAA requests $605,000 to support ``high 
visibility programs'' including the Potomac, Atlanta, and 
Northern California metroplex facilities. However, none of 
these facilities are planned for commissioning during fiscal 
year 1997, so these funds are clearly premature. The Committee 
understands that new NAS systems are being commissioned, and 
therefore the bill includes the large majority of this 
increase. The recommendation provides $81,174,000, a reduction 
of 9.8 percent from the budget estimate, but significantly more 
to maintain new systems than the agency has for the current 
year.
    ``Other'' travel.--This account funds travel for 
conferences, meetings, and similar activities. Given the travel 
issues discovered this year by the Inspector General and a 
declining workforce, the Committee believes this category of 
travel should be going down. However, the budget includes an 
increase of 6.7 percent (from $16,638,000 to $17,757,000). The 
recommended level of $16,007,000 represents a reduction of 3.8 
percent.
    Advisory committees.--The recommendation of $353,400 holds 
these costs to approximately the fiscal year 1996 level of 
$340,200. The President's budget requested $803,400.

                             bill language

    Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee 
bill includes the limitation requested in the President's 
budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned 
auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United 
States. The FAA budget includes no funding to operate such 
stations during fiscal year 1997.
    Second career training program.--Once again this year, the 
Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for 
the second career training program. This prohibition has been 
in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included 
in the President's budget request.
    Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in 
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday 
premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually 
worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5 
U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work 
during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is 
not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a 
part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * 
premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic 
pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and 
previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v. 
United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that 
employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive 
premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back 
pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually 
worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this 
provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded 
liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating 
budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for 
fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and as requested by the 
administration in the fiscal year 1997 President's budget.
    Passenger manifests.--The bill continues the limitation 
(Sec. 316) contained in previous appropriations Acts 
prohibiting the Department of Transportation from issuing a 
final rule on an international passenger manifest program that 
only applies to U.S. carriers. The Department has issued an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking which would require U.S. 
airlines to compile manifests for international flights that 
include the name of the passenger, the name of a next of kin 
and an emergency contact number. The Committee believes that if 
the Department anticipates that this regulation will be 
beneficial to U.S. citizens flying internationally, then it 
should apply to both U.S. and foreign flag carriers. The 
Committee believes that imposing such a regulation only on U.S. 
airlines could provide a competitive advantage to foreign flag 
carriers that will not have to bear the costs associated with 
implementation of the regulation or cope with the operational 
irregularities and passenger inconvenience resulting from 
passengers being confronted with the requirement to confirm 
this additional information prior to boarding international 
flights.
    O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill continues the 
general provision (Sec. 319) enacted beginning in fiscal year 
1995 which prohibits funding to implement or enforce 
regulations that would result in slot allocations for 
international operations to any carrier at O'Hare Airport in 
excess of the number of slots allocated to and scheduled by 
that carrier as of the first day of the 1993-1994 winter 
season, if that international slot is withdrawn from an air 
carrier under existing regulations for slot withdrawals. Since 
slots are all reallocated at the beginning of the winter 
season, it is believed that the FAA can easily implement the 
provision. The following definitions continue to apply to this 
provision: (a) ``air carrier'' shall be as defined in section 
1301(3) of title 49 of the U.S. Code App.; (b) ``foreign air 
carrier'' shall be as defined in section 1301(22) of title 49 
of the U.S. Code App.; and (c) ``slot'' shall be defined as the 
operational authority to conduct instrument flight rule 
takeoffs and landings as further regulated in subparts K and S 
of part 93 of title 14 of the code of federal regulations.

                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................  $1,934,883,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................   1,788,700,000
Recommended in the bill.................................   1,800,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................    -134,883,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................     +11,300,000

    This account is the principal means for modernizing and 
improving air traffic control and airway facilities. This 
account also finances major capital investments required by 
other agency programs, experimental research and development 
facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and 
capacity of the airspace system.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,800,000,000 
for this program, which represents an increase of $11,300,000 
above the President's budget, but a decrease of $134,883,000 (7 
percent) below the level provided in fiscal year 1996. The bill 
provides that of the total amount recommended, $1,583,000,000 
is available for obligation until September 30, 1999, and 
$217,000,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is 
available until September 30, 1997. These obligation 
availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts.
     The following chart shows the fiscal year 1996 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this 
appropriation: 


                           Funding Shortfalls

    The Committee is disturbed that this year the FAA submitted 
a budget request clearly insufficient in several critical 
areas. Because of a lack of funds in the FAA's request, the 
Committee has added funding for replacement of ground-to-air 
radios, re-engineering of air traffic control equipment due to 
sale of radio frequency spectrum, and for continued development 
of the global positioning system. Without additional funds for 
safety and capacity-enhancement projects such as these, system 
outages would continue at an alarming rate, the global 
positioning system development would be delayed, and FAA would 
in all likelihood have to disrupt other programs to locate 
resources for reprogramming in mid-year. The Committee 
understands the FAA had their budget request for facilities and 
equipment reduced by $119,147,000 during the administration's 
internal budgeting process. The Committee hopes that in future 
years, such extensive modification by the Congress is not 
required.

                additional funds for safety and capacity

    The bill includes $124,250,000 above the budget request for 
accelerated development and installation of new air traffic 
control equipment to improve airway safety and capacity. In 
fiscal year 1996, the appropriations conference report provided 
an additional $133,900,000 in facilities and equipment for the 
same purpose. Once again this year, the Committee has placed 
the highest priority on improving aviation safety. The 
Committee's recommendations reduce, wherever possible, funding 
for administrative and non-safety related programs in order to 
provide this increased funding for safety initiatives.

             engineering development, test, and evaluation

    En route automation.--The recommended level of $89,155,000 
reflects program savings of $10,000,000 from advanced 
automation system (AAS) termination liability costs and a 
reduction of $7,345,000 in the advanced en route automation 
(AERA) project due to a lack of justification. The 
recommendation allows total funding of $23,655,000 for 
continued development of AERA.
    Wide area augmentation system (WAAS) for GPS.--The 
Committee recommends $117,100,000 for continued development of 
the wide area augmentation system (WAAS) for the global 
positioning system. The President's budget requested 
$74,500,000 for this program. The recommendation transfers all 
funding from budget activity two to more properly reflect the 
fact that this program is still under engineering development. 
Since submission of the budget, the WAAS program has 
experienced significant and disturbing problems. The prime 
contract was terminated by the FAA, and FAA has announced an 
intention to proceed with another contractor. The FAA also 
advised the Committee that total program costs might increase 
significantly from the current programmed level of 
$516,500,000. The Committee is concerned that these cost 
increases may not be affordable unless the FAA begins 
submitting budget requests higher than the levels proposed for 
the past two fiscal years. In the near term, the FAA advised 
the Committee that without an additional $34,000,000 in funding 
for fiscal year 1997, the program schedule would slip by one 
year. The recommended level provides adequate funding to fully 
fund this program and maintain the current schedule. In 
addition, the recommendation transfers $8,600,000 from FAA's 
operating budget to pay for leased telecommunications costs for 
the WAAS program. Since this program is still in development, 
the Committee believes such costs should be in the F&E 
appropriation.
    The Committee considered a proposal to terminate the WAAS 
program and implement an upgraded version of the National 
Satellite Test Bed. The Committee believes that before such a 
significant step is taken on this critical program, FAA should 
have a chance to get the WAAS program back under control. 
However, the Committee is recommending additional funding for 
the NSTB, as a backup option should the restructured WAAS 
program encounter any further cost or schedule problems.
    National satellite test bed.--The Committee recommends 
$11,500,000 in a separate budget line for continued 
implementation of the national satellite test bed (NSTB). This 
is an essential test facility for the WAAS program, and 
provides a potential ``insurance policy'' should the WAAS prime 
contract run into further problems. FAA officials advise the 
Committee that without an additional $11,500,000 in fiscal year 
1997, the date for the NSTB signal in space will slip 
indefinitely, resulting in significantly increased risk to the 
WAAS development contract. In addition, avionics manufacturers 
will not have the data needed to begin development of WAAS 
avionics equipment. These are critical activities for full 
development and acceptance of global positioning system 
technology. Therefore, the Committee recommends full funding 
for NSTB development.
    Remote maintenance monitoring system.--The Committee 
recommends deferral of the National Infrastructure Management 
System (NIMS) due to inadequate justification. The Committee 
understands that, if implemented, this system would result in 
large-scale relocations of FAA maintenance personnel. The 
Committee is not convinced that this is a high priority at this 
time, and believes the capital and operating costs to 
centralize airways facilities personnel may prove as 
unaffordable as the FAA's previous plan to consolidate air 
traffic facilities. This results in a reduction of $11,600,000 
below the budget request.
    Terminal automation.--The Committee recommends $43,500,000 
for terminal automation systems development, a reduction of 
$7,100,000 below the budget request. The recommendation allows 
$30,000,000 for the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement 
System (STARS) prime contract, $7,500,000 for technical 
assistance, and $4,000,000 for field support. The Committee 
continues to support the STARS program, and believes this is 
sufficient funding to maintain the current program schedule. In 
addition, the recommendation includes $2,000,000, not included 
in the budget estimate, to maintain the schedule for build two 
of the surface movement advisor project. This project was 
declared a high priority of the appropriations conferees last 
year. However, the FAA proposed to reduce funding in fiscal 
year 1997 for this important program.
    Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends 
no funding for this project, a reduction of $23,300,000 from 
the budget request. In hearing testimony this year, FAA 
officials could not estimate the total cost of this program, 
could not state how many ASR-11 systems would ultimately be 
required, and could not explain why so much development funding 
is required for a system described as ``commercial off the 
shelf'' technology. In addition, the Inspector General reported 
last year that the FAA's benefit-cost analysis for this program 
was seriously flawed. Until concerns such as these are properly 
addressed, the Committee believes program funding should be 
deferred.
    Weather systems processor.--The Committee understands that 
the FAA Joint Requirements Council has recently decided to 
terminate this program due to a re-estimate of requirements and 
a recognition that part 121 air carrier aircraft are now 
required to be equipped with airborne windshear detection 
equipment. The Committee also understands that a final 
determination as to the program's viability will be made by the 
Administrator. Should the Administrator reverse the Council's 
decision on the weather processor, the Committee is open to 
reconsidering funding of this program in conference. Pending a 
decision by the Administrator, the funds for this program were 
not included for fiscal year 1997. Therefore, funds for this 
program will not be required in fiscal year 1997. This results 
in a savings of $8,055,000.

              Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

    Air traffic operations management.--The recommendation 
provides the same funding level as appropriated for fiscal year 
1996, a reduction of $1,650,000 below the budget estimate.
    ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements.--The 
Committee recommends $62,083,700, an increase of 5 percent 
above the fiscal year 1996 appropriation, but a decrease of 
$9,576,000 from the budget estimate. This program has a large 
unobligated balance of prior year funds, including funds as far 
back as fiscal year 1994. Given the backlog in this program, 
the Committee believes a smaller increase is appropriate.
    Traffic flow management.--The Committee recommends 
$30,960,000 for this program, a reduction of $9,400,000 from 
the budget estimate. The recommended adjustments include a 
transfer of $3,300,000 to the operations appropriation for the 
facility lease for the FAA traffic flow management facility in 
Herndon, Virginia. This is an operational facility, and its 
lease is clearly an operating expense for the FAA. The 
recommendation also defers the proposed new national contract 
for traffic flow management system development and integration 
due to lack of justification, resulting in a reduction of 
$6,100,000.
    Spectrum auction impact.--The Committee was very disturbed 
to find out that recent sale of portions of the radio frequency 
spectrum includes frequencies currently used by air traffic 
control safety and communications equipment. Spectrum now 
designated to be transferred to the private sector in less than 
three years would deny FAA its continued use of long range 
radars used to track aircraft across the United States. FAA 
would also lose communications frequencies currently used to 
transfer operational air traffic control data from site to 
site, including radar data. To meet the scheduled turnover date 
of these frequencies without losing critical air traffic 
control capabilities requires immediate and significant funding 
attention. The FAA advises the Committee that $45,000,000 is 
needed in fiscal year 1997 to re-engineer the agency's long 
range radar systems and low density radio communications links. 
An additional $40,000,000 may be required next year. The 
Committee's recommendation fully funds this requirement. The 
Committee also believes that radio spectrum supporting 
aeronautical safety-of-life services should be specifically 
exempted from any future spectrum sales, or alternately, that 
FAA should be reimbursed for their costs associated with 
transfer of radio spectrum from the proceeds of such sales.
    Replacement of air traffic control facilities.--The 
Committee recommends $74,400,000 for replacement of aging air 
traffic control towers, as requested in the President's budget. 
The recommendation provides funds for the following locations:

        Location                                                  Amount
Santa Barbara, CA.......................................      $2,502,000
Syracuse, NY............................................          25,000
Covington, KY...........................................         481,000
Louisville, KY..........................................       9,750,000
St. Paul, MN............................................         115,000
Worcester, MA...........................................         633,000
Salt Lake City, UT......................................       7,180,000
Islip, NY...............................................         367,000
Bangor, ME..............................................         250,000
Portland, OR............................................       7,526,000
Dallas (Addison), TX....................................         640,000
Moses Lake, WA..........................................         871,000
Mobile (Brookley), AL...................................         200,000
Merrill, AK.............................................       5,202,000
Salina, KS..............................................         184,000
Newport News, VA........................................          74,000
Roanoke, VA.............................................         578,000
Newburgh, NY............................................          25,000
Everett, WA.............................................         104,000
Salt Lake City, UT (TRACON).............................       2,289,000
Little Rock, AR.........................................         850,000
St. Louis, MO (ATCT)....................................       1,130,000
Champaign, IL...........................................          25,000
Bedford, MA.............................................         820,000
Albany, NY..............................................       1,917,000
Allentown, PA...........................................         225,000
San Juan, PR............................................       3,659,000
Chicago, (O'Hare), IL...................................       3,659,000
Helena, MT..............................................          90,000
Montgomery, AL..........................................         104,000
Windsor Locks, CT.......................................       9,393,000
Houston (Hobby), TX.....................................          25,000
Fort Smith, AR..........................................       1,295,000
Houston (Intercontinental), TX..........................       1,335,000
Roswell, NM.............................................       1,966,000
Los Angeles, CA.........................................       3,987,000
Minneapolis, MN.........................................         550,000
San Diego, CA...........................................       1,975,000
Chicago (Midway), IL....................................         680,000
St. Louis (ASDE), MO....................................         553,000
Pontiac, MI.............................................         677,000
Boston (TRACON), MA.....................................       1,110,000
Abilene, TX.............................................         693,000
East St. Louis, IL......................................          25,000
Seattle (ATCT), WA......................................         645,000
Riverside, CA...........................................         202,000
Richmond, VA............................................         525,000
Savannah, GA............................................         288,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      74,400,000

    Metroplex control facilities.--The Committee recommends 
total funding of $22,800,000 for new or expanded metroplex 
control facilities, the same as the budget estimate. The 
following table compares the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, 
the fiscal year 1997 estimate, and the Committee recommendation 
for each project:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year                         
                            Location                             --------------------------------    Committee  
                                                                   1996 enacted    1997 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced planning...............................................      $2,000,000  ..............  ..............
Dallas/Fort Worth...............................................      13,000,000  ..............  ..............
Potomac.........................................................      10,400,000      $1,000,000      $4,000,000
Northern California.............................................       3,800,000       8,700,000       2,700,000
Atlanta.........................................................       3,800,000         500,000       3,500,000
Chicago.........................................................       1,000,000       2,900,000       2,900,000
Southern California.............................................       2,000,000       5,700,000       5,700,000
Denver..........................................................  ..............       4,000,000       4,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      36,000,000      22,800,000      22,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommendation increases funding for 
Potomac and Atlanta, similar to last year's recommendation, in 
order to maintain the schedule for these high benefit-to-cost 
sites. The recommendation reduces funds for the Northern 
California facility, in order to keep this project in line with 
other locations which have higher net benefits. The Committee 
continues to believe that ATC facility consolidation will lead 
to savings in the FAA's operating budget, a conclusion 
supported by the FAA's 1995 report to Congress on facility 
consolidation. Given the FAA's own statements about future 
budget shortfalls, it is hoped the agency will show more 
support for consolidation projects in future budget requests, 
in order to achieve those savings as soon as possible.
    Employee safety/OSHA and environmental compliance 
standards.--The Committee recommends $21,000,000, the same 
level as provided for fiscal year 1996. The President's budget 
requested $36,924,000, an increase of 76 percent.
    GRR/GRT radio replacement.--The Committee recommends 
$20,000,000 for replacement of FAA's current GRR/GRT radios. 
These air-to-ground radios are 20 to 30 years old and are 
breaking down at an alarming rate. Mean time between failure is 
now estimated to be only 6,000 hours for these radios. 
Approximately every 7 minutes one of these units is failing 
somewhere in the United States. On an average day, there are 
216 failures. The FAA is currently under contract to purchase 
replacement radios (designated CM-200). These radios have a 
projected mean time between failure of 84,000 hours, and come 
with a 10-year warranty. Although FAA plans to develop a new 
digital radio, the FAA estimates a new digital radio 
procurement to cost $950,000,000. Given the agency's budget 
outlook, this program is almost certainly unaffordable. 
Furthermore, the FAA's schedule does not call for a full 
replacement of the existing radios until the year 2010. The 
Committee believes the agency cannot afford the high costs of 
maintaining the existing radios until that time. The FAA's 
benefit-cost analysis for this program stated that ``overall, 
the cost savings and benefits to procure the remaining radios . 
. . by far outweigh the high maintenance costs and projected 
failure rates of the [existing] radios . . . The alternatives 
other than to buy additional . . . radios would be far too 
costly, inefficient, and not practical to consider''. Given 
these findings, the Committee believes the FAA should 
expeditiously pursue replacement of these aging radios.
    Automated weather observing system (AWOS).--The bill 
includes $1,000,000 for additional procurement and installation 
of the automated weather observing system.
    Loran-C upgrades.--The Committee recommends $5,650,000 for 
upgrades to the Loran-C navigation system. Of this amount, 
$650,000 is for implementation of an automatic blink system 
(ABS). Last year, the appropriations conferees directed FAA to 
expedite development of ABS. Despite this, FAA has not moved 
forward during fiscal year 1996 on this project. The Committee 
is disappointed the FAA has ignored this direction, and intends 
that such directions be followed. While the FAA's position is 
that Loran-C and other navigation systems will be replaced 
ultimately by GPS technology, it is apparent by FAA's inability 
to fully fund either the wide area or local area GPS 
augmentation programs in the fiscal year 1997 budget that GPS 
implementation has funding and schedule risks. In addition, the 
recent wide area contract termination raises additional risks 
that GPS development and implementation will see continued 
delays. For these reasons, the Committee believes it prudent to 
begin upgrading the existing Loran-C network, and provides 
$5,650,000 for this purpose.
    Air navigation facility/ATC system support.--Based on a 
review of this year's hearing data, the Committee believes FAA 
has not been utilizing these funds for the purposes justified 
before Congress in annual budget submissions. Therefore, the 
Committee recommends no further funding, a reduction of 
$4,800,000 from the budget request. The program was 
appropriated $2,500,000 in fiscal year 1996.

                    Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment

    NAS management automation program.--The Committee defers 
this project due to low priority and budget constraints, a 
reduction of $1,300,000 from the budget estimate. No funds were 
provided for fiscal year 1996.
    Hazardous materials management.--The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget 
estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints.
    Computer based instruction.--The recommendation provides 
$3,500,000, a reduction of $3,500,000 from the budget estimate. 
The Committee recommendation terminates the interactive video 
training (IVT) project, based on the Inspector General's 
findings that the project is not cost effective. In testimony 
before the Committee this year, the Inspector General stated 
``FAA cannot support its basic assumptions in its cost-benefit 
analyses and refuses to use available actual data which 
demonstrates the video training system is not cost effective . 
. . it is clear from our audit that program managers decided 
they wanted a video training system, they would do whatever was 
necessary to develop that capability, and they would do 
whatever was necessary to obtain services from their preferred 
sources.'' FAA's response to the IG report does not adequately 
assure the Committee that these issues have been resolved.

                            Mission Support

    Technical services support contract.--The Committee 
recommends $71,000,000 for this program, an increase of 
$5,100,000 above the budget estimate. The FAA testified this 
year that significant amounts of ATC equipment are either 
warehoused or otherwise waiting for installation funding. 
According to the FAA, approximately $26,000,000 of equipment is 
currently warehoused, and there is a shortfall of another 
$26,000,000 for other equipment. The FAA testified this year 
that, excluding the prior year backlog, F&E-funded 
installations are 28 percent short of requirements for the 
coming year. These systems include runway lighting, approach 
lighting, runway visual range equipment, and navigational aids. 
This equipment would provide immediate improvements in the 
safety, capacity, and efficiency of the airway system in this 
country. The Committee is very disturbed that the FAA has not 
been adhering to the full funding principle in its procurement 
of equipment, leading to this embarrassing problem. The 
Committee believes it makes little sense to procure additional 
systems which, when delivered, have to be stored due to 
inadequate funds for installation, checkout and commissioning. 
The Committee recommendation provides an additional $5,100,000 
to address the significant installation backlog.
    Permanent change of station moves.--The Committee 
recommends $5,500,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 below the 
budget estimate. Last year, the Inspector General issued a 
highly critical report revealing serious weaknesses in FAA's 
management of F&E-funded permanent change of station moves. In 
addition, the Committee is concerned that FAA has expanded the 
scope of F&E-funded PCS moves beyond necessary levels. Several 
years ago, in order to assist in ATC facility consolidation, 
the Committee agreed with the FAA that PCS moves related to 
facility closures or commissionings could be funded from the 
F&E appropriation. Now, however, FAA is pursuing only minimal 
consolidation, and using these funds for PCS moves related to 
control tower closures and special projects. Given the abuses 
revealed by the IG report and the abandonment of the original 
consolidation plan, the Committee believes it appropriate to 
return to the original policy of financing many such moves from 
the operating appropriation.

                     Personnel and Related Expenses

    The Committee recommends $217,000,000 for acquisition 
personnel and related expenses, the same as the budget request. 
This is an increase of $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 1996 
enacted level. Combined with the additional funding provided 
for the technical services support contract, increased 
resources are being provided for FAA to address the backlog of 
installation requirements around the country for new and 
upgraded air traffic control systems and equipment.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................    $185,698,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     195,700,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     185,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................        -698,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................     -10,700,000

    The accompanying bill includes $185,000,000 for long-term 
research, engineering and development programs to improve the 
air traffic control system and to increase its safety and 
capacity to meet air traffic demands of the future, as 
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the 
Federal Aviation Act. This appropriation also finances the 
research, engineering and development needed to establish or 
modify federal air regulations.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $185,000,000, a reduction of 
$698,000 below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level and 
$10,700,000 below the President's budget request. This year, 
the Committee received testimony documenting extensive 
equipment outages and safety concerns in the national airspace 
system. While still the safest airway system in the world, 
aviation accidents in 1994 and 1996 highlight the need for more 
rapid implementation of advanced safety technologies, 
especially those related to forecasting and detection of 
hazardous weather conditions such as windshear. The high 
percentage of accidents and incidents due to human error call 
for a sustained, high priority research program to address 
human factors issues. In some cases, these priorities have 
necessitated reductions in other research programs.
    A table showing the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                                     RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT                                     
                                               [Fiscal year 1997]                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year                                         
                  Program name                   --------------------------------      House         Change to  
                                                   1996 enacted    1997 estimate    recommended      estimate   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development and infrastructure...........     $10,000,000     $16,822,000     $13,260,000     -$3,562,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    System planning and resource management.....       2,000,000       4,857,000       1,860,000      -2,997,000
    Technical laboratory facility...............       8,000,000       6,765,000       6,200,000        -565,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System                                                                         
     Development................................               0       5,200,000       5,200,000               0
                                                 ===============================================================
Capacity and air traffic management technology..      37,200,000      40,570,000      32,388,000      -8,182,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Air traffic management technology...........       3,500,000       6,757,000       4,000,000      -2,757,000
    Oceanic automation program..................       8,000,000       6,539,000       6,539,000               0
    Runway incursion reduction..................       4,000,000       2,766,000       2,766,000               0
    System capacity, planning and improvements..       9,000,000       8,950,000       8,950,000               0
    Cockpit technology..........................       6,700,000       5,584,000       3,000,000      -2,584,000
    General aviation/vertical flight technology.       2,600,000       3,894,000       3,000,000        -894,000
    Modeling, analysis, and simulation..........       3,400,000       4,133,000       4,133,000               0
    Automation system design....................               0       1,947,000               0      -1,947,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Communications, navigation and surveillance.....      23,000,000      20,371,000      21,000,000         629,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Communications..............................      10,000,000      10,798,000       6,000,000      -4,798,000
    Navigation..................................      13,000,000       9,573,000      15,000,000       5,427,000
    Surveillance................................               0               0               0               0
                                                 ===============================================================
Weather.........................................       6,493,000       6,411,000      13,000,000       6,589,000
Airport technology..............................       6,000,000       6,000,000       5,200,000        -800,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Aircraft safety technology......................      37,978,000      38,999,000      34,994,000      -4,005,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Aircraft systems fire safety................               0       6,993,000       6,993,000               0
    Advanced materials/structural safety........       2,000,000       3,065,000       3,065,000               0
    Propulsion and fuel systems.................       3,400,000       3,779,000       3,779,000               0
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research..       4,173,000       2,063,000       2,063,000               0
    Aging aircraft..............................      20,000,000      13,889,000      13,889,000               0
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention                                                                    
     research...................................       2,705,000       3,094,000       2,705,000        -389,000
    Fire research...............................       5,700,000               0               0               0
    Aviation safety risk analysis...............               0       6,116,000       2,500,000      -3,616,000
                                                 ===============================================================
System security technology......................      36,045,000      36,055,000      33,558,000      -2,497,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Explosives and weapons detection............      29,000,000      27,398,000      27,397,000               0
    Airport security technology integration.....       1,000,000       2,258,000       2,258,000               0
    Aviation security human factors.............       2,549,000       5,039,000       2,542,000      -2,497,000
    Aircraft hardening..........................       3,496,000       1,361,000       1,361,000               0
                                                 ===============================================================
Human factors and aviation medicine.............      23,682,000      23,682,000      26,000,000       2,318,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Flight deck/maintenance/system integration                                                                  
     human factors..............................      11,182,000      10,898,000      11,500,000         602,000
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human                                                                 
     factors....................................      10,000,000       8,606,000      10,500,000       1,894,000
    Aeromedical research........................       2,500,000       4,178,000       4,000,000        -178,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Environment and energy..........................       3,800,000       3,800,000       3,600,000        -200,000
Innovative/cooperative research.................       1,500,000       3,000,000       2,000,000      -1,000,000
                                                 ===============================================================
      Total appropriation.......................     185,698,000     195,700,000     185,000,000     -10,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 System Development and Infrastructure

    System planning and resource management.--Among other 
things, this activity publishes the RE&D Plan, develops the 
RE&D budget submission, and provides management and scheduling 
support for the RE&D program. The Committee recommendation 
allows the fiscal year 1996 level of $660,000 for personnel and 
$1,200,000 for support of the Radio Technical Commission on 
Aeronautics (RTCA). Total funding is 7 percent below the fiscal 
year 1996 level.
    Technical laboratory facility.--The Committee recommends a 
reduction of 8 percent due to budget constraints, and to fund 
higher priority activities. This program provides institutional 
funding for certain research and development laboratories at 
the FAA Technical Center in New Jersey.

             Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology

    Air traffic management technology.--Given the need to fund 
higher priority safety research, the Committee believes that 
traffic flow management and collaborative decision-making 
research can be slowed. The recommendation still allows a 
$500,000 (14 percent) increase over the fiscal year 1996 
funding level, versus the 93 percent increase proposed.
    Cockpit technology.--Like the item above, this research 
would develop long-term capacity enhancements to the traffic 
collision avoidance system (TCAS). This research can be slowed 
to address higher priority safety research in human factors and 
weather. The Committee recommends $3,000,000, a reduction of 
$2,584,000 from the budget estimate.
    General aviation/vertical flight technology.--The 
recommendation allows an increase of 15 percent versus the 50 
percent increase requested. The reduction is due to budget 
constraints.
    Automation system design.--Among other things, one product 
of this new effort would be to develop an econometric model of 
air traffic management system acquisitions. This is a low 
priority activity, given budget constraints and higher 
priorities.

              Communications, Navigation and Surveillance

    Communications.--This program is poorly justified and 
duplicates much of the work done in F&E. The recommendation 
provides $6,000,000, a reduction of $4,798,000 below the budget 
request.
    Navigation.--This program develops GPS augmentations for 
civil navigation. Inexplicably, early in 1996 the FAA deferred 
development of the local area augmentation system (LAAS), 
despite the very positive benefit-to-cost ratio and the strong 
support of industry and general aviation for early development 
of LAAS technology. Additional funding of $5,427,000 is 
provided to maintain the schedule for LAAS development, 
including $1,000,000 for a government-industry partnership with 
the airline industry for development of LAAS minimum 
operational performance standards.

                                Weather

    The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for weather safety 
research. This compares to $6,493,000 provided for fiscal year 
1996 and $6,411,000 in the President's budget request. Included 
in the increase is $5,000,000 provided for the weather research 
program coordinated by the National Center for Atmospheric 
Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. The Committee and 
Congress added funds in the facilities and equipment 
appropriation in fiscal year 1996 for this project, but for the 
second year in a row the President's budget requests deep 
reductions. This research is strongly supported by the aviation 
industry and by a recent report of the National Academy of 
Sciences, which urged FAA to take a national leadership role in 
aviation weather improvements. In addition, the bill provides 
$1,589,000 for project socrates, which involves innovative 
research into clear air turbulence and wake vortex surveillance 
using laser-doppler field sensing technology.

                           Airport Technology

    The Committee recommends $5,200,000, a reduction to the 
budget request of $800,000 (13 percent). The reduction is due 
to budget constraints. The request would have funded new 
initiatives such as ``advisory circulars on planning ground 
access'', a ``computer active training curriculum'', and a 
study of ``regional airport habitat''. Funds have been 
transferred to higher priority safety activities.

                       Aircraft Safety Technology

    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research.--The 
Committee's recommendation provides $2,705,000, the same 
funding level as appropriated for each of the past two years. 
The budget requested an increase to $3,094,000.
    Aviation safety risk analysis.--This program has been split 
out from the Aging Aircraft program. The objective of the 
program is to improve ``FAA and industry measurement of and 
accountability for safety performance through risk assessment, 
operational indicators, and the shared use of safety-related 
data''. It's far from clear why FAA should be doing this rather 
than industry. The justifications appear vague and duplicative 
with programs such as the aviation safety analysis system 
(ASAS) and SPAS. The recommendation allows $2,500,000 instead 
of the $6,116,000 requested.
                       System Security Technology

    Aviation security human factors.--The Committee 
recommendation of $2,542,000 provides approximately the fiscal 
year 1996 level, versus the 98 percent increase requested. Some 
of the activities do not appear to address human factors 
issues. For example, ``evaluation of detection systems 
involving emerging technologies'', and ``optimization of 
combined detection technologies through component integration 
within futuristic screener stations'' do not appear to be 
related to human factors.

                  Human Factors and Aviation Medicine

    Overall, the recommendation provides an increase of 
$2,318,000 (10 percent) above fiscal year 1996. The budget 
proposed no increase. Human factors are far and away the 
greatest cause of aviation accidents. For this reason, the 
Committee continues to believe the FAA should place a high 
priority on funding for this activity, even if other areas must 
be reduced.
    Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors.--
The recommendation provides an increase of $318,000 (3 percent) 
above fiscal year 1996, just enough to keep up with the 
projected rate of inflation.
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The 
recommendation provides an increase of $500,000 (5 percent) 
above fiscal year 1996. This addresses human factors problems 
experienced by air traffic controllers and FAA maintenance 
personnel.
    Aeromedical research.--The recommendation includes a minor 
reduction of $178,000 (4 percent) due to budget constraints. 
The recommended level still provides an increase of 60 percent 
over the fiscal year 1996 level.

                         Environment and Energy

    The Committee recommends $3,600,000. The reduction of 
$200,000 (5 percent) is due to budget constraints.

                  Innovative and Cooperative Research

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000, a 33 percent increase 
over the fiscal year 1996 level, but a reduction of $1,000,000 
to the budget request. The reduction is due to budget 
constraints, and the need to fund higher priority activities in 
aviation weather, GPS development, and human factors safety 
research.

                           General Provision

    Federally-funded research and development center.--The bill 
continues a general provision enacted beginning in fiscal year 
1995 (Sec. 320) which caps staffing at the FAA's existing 
federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC) to no 
more than 335 members of the technical staff. The Committee is 
pleased with changes made by the FAA and FFRDC management over 
the past two years to address the earlier concerns, and 
believes that these changes provide a stronger, more productive 
FFRDC relationship. The Committee's review of ongoing FFRDC 
programs indicates the agency is getting a better product 
because of these changes.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................($1,500,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (1,500,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,500,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996............(.......................)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..........(.......................)

    The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 
$1,500,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by 
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. 
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred 
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on 
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military 
airport program, reliever airports, and other authorized 
activities. This is the same funding as requested in the 
President's budget, and same level as provided for fiscal year 
1996.

                       Limitation On Obligations

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$1,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. This is $50,000,000 (4 
percent) below the President's budget request and $150,000,000 
(10 percent) below the fiscal year 1996 level. As set forth in 
the authorizing statute, the obligation limitation will be 
distributed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--                     
                        Project                         --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1996 enacted      1997 estimate     1997 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements:                                                                                                   
    Primary airports...................................       $428,226,519       $373,235,433       $353,641,246
    Cargo airports (3.5%)..............................         38,945,243         31,917,154         29,121,503
    Alaska supplemental................................         10,672,557         10,528,980         10,528,980
    States (12.5%).....................................        159,148,385        142,486,919        134,701,143
    Carryover entitlements.............................         91,056,641        100,000,000        100,000,000
Discretionary set-asides:                                                                                       
    Noise (12.5%)......................................        181,250,000        148,423,874        140,313,690
    Reliever airports (5%).............................         48,000,000         59,369,550         56,125,476
    Commercial service (1.5%)..........................         21,750,000         17,810,865         16,837,643
    System planning (.75%).............................         10,875,000          8,905,432          8,418,821
    Military airport program (2.5%)....................         26,000,000         29,684,775         28,062,738
Returned entitlements:                                                                                          
    Non-hub airports...................................         58,186,123         58,649,725         55,570,720
    Non-commercial service.............................         29,093,061         29,324,862         27,785,360
    Small hubs.........................................         14,546,531         14,662,431         13,892,680
Other discretionary:                                                                                            
    Capacity/safety/security/noise.....................        249,187,455        243,750,000        243,750,000
    Remaining discretionary............................         83,062,485         81,250,000         81,250,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total limitation.................................      1,450,000,000      1,350,000,000      1,300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multi-year commitments.--To the maximum extent possible, in 
allocating discretionary funds the FAA shall, as a top 
priority, fund projects in the final phase of multi-year 
commitments. The Committee believes this will maximize the 
effectiveness of previously-appropriated discretionary funds.

                           General Provisions

    Sixth runway, Denver International Airport.--The bill 
retains the general provision (Sec. 324) enacted beginning in 
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits funding for planning, 
engineering, design, or construction of a sixth runway at the 
new Denver International Airport, unless the FAA administrator 
determines, in writing, that safety conditions warrant 
obligation of such funds. The Committee remains unconvinced at 
this time that the runway is a high priority, and that such a 
project could be managed effectively given the past management 
history of the overall project.

                Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

    The bill includes a zero obligation limitation on 
borrowings during fiscal year 1997 under the aircraft purchase 
loan guarantee program, as requested in the President's budget. 
This is scored as a mandatory program for budgetary purposes.

                 Administrative Services Franchise Fund

    The Committee does not recommend inclusion of bill 
language, proposed by the administration, which would have 
authorized the FAA to establish an administrative services 
franchise fund. The Committee has approved the creation of a 
department-level Transportation Administrative Service Center 
in the Office of the Secretary. It is unclear at this time why 
such entities are required at both the departmental and agency 
levels, and why the FAA should be the only DOT agency with such 
an authorization. Furthermore, the proposed language is 
legislative in nature. The FAA is encouraged to submit this 
proposal to the appropriate legislative committees for their 
review. Should the FAA provide convincing evidence that such an 
entity will save significant administrative costs, the 
Committee will consider such a proposal in future years in 
coordination with the authorizing committee.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program

    The Federal Highway Administration provides financial 
assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and 
highways, enforces federal standards relating to interstate 
motor carriers and the highway transport of hazardous 
materials, and provides technical assistance to other agencies 
and organizations involved in the road building activities. 
Title 23 U.S.C. and other supporting legislation provide 
authority for the various activities of the Federal Highway 
Administration. Most of the funding is provided by contract 
authority, with program levels established by annual 
limitations on obligations provided in appropriations Acts.
    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $19,682,425,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 1997. This is 
$287,307,000 below the fiscal year 1996 level. This reduction 
is attributed to changes in the funding levels for the exempt 
programs, funding that is pre-determined by the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program 
levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Program                           1996 enacted \1\    1997 estimate   1997 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways \2\..................................   $17,550,000,000   $17,714,000,000   $17,550,000,000
Highway-related safety grants \2\ \3\.....................        11,000,000  ................  ................
Motor carrier safety grants \2\...........................        77,225,000        85,000,000        77,425,000
Alameda Corridor project..................................  ................        58,680,000  ................
State infrastructure banks................................  ................       250,000,000  ................
Exempt federal-aid programs...............................     2,331,507,000     1,314,802,000     2,055,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................    19,969,732,000    19,422,482,000   19,682,425,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and the     
  Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.                                              
\2\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  
\3\ Proposed to be funded from NHTSA's Highway Traffic Safety Grants in fiscal year 1997.                       

                   CENTRAL ARTERY/THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL

    Over the past several years, the Committee, the 
Department's Inspector General and the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) have conducted a series of hearings, audit 
reports, briefings and advisory memoranda presenting numerous 
concerns regarding the costs, management, federal oversight and 
financing of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel in Boston, 
Massachusetts.
    Project description.--The Central Artery/Third Harbor 
Tunnel project will build or reconstruct about 7.5 miles of 
urban highways in Boston--about half of them underground. The 
project will (1) extend Interstate 90 east, mostly in tunnels, 
through South Boston, under Boston Harbor (through the Ted 
Williams Tunnel) to East Boston and Logan International 
Airport; (2) replace the Central Artery--an elevated portion of 
Interstate 93 through downtown Boston--with an underground 
roadway; and (3) replace the I-93 bridge over the Charles 
River.
    Project costs.--At a cost of over $1,000,000,000 a mile, 
the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project is one of the 
largest, most complex, and most expensive highway construction 
projects ever undertaken. The project, originally estimated to 
cost $2,500,000,000 in 1985 is likely to grow in cost to more 
than $10,000,000,000. As the GAO reported in its May 1996 
review:

          Massachusetts' official estimate of the total cost of 
        the Central Artery/Tunnel project is $7.8 billion. 
        However, that estimate excludes over $1 billion in 
        costs that were included in previous estimates and does 
        not account for the effects of inflation. Our analysis 
        shows that the project's costs would total over $10.4 
        billion if the excluded costs and inflation were 
        considered.

    This estimate was also supported by Secretary Pena during 
his testimony before the Committee on April 18, 1996. The 
Secretary reiterated the Federal Highway Administration's 
position that the total cost for this project is 
$10,400,000,000.
    Financing the project.--Nearly two years after the first 
draft financial plan was submitted to FHWA, the department and 
Massachusetts have just recently agreed on a finance plan that 
details a range of funding and cost-to-complete scenarios. 
These scenarios indicate that available state and federal 
funding may not be sufficient to complete the Central Artery/
Third Harbor Tunnel project as scheduled by 2004. Although the 
amount of federal funding that will be available in fiscal year 
1998 and beyond is not known, shortfalls exist under all 
scenarios modeled in the finance plan. The state faces 
challenges to both maintain its commitment to its statewide 
road and bridge improvement program and build the Central 
Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. The Committee is also 
concerned that the project still faces several risks that could 
increase its costs further, including aggressive cost 
containment goals that may be difficult to meet, legal 
challenges that threaten the schedule, and construction 
uncertainties in a densely populated, historic urban area.
    Other items.--The department's Inspector General has 
documented a number of troubling inefficiencies with the 
project, including underutilized value engineering 
recommendations that could have resulted in significant 
savings; rights-of-way, easements and leasehold rights that 
were acquired unnecessarily; change order control which lacked 
constant attention and established criteria against which the 
validity of changes were judged; and the use of uniformed 
police officers to direct traffic at project construction sites 
instead of civilian flaggers and mechanical devices that could 
save significant costs.
    It had been the Committee's intent to limit expenditures on 
the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel in fiscal year 1997; 
however, considerable progress has been made by both the 
Federal Highway Administration and the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts over the past several months which have addressed 
some of the Committee's concerns. These actions lessen the need 
to withhold federal funds from the project at this juncture. 
Specifically:
    (1) The department's Inspector General, the GAO and FHWA 
have all independently verified that the estimated total costs 
of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project will be 
$10,400,000,000. Both the FHWA and the GAO noted that it was 
important that Massachusetts fully disclose the total estimated 
cost of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. A full 
disclosure of the project's total costs provides the only basis 
for the Congress, state leaders, and the public to understand 
the extent of the federal and state investment in the Central 
Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. Full disclosure is also the 
only means of providing a consistent baseline for measuring 
changes in the cost of the project over time. To that end, 
Massachusetts has agreed to reflect total costs as well as 
costs-to-complete in the most recent finance plan amended June 
1996.
    (2) The Commonwealth will be required to update the finance 
plan annually on October 1 of each year until the project is 
completed. In addition, Massachusetts will be required to 
prepare additional finance plan updates any time significant 
changes occur in project costs and/or revenue assumptions. 
Monthly management reports being prepared for the project will 
provide the information to judge when and if significant 
changes occur in these assumptions. This intense scrutiny is 
justified given the size and cost of the project and is 
permitted under provisions of 23 CFR 1.5, which authorize the 
administrator to require that the state furnish such 
information as deemed desirable in administering the federal-
aid program.
    (3) As a prerequisite to FHWA's concurrence in the award of 
advance construction contracts, the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts now must demonstrate that it has sufficient cash, 
binding contracts with third parties, and/or unencumbered 
bonding authority to cover contract costs.
    (4) The Commonwealth has committed to pay for the costs of 
uniformed police traffic details with state resources and will 
not seek federal reimbursement for these costs. The Inspector 
General had estimated that the use of civilian flaggers instead 
of uniformed police officers could save approximately 
$27,000,000 in federal funds.
    The Committee will continue to work with the department and 
Massachusetts to monitor the project's costs and financial 
assumptions to advance the project during fiscal year 1997. The 
Committee wishes to reiterate, however, that Congress indicated 
in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
that the funding provided for interstate construction and the 
$2,500,000,000 provided specifically for the Central Artery/
Third Harbor Tunnel project are intended to be the final 
contributions for construction under the Interstate program. 
Accordingly, Massachusetts must accept the risks associated 
with potential cost overruns and possible reductions in future 
federal-aid apportionment levels, particularly as related to 
Massachusetts' extensive use of advance construction. The 
department is directed to submit periodic updates of the 
finance plan to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, the Inspector General, and the General 
Accounting Office for review and to inform the Committee of any 
circumstances which will have the effect of increasing costs on 
the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project.
    The Committee received the following correspondence from 
Secretary Kerasiotes regarding the Central Artery/Third Harbor 
Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts. 


    Miller Highway.--The Committee has continued a prohibition 
(sec. 330) on the use of funds for the improvement of Miller 
Highway in New York City.

                Limitation on General Operating Expenses

Limitation, fiscal year 1996............................  ($509,660,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................   (652,905,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................   (510,981,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1996........................    (+1,321,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................  (-141,924,000)

\1\ Excludes reductions of $15,661,000 to comply with working capital 
fund and administrative provisions, and $756,000 to comply with the 
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    The limitation controls spending for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to 
conduct and administer the federal-aid highway program and most 
other federal highway programs. The limitation includes a 
number of contract programs, such as highway research, 
development and technology, intelligent transportation systems, 
rural technical assistance, and minority business enterprises. 
In addition, administrative costs for highway-related safety 
grants are transferred to the limitation.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $510,981,000. This 
amount is $1,321,000 more than the fiscal year 1996 level of 
$509,660,000, and it is $141,924,000 less than the budget 
estimate. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1997 budget 
proposal for the Federal Highway Administration included an 
increase in the statutory cap on funds authorized to be set 
aside for research and administration of the federal-aid 
highway program for fiscal year 1997 from 3.75 percent of core 
program funds to 4.75 percent of such funds. The FHWA's fiscal 
year 1997 budget proposal requests an additional $160,000,000 
over the fiscal year 1996 level for research and technology 
programs funded from the general operating expenses portion of 
the administrative takedown. These funds would principally be 
used for research and technology programs, notably model 
deployment of intelligent transportation systems. The Committee 
does not have the authority to provide for this one-time 
increase in the percentage of sums authorized to be withheld 
from federal-aid highway apportionments for research programs 
and administration of the highway programs.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 
limitation, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       1997     
                           Program                               1996 enacted    1997 estimate     recommended  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses (excl. OMC):                                                                            
    Salaries and expenses....................................     $174,198,000     $178,523,000     $176,269,000
    Travel...................................................        9,813,000        9,813,000        9,813,000
    Transportation...........................................          673,000          673,000          673,000
    Rent, communications and utilities.......................       25,706,000       26,688,000       25,738,000
    Printing.................................................           92,000           92,000           92,000
    TASC.....................................................       18,786,000       19,542,000       19,542,000
    Supplies.................................................        2,204,000        2,204,000        2,204,000
    Equipment................................................        3,512,000        3,512,000        3,512,000
    Other....................................................       11,504,000       11,504,000       11,504,000
    Procurement savings......................................  ...............       -3,000,000       -3,000,000
    Civil rights transfer....................................          809,000          809,000          809,000
Motor carrier safety administrative expenses.................       46,000,000       49,500,000       49,127,000
Contract programs/research & development:                                                                       
    Highway R&D..............................................       53,969,000       81,638,000       65,725,000
    ITS......................................................      105,002,000      223,760,000      115,000,000
    Technology deployment....................................       12,499,000       14,846,000       13,499,000
    National Advanced Driving Simulator......................  ...............        4,000,000  ...............
    Long term pavement performance...........................        8,308,000  ...............  ...............
    Local rural technical assistance.........................        2,866,000        4,100,000        2,866,000
    National Highway Institute...............................        4,327,000        6,000,000        4,327,000
    Minority business enterprise.............................        9,506,000       10,000,000        9,506,000
    International transportation.............................          475,000          500,000          475,000
    Rehabilitation of TFHRC..................................  ...............          500,000          500,000
    Russian technical assistance program.....................          380,000          400,000  ...............
    Truck dynamic test facility..............................          713,000  ...............  ...............
    Transportation investment analysis.......................  ...............        1,906,000  ...............
    Federal lands-containment cleanup........................  ...............        2,500,000        2,500,000
    South African program....................................  ...............          400,000  ...............
    International scanning activities........................  ...............          800,000  ...............
    Cost allocation study....................................        1,901,000        1,695,000          300,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................  \1\ 493,243,000      652,905,000      510,981,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions of $15,661,000 to comply with working capital fund and administrative provisions, and   
  $756,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.                  

                        administrative expenses

    The Committee recommends a total of $296,279,000 for 
administrative expenses. This amount is $2,226,000 more than 
provided in fiscal year 1996 and $3,581,000 less than the 
budget estimate. The recommendation assumes a reduction of 57 
full time equivalent positions for a total of 3,245. The 
Committee recommendation includes $49,127,000 for motor carrier 
safety operations, not including the $7,390,000 in the 
research, development and technology program.
    Salaries and expenses adjustment.--The Committee has not 
provided supplemental funds requested for civil rights 
activities (-$2,254,000). Sufficient funds were provided in the 
fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for these activities and are also 
included within the amounts provided for fiscal year 1997. In 
no way shall this adjustment affect the Federal Highway 
Administration's ongoing civil rights activities in fiscal year 
1997.
    Rent.--Consistent with the Committee's recommendation to 
reduce the department's overall utilization of space, the 
Committee has reduced the FHWA's request for rental payments to 
$17,294,000. These funds are budgeted in this account and 
reimbursed to ``Rental payments'' in the office of the 
secretary.

                    MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS

    The Committee recommends $49,127,000 for motor carrier 
safety operations, not including the funding of $7,390,000 for 
research, which is included in the research, development, and 
technology line. This is an increase of $3,127,000 above the 
1996 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request for this appropriation:

Reduce funding for new outreach and educational 
    initiatives by 15 percent...........................        -$73,000
Decrease expenditures on new computer equipment by 10 
    percent.............................................         -50,000
Hold travel to 10 percent increase......................        -250,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net change to budget estimate.....................        -373,000

    Outreach and educational initiatives.--The Committee has 
provided $400,000 for outreach and educational initiatives 
instead of the $473,000 requested. As part of these 
initiatives, the office of motor carriers (OMC) planned to 
develop a hazardous materials manual that would educate 
carriers on the regulations; however, this manual was developed 
in 1994 and 1995 and only technical updates should be needed at 
this point.
    Computer equipment.--The Committee has provided $220,000 to 
procure new computer equipment instead of the $270,000 
requested. Although portable electronic hardware is very 
important for inspectors to conduct their work in the most 
efficient manner possible, the Committee could not provide a 
114 percent increase due to budgetary constraints. With this 
increase, OMC was planning on upgrading portable printers and 
laptops, and purchasing scanners. The Committee suggests that 
OMC place a priority on upgrading older equipment before 
procuring new scanners that inspectors do not currently use.
    Travel.--The Committee recommends $2,200,000 for travel, 
which is $200,000 more than enacted in fiscal year 1996. The 
office of motor carriers is seeking a 23 percent increase in 
its travel funds, although this increase is not fully 
justified. As such, the Committee recommends a 10 percent 
increase for travel.
    Safety rating process.--The Committee is pleased to learn 
FHWA is seeking to restructure its safety rating system through 
a zero-based review designed to improve safety while reducing 
paperwork. The Committee strongly recommends the new safety 
determination process for motor carriers be based primarily on 
motor carrier performance in lieu of the current emphasis on 
paperwork compliance. The Committee believes safety fitness 
should be based on accurate, up-to-date motor carrier 
performance data, including reportable accident rates per 
million miles.
    The Committee requests that FHWA develop, within 180 days 
of enactment of this Act, a pilot project, preferably in the 
midwest, that would allow carriers identified as having 
problems through the commercial vehicle information system to 
be given an opportunity to proactively address issues before 
being subjected to sanctions. The Committee suggests the 
midwest because we have been advised of some problems within 
this area. Rather than FHWA proceeding with the normal adverse 
rating process and enforcement action, a third party safety 
service, approved in advance by FHWA would intercede and work 
with the carrier to improve performance. The carrier's time and 
money will be focused on gaining compliance rather than 
defending past actions. The Committee directs that any costs 
associated with the safety service be paid by the motor carrier 
and, if the carrier's performance did not improve, the 
Committee expects FHWA to then proceed with its full range of 
enforcement actions.

                           CONTRACT PROGRAMS

    The limitation on general operating expenses includes a 
total of $214,698,000,000 for contract programs. This 
represents an increase of $14,752,000 from fiscal year 1996 and 
a decrease of $138,347,000 from the budget estimate of 
$353,045,000. Although the recommendation represents a 
significant reduction below the budget estimate, the FHWA's 
contract programs have grown considerably over the last few 
years. As recently as three years ago, the contract programs of 
the Federal Highway Administration were at the $100,000,000 
level. The Committee believes that sufficient funds have been 
provided for the Federal Highway Administration to continue its 
ongoing efforts in highway research, technology and development 
programs without jeopardy. Within the Committee recommendation, 
funding levels remained unchanged from the fiscal year 1996 
enacted levels for local technical assistance, National Highway 
Institute, disadvantaged business enterprises, and 
international transportation. No changes from the budget 
estimate are recommended for rehabilitation to the Turner-
Fairbanks facility and for the clean-up of contaminated federal 
lands of the FHWA.

             HIGHWAY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee recommends $65,725,000 for highway research, 
development, and technology programs. The following table 
summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program level, the fiscal year 
1997 budget estimate and the Committee recommendations for the 
various research areas:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       1997     
                             Program                               1996 program    1997 estimate    recommended 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety..........................................................      $8,335,000      $8,768,000      $8,768,000
Pavements.......................................................       8,791,000      23,200,000      19,000,000
Structures......................................................      12,558,000      22,000,000      13,558,000
Environment.....................................................       5,317,000       5,593,000       5,317,000
Right-of-way....................................................         408,000         322,000         322,000
Policy..........................................................       5,401,000       5,681,000       5,401,000
Planning........................................................       5,769,000       8,300,000       5,969,000
Motor carrier...................................................       7,390,000       7,774,000       7,390,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      53,969,000      81,638,000      65,725,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Safety.--The Committee recommends $8,768,000 for highway 
safety research and development, the same as the budget 
estimate and $433,000 above last year's level. The combination 
of ISTEA and general operating expenses (GOE) funds will result 
in a safety research and development program of not less than 
$12,768,000 of new contract authority.
    Pavements.--The Committee recommends $19,000,000 for 
pavements research and development. Within the Committee's 
allowance is $10,000,000 which was requested for the long term 
pavement and performance program (LTPP), including funds for 
data analysis. The LTPP is entering a new phase requiring 
substantial data analysis that will provide the framework for 
improved pavement maintenance. The Committee agrees with FHWA 
that support for the LTPP should be the highest priority in the 
pavements research and development program. The LTPP will 
result in substantial benefits to the states. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for exploratory 
research, a new initiative that reflects the recommendations of 
the National Science and Technology Council and is consistent 
with the general recommendations of the Transportation Research 
Board for increased emphasis on exploratory highway research.
    The Committee notes that post-tensioned concrete pavement 
may offer a design that produces a stronger pavement using less 
concrete. The FHWA is encouraged to continue its research and 
evaluation on post-tensioned concrete pavements in fiscal year 
1997.
    The FHWA has conducted extensive research on winter 
maintenance activities over the years including ice and snow 
removal equipment, chemicals for melted ice, and strategies and 
concepts for keeping roads clear during winter storms. A recent 
initiative involves anti-icing. Anti-icing is a revolutionary 
new strategy for preventing a strong bond from forming between 
snow or frost and the pavement surface. Salts and other 
chemicals are prewetted or applied in liquid form just before 
the snow or ice begins to form. One such chemical is calcium 
magnesium acetate (CMA), a non-corrosive, environmentally-sound 
substance made from corn. The FHWA is urged to support 
continued research and development of CMA as a non-corrosive 
anti-icer and test the use of CMA on new concrete and metal 
surface on bridges in Chicago.
    Structures.--The Committee recommends $13,558,000 for 
structures research and development, which represents an 
increase of $1,000,000 over the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, 
and $8,442,000 below the budget estimate. An increase is 
justified to advance the work in several areas, including 
bridge management disciplines, high performance materials, and 
non-destructive evaluation. As part of the fiscal year 1996 
research program, FHWA was able to obtain significant cost 
sharing with the private sector in response to a solicitation 
on structures research. Not only is this partnering essential 
in light of limited research funds, but the private sector's 
involvement will accelerate the ultimate deployment of these 
new technologies into practice. The Committee fully supports 
this approach for leveraging federal resources with private 
sector support and expects that this strategy will be 
incorporated whenever possible throughout FHWA's research and 
development program. The Committee would especially welcome 
cost sharing in the high performance materials activity and 
will carefully consider the success of these efforts in future 
funding decisions.
    Environment.--Because of budgetary limitations, the 
Committee recommends $5,317,000, the same level of funding as 
provided in fiscal year 1996.
    Right-of-way.--The Committee recommendation makes no change 
to the budget estimate of $322,000.
    Policy research.--The Committee recommends $5,401,000, the 
same amount as provided last year.
    Planning.--The Committee recommends $5,969,000 for planning 
research and directs that at least $2,000,000 of section 6005 
funds be used to deploy TRANSIMS, an advanced travel modeling 
project. This project will yield substantial benefits to state 
governments and metropolitan planning organizations and is co-
funded with support from the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the Federal Transit Administration, and intelligent 
transportation system funds.
    Although there is general agreement that TRANSIMS is the 
highest priority in the planning research area, the Committee 
is concerned about that the current and planned expenditures 
for this project. FHWA estimates that an additional $13.2 
million is needed to complete this project. The FHWA 
administrator, after consultation with other supporting 
agencies, is requested to submit a letter to both House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations before April 1, 1997, 
detailing how costs could be better contained, paying 
particular attention to reducing laboratory overhead charges, 
or alternatively, reducing costs by funding less expensive 
contractors for portions of this project.
    Motor carrier.--Because of budgetary limitations and 
inadequate justification of portions of the request, the 
Committee recommends a level of $7,390,000 for motor carrier 
research. This is the same amount as provided in 1996 and 
should provide sufficient funding to continue all ongoing 
projects. During the past few years, this program has grown 
between 13 and 22 percent per year. A sizable infusion of 
funding is also provided to motor carrier research activities 
under FHWA's ITS/CVO program and the motor carrier safety 
assistance program (MCSAP). Both of these accounts have seen 
significant growth over the past few years.
    Intelligent transportation systems (ITS).--For intelligent 
transportation systems, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate 
totals $336,760,000, of which $223,760,000 is requested through 
the general operating expenses limitation and $113,000,000 from 
ISTEA. This is an increase of nearly $133,000,000 above the 
$203,829,000 provided in fiscal year 1996, or an increase of 79 
percent. Nearly all of the increase can be attributed to the 
$100,000,000 request for model deployment of the integrated 
intelligent transportation infrastructure that has been 
identified and developed over the five-year course of the 
program.
    The ITS program has grown significantly over the past 
several years. The General Accounting Office noted before the 
Committee this year that total funding for the program has 
increased from $22,000,000 in 1991 to a high of $246,000,000 in 
1992; the program was funded at $203,829,000 in fiscal year 
1996. Total funding for the six-year period (fiscal years 1991-
1996) is $1,040,000,000. Similarly, the total number of ITS 
projects has grown measurably each year. The number of projects 
has increased from 41 in 1991 to 305 in 1996.
    The following charts illustrate the growth in 
appropriations, the number of projects in the ITS program, and 
the number of federally-funded intelligent transportation 
systems studies and demonstrations by state: 


    The budget suggests that the ITS program is moving into a 
new arena, emerging from an exploratory first phase of ITS 
research and development to a second phase that gives equal 
priority to mainstream deployment and a commitment to well-
defined long term research. Though the Committee is supportive 
of the department's ongoing research and development efforts in 
the ITS area, an increase of nearly $133,000,000, or almost 79 
percent, cannot be supported one year prior to the 
reauthorization of part B of title VI of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, particularly as the ITS 
program moves from a research and development phase to 
mainstream deployment. In addition, the Committee notes that 
section 104(a) of title 23, U.S.C., authorizes the Secretary of 
Transportation to deduct up to 3.75 percent of certain sums 
authorized prior to apportionment for the administration of 
federal-aid highways and for conducting highway research and 
development activities. Contrary to permanent law, the budget 
assumed an increase of one percentage point for fiscal year 
1997 to fund principally the expanded ITS research, development 
and deployment programs. Such a request is not within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.
    The following table depicts the 1996 program level, the 
fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee's 
recommendation for the intelligent transportation systems 
program by activity:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       1997     
                           Program                               1996 program    1997 estimate     recommended  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent transportation systems:                                                                             
    Research and development.................................      $49,916,000      $42,935,000      $27,000,000
    AHS/Advance crash avoidance..............................       14,000,000       30,700,000       20,000,000
    Architecture and standards...............................  ...............        7,050,000        5,000,000
    Operational tests........................................       31,052,000       28,125,000       53,000,000
    Evaluations..............................................  ...............        4,000,000        2,000,000
    Mainstreaming............................................  ...............          950,000  ...............
    Model deployment.........................................  ...............      100,000,000  ...............
    Program support..........................................       10,034,000       10,000,000        8,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, intelligent transportation systems..............      105,002,000      223,760,000      115,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research and development.--The Committee recommends a total 
of $27,000,000 for ITS research and development, which is 
$22,916,000 below the enacted level of $49,916,000 and 
$15,935,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee is 
concerned about the expenses of the traffic management 
laboratory and directs a substantial reduction in this area. 
For commercial vehicle operations (CVO) research and 
development, the Committee recommends $6,000,000, including the 
$5,100,000 requested for the SAFER/MCSAP sites. FHWA should 
endeavor to keep the primary focus of the CVO program on safety 
considerations, to continue progress on the development of 
vehicle- and carrier-specific SAFER systems, to improve the 
communications between the roadside and the SAFER and MCMIS 
information systems, and to use this advanced technology at as 
many MCSAP sites as possible.
    For crash avoidance research, the Committee recommends 
$10,000,000. These funds, together with the funds included 
under the operational test program and ISTEA funds, will allow 
for substantial growth in NHTSA's program above the fiscal year 
1996 level.
    Automated highway systems (AHS).--The automated highway 
systems consortium, assisted by FHWA, has made significant 
progress in advancing the automated highway systems program. 
Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee recommends 
$20,000,000 to continue this progress. The Committee's 
recommendation is $10,700,000 less than included in the budget 
estimate, but $6,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 
1996.
    To the maximum extent possible, the FHWA and the automated 
highway systems consortium members shall ensure that the funds 
provided are spent primarily on advancing new technology and 
developing and selecting concepts needed for the AHS prototype. 
The Committee directs FHWA to pursue vigorously efforts to 
reduce the overhead costs of the AHS consortium and to take 
steps to minimize the costs of the 1997 demonstration, 
including associated outreach costs. No ISTEA or GOE funds are 
provided to test heavy commercial vehicles in the 1997 
demonstration or to conduct research or studies relevant to the 
use of these vehicles in any part of the automated highway 
system program. Foreseeable budgetary limitations will require 
the participants to reexamine rigorously the complexity, scope 
and vehicle mix of the prototype configuration subject to 
validation testing; and to work towards completion of the 
initial cooperative agreement within the timeline originally 
specified.
    Architecture and standards.--The Committee recommends 
$5,000,000 for architecture and standards support, which is 
$2,050,000 less than included in the budget estimate. The 
Committee believes it is necessary to reduce expenses 
associated with the cooperative agreements initiated with the 
standards developing organizations and those entities 
maintaining the systems architecture. The Department's efforts 
to expedite timely and integrated ITS standards development is 
of fundamental importance. The Committee fully supports FHWA's 
work with ITS America's council of standards organizations and 
various standards developing organizations to ensure the proper 
coordination of standards. The Director of the joint program 
office should ensure that the council has sufficient resources 
and authority to support this coordination objective.
    Operational tests.--The Committee recommends $53,000,000 
for operational tests, to be allocated in the following manner: 
$10,000,000 to advance real-time adaptive traffic control 
technology; $3,000,000 for advanced vehicle control systems; 
$10,000,000 for further development of the CVISN and to 
complete its prototype testing; and $30,000,000 for the 
integration of intelligent transportation infrastructure (ITI) 
technologies. Each of these projects is of national 
significance, is included in the budget estimate, and is 
consistent with the intent of part B of title VI of ISTEA.
    The Committee has reviewed the provisions of the 
solicitation for model tests of ITI technologies and recognizes 
the care and attention that went into the design of the 
solicitation. Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee 
was unable last year to provide sufficient funds for this 
initiative, which seeks to realize the synergistic benefits of 
many of the ITS technologies working together. The FHWA 
received a strong response to its initial solicitation 
regarding the ITI and will be unable to fund several promising 
projects offered by state and local governments in partnership 
with the private sector. In fact, FHWA expects to be able to 
fund only two or three projects, but received 23 proposals. The 
funds recommended herein will allow completion of the projects 
begun in fiscal year 1996 and the initiation of approximately 
two or three additional new projects in fiscal year 1997. These 
projects will expedite the testing of ITI in metropolitan areas 
that feature fully integrated transportation management systems 
and strong regional, multimodal traveler information services. 
In addition to the basic selection framework used in the 
initial solicitation, FHWA shall award funds to those projects 
that offer the greatest congestion relief opportunities to the 
largest number of people, and shall also consider the unique 
needs and demands of the international southern border regions 
of the United States, particularly within Texas.
    Because of budget limitations, the Committee is unable to 
recommend the entire amount requested for operational testing 
of important crash avoidance research technologies. The testing 
of advanced vehicle control systems is judged so important that 
the Committee expects ISTEA funds will be used to support the 
new operational test project not funded within the GOE amounts.
    Evaluations.--Because of budgetary limitations, $2,000,000 
is provided for evaluations.
    Mainstreaming.--No GOE funds are provided for mainstreaming 
activities because of budgetary limitations.
    Program management.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 
for program management, $2,034,000 below the enacted level and 
$2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The ITS program is 
becoming more focused, fewer operational tests are being 
pursued, and the ITS joint program office is better organized 
and staffed.
    Broad input by the many ITS stakeholders in the formulation 
of ITS research, program and deployment priorities and funding 
is essential. In accordance with title VI (B) of ISTEA and the 
cooperative agreement regarding the advisory committee charter 
to ITS America, the Committee encourages the joint program 
office to consult extensively with this advisory committee in 
preparation of future budget requests. This review will allow 
consultation with leaders from the corporate, academic, state, 
and local communities, thus assisting the FHWA in identifying 
programmatic and research needs and improving overall 
management of the ITS program.
    ISTEA mandated the creation of an information clearinghouse 
as a repository for technical and safety data resulting from 
the ITS program. The Department delegated to ITS America that 
responsibility. The Committee has been informed that key 
results from ITS programs are not being transferred to the ITS 
clearinghouse on a timely basis. The result is that parties 
seeking to advance ITS cannot easily access all available 
information. The Committee directs the Department to send all 
ITS-related reports and documents to the clearinghouse 
immediately upon publication.
    Technology assessment and deployment.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $13,499,000, $1,000,000 more than 
enacted for fiscal year 1996 and $1,347,000 below the level 
included in the budget estimate. The office of technology 
application is conducting a multi-faceted and innovative safety 
deployment activity. To ensure a strong safety program, the 
Committee directs that $3,560,000 be obtained from GOE and 
$1,725,000 be obtained from section 6005 funds. In addition, 
the Committee has included $350,000 to market and field test 
the setting, posting, and enforcing of appropriate and safe 
speed limits. With the recent repeal of the national maximum 
speed limit, states and localities are looking to the 
Department to provide guidance on how to set appropriate speed 
limits within their jurisdictions. Partnerships to help state 
and local governments set appropriate and enforceable speed 
limits should be accelerated.
    National advanced driving simulator.--The Committee has not 
approved funding for the national advanced driving simulator 
under the GOE account, but recommends that $14,500,000 of ISTEA 
contract authority be used for this purpose. The Department has 
repeatedly stated that the national advanced driving simulator 
is of critical importance to advancing progress on the 
objectives of the national ITS program. The Committee believes 
that the national advanced driving simulator is an innovative, 
high-risk analytical test project that has received limited 
non-federal cost-sharing.
    Local technical assistance program (LTAP).--$2,866,000 is 
recommended for the local technical assistance program, the 
same level as provided in fiscal year 1996. The Committee 
objects to the use of local technical assistance funds for the 
national rural initiative program, which was developed to focus 
federal programs within each state to address the needs and 
concerns of rural communities, as it is not directly linked to 
the purposes of LTAP.
    Cost allocation study.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $300,000 for the cost allocation study. The funds 
provided will help FHWA develop software, data, and procedures 
for use by the states in conducting their own highway cost 
allocation studies. The FHWA was instructed last year to 
complete truck size and weight analyses within the funds 
provided in the fiscal year 1996 appropriation. Consequently, 
no additional funds are recommended for this purpose and the 
Committee does not judge continued use of section 6005 funds to 
continue work on truck size and weight issues appropriate.
    South African program.--The Committee does not believe 
these international activities should be supported with federal 
highway trust fund revenue, but rather they should be supported 
by the Department of State.
    Technical assistance to Russia.--The Committee does not 
believe technical assistance to Russia should be supported with 
federal highway trust fund revenue, but rather they should be 
supported by the Department of State.
    Federal lands contamination site clean-up.--The Committee 
recommends $2,500,000 for the environmental clean-up at the 
materials laboratory site on the Denver federal center. The 
Committee is disturbed to learn this year that appropriated 
funds have been used since 1990 to address hazardous waste 
clean-up activities at the site. At no time was the Committee 
notified of the problems at the federal center, nor the costs 
involved with the hazardous waste clean-up. FHWA should note 
that the Committee has reduced the amount of funds recommended 
for the contract programs by $2,500,000 in order to pay for 
these expenses.
    The Committee is concerned about the adequacy of FHWA's 
plans to clean-up the variety of environmental releases that 
have occurred at the Denver federal test facility. The 
Committee directs FHWA to submit a letter to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations before March 31, 1997 
outlining its approach to the clean-up, specifying the scope 
and nature of its legal responsibilities compared to those of 
the Army Corps of Engineers and the General Services 
Administration. In addition, the report should include an 
estimated timeline to fully comply with its responsibilities 
under applicable state and federal law.
    Budget submissions.--The Committee acknowledges the 
increased detail of the fiscal year 1997 GOE budget request. 
The submittal by the joint program office was especially useful 
in terms of clearly displaying comparable fiscal year 1996 ITS 
allocations and activities funded with ISTEA contract 
authority. The ITS budget documents should serve as a model for 
the fiscal year 1998 submission of the entire GOE research and 
technology account.
    Cathodic protection for bridges.--Cathodic protection has 
long been recognized and recommended by the FHWA as the only 
practical system which will stop bridge deck corrosion in 
chloride contaminated bridge decks. The FHWA has extensively 
promoted and provided technical assistance in the use of 
cathodic protection systems through the FHWA demonstration 
project program since 1975. Recent FHWA economic studies have 
shown that cathodic protection systems should be considered for 
use on structurally sound salt-contaminated bridge decks 
carrying heavy traffic volumes in urban areas where traffic 
disruption and delay costs resulting from deck replacement or 
repair are significant. The FHWA is strongly encouraged to 
continue its program to demonstrate the latest technology in 
cathodic bridge protection systems when economic studies show 
that these systems will be cost effective.
    Recycled materials.--The Committee directs the FHWA to 
continue its research on the use of recycled materials in 
concrete pavement and landscaped margins. The potential exists 
to use large scale quantities of plastic and paper waste as 
well as microsilica in concrete pavement construction. The 
Committee believes that a small investment in research could 
yield large benefits in future years.
    Border regions infrastructure issues.--The Committee 
continues to be concerned about the condition and capacity of 
border crossings and transportation corridors for trade in 
North America as the United States, Mexico and Canada implement 
the North America Free Trade Agreement. The Committee notes 
that in 1993, the Federal Highway Administration issued its 
report, ``Assessment of Border Crossings and Transportation 
Corridors for North American Trade,'' which found that 
arterials leading to and from border crossing sites are ``badly 
in need of repair and upgrading'' and that federal highway 
funds had not been sufficiently allocated to meet the 
infrastructure needs along the borders with Mexico and Canada. 
In 1994, the Committee requested specific recommendations to 
address the pressing needs at the borders created by the 
inadequate levels of funding. A report was released in March 
1994, but fell short of providing specific recommendations and 
did not contain a viable means of financing a wide range of 
improvements along the borders.
    The Committee supports efforts by the department to 
participate in the exchange of technical and professional 
expertise with other federal agencies and with the governments 
of Mexico and Canada to enhance transportation projects and 
improve infrastructure initiatives in these regions, including 
the intelligent transportation infrastructure border crossing 
operational tests.
    Further, the Committee directs the Federal Highway 
Administration to give high priority to transportation needs 
along the border regions in its grant programs and 
discretionary funding opportunities and to incorporate border 
infrastructure development projects within the National Highway 
System's corridors of national significance. The Committee also 
expects the Department to consider these needs when providing 
Congress with its proposal to reauthorize the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

                     Highway-Related Safety Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................   ($11,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     (2,049,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................     (2,049,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................    (-8,951,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    A liquidating cash appropriation of $2,049,000 is 
recommended to assist states and localities in implementing the 
highway safety standards administered by the Federal Highway 
Administration. These standards cover traffic control devices, 
highway surveillance, and highway-related aspects of pedestrian 
safety. The Committee has not provided any limitation on 
obligations because the budget requested that the highway-
related safety grant program be combined with NHTSA's section 
402 program.

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)


Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................      ($19,200,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................       (19,800,000,000)
Recommended in the bill..........................       (19,800,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..............         (+600,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997............  .....................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $19,800,000,000 for the federal-aid highways program. This 
is identical to the budget request and $600,000,000 more than 
the fiscal year 1996 appropriation level.
    An estimated $3,100,000,000 of the recommended liquidating 
cash appropriation is to continue the construction of the 
interstate highway system. The balance of the funds is 
primarily for payments to the states for the national highway 
program, the surface transportation program, interstate 
maintenance, interstate substitutions, bridge replacement and 
rehabilitation, the congestion mitigation and air quality 
improvement program, certain planning and research programs, 
emergency relief, and the administrative costs of the Federal 
Highway Administration as discussed under the limitation on 
general operating expenses.

                     federal-aid highways programs

    Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a 
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain 
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new 
construction of roads. State highway departments have the 
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA 
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The 
federal government provides financial support for construction 
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary 
with the type of road.
    There are almost four million miles of public roads in the 
United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The federal 
government provides grants to states to assist in financing the 
construction and preservation of about 945,000 miles (24 
percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive 
interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes. 
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of 
total U.S. Highway traffic.
    Federal-aid highways funds are made available through the 
following major system-related programs:
    National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized--and 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS). 
This 160,000-mile road system is the culmination of years of 
effort by many organizations, both public and private, to 
identify routes of National significance. It includes all 
Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural 
principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and 
major strategic highway connectors, and is estimated to carry 
up to 70 percent of commercial truck traffic and 40 percent of 
all vehicular traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 
percent of the NHS funds to the surface transportation program 
category. If the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be 
transferred. The Federal share for the NHS is 80 percent, 
except for the Interstate portion where it is generally 90 
percent, with an availability period of 4 years.
    Surface transportation program.--ISTEA also established the 
Surface Transportation Program (STP). The STP is a very 
flexible program that may be used by the states and localities 
for any roads (including NHS) that are not functionally 
classified as local or rural minor collectors. These roads are 
collectively referred to as Federal-aid highways. Bridge 
projects paid for with STP funds are not restricted to Federal-
aid highways but may be on any public road. Transit capital 
projects are also eligible under this program. The total 
funding for the STP may be augmented by the transfer of funds 
from other programs and by equity adjustments which may be used 
as if they were STP funds. Once distributed to the states, STP 
funds must be used according to the following percentages: 10 
percent for safety construction, 10 percent for transportation 
enhancement, 50 percent divided among areas of over 200,000 
population and remaining areas of the State, and 30 percent for 
any area of the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are 
guaranteed an amount based on previous Secondary funding. The 
Federal share for the STP program is 80 percent with a 4-year 
availability period.
    Each state receives an amount in addition to its regular 
apportionments so that its total funding reaches a legislative 
percentage established in ISTEA. This additional amount is 
called ``hold harmless.'' Hold harmless funds are used as if 
they are STP funds except that only one-half of the funds 
received are subject to set-asides and sub-state distribution 
requirements of the STP.
    Each state is also guaranteed that its apportionments for 
the current fiscal year and its allocations for the previous 
fiscal year will be an amount that is at least equal to 90 
percent of the state's contributions to the highway account of 
the Highway Trust Fund. The additional amount is called the 
``90 percent of payments guarantee.'' Funds are distributed in 
the same manner as Hold Harmless funds.
    Interstate construction.--The designation of a 40,000-mile 
interstate system was authorized by Congress in 1944 to serve 
the needs of national defense, to link the nation's largest 
cities, and to connect with key Canadian and Mexican highways 
at suitable border points. Since 1944, the system has gradually 
been expanded, now encompassing 42,794 miles of designated 
routes. From December 1994 to December 1995, an additional 15 
miles of the interstate system were opened to traffic. This 
brings the total number of miles open to traffic as of December 
31, 1995, to 42,764 miles, or 99.9 percent of the total system. 
In addition, the remaining 30 miles included 25 miles under 
construction and 5 miles under design development and right-of-
way acquisition. Funding authorization for this program 
terminated in FY 1995.
    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This 
program is continued by the ISTEA to provide assistance for 
bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for 
high cost bridges. Bridges on Indian reservation roads are 
given special attention--besides the inventorying and 
inspection of these bridges, one percent of a state's annual 
bridge apportionment is to be used for such eligible projects. 
Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to 
the NHS or the STP.
    Interstate maintenance.--This program, established by 
ISTEA, basically replaces the I-4R program. It finances 
projects to rehabilitate, restore, and resurface the interstate 
system. Reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and over-
crossings along existing interstate routes is also an eligible 
activity if it does not add capacity other than high occupancy 
vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
    Interstate system reimbursement.--This program established 
by ISTEA provides a new category of funding for the purpose of 
reimbursing states for their cost of constructing segments of 
the interstate system without Federal assistance in the early 
days of the interstate construction program. Funds are used as 
STP funds, except that one-half of the amount received by a 
state is not subject to the set-asides or sub-state 
distribution rules of that program.
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air 
quality in non-attainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide. 
A wide range of transportation activities are eligible, as long 
as DOT, after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely 
to help meet national ambient air quality standards. If a state 
has no non-attainment areas, the funds may be used as if they 
were STP funds.
    Federal lands highways.--This program, authorizations for 
which are through four categories prior to ISTEA, are now 
provided through three categories: Indian reservation roads, 
parkways and park roads, and public lands highways (which 
incorporates the previous forest highways category). Funds are 
allocated on the basis of relative needs except that the forest 
highway portions of public lands highways and Indian 
reservation roads are allocated by administrative formula.
    Minimum allocation.--Each state is guaranteed an amount so 
that its percentage of total apportionments in each fiscal year 
of interstate construction, interstate maintenance, interstate 
substitution, national highway system, bridge program, surface 
transportation program, scenic byways, and safety belt and 
motorcycle helmet grants, plus allocations received in the 
prior year, must not be less than 90 percent of the state's 
percentage of estimated Highway Trust Fund contributions. The 
contributions used in the calculation are from two years prior 
to the current fiscal year--the latest year for which data are 
available.
    Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and 
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned 
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of 
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. ISTEA modified 
previous law slightly; the territorial limitation was raised to 
$20,000,000 per fiscal year, and the number of days a state or 
territory has to make emergency repairs in order to receive 100 
percent federal share was increased to 180 days. The January 
1996 flooding in the mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Northwest 
states caused considerable damage to Federal-aid highways with 
estimated repair costs far exceeding available emergency 
program funding. To help meet immediate emergency needs, FHWA 
borrowed funds from the interstate discretionary account (as 
authorized in title 23 U.S.C.). Subsequently, in P.L. 104-134, 
the Congress approved supplemental funding to cover the above 
emergency expenses.

                 highway trust fund financing mechanism

    The highway trust fund was originally established in the 
U.S. Treasury in accordance with provisions of the Highway 
Revenue of 1957, as amended (23 U.S.C. 12 note). It has been 
extended several times, most recently by the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240). 
Amounts equivalent to taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, special 
motor fuels, tires, commercial motor vehicles, and truck use 
are designated by the Act to be appropriated and transferred 
from the general fund of the Treasury to the trust fund. These 
transfer are made at least monthly on the basis of estimates by 
the Secretary of the Treasury, subject to adjustments in later 
transfers based on the amount of actual tax receipts. Amounts 
available in the fund in excess of outlay requirements are 
invested in public debt securities and interest thereon is 
credited to the fund. There are also credited to the fund 
repayable advances from the general fund, as authorized and 
made available by law, to meet outlay requirements in excess of 
available revenues during a portion of a fiscal year, if 
necessary.
    The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 
established a mass transit account within the trust fund to be 
funded by one-ninth of the excise tax collections under 
sections 4041 and 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) 
imposed after March 31, 1983. The funds from this account are 
used for expenditures in accordance with section 21 of the 
Federal Transit Act.
    Subsequent legislation has increased the total federal tax 
levied on each gallon of gasoline to 18.3 cents, of which 12 
cents is applied to the highway account, and 2 cents to the 
mass transit account.
    Amounts required for outlays to carry out the federal-aid 
highway program are appropriated to the Federal Highway 
Administration. Other charges to the trust fund are made by the 
Secretary of the Treasury for transfers of certain taxes to the 
land and water conservation fund and to the aquatic resources 
trust fund, for refunds of certain taxes, repayment of advances 
from the general fund, and for the interest on advances. The 
amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in the 1982 STAA 
related to the highway trust fund require that before an 
apportionment is made, the Secretary of the Treasury must 
determine that adequate revenues will be available to meet 
these expenditures within 24 months after the close of the 
fiscal year for which the apportionment is made.

              highway trust fund spending versus receipts

    In recent years, there has been much discussion about 
alleged shortfalls in the amount spent by the federal 
government for highway programs compared to the amount of 
highway user taxes it collects. Charges have been made that 
highway spending has been set significantly below the level of 
taxes being collected in an effort to make the federal deficit 
smaller. A closer examination of expenditures and receipts 
shows that this is not the case. As can be seen from the table 
in this section, total highway trust fund (highway account) 
outlays have exceeded trust fund tax receipts in 13 of the 21 
years since 1976. Because of this, the federal-aid highway 
program has contributed roughly $16,487,000,000 to the budget 
deficit during this time period.
    Part of the confusion results from a failure to distinguish 
between the unexpended and unobligated balances in the trust 
fund. For example, there will be an estimated $9,400,000,000 
cash balance in the highway trust fund's highway account at the 
end of fiscal year 1995.
    Following is a description of this situation contained in a 
May 1989 GAO report:

          According to FHWA, the balance in the Highway Account 
        has often been misunderstood, with many believing that 
        the balance represents excess cash that will not be 
        needed to pay commitments. This view, however, is not 
        an accurate portrayal of the Highway Account balance 
        since these funds are, in fact, needed to pay 
        outstanding commitments. It should also be noted that 
        he Highway Trust Fund exists only as an accounting 
        record. User taxes are actually deposited in the U.S. 
        Treasury and amounts equivalent to these taxes are 
        transferred to the Trust Fund as needed.
          How the Trust Fund functions becomes clearer when it 
        is compared with an individual's charge account. For 
        discussion purposes, assume that an individual has 
        $1,000 in cash from previous monthly paychecks but also 
        has outstanding charges amounting to over $1,500. In 
        this case, the $1,000 in cash cannot be considered 
        excess because it is needed to pay the incoming 
        charges. On the other hand, the individual is also not 
        in a deficit situation since at he end of the month his 
        or her $900 paycheck will be available to help pay the 
        outstanding charges. This scenario is repeated in each 
        succeeding month. Thus, the cash the individual has on-
        hand plus a future paycheck helps to ensure there will 
        be sufficient funds to pay all outstanding charges.

    Similarly, according to FHWA Office of Policy Development 
data, the Highway Account had a balance of $9 billion at the 
end of fiscal year 1988, which is analogous to the $1,000 cash-
on-hand. At the same time, these FHWA data show that unpaid 
commitments (charge account balance) amounted to almost $31 
billion; $22 billion more than the account balance. This 
situation, however, is acceptable under a reimbursable system 
because, although commitments to make payment have been made, 
payment is not made until the states submit actual bills for 
completed work at a later date. In the interim, revenues, like 
the individual's paycheck in the previous example, continue to 
accrue in the Highway Account.
    The Committee also notes that cumulative highway account 
tax receipts since 1957 are expected to total approximately 
$320 billion and cumulative highway outlays are expected to 
total approximately $329 billion by the end of fiscal year 
1986. The principal reason for current cash balance is the 
interest paid to the fund from the general fund of the 
Treasury. These intragovernmental transfers from the general 
fund to the trust fund have exceeded $20 billion since the 
highway trust fund was established in 1957. However, such 
transfers have no effect on the federal deficit. This mechanism 
is explained in a February 1990 Congressional Research Service 
report as follows:

          While specific taxes and premiums are often levied on 
        segments of the population to help cover a trust fund 
        program's expenditures, trust funds also receive 
        ``income'' from the government--i.e., ``credit'' from 
        one government account to another--or what in essence 
        is paper income. No economic resources are moved, no 
        actual money collected.

    Following is a table of federal highway trust fund spending 
compared to receipts for fiscal years 1976 to 1996:

                                   HIGHWAY TRUST FUND STATUS (HIGHWAY ACCOUNT)                                  
                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Trust fund                       Interest   
           Fiscal year                Income        Expenditure       balance      Tax receipts       income    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1976............................          $6,000          $6,520          $9,077          $5,413            $587
TQ..............................           1,690           1,758           9,009           1,676              14
1977............................           7,302           6,147          10,164           6,709             593
1978............................           7,567           6,058          11,673           6,905             662
1979............................           8,046           7,155          12,565           7,189             857
1980............................           7,647           9,212          10,999           6,620           1,027
1981............................           7,434           9,174           9,260           6,305           1,129
1982............................           7,822           8,035           9,047           6,743           1,079
1983............................           8,853           8,838           9,062           7,777           1,076
1984............................          11,533          10,384          10,212          10,507           1,026
1985............................          12,906          12,756          10,361          11,800           1,106
1986............................          13,305          14,180           9,486          12,251           1,054
1987............................          12,728          12,802           9,412          11,793             935
1988............................          13,645          14,038           9,019          12,836             809
1989............................          15,134          13,602          10,551          14,358             776
1990............................          13,453          14,375           9,629          12,472             981
1991............................          15,303          14,686          10,246          14,494             809
1992............................          16,572          15,518          11,300          15,664             908
1993............................          16,863          16,641          11,523          16,046             817
1994............................          15,414          19,011           7,927          14,660             754
1995............................          20,967          19,472           9,421          20,419             548
1996 estimate...................          22,270          20,384          11,307          21,622             648
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................         262,454         260,746  ..............         244,259          18,195
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       limitation on obligations

Limitation, fiscal year 1996.....................   \1\($17,550,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................       (17,714,000,000)
Recommended in the bill..........................       (17,550,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
     Limitation, fiscal year 1996................                   (--)
     Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...........         (-164,000,000)
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\Excludes reductions of $15,888,500 to comply with working capital    
  fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $1,146,000 to comply 
  with Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. 

    -The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 1997 federal-aid highway obligations to $17,550,000,000, 
the same level as provided in fiscal year 1996. An additional 
$2,055,000,000 is estimated to be obligated for federal-aid 
highways exempt from the obligation limitation in the bill. 
Therefore, total fiscal year 1997 obligations for federal-aid 
highways will be $19,605,000,000.
    -The Committee has denied the request to: (1) place 
separate obligation limitations on various appropriated and 
contract-authority funded demonstration projects; (2) place the 
bonus program under the federal-aid highways limitation; (3) 
include a set-aside of $30,000,000 for highway and highway 
safety construction; (4) include a set-aside of $15,000,000 for 
the Symms Recreational Trails program; (5) include a set-aside 
of $20,000,000 for a construction skill training program; (6) 
include a set-aside of $15,000,000 for a congestion pricing 
program; and (7) restrict funding for the timber bridge 
program.
    -A tabular summary of the programs exempt from the 
obligation limitation follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Program                             1996 enacted      1997 proposed      Recommended  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency relief..........................................      $291,340,000      $100,000,000      $100,000,000
Minimum allocation........................................       802,961,000       659,802,000       659,802,000
ISTEA demos...............................................     1,047,718,000       555,000,000     1,054,198,000
Bonus limitations.........................................       189,488,000  ................       241,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................     2,331,507,000     1,314,802,000     2,055,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the following table reflects an estimated 
distribution of obligations by program category, the bill 
includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain 
federal-aid highways spending.

                               FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAM ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS                               
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Fiscal year                    
                          Program                          -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              1996 enacted      1997 estimate   1997 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:                                                                                          
    National highway system...............................        $3,277,151        $3,012,518        $3,012,518
    Surface transportation program........................         4,306,633         5,443,030         5,421,254
    Bridge program........................................         2,515,200         2,312,107         2,312,107
    Interstate maintenance................................         2,515,200         2,438,466         2,438,466
    Interstate system reimbursement.......................         1,820,593         1,673,621         1,673,621
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement.....           950,984           861,078           861,078
    Donor state bonus.....................................           475,030           430,957           430,957
    Intelligent transportation systems....................           103,447           113,000           113,000
    Federal lands highways................................           437,626           425,768           425,768
    Administration and research...........................           618,509           753,205           610,981
    Applied research and technology.......................            41,236            41,000            41,000
    Miscellaneous programs................................            68,081            74,250            74,250
    Funding restoration...................................           266,522           135,000           135,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, limitation..............................        17,533,676        17,714,000        17,550,000
Exempt from limitation:                                                                                         
    Emergency relief:                                                                                           
        Regular program...................................           236,838           100,000           100,000
        Supplemental......................................            54,502  ................  ................
    Minimum allocation....................................           802,961           659,802           659,802
    Federal-aid highways demos............................         1,047,718           555,000         1,054,198
    Bonus limitation......................................           189,488  ................           241,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, exempt..................................         2,331,507         1,314,802         2,055,000
                                                           =====================================================
        Grand total, Federal-aid highways.................        19,897,695        19,028,802        19,605,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A list of the federal highway programs under the limitation 
follows:
          Interstate Construction.
          Interstate Maintenance.
          Interstate Gap Closing.
          Interstate 4R.
          Interstate Discretionary--Construction.
          Interstate Discretionary--4R Maryland.
          Interstate Discretionary--4R.
          Interstate Discretionary--Apportioned.
          Interstate Discretionary--Discretionary.
          Rail-Highway Crossings on Any Public Road.
          Hazard Elimination.
          Combined Road Plan.
          Consolidated Primary.
          Rural Secondary.
          Urban System.
          Highway Planning and Research.
          Public Lands.
          Indian Reservation Roads.
          Parkways and Park Highways.
          Forest Highways.
          Special Urban High Density.
          Special Bridge Replacement.
          Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation--Apportioned, 
        Discretionary, and Talmadge Bridge.
          Franconia Notch.
          Bypass Highway Demonstration.
          Urgent Supplemental Bridges.
          Los Angeles Freight Transportation Demo, CA-131(a).
          Baton Rouge Interchange Congestion, Demo, LA-131.
          Louisville Primary Connector Accel. Demo, KY-131(e).
          Vermont Certification Demo-131(f).
          Devils Lake Erosion Demo, ND-131(g).
          Bridge Over Intracoastal Waterway Demo, FL-131(h).
          Idaho Truck Safety/Railroad Elimination Demo-131(i).
          Acosta Bridge, Florida.
          Administration.
          Studies (Sections 158, 159, 164 & 165 under P.L. 100-
        17).
          Demonstration Projects--149(d).
          Strategic Highway Research Program.
          Operation Lifesaver.
          Congestion Pricing Pilot.
          National Highway System.
          Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement.
          Surface Transportation Program.
          Interstate Substitution.
          Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality.
          Donor State Bonus.
          Metropolitan Planning.
          Apportionment Adjustment.
          Model Intermodal Transportation Plans.
          Transportation Assistance Program.
          Seismic Research and Development.
          Fundamental Properties of Asphalt.
          Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship.
          Timber Bridge Research and Demonstration.
          Intelligent Transportation Systems.
          Ferry Boat Construction.
          Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
          University Transportation Centers.
          University Research Institute.
          Scenic Byways Technical Assistance.
          Scenic Byways Interim Program.
          Tax Evasion Project.
          Safety Belt/Helmet Incentive Grants.
          Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures.
          International Truck Registry Uniformity.
          Applied Research and Development Program.
          Border Crossings.
          Infrastructure Investment Commission.
          High Speed Rail Corridor Crossings.
    Administration of obligation limitation.--The bill includes 
language regarding the administration of this obligation 
limitation. The provision provides for an equitable 
distribution of the available obligational authority based upon 
the funds apportioned by legislative or administrative formula 
and upon funds allocated without a formula. In making such a 
distribution, it is intended that discretionary and other non-
formula fund allocations also be considered in the distribution 
of obligational authority. If these allocations are unknown at 
the time obligational authority is initially made available to 
the states, an estimated fair proportion of obligational 
authority should be reserved for distribution at the 
appropriate time.
    Under the provision, total first quarter obligations are 
limited to 12 percent, sufficient authority is provided to 
prevent lapses, funds are to be redistributed after August 1, 
1997, and amounts authorized for administrative expenses, the 
federal lands program, the intelligent transportation systems 
program, and amounts made available under sections 1040, 1047, 
1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023 and 6024 of Public Law 102-240 and 
49 U.S.C. 5316, 5317 and 5338 are not to be distributed.
    The Committee believes that there is adequate legislative 
history with respect to the intentions of the Congress in 
enacting annual limitations on obligations. The Committee is 
reiterating, however, the language on pages 25 and 26 of House 
Report 94-1221 stating that this limitation should not be used 
by the Secretary as discretionary authority to distort the 
priorities established in federal highway legislation. The 
Committee expects the Secretary to control obligations in 
accordance with Congressional intent and directs that the 
Department of Transportation continue to provide, on a monthly 
basis, a report on the cumulative amount of obligations by 
state for each program in the federal-aid highways and highway 
safety construction program categories. This report should 
include the amount of unobligated contract authority available 
to each state for each program, as well as a complete 
description of any actions taken by the Department or the 
Office of Management and Budget for the purpose of complying 
with this obligation limitation.
    Interstate-95.--The Committee believes that the 
reconstruction, restoration and rehabilitation of the 
interstate system is necessary to ensure the safety on the 
nation's highways, to foster intermodalism and commerce, to 
strengthen the role of transportation in economic growth, to 
promote technology advancement, to protect the environment, and 
to support communities through improved access and mobility. 
The Committee encourages the Federal Highway Administration to 
work with the states along I-95 to continue their investment in 
the rehabilitation of the interstate system, and to consider 
the impact on mobility and commerce if such investment is not 
maintained.
    Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) 
amendments.--The Committee is concerned that some states have 
moved to amend their STIP plan without giving appropriate 
notice or seeking appropriate comment from local elected 
officials with jurisdiction over transportation planning. The 
Committee notes that existing regulations require such notice 
and comment before revising a statewide transportation 
improvement program or STIP. The Committee recommends that the 
Federal Highway Administration not release funds to a state 
transportation agency until the aforementioned requirements are 
met.
    Federal lands.--Over the years, the Committee has expressed 
its concern about several parkways and park roads that are in 
need of improvement to eliminate longstanding hazardous road 
conditions. Fatality and vehicle accident rates of these roads 
are far above the national average because of their steep 
grades, sharp curves and inadequate climbing and deceleration 
lanes. Further, the hazardous conditions of these roads are 
compounded by flooding, heavy snowfalls and other inclement 
weather conditions which negatively affect the quality of the 
roads and roadbeds themselves. The Committee believes that the 
Federal Highway Administration should direct its attention to 
assuring the timely completion of needed improvement projects 
that pose significant safety problems and directs the FHWA to 
report to the Committee within sixty days of enactment of this 
Act on how it plans to address these problems.
    Belford Ferry terminal.--The Committee directs the FHWA to 
review the impacts to the environment and to boater safety that 
would result from the construction and operation of a ferry 
terminal in Comptons Creek in Middletown, New Jersey, and to 
report any potential impacts to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations. An assurance of no negative impacts must be 
received by the Committee before the department may release any 
funds for the permitting, design, or construction of a ferry 
terminal in Comptons Creek in Middletown, New Jersey.
    Southern Potomac River crossing.--As part of the Woodrow 
Wilson draft environmental impact statement, an initial 
analysis was performed on the potential demand for a southern 
river crossing ten and fifteen miles south from the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge. These crossings were drawn from the first 
regional transportation plan prepared in the 1960s. This 
analysis showed that there was a substantial demand for a 
southern crossing that could reduce future demand on the 
Woodrow Wilson Bridge crossing by approximately ten percent in 
2020.
    Because of the interstate nature of this traffic, the FHWA, 
in consultation with the state of Maryland and the Commonwealth 
of Virginia, is asked to identify the issues that need to be 
addressed to provide for these, or other possible southern 
crossings, that would affect traffic on the Woodrow Wilson 
Bridge crossing and meet future regional traffic demand. FHWA 
should report its findings back to Congress within ninety days 
of enactment of this Act.

                   intelligent transportation systems

    The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to 
distribute funds for intelligent transportation systems to the 
following programs:

Utah advanced traffic management system.................      $3,000,000
Hazardous materials intermodal monitoring system (NIER).       3,000,000
Houston, Texas..........................................       2,400,000
Texas Transportation Institute..........................         600,000
Inglewood, California...................................       1,000,000
Minnesota Guidestar.....................................       5,900,000
Moorhead, Minnesota.....................................         100,000
I-10 Mobile, Alabama Causeway...........................       4,000,000
National Transportation Center, Oakdale, New York.......       4,000,000
Nashville, Tennessee traffic guidance system............       1,000,000
Operation Respond, Maryland.............................       1,000,000
Green light CVO project, Oregon.........................       5,000,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike...................................       4,000,000
National Capital region congestion mitigation...........       5,000,000
Advanced transportation weather information system, 
    University of North Dakota..........................       1,000,000

    Minnesota Guidestar.--Minnesota Guidestar continues to lead 
in ITS research. The Committee commends those efforts and urges 
Guidestar to continue to develop strong partnerships with the 
private sector to serve as an example to other communities. The 
Committee has included $5,900,000 for this project. Up to 25 
percent of this amount may be made available to the University 
of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies and the 
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs to support education, 
research and training aspects of the project.
    Moorhead, Minnesota.--The Committee has included $100,000 
for ITS safety-related activities for automobile/rail conflicts 
in Moorhead, Minnesota.
    National Transportation Center, Oakdale, New York.--The 
Committee has included $4,000,000 for the National 
Transportation Center in Oakdale, New York, which shall be 
available only for a NAFTA intermodal transportation center.
    Advanced transportation weather information system, 
University of North Dakota.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the advanced transportation weather information 
system at the University of North Dakota. The Committee 
understands that this system will be commercialized and, in 
this context, directs the system's managers to provide a plan 
to FHWA for phasing out federal support of this program.
    I-5 Joint Powers Authority.--The Committee recognizes 
interstate 5, from Orange County to Los Angeles County, as an 
intermodal transportation corridor for which ISTEA funding and 
fiscal year 1995 transportation appropriations have been 
provided. Furthermore, the Committee recognizes that 
significant transportation capacity increases can be achieved 
within this corridor by using intermodal and intelligent 
transportation technologies instead of relying solely on 
conventional improvements. The Committee directs the FTA, FHWA 
and the ITS joint program office to coordinate with and provide 
assistance to the I-5 Consortium Cities Joint Powers Authority 
and the California State Department of Transportation in the 
design of a comprehensive transportation solution to the 
corridor. The Committee directs the agencies to report on the 
design plan and its progress to the department.
            estimated fiscal year 1997 obligation limitation
    The following table portrays estimated 1997 activity by 
state for the Federal-aid highways program under the obligation 
limitation recommended in the bill:

        State                                     Estimated distribution
Alabama.................................................    $270,881,218
Alaska..................................................     204,210,358
Arizona.................................................     196,623,391
Arkansas................................................     175,531,892
California..............................................   1,407,810,254
Colorado................................................     199,550,979
Connecticut.............................................     353,976,008
Delaware................................................      77,556,766
District of Columbia....................................      78,997,146
Florida.................................................     599,468,910
Georgia.................................................     403,887,764
Hawaii..................................................     121,854,616
Idaho...................................................     105,798,066
Illinois................................................     661,070,063
Indiana.................................................     341,854,241
Iowa....................................................     198,168,927
Kansas..................................................     205,245,252
Kentucky................................................     225,968,030
Louisiana...............................................     235,947,826
Maine...................................................      91,646,153
Maryland................................................     265,826,755
Massachusetts...........................................     691,300,055
Michigan................................................     467,462,764
Minnesota...............................................     252,556,263
Mississippi.............................................     183,673,772
Missouri................................................     357,024,338
Montana.................................................     155,010,646
Nebraska................................................     139,227,928
Nevada..................................................     104,680,987
New Hampshire...........................................      85,639,022
New Jersey..............................................     479,336,096
New Mexico..............................................     169,258,849
New York................................................   1,045,729,335
North Carolina..........................................     399,616,648
North Dakota............................................     102,166,673
Ohio....................................................     595,041,508
Oklahoma................................................     228,002,136
Oregon..................................................     202,969,037
Pennsylvania............................................     661,494,004
Rhode Island............................................      85,935,380
South Carolina..........................................     211,336,171
South Dakota............................................     111,492,837
Tennessee...............................................     325,982,686
Texas...................................................     985,982,463
Utah....................................................     125,812,946
Vermont.................................................      78,587,598
Virginia................................................     341,742,613
Washington..............................................     324,480,965
West Virginia...........................................     158,975,102
Wisconsin...............................................     292,008,163
Wyoming.................................................     111,394,365
Puerto Rico.............................................      76,204,035
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................  15,972,000,000
Administration..........................................     532,000,000
Federal Lands...........................................     426,000,000
Reserve.................................................     620,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................  17,550,000,000

                      Right-of-Way Revolving Fund

                      (Limitation on Direct Loans)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Limitation, fiscal year 1996...................(.......................)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..............(.......................)
Recommended in the bill........................(.......................)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1996...............(.......................)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..........(.......................)

    The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 authorized $300,000,000 
for the establishment of a right-of-way revolving fund. The 
fund is used to make interest-free cash advances to the states 
for the purpose of purchasing right-of-way parcels in advance 
of highway construction and thereby preventing the inflation of 
land prices from causing a significant increase in construction 
costs.
    The initial legislation for this program required the 
states to construct the highway and reimburse the revolving 
fund within seven years from the date of the advance. This 
provision was necessary to assure that the fund would be 
replenished and allow advances to be made to other states 
requiring right-of-way acquisition. Since the 1968 Act, the 
1973 Highway Act extended the required time limit for 
construction to ten years and the 1976 Highway Act extended the 
time limit indefinitely, if deemed necessary by the Secretary.
    When right-of-way acquisition has been made and highway 
construction is initiated, the state becomes eligible for 
federal grants under the various federal-aid highways programs. 
At the point when progress payments are made to the state for 
construction, the state in turn reimburses the revolving fund 
for advances made to the state for right-of-way acquisition. 
Using this method of funding, all reimbursements made to the 
revolving fund may be reallocated to other states requiring 
advances.
    The right-of-way revolving fund was terminated in 1996. The 
program continues, however, to be shown for reporting purposes 
as balances remain outstanding. Like the budget request, a 
prohibition on further obligations is recommended for 1997.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................   ($68,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................    (74,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................    (74,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................    (+6,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    The motor carrier safety grants program (MCSAP) is intended 
to assist states in developing or implementing national 
programs for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules 
and regulations concerning motor safety. The major objective of 
this program is to reduce the number and severity of accidents 
involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to 
qualified states for the development of programs to enforce the 
federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials 
regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 
1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety 
inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial motor 
vehicle traffic.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $74,000,000 
in liquidating cash for this program.

                       limitation on obligations

    The Committee recommends a $77,425,000 limitation on 
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This provides an 
increase of $200,000 over the 1996 level and a decrease of 
$7,575,000 below the budget request. The recommendation 
provides the following allocation among MCSAP activities:

                                           MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal years                           
                                                              ---------------------------------- Recommended  in
                                                                1996 estimate     1997 request       the bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic grants to states.......................................      $58,000,000      $63,537,500      $59,800,000
Traffic enforcement..........................................        6,900,000        9,000,000        7,200,000
Hazardous materials training.................................        1,500,000        1,500,000        1,500,000
Research and development.....................................          500,000          500,000          500,000
Public education.............................................          850,000          500,000          500,000
CDL enforcement..............................................        1,000,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
Truck and bus accidents......................................        1,750,000        2,000,000        1,750,000
Uniformity grants............................................        3,450,000        3,450,000        2,500,000
Uniformity working groups....................................          450,000          450,000          350,000
Commercial vehicle information system........................        1,500,000        2,000,000        1,500,000
Drug interdiction assistance program \1\.....................          500,000                0                0
Administrative expenses......................................          825,000        1,062,500          825,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       77,225,000       85,000,000       77,425,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Drug interdiction assistance is an eligible activity under the basic grants to states.                      

                       committee recommendations

    Basic grants.--The Committee recommends $59,800,000 for 
motor carrier basic grants to the states, an increase of 
$1,800,000 over the fiscal year 1996 level and a decrease of 
$3,737,500 from the budget. Each year, funding for the motor 
carrier safety grant program has increased substantially. This 
year, the budget requested a 10 percent increase in this 
program, without states planning to take on any new activities. 
The Committee has reduced this level of funding to a 3 percent 
increase, which should allow states to improve on their current 
level of roadside inspections, while taking into account normal 
inflationary costs.
    Assistance to border states.--The Committee directs that, 
within the basic grant program, no less than $750,000 shall be 
provided to states along the Mexican border to ensure the 
safety of trade-related commercial vehicle traffic once 
restrictions along the U.S.-Mexican border are reduced.
    Out-of-service orders.--In fiscal year 1994, 20 percent of 
the drivers and vehicles that were placed out-of-service (OOS) 
violated those orders. In fiscal year 1995, this percentage 
declined to 12.2 percent. The Committee applauds the office of 
motor carrier's (OMC) efforts to reduce the number of drivers 
and vehicles that disobey these orders. However, the Committee 
believes a 12 percent violation rate is still too high. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that $550,000 of the funds 
available under the basic grant program be used to develop 
innovative technologies to help reduce the OOS problem even 
further.
    The Committee is aware of one innovative program in West 
Virginia that has significantly improved driver compliance with 
OOS orders. Specifically, West Virginia has designed and tested 
a new inspection form that includes a warning statement on the 
back of the form highlighting the consequences of violating an 
OOS order. The state's violation rate declined from 25 percent 
to 4 percent after this countermeasure was implemented. Based 
on the success of the West Virginia project, FHWA should 
prepare a document, with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
(CVSA) and the states, that warns drivers of the ramifications 
of violating an OOS order. Some of the funds provided within 
the $550,000 recommendation shall be used to cover printing 
costs associated with this form.
    Traffic enforcement.--The Committee has reduced the budget 
estimate of $9,000,000 for traffic enforcement by $1,800,000. 
This level is $300,000 more than enacted in 1996. This increase 
will allow the OMC to continue work begun in 1996 that targeted 
ten states with the highest number of commercial vehicle 
fatalities. These ten states account for 48.8 percent of the 
fatalities nationwide.
    Truck and bus accidents.--The Committee recommends 
$1,750,000 for truck and bus accidents, which is the same 
amount as provided in fiscal year 1996. Last year, the funding 
was used to assure that the SAFETYNET system was operating 
nationwide and involve all states in using this system. Prior 
to the end of fiscal year 1996, these targets were met, and all 
states are currently uploading data. Therefore, the Committee 
has not provided the requested increase. The 1997 funding 
should be sufficient to increase the number of truck and bus 
accidents reported and improve the quality of the report.
    Uniformity grants.--The Committee has provided $2,500,000 
for uniformity grants, which is $950,000 less than requested. 
All 48 states required to join the International Registration 
Plan (IRP) and 45 states required to join the International 
Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) have done so. Because this has been 
achieved earlier than required and the uniformity grants is a 
mature program, the Committee believes that less funding is 
necessary for this program in fiscal year 1997.
    Uniformity grants working group.--The Committee recommends 
$350,000 for the uniformity grants working group, which is 
$100,000 less than requested because states joined IRP and IFTA 
earlier than the end of fiscal year 1996 deadline. As such, the 
working group will not need to provide technical assistance to 
states as they complete requirements.
    Administrative takedown.--The Committee has held the 
administrative takedown to the 1996 level of $825,000. This is 
a reduction of $237,500 from the budget request. The Committee 
directs that no more than $100,000 be used to fund the 
Challenge program. In the past, OMC has used up to $332,569 to 
fund this program, which severely reduces the amount of funding 
available for state-related training activities. By reducing 
the amount of funding available for the Challenge program, OMC 
will be able to preserve its administrative takedown resources 
for its intended purpose.
    The Committee continues to believe that the Challenge 
program is an important effort. However, this competition could 
be funded in part, or wholly, with corporate and industry 
support. As such, the Committee directs OMC to submit a letter 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that 
discusses mechanisms to make the Challenge program self-
supporting by fiscal year 1999. This letter should be issued by 
February 1, 1997.
    Travel.--In the past, OMC has held its important meetings 
in conjunction with the CVSA conferences because most 
inspectors and state motor vehicle personnel attend CVSA 
conferences. This reduces or eliminates the need for motor 
carrier personnel to travel to a variety of other meetings. The 
Committee has been informed that OMC is now considering holding 
separate federal grant meetings, which would require extensive 
travel by motor carrier personnel. The committee directs OMC to 
continue to combine these types of meetings with CVSA 
conferences as a means to control travel costs in these austere 
budgetary times.

                 Alameda Corridor Project Loan Program

                                                                        
                                     Loan subsidy        Limitation on  
                                     appropriation       direct loans   
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.  ..................  ..................
Budget estimate, fiscal year                                            
 1997...........................         $58,680,000      ($400,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.........  ..................  ..................
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
     1996.......................  ..................  ..................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
     1997.......................         -58,680,000      (-400,000,000)
                                                                        

    The Committee has not provided loan principal of up to 
$400,000,000 for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority 
within the FHWA's portfolio, as included in the budget 
estimate. The Committee has provided $400,000,000 in loan 
principal under ``Direct loan financing program'' within the 
Federal Railroad Administration.

                       State Infrastructure Banks

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................    $250,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................    -250,000,000

    The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
authorized up to ten pilot states to test state infrastructure 
banks which have the potential to provide greater flexibility 
to support the financing of projects by using federal-aid funds 
for revolving loans and other forms of nontraditional financial 
assistance for both public and private entities developing 
eligible transportation projects. To date, the department has 
selected the following states to test the use of state 
infrastructure banks: Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, 
Florida, South Carolina and Virginia. Two additional states are 
expected to be selected soon.
    The Committee has rejected the administration's proposal to 
expand the state infrastructure program to include additional 
states and to provide $250,000,000 in highway trust fund 
revenue to capitalize the banks. The program request is 
unauthorized; the pilot program is still in its very nascent 
stages, and any further expansion of the program should be 
considered in the context of the reauthorization of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the 
National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had 
administered traffic and highway safety functions as an 
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
    NHTSA's programs currently are authorized under three major 
laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act; 
(2) Chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code; and (3) the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICS). The 
first law provides for the establishment and enforcement of 
safety standards for vehicles and associated equipment and the 
conduct of supporting research, including the acquisition of 
required testing facilities and the operation of the national 
driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations were 
subsequently established for the NDR under the National Driver 
Register Act of 1982.
    Title 23 U.S.C. chapter 4 provides for coordinated national 
highway safety programs (section 402) to be carried out with 
the states together with supporting highway safety research, 
development, and demonstration programs (section 403). The 
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a 
new drunk driving prevention program (section 410) to make 
grants to states to implement and enforce drunk driving 
prevention programs.
    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 included amendments to title 23. It reauthorized section 
402 formula grants, provided for modified section 410 alcohol-
impaired driving countermeasures grants, and authorized new 
section 153 safety belt and motorcycle helmet grants. Section 
153(j) grants were concluded in fiscal year 1994 and replaced 
by section 153(h) sanction provisions. ISTEA also authorized 
additional funding for the national driver register and for an 
expanded drug recognition expert training program.
    Title 23 was subsequently amended by provisions in the 
National Highway System (NHS) Designation Act, 1995. The 
national maximum speed limit was repealed, thus allowing states 
to set their own speed limits. Penalty transfer provisions of 
section 153 were repealed for states failing to enact 
motorcycle helmet usage laws. In addition the NHS Designation 
Act requires states to enact ``zero tolerance'' alcohol laws to 
qualify for the section 410 basic grant rather than the 
supplemental grant previously. Failure to do so within three 
years would result in a five percent reduction in federal 
highway grants in fiscal year 1999 and ten percent in 
succeeding years. The National Driver Register was reauthorized 
for fiscal year 1995 and 1996.
    The third law (MVICS) provides for the establishment of 
low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information 
activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects, 
automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. This law 
also established the Secretary's responsibility, which was 
delegated to NHTSA, for the administration of mandatory 
automotive fuel economy standards. A 1992 amendment to the 
MVICS established automobile content labeling requirements.
    The Committee recommends new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for a total program level of 
$299,372,000 for NHTSA programs and activities in fiscal year 
1997. This is $19,071,000 more than was provided in fiscal year 
1996. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 
program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year                             
                          Program                          ------------------------------------  Recommended  in
                                                            1996 enacted \1\    1997 estimate       the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research...................................      $125,201,000      $158,513,000      $132,272,000
Highway traffic safety grants \2\.........................       155,100,000    \3\193,600,000    \3\167,100,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................       280,301,000       352,113,000       299,372,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the      
  Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.                                              
\2\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  
\3\ Includes highway-related safety grants program previously funded in FHWA.                                   

                         TRAFFIC SAFETY TRENDS

    In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest number of 
highway fatalities despite an increasing amount of travel on 
the roadways. This trend reversed itself in 1993, with traffic 
fatalities increasing to 40,150, or 900 more fatalities than in 
1992. The latest NHTSA data indicates fatalities in 1995 were 
41,700, or 1,550 higher than the 1993 level. Likewise, the 
overall fatality rate leveled off to 1.7 deaths per 100 million 
vehicle miles traveled since 1993. The following charts show 
these safety trends. 


                        Operations and Research

                     (Including Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................    $125,201,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     158,513,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     132,272,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      +7,071,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................     -26,241,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $2,840,000 to comply with working capital 
fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $206,000 to comply with 
the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    The Committee recommends a total of $132,272,000 for NHTSA 
operations and research in fiscal year 1997. This represents an 
increase of $7,071,000 above the level provided in fiscal year 
1996 and $26,241,000 below the budget request. Approximately 40 
percent of the reduction from the budget estimate involves a 
transfer of funding for the national advanced driving simulator 
to the Federal Highway Administration. The bill specifies that 
$81,895,000 shall be derived from the general fund and 
$50,377,000 shall be derived from the highway trust fund. In 
addition, the bill includes language to limit a portion of the 
obligational availability of the operations and research 
appropriations to a three-year period. Budget and staffing data 
for this appropriation are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year                   
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Recommended in
                                                               1996 enacted\1\   1997 estimate       the bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety performance...........................................      $12,255,000     $ 14,364,000      $12,864,000
    (Positions)..............................................             (95)             (95)             (95)
Safety assurance.............................................       18,197,000       20,244,000       19,518,000
    (Positions)..............................................            (103)            (103)            (103)
Highway safety...............................................       44,417,000       49,153,000       43,993,000
    (Positions)..............................................            (203)            (203)            (203)
Research and analysis........................................       44,437,000       67,964,000       49,699,000
    (Positions)..............................................            (132)            (132)            (132)
Office of the administrator..................................        3,820,000        3,816,000        3,876,000
    (Positions)..............................................             (41)             (41)             (41)
General administration.......................................        8,838,000        9,130,000        8,830,000
    (Positions)..............................................             (90)             (90)             (90)
Grant administration reimbursement...........................       -6,158,000       -6,158,000       -6,158,000
Accountwide adjustments......................................         -605,000  ...............         -350,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................      125,201,000      158,513,000      132,272,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions of $2,840,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative           
  provisions, and $206,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.  

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request for this appropriation:

Safety performance:
    Delete funding for fuel economy EIS.................     -$1,500,000
Safety assurance:
    Minor reduction in vehicle safety compliance........        -186,000
    Hold odometer fraud to 1996 level...................         -40,000
    Delete funding for domestic labeling program........        -500,000
Highway safety:
    Fund two injury control communities instead of four.        -900,000
    Reduce funding for target population education......        -137,000
    Reduce funding for new state and communities program 
      evaluation........................................        -900,000
    Delete funding for new rail-highway demonstration...      -3,000,000
    Increase speed and unsafe driving prevention........        +200,000
    Delete funding for state and community programs.....        -423,000
Research and analysis:
    Reduce funding for biomechanics.....................      -1,000,000
    Reduce new crash avoidance efforts..................      -3,000,000
    Fund NADS through ITS program.......................     -10,500,000
    Reduce new initiatives under data analysis..........        -465,000
    Reduce increase in state data program...............        -800,000
    Reduce funding for PNGV.............................      -2,500,000
Office of the administrator:
    Increase funding for international harmonization....         +60,000
General administration:
    Reduce funding for strategic planning...............        -200,000
    Reduce contracts under economic analysis............        -100,000
Accountwide adjustments:
    Reduction in training...............................         -50,000
    Hold non-pay inflation to 1.5 percent increase......        -300,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Net change to the budget estimate...............     -26,241,000

    Fuel economy.--The Committee recommends decreasing the fuel 
economy program by $1,500,000. NHTSA has not adequately 
addressed the need for developing an environmental impact 
statement for fuel economy standards over multiple model years. 
If NHTSA wishes to alter fuel economy standards, the Committee 
believes that the agency should continue to establish corporate 
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, as it has done in the 
past, for only one to two model years at a time. In developing 
standards in this manner, the agency can prepare environmental 
assessments in-house and will not require an expensive contract 
program to develop an EIS.
    The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 323) 
that prohibits funds from being used to prepare, prescribe, or 
promulgate CAFE standards for automobiles that differ from 
those previously enacted. The limitation does not preclude the 
Secretary of Transportation, in order to meet lead time 
requirements of the law, from preparing, proposing, and issuing 
a CAFE standard for model year 1999 automobiles that is 
identical to the CAFE standard established for such automobiles 
for model year 1998.
    Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The bill includes 
a provision prohibiting any agency funded in this Act from 
planning, finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking which 
would require passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their 
low rolling resistance.
    Vehicle safety compliance.--The Committee has reduced the 
budget request of $6,033,000 for vehicle safety compliance by 
$186,000. This funding was to be used to test compressed 
natural gas (CNG) tanks. Although this is a new standard for 
NHTSA, there are very few CNG tanks on the market to date. Due 
to budget constraints, the Committee suggests postponing this 
test until next year.
    Odometer fraud.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee 
has held odometer fraud to $60,000, which is the same level as 
enacted in 1996.
    Vehicle domestic content labeling.--The Committee has 
denied the requested $500,000 for vehicle domestic content 
labeling. This is a new initiative for NHTSA, in which the 
agency planned to audit four car lines and two manufacturers to 
determine the domestic content of their vehicles.
    Safe communities injury control program.--The Committee has 
provided $900,000 for the safe communities injury control 
program, which is $900,000 less than requested. Last year, 
Congress provided sufficient funding to establish two injury 
control programs. The Committee believes that injury control is 
a very important objective. Currently, there are more than 5 
million injuries attributed to automobiles accidents per year--
including many which could have been prevented. One means to 
reduce these injuries is for local communities to take more 
responsibility for preventing these traffic-related injuries 
and to partner with the health care community. As such, the 
Committee has provided sufficient funding to allow NHTSA to 
establish two additional injury control programs to evaluate 
the effectiveness of the safe communities approach in reducing 
traffic related injuries and fatalities.
    Rail-highway crossing.--The Committee has denied the 
$3,000,000 funding request for a new rail-highway crossing 
program. This initiative sought to provide communities with 
grants to support crossing safety and trespasser prevention 
programs. Much of this funding request was to be used for 
salaries within the grant program. Although the Committee 
believes that this type of program is a worthy initiative, a 
similar program is already in place through Operation 
Lifesaver. Furthermore, section 402 grants can be used for 
rail-highway crossing activities, as well. Developing a 
community-based grant program within NHTSA's highway safety 
program would be duplicative. If the program is to be 
effective, it should be focused on the state level, where 
Operation Lifesaver already has at least one grade crossing 
group in 49 of the 50 states. These groups are funded through 
the federal government and by private contributions.
    Speed and unsafe driving.--The Committee recommends 
$756,000 for speed and unsafe driving prevention activities, 
which is $200,000 more than requested. The National Highway 
System (NHS) Designation Act of 1995 returned regulation of 
speed limits to the states. To date, 18 states have raised 
their speed limits, although not uniformly. A fact sheet 
released by NHTSA shows that excessive speed is a factor in 30 
percent of all fatal crashes. As vehicle speed increases, so 
does the severity of the crashes. Preliminary data in three 
states has tied a rise in traffic fatalities to speed 
increases. For example, Missouri recorded a 28 percent increase 
in traffic deaths in April 1996 compared with last year.
    As part of the NHS Designation Act, a safety report must be 
submitted to Congress by September 30, 1997 that identifies the 
costs to states of deaths and injuries resulting from motor 
vehicle crashes and the benefits associated with the repeal of 
the national speed limit. NHTSA has not requested any funding 
for this study; however, due to its importance and the 
anecdotal information about the impact of states increasing 
their speed limits, the Committee has appropriated $200,000 to 
assure that NHTSA has adequate funds available to monitor the 
costs and benefits associated with the repeal of the national 
speed limit.
    State and community program evaluations.--The Committee has 
reduced funding for this new initiative from the $1,000,000 
requested to $100,000. This funding should be sufficient to 
continue analyzing the effectiveness of breath alcohol ignition 
interlock devices to determine if these devices are successful 
in preventing drunk drivers from becoming repeat offenders. If 
additional funding is available after completing this 
evaluation, state and community representatives should examine 
other innovative initiatives as well.
    Bicycle safety program.--Each year in the United States, 
there are over 580,000 bicycle injuries. Of this amount, there 
are approximately 800 fatalities and between 20,000 and 50,000 
bicycle injuries serious enough to require hospitalization or 
rehabilitation. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 are the 
most common victims of bicycle injury head trauma, since they 
rely most on bicycles for their principal mode of 
transportation and often lack on-road bicycle experience. 
Greater efforts are necessary to insure that children are 
trained to be safe bicyclists.
    A recent national bicycling and walking study resulted in a 
recommendation to reduce the number of bicyclists and 
pedestrians killed or injured by 10 percent. To meet this 
objective, the Committee directs NHTSA to more vigorously 
promote bicycle safety and training. The Committee urges NHTSA 
to collaborate with organizations that are working on bicycle 
safety initiatives, including those implementing bicycle safety 
and training programs, as well as with institutes conducting 
human factors research relating to bicycle safety measures.
    Other highway safety programs.--Due to budget constraints, 
the Committee is holding the target population increase to 20 
percent instead of 31 percent and is not funding the evaluation 
initiative for state and community programs. In the past, these 
evaluation initiatives have been funded from the administrative 
takedown.
    Biomechanics.--The Committee has provided $6,450,000 for 
biomechanics, which is $560,000 more than enacted in fiscal 
year 1996 but $1,000,000 less than requested. A privately 
funded initiative will finance three new biomechanics centers. 
These centers will conduct research on highway traffic and 
impact injuries, and will expand the early warning system that 
identifies problems in vehicle design. Results from work 
conducted by these centers will be shared with NHTSA and its 
four biomechanics centers. Providing additional funds for NHTSA 
to expand its biomechanics efforts would duplicate these 
privately funded efforts.
    The Committee is deeply concerned about the number of 
children who have been killed by airbags when seated in infant 
car seats positioned in the right front seat of an automobile 
with an airbag. Because of these fatalities, there is a need to 
develop and implement methods to prevent further incidents. As 
part of the funding for biomechanics, the Committee directs 
NHTSA to provide $200,000 for research on child safety seats 
and their interaction with airbags. This funding should be used 
to conduct a comprehensive, interdisciplinary study involving 
pediatric trauma experts, engineers, and epidemiologists on 
means to prevent additional deaths and injuries. Research is 
already being conducted in this area, emphasizing an 
interdisciplinary approach, by Children's Hospital in 
Philadelphia in conjunction with the University of Pennsylvania 
School of Engineering.
    The Committee strongly supports the highway traffic injury 
work being undertaken by the William Lehman Injury Research 
Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital and by the New Jersey 
College of Medicine. These centers, in consortium with two 
other centers, have been working to study motor vehicle crash 
injury data and identify patterns of injuries that occur as a 
result of specific crashes. Ultimately, this data should help 
NHTSA, the automobile manufacturers, and the insurance industry 
deploy new safety devices to reduce or prevent these injuries.
    Crash avoidance.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for 
the new crash avoidance initiative, which is $3,000,000 less 
than requested. NHTSA planned to conduct research on a variety 
of topics, including anti-lock braking systems, vehicle 
rollovers, tire performance, and enhanced rear vision. This 
work was to be conducted in addition to the crash avoidance 
efforts being jointly undertaken with FHWA's Intelligent 
Transportation System's Joint Program Office.
    The majority of this funding should be used to address 
NHTSA's most pressing concern--anti-lock braking systems (ABS). 
Recently, some insurance companies removed discounts on 
premiums for cars that have ABS because these systems have not 
been as effective in avoiding crashes as expected. 
Specifically, data has shown that, although ABS is slightly 
effective in helping avoid multi-vehicle crashes on wet roads, 
crashes into fixed objects, off-road accidents, and rollovers 
have increased. NHTSA has begun research to determine if the 
reduced effectiveness is caused by people who do not use the 
system as directed or if there are generational differences in 
older anti-lock braking systems that cause it to work 
inefficiently.
    NHTSA also planned to conduct dynamic rollover research on 
sport utility vehicles. Since these vehicles account for about 
40 percent of new vehicle sales, some of the funding should be 
used to conduct rollover research and identify modifications to 
enhance stability in sport utility vehicles.
    National advanced driving simulator (NADS).--The Committee 
has not provided any funding for NADS under this program. 
Instead, the Committee is fully funding this initiative through 
contract authority provided to FHWA's Intelligent 
Transportation System's Joint Program Office.
    The Committee was pleased to see that other modal 
administrations have agreed to help fund the development of the 
simulator and plan to use the simulator once it is completed. 
NHTSA should continue to work on raising the cost share from 
non-DOT sources, such as other federal agencies who plan to use 
the simulator once it is developed.
    The Committee is concerned about the escalating costs to 
develop and build NADS. Since its inception, costs for NADS 
have risen by 54 percent. The Committee believes that NHTSA 
should have done a better job at controlling some of the non-
inflationary cost increases and directs NHTSA to closely 
monitor these costs as the development progresses. In the 
future, NHTSA should make every effort to employ cost reduction 
options.
    The Committee directs the department to reexamine the 
business arrangements with the University of Iowa to reduce 
participation costs. The Committee does not believe that it is 
appropriate that government users be charged the same rates as 
other users of the NADS given the Federal Government's sizable 
financial contribution (two-thirds of the total) to this 
project.
    Data analysis program.--The Committee has provided 
$1,635,000 for the data analysis program, instead of $2,100,000 
as requested. This funding level allows for a 15 percent 
increase instead of the 48 percent increase requested.
    State data systems.--The Committee has reduced the state 
data systems program by $800,000 to a level of $3,050,000. At 
this level, NHTSA will still be able to provide grants to at 
least six new states to link crash and medical databases. NHTSA 
has already funded this type of linkage with seven other 
states. Statistical results from these original states showed 
that people who do not use their safety belts or motorcycle 
helmets and are involved in crashes incur greater medical 
expenses than those who use these safety devices. As a result 
of this information, Maine implemented a safety belt law as a 
means to reduce its medical costs. The Committee believes that 
if other states link their crash and medical databases, these 
states may move to primary seat belt laws, increase penalties 
related to drunk driving, or maintain a lower speed limit. Any 
improvements in state laws pay for itself through reduced 
medical costs alone.
    Partnership for new generation of vehicles (PNGV).-- The 
Committee has provided $2,500,000 for PNGV, which is $2,500,000 
less than requested. Automobile manufacturers, in conjunction 
with the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and 
Interior, are developing technologies for a new generation of 
vehicles that may be three times more fuel efficient than 
current vehicles. NHTSA's participation in this activity is 
important to address critical safety issues; however, this 
cannot be done until the most promising technologies that will 
go into the PNGV are chosen. However, according to a recent 
National Academy of Sciences study, systems analysis for PNGV 
has been delayed by 12-18 months. The study also concluded that 
the PNGV does not currently have the necessary systems analysis 
tools to adequately support technology selection, which is 
scheduled for 1997. Because of concerns raised by the National 
Academy of Sciences, the Committee has not fully funded NHTSA's 
PNGV request. Instead, the Committee has provided sufficient 
funds to allow NHTSA to begin acquiring the necessary computer 
equipment to develop advanced computer models that evaluate the 
crashworthiness of conceptual designs and their safety 
compatibility with contemporary vehicles. The Committee 
deferred funding for infrastructure analysis because the 
department has not made a convincing case for conducting this 
work without knowing which technologies will be contained in 
the prototype vehicle.
    International harmonization.--The Committee has provided 
$246,000 for international harmonization instead of $186,000 as 
requested. Until recently, vehicle safety standards and 
regulations were developed with a domestic focus; however, as 
industry has become more regulated and competitive, efforts to 
achieve global compatibility of regulations, especially in the 
occupant protection field, have become increasingly important. 
In November 1995, the United States and the European Union 
began an effort to aggregate the research priorities of various 
motor vehicle producing regions in an attempt to come to 
agreement on a harmonized global research agenda. The United 
States has begun similar efforts under the North American Free 
Trade Agreement and with the Asian Pacific Economic Forum. 
These efforts should reduce duplication of research efforts and 
help emerging markets adopt current vehicle safety standards. 
In addition, NHTSA's office of international harmonization is 
working to reduce or eliminate incompatibilities among various 
safety regulations. Because there has been a major increase in 
the need for NHTSA to participate in harmonization activities 
since the budget proposal was developed, the Committee is 
providing additional funding for these activities.
    Strategic planning.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has funded the strategic planning initiative at 
$125,000, which is $200,000 less than requested.
    Economic analysis.--The Committee has held funding for 
economic analysis at the fiscal year 1996 level of $75,000. Due 
to budget constraints, the Committee has not provided funding 
to develop a method of quantifying the psycho-social effects of 
motor vehicle injuries.
    Accountwide adjustment.--The Committee has reduced funding 
for training activities by $50,000 and reduced the agency's 
non-pay inflationary adjustment by $300,000 so that every 
administration within the Department of Transportation has a 
1.5 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment. NHTSA had 
requested a 3 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment in its 
fiscal year 1997 budget request.
    -General provision.--The Committee includes a general 
provision (sec. 332) that enables the Secretary of 
Transportation to administer and implement the exemption 
provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
Act, as requested. These provisions have, for more than 20 
years, exempted sellers of large trucks from the odometer 
disclosure regulation because vehicles weighing over 16,000 
pounds often travel more than 15,000 miles per month, and over 
the years, their odometers may turn over several times. Most 
purchasing decisions with respect to these vehicles are based 
on service and maintenance records rather than odometer 
readings.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................  ($155,100,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\...................   (191,000,000)
Recommended in the bill 1..........................   (167,100,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................   (+12,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................   (-23,900,000)

\1\ Includes the Highway-Related Safety Grants program previously funded 
under FHWA.

    The Committee recommends $167,100,000 to liquidate contract 
authorizations for state and community highway safety grants 
(23 U.S.C. 402), safety belt and motorcycle helmet use grants 
(23 U.S.C. 153), alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 
grants (23 U.S.C. 410), and section 211(b) of the National 
Driver Register Act of 1982, as amended, and section 209 of 
Public Law 95-599, as amended. The recommendation represents an 
increase of $12,000,000 over the 1996 level but $23,900,000 
less than requested.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    As in past years and recommended in the budget request, the 
bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred 
under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. The 
bill includes separate obligation limitations with the 
following funding allocations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year    Recommended  in
                                                                 1996 enacted    1997 estimate       the bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402..................................................     $127,700,000   1 $166,200,000   1 $138,700,000
Section 410..................................................       25,000,000       25,000,000       26,000,000
National Driver Register.....................................        3,400,000        2,400,000        2,400,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................      155,100,000      193,600,000      167,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Merges FHWA's and NHTSA's section 402 formula grant programs.                                                 

    Section 402 formula grants.--These grants are awarded to 
states for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities 
and injuries. The states may use the grants to implement 
programs to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding 
posted speed limits; encourage proper use of occupant 
protection devices; reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving; 
reduce crashes between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce 
school bus crashes; improve police traffic services; improve 
emergency medical services and trauma care systems; increase 
pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and improve traffic record 
systems. The grants also provide additional support for state 
data collection and reporting of traffic deaths and injuries.
    This year, the administration has requested combining 
FHWA's section 402 program with NHTSA's section 402 program. 
The Committee approves this merger of programs because it 
should streamline the grants management process, reduce 
administrative expenses, and simplify states' interactions with 
the agencies.
    An obligation limitation of $138,700,000 is included in the 
bill, which is $27,500,000 less than requested. This limitation 
includes $127,700,000 for NHTSA's section 402 grant program and 
$11,000,000 for FHWA's section 402 grant program. Language is 
included in the bill limiting funds available for federal 
grants administration to $5,268,000 for NHTSA and $150,000 for 
FHWA.
    NHTSA has been working to modify and improve the current 
highway safety program management system. The agency has 
developed a new process for the administration of highway 
safety grants which provides the states with more flexibility 
and responsibility. A pilot program began in 16 states in 
fiscal year 1996. These states did not submit highway safety 
plans, but instead developed performance-based systems that 
placed an emphasis on results. In fiscal year 1997, 40 states 
will be prioritizing how they spend their grant money based on 
specific state problems instead of through issues identified in 
a highway safety plan. Because this new management process will 
give states more freedom to determine the best expenditures of 
limited highway safety grant dollars, the Committee has decided 
not to earmark scarce federal resources to specific section 402 
programs, such as youth or safe communities. The Committee 
believes that states can best determine their needs.
    Even though the Committee did not earmark funds for 
specific section 402 programs, this does not preclude states 
from using its grant funding for, among other things, safe 
communities, alcohol safety, or youth programs. This lack of 
earmarking does not prejudice the safe communities project from 
receiving consideration for funding in future appropriations 
bills.
    The Committee continues to recommend that rail-highway 
grade crossing safety issues be considered as an eligible 
activity under the states' safe communities programs during 
1997. Currently, there are approximately 500 deaths per year 
from rail-highway grade crossing accidents. Although Operation 
Lifesaver promotes grade crossing education and safety programs 
in 49 of the 50 states, some communities may have a high level 
of risk and should be encouraged to use section 402 funds to 
reduce these tragic deaths and injuries.
    The bill continues to carry language that prohibits the use 
of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling 
costs, or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, 
or private buildings or structures.
    Section 410 alcohol-impaired countermeasures grants.--
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants are provided to 
states that qualify by adopting specified laws and program 
measures to reduce safety problems stemming from driving while 
impaired by alcohol and other drugs. The program, first enacted 
in 1988, was subsequently restructured in 1991 in the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act to expand the 
eligibility requirements and increase incentive funds. The 
program's eligibility requirements and funding procedures were 
further amended in Public Law 102-388. Basic grants are issued 
for achieving criteria that include administrative driver's 
license revocation actions within stated time frames, lower 
blood-alcohol content (BAC) laws, statewide police roadside 
checkpoints, effective under age impairment deterrence, 
mandatory sentences for repeat offenders, and programs that are 
financially self-sufficient. Supplemental grants are provided 
to states that adopt additional specified measures, including 
0.02 BAC laws for drivers under age 21, license plate 
confiscation, laws against open alcohol containers in vehicles, 
and mandatory BAC testing by police of suspected DWI offenders.
    The bill includes an obligation limitation of $26,000,000 
for the section 410 program, an increase of $1,000,000 above 
the budget request. In fiscal year 1996, between 30 and 36 
states qualified for section 410 grants. In fiscal year 1997, 
between 38 and 41 states are expected to qualify. The budget 
estimate did not request any additional funding for these new 
states. As such, these states will receive only 55 percent of 
the maximum allowable grant, a decline of 8 percent from fiscal 
year 1996. Because of the importance this Committee places on 
reducing drug and alcohol impaired driving habits within states 
and local communities, the Committee has provided additional 
funding to support the new states, which have recently passed 
administrative license revocation laws or lowered blood alcohol 
levels, without penalizing states currently participating in 
this grant program.
    The bill also includes language providing that $500,000 of 
section 410 funds be available for technical assistance to the 
states, as requested.
    National driver register.--The bill includes an obligation 
limitation of $2,400,000 for the national driver register 
(NDR), the same level as requested. The national driver 
register program assists state motor vehicle administrators in 
communicating effectively and efficiently with other states to 
identify problem drivers (i.e., drivers whose licenses are 
suspended or revoked for certain serious traffic offenses, 
including vehicle operation under impairment by alcohol and 
other drugs).

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program

    The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry, as well as managing the high speed ground 
transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance 
programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's 
physical plant are also administered by the FRA.
    The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal 
year 1997 is $710,654,000. The following table summarizes the 
fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program 
requests and the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year                                  
                            Program                               1996 enacted     Fiscal year   Recommended  in
                                                                    level \1\     1997 estimate      the bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the administrator....................................     $14,018,000     $16,883,000     $16,469,000 
Railroad safety................................................      49,919,000      51,864,000      51,407,000 
Railroad research and development..............................      24,550,000      24,565,000      20,341,000 
Northeast corridor improvement program.........................     115,000,000     200,000,000               0 
High-speed rail trainsets and facilities.......................               0      80,000,000      80,000,000 
Next generation high speed rail................................  \2\ 24,205,000      26,525,000      19,757,000 
Rhode Island rail development..................................       1,000,000      10,000,000       4,000,000 
Direct loan financing program..................................               0               0      58,680,000 
Direct loan limitation.........................................               0               0    (400,000,000)
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation \3\..........     635,000,000     638,500,000     462,000,000 
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation.................................      10,000,000               0               0 
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................................     873,692,000   1,048,337,000     712,654,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the      
  Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.                                              
\2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $5,000,000.                                                           
\3\ Includes mandatory passenger rail service payments.                                                         

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................     $14,018,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      16,883,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      16,469,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      +2,451,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................        -414,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $354,000 to comply with working capital fund, 
awards, and administrative provisions.

    This account provides funds for executive direction and 
administration, policy support, passenger and freight services 
salaries and expenses, and contractual support. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $16,469,000 to continue the 
Office of the administrator and passenger and freight service 
assistance functions. This is an increase of $2,451,000 above 
the 1996 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request for this appropriation:

Disallow civil rights ``add back''............................ -$144,000
Reductions in staff...........................................  -270,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

    Net adjustment to budget estimate.........................  -414,000

    Civil rights.--The Committee has reduced the budget request 
by $144,000, which was requested to ``add back'' funding for 
civil rights activities. Sufficient funds for civil rights 
activities were provided within the amounts appropriated for 
fiscal year 1996. The Committee believes that additional 
funding is not necessary in fiscal year 1997. In no way shall 
this adjustment offset FRA's civil rights activities in fiscal 
year 1997.
    Reductions in staff.--The Committee recommendation 
eliminates five positions in the office of the administrator. 
Eleven staff positions have been vacant since 1995. Of these, 
five duplicate other positions within the office. It is the 
Committee's belief that these positions can be eliminated 
without affecting core responsibilities, functions, and duties 
of the FRA. These reductions have been made to the following 
positions:

Emergency response financial analyst..........................  -$96,000
Two trial attorneys...........................................   -74,000
Office of acquisition and grant service contract specialist...   -53,000
Administrative service support specialist.....................   -47,000

    The Committee further directs FRA not to fill these 
positions during fiscal year 1996 since funding is not being 
made available to continue employment in fiscal year 1997.
    Ravenna, Ohio connection.--The Committee directs FRA to 
study, in conjunction with Amtrak, the State of Ohio, and 
affected freight railroads, the feasibility of constructing a 
railway connection in Ravenna, Ohio that would restore Amtrak 
service to the cities of Youngstown and Ravenna and provide 
service to New Castle, Pennsylvania. Such a connection would 
allow for greater flexibility in rail travel between these 
metropolitan areas in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of the total funds 
appropriated to this account, not less than $200,000 shall be 
used to conduct this feasibility study and should address among 
other items, closure or safety enhancements to a highway-rail 
grade crossing located at the site. It is the intention of the 
Committee that should the $200,000 for the study not be fully 
spent, any excess funds could be spent on an environmental 
assessment of the Ravenna connection, provided that state and/
or local funds have also been pledged.

                            Railroad Safety

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................     $49,919,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      51,864,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      51,407,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      +1,488,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................        -457,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $291,000 to comply with working capital fund, 
awards, and administrative provisions, and $70,000 to comply with the 
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    The federal role in the railroad safety program is to 
protect railroad employees and the public by ensuring the safe 
operation of passenger and freight trains. The authority to 
accomplish this role is found in the Federal Railroad Safety 
Act of 1970 (as amended), the Department of Transportation Act, 
and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Greatly 
expanded railroad safety authority was granted the FRA under 
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988.
    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$51,407,000 for railroad safety programs in fiscal year 1997. 
This is an increase of $1,488,000 above the level provided in 
fiscal year 1996 and a reduction of $457,000 below the level 
proposed in the budget estimate.
    Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are as 
follows:

Provide a 10 percent increase for communications, 
    utilities, and miscellaneous........................       -$107,000
Reduce costs associated with new rail advisory committee        -150,000
Hold printing and reproduction costs to 10 percent 
    increase instead of a 26 percent increase...........         -15,000
Hold other services to 5 percent increase...............        -185,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net adjustment to budget..........................        -457,000

    Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous.--The 
Committee recommends $798,000 for communications, utilities, 
and miscellaneous expenses. FRA had requested a 25 percent 
increase in this program; however, due to budget constraints, 
the Committee has provided only 10 percent. Part of this 
funding was to be used to procure pagers for inspectors. The 
Committee suggests that this cost could be deferred.
    Railroad advisory committee.--The Committee recommends 
$50,000 for the railroad advisory committee instead of the 
$200,000 requested. When other advisory committees are 
established within the department, they have not required such 
a significant level of funding. Therefore, the Committee has 
reduced funding for this new initiative to be comparable to 
other advisory committees. In addition, given the ceiling in 
the bill on funding for advisory committees, it is unlikely 
this committee would achieve such a high level of support.
    Printing and reproduction.--The Committee has provided 
$102,000 for printing and reproduction, which is a 10 percent 
increase over last year's enacted level, instead of the 26 
percent increase requested.
    Other services.--Due to budgetary constraints, the 
Committee has reduced the budget request of $4,823,000 for 
other services by $185,000. This is 5 percent above the fiscal 
year 1996 level.

                             bill language

    The Committee has included language that will allow FRA to 
reimburse states employees' travel and per diem costs when 
directly supporting federal railroad safety programs, such as 
regulatory development and compliance-related activities. 
States are playing an increasingly important role in a variety 
of safety activities. In the past, funds have been appropriated 
for reimbursement of travel and per diem costs incurred by 
state employees attending federal training sessions. This 
language would broaden eligible reimbursement activities so 
that states could work with FRA in drafting, interpreting, and 
applying safety standards and participate in regulatory 
developments as they apply to high speed rail.

                   Railroad Research and Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................     $24,550,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      24,565,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      20,341,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      -4,209,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -4,224,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $435,000 to comply with working capital fund 
and administrative provisions and $34,000 to comply with the Omnibus 
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    The railroad research and development appropriation 
finances contract research activities as well as salaries and 
expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and 
administrative functions. The objectives of this program are to 
reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to 
provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and 
enforcement activities.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,341,000 
for fiscal year 1997, which represents a $4,224,000 decrease 
below the budget estimate. Recommended adjustments to the 
budget estimate are as follows:

Reductions in new program initiatives due to fiscal 
    constraints.........................................     -$2,725,000
Delete funding for maglev initiative....................      -1,000,000
Hold environmental program to 1996 level................        -400,000
Hold administration to 1996 level.......................         -59,000
Decrease funding due to unobligated balances............        -640,000
Increase funding for Operation Lifesaver................        +600,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Net adjustment to budget estimate...................      -4,224,000

    New program initiatives.--The Committee has reduced the 
budget request of $7,116,000 for new research and development 
program initiatives by $2,725,000. None of this reduction 
should be applied to ongoing safety-related research and 
development activities.
    Each year, FRA begins or expands a variety of research and 
development activities, which are not continued in the 
following year. In addition, in this year's budget request, 
there are new initiatives that are duplicative of ongoing 
industry efforts, such as those related to the ergonomics of 
advanced train control. In a tight budgetary environment, the 
Committee cannot afford to stop and start research activities 
or duplicate industry efforts. To prevent future occurrences 
like this, FRA should develop and share with the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations a five-year plan for its 
railroad research and development activities that highlights 
its long-term initiatives and explains how they differ from 
industry activities. This plan should be submitted not later 
than April 1, 1997.
    Enabling technologies for maglev.--The Committee has 
deleted funding for the new maglev initiative (-$1,000,000). 
This initiative sought to combine Air Force, Navy, and NASA 
technology to develop a high speed booster for satellites and 
the space shuttle using magnetic levitation. Due to the 
uncertain prospects for commercialization of maglev technology 
and the unclear transportation-related purpose of this planned 
activity, the Committee has deleted funding for this program.
    Environmental program.--The Committee has provided $200,000 
for environmental issues, which is the same amount as provided 
in 1996. This is $400,000 less than requested. The request did 
not adequately justify why such a large increase was necessary 
in this program.
    Administration.--The Committee has provided $2,130,000 for 
administration. FRA is reducing its number of full-time 
employees within its research and development program, and as 
such, the Committee is reducing the request by $59,000.
    Unobligated balances.--FRA has $1,400,000 in unobligated 
balances currently in this program due to pending contract 
delays and changing technical requirements. About half of this 
funding is programmed for environmental cleanup; however, FRA 
could not adequately explain when or for what purpose the 
remaining funds would be used. The Committee has reduced the 
railroad research and development program by $640,000 to take 
into account these unobligated balances.
    Operation Lifesaver.--The United States has over 168,000 
public highway-rail intersections. About 60 percent have only 
passive warning devices. Because most intersections do not 
depend on train activated warning devices, the potential for 
tragedies is significant. Every year, approximately 500 people 
are killed in highway-rail grade crossing accidents. These 
accidents are considered the most significant safety issue for 
both the passenger rail and freight industry.
    The Committee has provided $900,000 for Operation 
Lifesaver, which is $600,000 more than requested. Operation 
Lifesaver has been very successful in working with states and 
communities to better educate people about the risks at 
highway-rail grade crossings and actively working to reduce 
these needless fatalities. The Committee believes that this 
increase in funding is imperative for the Department of 
Transportation in conjunction with Operation Lifesaver, to 
achieve a 50 percent reduction in railroad crossing accidents 
and fatalities by the year 2004. Of this additional funding, 
$500,000 should be provided to Operation Lifesaver's current 
state assistance grant program, which works directly with 
states to reduce grade crossing fatalities and prevent 
trespassing. The remaining funds should be used to help 
distribute some of Operation Lifesaver's most powerful public 
service messages, such as ``Highways and Dieways'', to the top 
ten highway-rail grade crossing accident states and update 
federal education efforts. In addition, FRA should consider 
allowing Operation Lifesaver discretion on how to spend its 
available funds so that it can better respond to time-sensitive 
situations or when designated funds are no longer needed for a 
specific project.

                 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................    $115,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     200,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................    -115,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................    -200,000,000

\1\ Excludes reduction of $6,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated 
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    Title VII of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act) authorized $2,500,000,000 for the 
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. That Act was later 
amended to add a list of projects to be funded in the event the 
total amount of authorized funding became available. This 
project list was again amended in the Rail Safety Improvement 
Act of 1988 to authorize new safety-related projects which the 
Committee initiated in the aftermath of the Chase, Maryland, 
Conrail-Amtrak accident. Currently, the program includes a 
major upgrade of the north end of the corridor to improve 
running speeds between New York City and Boston, including 
electrification of the rail line between New Haven, Connecticut 
and Boston. The program also includes routine upgrade and 
rehabilitation of the south end of the corridor between 
Washington, D.C. and New York City.
    The Committee recommends no funding for the Northeast 
Corridor Improvement Program in fiscal year 1997 because of a 
large backlog of existing funds at Amtrak for this program. 
However, this does not prejudice the project from receiving 
consideration for funding in future appropriations bills.
    Congress has appropriated $753,000,000 for the Northeast 
Corridor Improvement Program, of which Amtrak still has not 
expended $466,000,000. These funds can be used to fund 
improvements to the corridor, including electrification, track 
and related infrastructure, trainsets, facilities, and 
environmental mitigation during fiscal year 1997.
    Last year, Amtrak stated that it had $405,900,000 remaining 
from its federal appropriations that could be used for the 
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. At that time, Congress 
greatly reduced funding for this program because of these high 
balances. Since then, Amtrak has not been able to spend down 
these balances because Amtrak had to terminate its original 
electrification design contract and experienced additional 
slippage in both the electrification and high speed rail 
procurements. In addition, as partial settlement in termination 
of the original electrification design contract, the prime 
contractor paid Amtrak approximately $88,000,000. For these 
reasons, over the past year, the balances have continued to 
grow.
    The Committee has sought, under difficult budgetary 
pressures this year, to provide enough funding for Amtrak to 
continue to operate a national passenger rail system without 
major disruptions and to provide capital funds which are 
essential to Amtrak's long-term viability. The Committee 
recognizes the critical importance of completing the work 
between New York and Boston to achieving the goal of 
eliminating Amtrak's federal operating subsidies by the year 
2002. The Committee believes that goal cannot be achieved 
without the procurement of the new high-speed trainsets and 
facilities. However, the Committee can not agree to fund 
electrification, high speed trainsets, and routine expenses in 
the corridor while such high balances remain. After reviewing 
Amtrak's projected spending for the Corridor through the end of 
fiscal year 1997, the Committee believes that Amtrak can manage 
its cash flow needs with previously appropriated funds. The 
Committee imposes no restrictions on Amtrak's ability to use 
its capital funding for northeast corridor expenses, if they 
are of sufficient priority.
    Recapitalization on the southern end of the corridor.--
Amtrak is in the process of recapitalizing the southern end of 
the corridor in order to maintain operations at 125 miles per 
hour. Currently, this is estimated to cost over $3 billion. The 
Committee recognizes Amtrak's responsibility as owner of the 
northeast corridor for maintaining the safe and reliable 
condition of the rail line. However, Amtrak operates just nine 
percent of the trains between New York and Washington, D.C. 
Applying the ``user pays'' principle, which is so much a part 
of transportation financing in this country, the Committee 
believes it is essential that commuter authorities, which 
operate the majority of the trains, increase their financial 
contribution for recapitalizing the rail line. The Committee 
encourages Amtrak to develop joint funding agreements with the 
individual commuter authorities and report on the status of 
these efforts to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
by February 1, 1997.
    High-speed track and equipment standards.--Operation of 
trains over 110 miles per hour requires specific waivers from 
FRA. The Committee is concerned that FRA has not yet developed 
track or equipment standards for high speed rail. The 
uncertainty regarding these standards has added risk to the 
trainset procurement and complicates the efforts of Amtrak and 
other potential high speed operators to upgrade track and 
signal systems for faster operations. The Committee believes 
that FRA should work with Amtrak, the railroad industry, and 
research specialists to develop generic high speed equipment 
and track standards or rules of particular applicability where 
warranted. FRA should report to the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees by March 1, 1997 on the status of its 
efforts in this area and its schedule for promulgating these 
standards.

                High-Speed Rail Trainsets and Facilities

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     $80,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      80,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................     +80,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    The Committee is fully funding the request for high-speed 
rail trainsets and facilities. On March 15, 1996, Amtrak 
awarded a competitive, multi-year contract to launch high speed 
rail service on the northeast corridor by late 1999. These 
trainsets are designed to offer enhanced high-speed service of 
up to 150 miles per hour on the northeast corridor between 
Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts. As part of this 
award, the federal government has been asked to provide funding 
for high speed rail maintenance facilities because private 
financing is uncertain at this time. Amtrak has told the 
Committee that without funding for the maintenance facilities, 
the entire procurement of high-speed rail trainsets would be in 
jeopardy. Fully funding this request will assure the high speed 
rail vendor that the Committee strongly supports the high speed 
rail project and that the facilities to maintain the trainsets 
will be available when they are delivered. The Committee 
expects that this funding will be a one-time cost and does not 
plan on providing additional funding to construct these 
facilities in future years.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

    Section 511 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes 
obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs 
of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism 
to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or 
consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new 
loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 1997 
consistent with the budget request.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 1 2................     $24,205,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      26,525,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      19,757,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      -4,448,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -6,768,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $54,000 to comply with working capital fund 
and administrative provisions, and $24,000 to comply with the Omnibus 
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
\2\ Includes $5,000,000 made available from the highway trust fund.

    The next generation high-speed rail program funds the 
development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed 
rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the 
program authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 for similar purposes.
    The Committee recommends $19,757,000 from the general fund 
for this program, which is $6,768,000 less than requested. 
Adjustments in total program funding from the budget estimate 
are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal year                           
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee   
                                                                 1996 enacted     1997 request     recommended  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive train control.......................................       $9,000,000   \2\ $6,579,000   \2\ $6,079,000
Non-electric locomotive......................................        9,000,000        9,000,000        7,000,000
Grade crossing and innovative technologies...................        4,500,000        6,000,000        5,000,000
Track and structure technologies.............................  ...............        3,000,000  ...............
Planning technology..........................................        1,250,000        1,518,000        1,250,000
Administration...............................................          455,000          428,000          428,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................   \1\ 24,205,000       26,525,000       19,757,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 made available from the highway trust fund.                                             
\2\ Excludes $1,421,000 in contract authority remaining in the trust fund not subject to limitation.            

    Advanced train control.--The Committee has provided 
$6,079,000 for advanced train control, which is $500,000 less 
than requested. This reduction is appropriate because of delays 
in testing advanced train control devices in the Pacific 
Northwest. The Committee is also aware of a railroad merger 
that may have the potential to affect how advanced train 
control devices are tested in the Midwest.
    Non-electric locomotive.--The Committee has reduced funding 
for the non-electric locomotive initiative by $2,000,000. None 
of this reduction should be applied to the Transportation Test 
Center or the advanced locomotive propulsion project. Instead, 
the reduction should be applied to FRA's program to upgrade 
turbine locomotives within the State of New York. The Committee 
believes that, at this reduced level, there is ample funding to 
continue the development of high speed diesel or turbine 
locomotives, which could be used on other high speed rail 
corridors currently under consideration. However, FRA should 
not be funding the retrofit of twenty year old railcars or 
locomotives, which are no longer manufactured within the United 
States, and thus, cannot be procured for use on other corridors 
seeking to develop high speed rail. The development of rolling 
stock that railroads might acquire is a more appropriate role 
for private industry.
    Grade crossing and innovative technologies.--The Committee 
has provided $5,000,000 for grade crossing and innovative 
technologies, which is $500,000 more than enacted in fiscal 
year 1996. Reductions were made to the request for three 
reasons. First, this program is experiencing delays in its 
contract awards, leaving unobligated balances available for use 
in fiscal year 1997. Second, other portions of the Department 
of Transportation's budget fund a number of these efforts. For 
example, some of these technologies are receiving funding 
through the FHWA's section 130 program. Third, FRA has not 
adequately justified its increase in low-cost innovative 
technologies.
    Other reductions.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee 
has deferred funding for FRA's new track and structures 
initiative (-$3,000,000) and has held planning technology to 
the 1996 enacted level (-$268,000).

          Trust Fund Share of Next Generation High-Speed Rail

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................    ($7,118,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     (2,855,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................     (2,855,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation fiscal year 1996......................    (-4,233,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    Section 1036 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 establishes a program of research, 
development, and demonstrations of high-speed ground 
transportation technologies, and provides $5,000,000 in 
contract authorization for each of fiscal years 1993 through 
1997. The budget proposed bill language which has the effect of 
creating a new high-speed ground transportation program 
financed by both the general fund and the highway trust fund.
    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $2,855,000 for the high-speed ground transportation program 
in fiscal year 1997. This is $4,233,000 less than enacted in 
fiscal year 1996.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................      $1,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      10,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       4,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      +3,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -6,000,000

    The Committee is providing $4,000,000 for the Rhode Island 
rail development project, which is $3,000,000 above the 1996 
enacted level.
    Language in the 1995 and 1996 Department of Transportation 
Appropriations Acts require that the project have state 
matching funds. However, the state has had difficulty in 
matching federal appropriations. To date, the state has only 
obligated $800,000 of the $6,000,000 appropriated in fiscal 
years 1995 and 1996. Also, the state has experienced a one-year 
delay in issuing bonds to fund its portion of the project. Last 
year, Rhode Island expected to seek a bond to fund this project 
in the fall of 1995. This has now slipped until November 1996. 
The Committee is uncertain that matching funds will be 
available unless the bond issue is approved.
    In the interim, the National Highway System Designation Act 
allows the State of Rhode Island to commit all or some of its 
$5,800,000 Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) yearly 
apportionment for freight rail improvements in fiscal years 
1996 and 1997. The State plans to do so once the final 
environmental impact statement and record of decision are 
complete. The Committee believes that this funding should be 
sufficient for work planned in fiscal year 1997, especially if 
the bond referendum is approved.
    The Committee is concerned about a variety of safety issues 
surrounding this project. Specifically, Rhode Island is 
considering a partial build of the rail line. The partial build 
would lay four sidings to shift double stacked freight cars 
away from Amtrak operations; however, freight trains would not 
operate solely on dedicated sidings but instead would move on 
and off the northeast corridor. The operation of high-speed 
passenger trains and slower, freight trains on the same tracks 
presents the potential for accidents. Although freight trains 
operate in the same rights of way with Amtrak throughout the 
country, on the northeast corridor passenger trains are 
operating at twice the speed of freight. Following the tragic 
accident at Chase, Maryland, Amtrak imposed a number of 
restrictions on freight operations along the northeast 
corridor. One, in particular, was a prohibition on the 
operation of double stack freight cars on the main line. This 
prohibition remains in effect today; however, these are the 
type of railcars that Rhode Island proposes to operate along a 
portion of the corridor. The Committee believes this safety 
issue must be addressed by the FRA as part of its review of the 
final environmental impact statement and issuance of a record 
of decision.

                     Direct Loan Financing Program

                                                                        
                                        Loan subsidy      Limitation on 
                                        appropriation     direct loans  
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....  ................  ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...  ................  ................
Recommended in the bill.............       $58,680,000    ($400,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.       +58,680,000    (+400,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
     1997...........................       +58,680,000    (+400,000,000)
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends $58,680,000 for direct loans not 
to exceed $400,000,000 consistent with the purposes of section 
505 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 
1976 to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority to 
continue the Alameda Corridor project. The administration 
requested funding for this project within the Federal Highway 
Administration. The bill also specifies terms and conditions of 
the loan payback and loan administration.
    The Alameda Corridor project consolidates 90 miles of rail 
operations into a single 20-mile facility to provide rail 
access to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The project 
is to eliminate 200 at-grade crossings and widen Alameda 
Street, which runs parallel to the rail corridor.
    Disbursements of the loan shall be made over a three year 
period. Both in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, no more than 
$140,000,000 shall be made available. In fiscal year 1999, 
$120,000,000 shall be made available for the project. These 
disbursements are consistent with the corridor's planned 
construction schedule.
         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................\1\ $635,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... \2\ 638,500,000
Recommended in the bill................................. \2\ 462,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................    -173,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................    -176,500,000

\1\ Includes $120,000,000 for mandatory payments.
\2\ Includes $142,000,000 for mandatory payments.

    The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a 
private/public corporation created by the Rail Passenger 
Service Act of 1970 and incorporated under the laws of the 
District of Columbia to operate a national rail passenger 
system. Amtrak started operation on May 1, 1971.
    The Committee recommends a total funding level of 
$462,000,000 for grants to Amtrak to cover operating losses and 
capital expenses in fiscal year 1997. The total funding 
recommended in the bill compares to $635,000,000 for comparable 
expenses in fiscal year 1996.

                            status of amtrak

    Amtrak continues to face serious economic and financial 
challenges. Significant progress was made during fiscal year 
1995 to improve Amtrak's bottom line. During that year, Amtrak 
radically restructured its management process by decentralizing 
to three strategic business units, eliminated or reduced the 
frequency of a number of routes, and undertook a number of cost 
containment strategies. These efforts allowed Amtrak to end 
fiscal year 1995 with a cash surplus.
    The Committee commends the actions taken by Amtrak and most 
notably its President in its restructuring efforts. However, in 
fiscal year 1996, Amtrak continues to face the same economic 
and financial challenges, and the corporation has not been able 
to make significant progress in improving its bottom line. 
Anticipated legislative reforms, such as contracting out and 
labor reforms, have not occurred. Without these reforms, Amtrak 
may not be able to reduce its operating expenses sufficiently 
to become independent of federal operating subsidies by the 
year 2002. In addition, Amtrak incurred over $10,000,000 in 
unexpected costs during the blizzard of 1996 because Amtrak 
personnel worked around the clock to clear tracks and rights of 
way, clear switches, maintain signals, and perform electronic 
surveillance of the catenary system. Many of these actions went 
beyond Amtrak's normal procedures, and were done to provide the 
traveling public with, in many cases, the only mode of 
transportation operating in severe weather conditions. Finally, 
as a result of corporate restructuring and route and service 
adjustments Amtrak made in fiscal year 1995, the corporation 
has just emerged from a very expensive and disruptive period. 
Continuing to keep Amtrak operating with a positive cash flow 
may not be possible during fiscal year 1996. In fact, the 
latest monthly financial performance report notes that Amtrak 
may end the fiscal year with a negative cash flow of 
$55,800,000.
    On the positive side, in March, 1996, Amtrak signed a 
multi-year contract to procure 18 high speed trainsets for use 
along the Northeast Corridor. Once these trainsets are 
operating, Amtrak estimates that it will have 3,000,000 
additional riders per year between Washington, D.C. and Boston, 
Massachusetts. Amtrak believes that these riders will help the 
corporation achieve a net positive cash balance of $150,000,000 
per year. This will greatly enhance Amtrak's ability to operate 
without federal subsidies in the long-term.

                           operating expenses

    The Committee's recommendation provides $342,000,000 for 
Amtrak's operating losses in fiscal year 1997, as requested by 
the administration. This is a reduction of $63,000,000 from the 
1996 enacted level. The budget resolution calls for a phase-out 
of federal operating assistance to Amtrak by the year 2002.
    The Committee has fully funded the administration's request 
of $200,000,000 for routine operating expenses. Last year, as 
part of Amtrak's operating expenses, the Committee provided 
$100,000,000 for long-term restructuring and transition costs. 
In fiscal year 1997, the budget did not request funding for 
long-term transition expenses.
    Also, the Committee has provided $142,000,000 for mandatory 
passenger rail service payments. This is the same amount as 
included in the budget estimate. These payments are made by 
Amtrak to the railroad retirement fund and the railroad 
unemployment insurance account. Should the requirement for 
these funds be less than anticipated, as has occurred in the 
past, Amtrak has the flexibility to use those funds for other 
purposes, rather than await further Congressional action.

                            capital expenses

    The Committee's recommendation provides $120,000,000 for 
Amtrak's capital program in fiscal year 1997. This is 
$110,000,000 less than enacted in 1996 and $176,500,000 less 
than the budget estimate. The reduction is due to severe budget 
constraints facing the Committee. In addition, $80,000,000 is 
provided for high speed trainset maintenance facilities under a 
separate account, which is also a capital investment. 
Consistent with the budget estimate and actions taken in fiscal 
year 1996, the availability of funds is delayed until July 1, 
1997. This funding will allow Amtrak to cover its debt service 
costs.
    Pennsylvania Station redevelopment.--No capital funding has 
been provided for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment 
project, consistent with Amtrak's grant request. A recent DOT 
Inspector General report noted that:

          The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation, 
        which was formed in 1995 to manage the project, is 
        obtaining a revised estimate of the cost of the 
        project, which will include requirements not reflected 
        in the original $315,000,000 estimate. * * * Some 
        examples of items not included are the street level 
        entrances to the Farley Building, widening of the 33rd 
        Street connector to 36 feet, and boarding zones in 
        Amtrak's concourse at the Farley Building. * * * The 
        revised estimate is expected to significantly exceed 
        the original estimate and could adversely impact 
        federal, state, and city funding commitments, as well 
        as private investors.

    In view of the unresolved project costs and in a time of 
declining federal resources, the Committee will not provide 
additional funding for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment 
project until the cost estimates are revised, a new schedule is 
developed, and written, binding commitments are secured from 
all funding sources. If the cost estimates are significantly 
above the original estimate, Amtrak, in conjunction with FRA, 
and the city and state of New York should prepare a financial 
plan identifying funding resources for the project and any 
viable alternatives.
                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program
    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as 
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal 
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), were 
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transit Administration 
until enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration 
administers the federal financial assistance programs for 
planning, developing and improving comprehensive mass 
transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
    Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration 
is provided by contract authority, with program levels 
established by annual limitations on obligations provided in 
appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are 
required for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
as well as for portions of certain other accounts.
    The total recommended for FTA for fiscal year 1997 is 
$4,050,792,000, including $732,867,000 in direct appropriations 
and $3,317,925,000 in limitations on the use of contract 
authority. The total recommended is $633,000 below the fiscal 
year 1996 program level, due entirely to reductions in 
administrative activities.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program 
levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Recommended in 
                        Program                           1996 enacted\1\     1997 estimate         the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................        $42,000,000        $43,652,000        $41,367,000
Formula grants \2\.....................................      2,052,925,000      2,151,972,000      2,052,925,000
Discretionary grants \3\...............................      1,665,000,000      1,799,000,000      1,665,000,000
Transit planning and research..........................         85,500,000         85,500,000         85,500,000
University transportation centers......................          6,000,000          6,000,000          6,000,000
Washington Metro.......................................        200,000,000        200,000,000        200,000,000
Violent crime reduction program........................  .................         10,000,000  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      4,051,425,000      4,296,124,000      4,050,792,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and the     
  Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.                                              
\2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $1,110,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 and $1,930,850,000 in fiscal year  
  1997 estimate and $1,652,925,000 in Committee recommendation.                                                 
\3\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  

                        Administrative Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................     $42,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      43,652,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      41,367,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................        -633,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -2,285,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $1,278,000 to comply with working capital 
fund, awards, and administrative provisions.

    The bill includes a total of $41,367,000 for administrative 
expenses of the Federal Transit Administration, a decrease of 
$633,000 from the 1996 enacted level. This amount should 
provide sufficient funds for FTA's personnel and support 
requirements. The recommendation should fund 512 full time 
equivalent staff years, including two additional community 
planners and two general engineers in the regional offices. The 
recommendation includes the following adjustments to the budget 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
request:

Disallow civil rights add-back..........................       -$725,000
Reduce amounts available for organizational training....        -500,000
Allow 2 regional community planners instead of 4........        -130,000
Eliminate director of the office of communications and 
    external affairs and executive assistant positions..        -150,000
Undistributed reductions that can be offset by the use 
    of unrestricted authorities.........................        -780,000

    Disallow civil rights add-back.--The Committee has not 
restored additional funds requested for civil rights activities 
(-$725,000). Sufficient funds were provided in FTA's operating 
budget for fiscal year 1996 and are included within the amounts 
provided for fiscal year 1997. In no way shall this adjustment 
affect the FTA's ongoing civil rights activities in fiscal year 
1997.
    Organizational training.--The Committee has learned that 
the FTA contracted for a training program entitled ``Meeting 
the Challenge of Change.'' The Committee questions the nature 
and benefit of this training course, which appears likely to 
generate fear and encourage conflict. The course description 
states that ``perhaps the greatest resistance [to the course] 
is a fear of having project team leaders ask probing 
questions'' and ``because the problems are actual and because 
people disagree about them, conflicts can occur.'' Last year, 
the Committee learned of other similar non-technical training 
within the department and sought to eliminate such training 
from the department by including bill language (which is again 
included in this bill) that prohibited training which, among 
other items, was likely to induce high levels of psychological 
stress or attempted to change the participants' personal values 
or lifestyle outside the workplace. The Committee believes the 
``Challenge of change'' training may violate the letter or 
intent of this provision, and should not be continued within 
the FTA. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced funding for 
organizational training by $500,000. The Committee believes 
that sufficient funds are included within the amounts 
appropriated to provide adequate technical training to FTA 
staff.
    Office of communications and external affairs.--The 
Committee has learned that over the past year the office of the 
administrator lost two employees, the director of 
communications and external affairs and an executive assistant, 
and that these positions are currently vacant. In light of 
severe budget constraints and government downsizing, it is the 
Committee's belief that the functions and responsibilities of 
this office are unnecessary at this time and can be 
accommodated within the office of public affairs. The Committee 
has deleted these two positions in fiscal year 1997 and directs 
the administrator not to fill these positions in fiscal year 
1996.
    Unrestricted authorities.--An account entitled 
``unrestricted cash'' was created prior to 1972 when funds were 
appropriated in a lump-sum, single appropriation to the ``urban 
mass transportation fund.'' Balances in this fund are the 
result of credits from deobligating old projects that have been 
closed out, and currently total nearly $780,000. The Committee 
has learned that this account has been used by FTA to fund 
administrative costs of the agency, principally to pay for 
activities reduced or denied by Congress. Accordingly, the 
Committee has taken an undistributed reduction in the salaries 
and expenses account and directs the FTA to deplete all 
remaining balances in the unrestricted cash account.
    Information technologies.--The recommended level fully 
funds the department's request for information technology 
activities, and includes sufficient funds to continue the 
development and implementation of the electronic grant making 
and management system.
    WMATA oversight.--The Committee has continued a general 
provision (sec. 329) that requires FTA oversight of Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) be conducted from 
FTA's Washington metropolitan offices. The FTA has considered 
transferring the oversight of WMATA to the regional office in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With such a transfer, all 
significant decisions would inevitably be referred to FTA 
headquarters. This appears to make little sense since WMATA is 
located in the nation's capital and literally a few blocks from 
the Department of Transportation's Washington headquarters. The 
FTA shall continue to allocate two full-time equivalent staff 
positions in the FTA's Washington, DC offices to conduct 
management and oversight of WMATA. To ensure high-quality, 
professional oversight, the Committee directs that the 
individuals assigned to conduct such oversight have 
significant, long-term institutional knowledge of WMATA and its 
operations.
    3(j) report.--The Committee is disturbed that the annual 
3(j) report has not been transmitted to Congress in a timely 
manner this year. In fact, at the time of this writing, the 
final report for 1996 has yet to be transmitted to Congress. 
The 3(j) report, or the ``Report on Funding Levels and 
Allocations of Funds,'' is to provide the Department of 
Transportation's recommendations to Congress for allocation of 
funds to be made available under 49 U.S.C. 5309 (formerly 
Section 3 of the Federal Transit Act) for construction of new 
fixed guideway systems and extensions for fiscal year 1997. 
This report is required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(3). This annual 
report provides critical information in support of the budget 
recommendations. Without the timely transmittal of this report, 
Congress is unable to fully consider the judgment of the FTA 
regarding the allocation of section 3 new start funds. The 
Federal Transit Administration is directed to submit the 1997 
3(j) report to Congress not later than April 1, 1997. Should 
this report be significantly late next year, the Committee may 
have to consider taking stronger action.

                             Formula Grants                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Appropriation      Limitation   
                                       (General Fund)     (Trust Fund)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....      $942,925,000  ($1,110,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...       221,122,000   (1,930,850,000)
Recommended in the bill.............       400,000,000   (1,652,925,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.      -542,925,000    (+542,925,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1997...............................      +178,878,000    (-277,925,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends $2,052,925,000 for formula grants. 
This is the same level provided in fiscal year 1996 and 
$99,047,000 below the budget estimate. Formula grant funds are 
available for capital and operating assistance to both 
urbanized and non-urbanized areas, and for capital assistance 
to organizations providing service to elderly and disabled 
persons.
    Transit operating assistance.--Numerous transit authorities 
and Members of Congress communicated to the Committee the hope 
that transit operating subsidies could be increased to 
$500,000,000, as requested in the budget estimate. 
Unfortunately, budgetary limitations preclude the Committee 
from providing this level of funding. The Committee has, 
however, been able to hold transit operating assistance to the 
level of $400,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1996. In 
addition, the Committee has included bill language that would 
provide transit operating assistance to urbanized areas of less 
than 200,000 in population no less than seventy-five percent of 
the amount of operating assistance such areas were eligible to 
receive under Public Law 103-331. This ``hold-harmless'' 
provision was included in the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996. Further, the 
Committee has continued bill language that, in the distribution 
of the limitation on operating assistance to urbanized areas 
that had a population under the 1990 decennial census of 
1,000,000 or more, instructs the Secretary to direct each 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 that area. This 
provision, too, was carried in the Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 1996.
    The Committee recognizes that many transit operators 
throughout the country have responded to federal transit 
operating assistance reductions by reducing their overhead 
costs, streamlining their operations, raising fares, and 
adjusting state and local support for transit operations. Faced 
with reductions in federal operating assistance, transit 
providers have put in place business-like controls. The 
Committee is concerned, however, that any further, immediate 
reductions in transit operating assistance could be detrimental 
to transit providers and the communities that they serve. Many 
transit agencies are still determining how to respond to last 
year's reductions and sufficient time is necessary to modify 
service or secure additional revenue, either from fare 
increases or state, local or other sources. The Committee 
encourages the FTA to work with transit providers and their 
associations to identify ways to reduce their dependency on 
federal transit operating assistance, as federal fiscal 
limitations may necessitate further reductions in transit 
operating assistance in the future.
    Bus overhauls.--The Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 amended 49 U.S.C. 
5302(a)(1) (B) and (C) to remove the requirement that bus 
rehabilitation or bus manufacturing must extend the economic 
life of the bus, thereby making bus overhauls eligible for 
capital assistance, effective March 31, 1996. The intent of 
this provision was to provide transit operators with increased 
flexibility to use federal funds in the most effective manner, 
remove the bias towards purchasing new equipment rather than 
maintaining existing equipment (much of which was acquired with 
federal funds), and make federal highway and transit funding 
requirements more consistent. This change has helped to 
ameliorate the impact of federal operating assistance 
reductions enacted last year. The Committee expects that this 
change in permanent law will continue to provide bus operators 
with greater flexibility in how they manage and maintain 
federally-funded assets since fiscal year 1997 will be the 
first full year in which bus overhauls are eligible for capital 
assistance. The Committee and the administration estimate that 
this change in permanent law could make eligible for capital 
grants as much as $200,000,000 a year in rebuilding costs.
    The Committee encourages the FTA to explore further changes 
in the definitions of capital eligibility to make eligible more 
maintenance costs and to place FTA's programs more in line with 
the highway program under which all preventive maintenance is 
eligible as a capital expense. These recommendations should be 
included as part of the department's Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorization proposals.
    Flexibility funding provisions.--Capital costs for transit 
projects eligible for assistance under the Federal Transit Act 
and publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals and 
facilities are eligible expenses under the surface 
transportation program (STP). Public transportation facilities 
and equipment and intermodal transportation facilities and 
systems, where it can be demonstrated they are likely to 
contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality 
standard, are eligible expenses for the congestion mitigation 
and air quality improvement program (CMAQ). Funds made 
available for these programs may be ``flexed.'' The Committee 
has included $5,421,254,000 for STP and $861,078,000 for CMAQ 
under the highway obligation limitation.
    Flexible funds transferred from the FHWA to the FTA have 
increased significantly since the passage of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), especially from 
the STP and CMAQ programs. The FTA reports that $2.1 billion in 
flexible funding from STP and CMAQ programs has been 
transferred to transit and intermodal projects since ISTEA's 
passage, indicating that transit systems, metropolitan planning 
organizations, and state departments are successfully using the 
flexibility provided to them in ISTEA.

                             FLEXIBLE FUNDING TRANSFERS TO FTA/FHWA AND OBLIGATIONS                             
                                 [As of April 30, 1996, in millions of dollars]                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--                            
                                                     ------------------------------------------------ Cumulative
                                                        1992     1993     1994     1995       1996              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA transfers to FTA:                                                                                          
    CMAQ............................................   $177.0   $298.4   $317.0    $484.1   $200.4     $1,476.9 
    STP.............................................     25.2    146.9    183.2     200.3    110.9        666.5 
    Interstate substitute...........................    100.0      0.1     83.3      83.3      0          266.7 
    FHWA earmarks/FAUS..............................      1.6     23.8     26.2      34.1     13.9         99.6 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total transfers to FTA........................    303.8    469.2    609.7     801.8    325.2      2,509.7 
                                                     ===========================================================
Carryover from previous year (including recoveries/                                                             
 adjustments):                                                                                                  
    CMAQ............................................    n/a       55.8     65.8      98.2     87.6    ..........
    STP.............................................    n/a        4.4     25.3     113.6     31.2    ..........
    Interstate substitute...........................    n/a        0        0         0        0      ..........
    FHWA earmarks/FAUS..............................    n/a        0        9.9      20.2      4.8    ..........
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total carryover...............................    n/a       60.2    101.0     232.0    123.6 *  ..........
                                                     ===========================================================
Available to FTA:                                                                                               
    CMAQ............................................    177.0    354.2    382.8     582.3    288.0    ..........
    STP.............................................     25.2    151.3    208.5     313.9    142.1    ..........
    Interstate substitute...........................    100.0      0.1     83.3      83.3      0      ..........
    FHWA earmarks/FAUS..............................      1.6     23.8     36.1      54.3     18.7    ..........
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total available to FTA........................    303.8    529.4    710.7   1,033.8    448.8    ..........
                                                     ===========================================================
Obligated by FTA:                                                                                               
    CMAQ............................................    121.2    289.0    259.7     494.4     92.9      1,257.2 
    STP.............................................     20.8    125.7    114.8     280.2     78.1        619.6 
    Interstate substitute...........................    100.0      0.1     83.3      83.3      0          266.7 
    FHWA earmarks/FAUS..............................      1.6     13.8     16.0      49.4      8.4         89.2 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total obligated by FTA........................    243.6    428.6    473.8     907.3    179.4      2,232.7 
                                                     ===========================================================
Pending obligation (carryover):                                                                                 
    CMAQ............................................     55.8     65.2    123.1      87.9    195.1    ..........
    STP.............................................      4.4     25.6     93.7      33.7     64.0    ..........
    Interstate Substitute...........................      0        0        0         0        0      ..........
    FHWA Earmarks/FAUS..............................      0       10.0     20.1       4.9     10.3    ..........
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total pending obligation......................     60.2    100.8    236.9     126.5    269.4    ..........
                                                     ===========================================================
FTA Urbanized area formula transfers to FHWA........      0        0        0         2.2      0.6          2.8 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note.--Carryover includes current year recoveries/adjustments from prior year(s) obligations/transfers.       

    The Committee encourages the Federal Transit Administration 
to work with transit authorities to maximize the full potential 
of the flexible funding provisions of ISTEA.
    Formula grant apportionments.--The Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) made a number of major 
changes in the formula grants program of the FTA. As indicated, 
the Federal Transit Act still provides formula allocated 
programs of capital and operating assistance for urbanized 
areas under section 9 and for non-urbanized areas under section 
18. However, as a result of ISTEA, the section 16(b)(2) program 
of grants for services to elderly and disabled persons is now 
distributed by a statutory formula rather than by a 
discretionary administrative formula, and thus becomes a part 
of the FTA's formula grants program. In addition, the rural 
assistance program is now part of the authorization for transit 
planning and research and is described under that heading.
    The amount recommended is to be distributed as follows:
    Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These 
areas would receive $1,700,711,794 (not including the one-half 
percent set-aside). This is the same level as provided last 
year.
    Urbanized areas under 200,000 in population.--These areas 
would receive $181,083,494 (not including the one-half percent 
set-aside) to be distributed 50 percent based on population and 
50 percent based on population density. This is the same level 
as provided last year.
    Non-urbanized areas.--These areas would receive 
$109,522,477. These funds are distributed based on non-
urbanized area population. This is the same level as provided 
last year.
    Elderly and disabled.--The section 16(b)(2) program would 
receive $51,600,613, the same level provided last year. The 
ISTEA made the following changes in the elderly and disabled 
program: (1) the former administrative allocation is not 
statutory; (2) eligibility is expanded to public authorities 
that coordinate elderly and disabled services; (3) project 
eligibility is expanded to cover certain capital costs in 
operating contracts; and (4) vehicles purchased under this 
program may be leased to public authorities and may be used for 
meals-on-wheels service.
           Fiscal Year 1997 Section 9 Formula Apportionments

   AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS OVER 1,000,000 IN POPULATION  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Operating    
          Urbanized area                  Total            assistance   
                                      apportionment        limitation   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA.......................        $26,817,559         $2,817,569
Baltimore, MD.....................         23,204,741          4,509,748
Boston, MA........................         50,644,877          8,467,028
Chicago, IL-Northwestern IN.......        127,741,850         23,457,893
Cincinnati, OH-KY.................          9,063,899          2,442,814
Cleveland, OH.....................         16,032,068          4,469,540
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX.............         24,340,425          4,008,037
Denver, CO........................         14,523,333          2,736,257
Detroit, MI.......................         23,978,803          9,922,644
Ft Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano                                         
 Bch, FL..........................         13,984,435          3,403,116
Houston, TX.......................         28,758,487          4,211,604
Kansas City, MO-KS................          6,505,811          2,069,850
Los Angeles, CA...................        124,174,916         26,465,555
Miami-Hialeah, FL.................         25,684,752          3,887,455
Milwaukee, WI.....................         11,818,078          2,532,863
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN..........         16,637,898          3,377,190
New Orleans, LA...................         10,801,022          3,063,597
New York, NY-Northeastern NJ......        406,850,866         61,292,372
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport                                          
 News, VA.........................          8,157,164          1,946,012
Philadelphia, PA-NJ...............         73,179,576         14,754,704
Phoenix, AZ.......................         14,037,692          2,182,056
Pittsburgh, PA....................         20,377,775          4,404,259
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA.........         14,745,816          2,040,724
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA......         11,150,092          1,166,383
Sacramento, CA....................          8,565,435          1,613,097
San Antonio, TX...................         13,043,690          2,122,548
San Diego, CA.....................         23,432,494          3,386,799
San Francisco-Oakland, CA.........         74,695,800          9,017,750
San Jose, CA......................         19,017,840          3,063,813
San Juan, PR......................         18,639,279          3,482,258
Seattle, WA.......................         32,662,432          2,861,557
St. Louis, MO-IL..................         15,881,361          4,446,206
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,                                        
 FL...............................         10,831,020          2,420,798
Washington, DC-MD-VA..............         63,763,063          7,828,278
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................      1,383,744,349        239,872,373
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS 200,000 TO 1,000,000 IN     
                               POPULATION                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Operating    
        Urbanized area size           Apportionment        assistance   
                                                           limitation   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akron, OH.........................         $3,736,080         $1,068,223
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY.......          4,864,554          1,036,060
Albuquerque, NM...................          3,692,529            715,983
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ.          2,931,154          1,083,235
Anchorage, AK.....................          1,511,993            353,514
Ann Arbor, MI.....................          2,386,685            454,205
Augusta, GA-SC....................          1,310,449            361,822
Austin, TX........................          7,393,658            681,375
Bakersfield, CA...................          2,384,858            444,280
Baton Rouge, LA...................          1,924,133            593,692
Birmingham, AL....................          3,325,133          1,090,569
Bridgeport-Milford, CT............          4,040,575            946,815
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY.........          8,281,621          2,779,198
Canton, OH........................          1,320,640            523,119
Charleston, SC....................          1,998,963            495,970
Charlotte, NC.....................          4,023,137            597,902
Chattanooga, TN-GA................          1,642,349            450,735
Colorado Springs, CO..............          2,399,143            447,449
Columbia, SC......................          1,898,749            506,333
Columbus, GA-AL...................          1,223,820            379,379
Columbus, OH......................          7,506,563          2,105,697
Corpus Christi, TX................          2,371,945            398,138
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA-                                       
 IL...............................          1,940,995            518,039
Dayton, OH........................          8,169,875          1,341,289
Daytona Beach, FL.................          1,451,094            359,735
Des Moines, IA....................          1,779,745            504,542
Durham, NC........................          1,812,465            370,789
El Paso, TX-NM....................          5,837,708            825,225
Fayetteville, NC..................          1,006,431            341,222
Flint, MI.........................          2,829,503            701,838
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL.........          1,492,273            262,047
Fort Wayne, IN....................          1,284,453            500,447
Fresno, CA........................          3,464,017            673,470
Grand Rapids, MI..................          2,765,112            711,831
Greenville, SC....................          1,455,563            344,063
Harrisburg, PA....................          1,523,933            519,625
Hartford-Middletown, CT...........          6,140,853          1,054,496
Honolulu, HI......................         15,027,536          1,305,970
Indianapolis, IN..................          5,707,339          1,754,741
Jackson, MS.......................          1,272,926            414,816
Jacksonville, FL..................          5,308,992            929,739
Knoxville, TN.....................          1,492,505            413,520
Lansing-East Lansing, MI..........          2,190,438            533,804
Las Vegas, NV.....................          7,501,837            633,660
Lawrence-Haverhill, MA-NH.........          2,318,374            392,260
Lexington-Fayette, KY.............          1,315,247            595,036
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR.          1,774,108            475,798
Lorain-Elyria, OH.................            860,153            358,920
Louisville, KY-IN.................          7,314,901          1,792,128
Madison, WI.......................          3,342,537            457,794
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX......            914,994            380,331
Melbourne-Palm Bay, FL............          2,330,785            323,361
Memphis, TN-AR-MS.................          6,167,177          1,660,925
Mobile, AL........................          1,576,959            462,840
Modesto, CA.......................          1,961,853            455,526
Montgomery, AL....................          1,030,778            470,960
Nashville, TN.....................          3,588,752            770,071
New Haven-Meriden, CT.............          6,223,604          1,063,941
Ogden, UT.........................          1,980,219            321,567
Oklahoma City, OK.................          3,418,996          1,065,815
Omaha, NE-IA......................          3,870,992          1,093,065
Orlando, FL.......................          8,185,392            804,301
Oxnard-Ventura, CA................          3,702,682            623,767
Pensacola, FL.....................          1,275,912            348,591
Peoria, IL........................          1,505,966            485,694
Providence-Pawtucket, RI-MA.......         10,771,222          2,183,415
Provo-Orem, UT....................          1,713,308            374,328
Raleigh, NC.......................          1,819,820            335,902
Reno, NV..........................          2,552,837            387,233
Richmond, VA......................          4,055,596            889,706
Rochester, NY.....................          4,910,430          1,426,222
Rockford, IL......................          1,306,678            446,955
Salt Lake City, UT................          8,694,258          1,128,032
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL............          2,509,822            582,302
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA.........          2,089,012            800,237
Shreveport, LA....................          1,844,740            484,985
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI.......          1,600,889            529,802
Spokane, WA.......................          3,895,169            514,098
Springfield, MA-CT................          4,005,242            934,026
Stockton, CA......................          2,043,641            616,738
Syracuse, NY......................          3,458,976            875,658
Tacoma, WA........................          6,827,947            715,757
Toledo, OH-MI.....................          3,748,515          1,034,105
Trenton, NJ-PA....................          3,284,201            913,035
Tucson, AZ........................          5,719,638            764,985
Tulsa, OK.........................          3,071,498            724,300
West Palm Bch-Boca Raton-Delray                                         
 Bch, FL..........................          8,702,731            762,335
Wichita, KS.......................          2,125,079            626,604
Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD-PA...........          4,013,746            926,743
Worcester, MA-CT..................          2,236,935            534,935
Youngstown-Warren, OH.............          1,680,810            824,093
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        316,967,445         67,177,823
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO STATE GOVERNORS FOR URBANIZED AREAS 50,000 TO  
                          200,000 IN POPULATION                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Operating    
        Urbanized area size           Apportionment        assistance   
                                                           limitation   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: State apportionment and                                        
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............         $3,401,244         $1,970,561
                                   -------------------------------------
    Anniston, AL..................            328,073            231,980
    Auburn-Opelika, AL............            263,213            129,622
    Decatur, AL...................            300,407            152,422
    Dothan, AL....................            252,318            133,304
    Florence, AL..................            351,519            235,002
    Gadsden, AL...................            310,683            233,057
    Huntsville, AL................            986,250            504,984
    Tuscaloosa, AL................            608,781            350,190
                                   =====================================
Alaska: State apportionment and                                         
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............                  0                  0
                                   =====================================
Arizona: State apportionment and                                        
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............            540,055            206,966
                                   -------------------------------------
    Yuma, AZ-CA (AZ)..............            540,055            206,966
                                   =====================================
Arkansas: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,299,521            798,674
                                   -------------------------------------
    Fayetteville-Springdale, AR...            358,644            168,344
    Fort Smith, AR-OK (AR)........            488,214            275,251
    Pine Bluff, AR................            329,925            269,436
    Texarkana, TX-AR (AR).........            122,738             85,643
                                   =====================================
California: State apportionment                                         
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........         19,905,828          6,801,253
                                   -------------------------------------
    Antioch-Pittsburg, CA.........          1,125,722            345,636
    Chico, CA.....................            491,513            185,098
    Davis, CA.....................            596,669            213,010
    Fairfield, CA.................            724,672            255,671
    Hamet-San Jacinto, CA.........            604,590            195,698
    Hesperia-Apple Valley-                                              
     Victorville, CA..............            771,277            265,938
    Indio-Coachella, CA...........            365,579            126,070
    Lancaster-Palmdale, CA........          1,297,316            162,437
    Lodi, CA......................            507,895            175,169
    Lompoc, CA....................            311,924            107,558
    Merced, CA....................            554,543            188,067
    Napa, CA......................            579,437            266,728
    Palm Springs, CA..............            721,877            180,689
    Redding, CA...................            417,401            149,645
    Salinas, CA...................          1,098,409            423,192
    San Luis Obispo, CA...........            520,168            179,409
    Santa Barbara, CA.............          1,699,290            700,123
    Santa Cruz, CA................            878,677            376,707
    Santa Maria, CA...............            799,435            227,014
    Santa Rosa, CA................          1,550,013            449,066
    Seaside-Monterey, CA..........          1,041,576            521,884
    Simi Valley, CA...............            985,926            306,429
    Vacaville, CA.................            598,530            206,423
    Visalia, CA...................            683,652            225,542
    Watsonville, CA...............            376,635            129,889
    Yuba City, CA.................            600,962            236,597
    Yuma, AZ-CA (CA)..............              2,140              1,564
                                   =====================================
Colorado: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          3,667,841          1,839,230
                                   -------------------------------------
    Boulder, CO...................            816,151            412,508
    Fort Collins, CO..............            679,774            294,588
    Grand Junction, CO............            387,035            189,506
    Greeley, CO...................            543,695            283,630
    Longmount, CO.................            495,465            170,885
    Pueblo, CO....................            745,721            488,113
                                   =====================================
Connecticut: State apportionment                                        
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........         12,184,535          4,543,229
                                   -------------------------------------
    Bristol, CT...................            578,107            297,793
    Danbury, CT-NY (CT)...........          2,051,384            492,302
    New Britain, CT...............          1,082,503            626,111
    New London-Norwich, CT........            871,093            533,937
    Norwalk, CT...................          2,172,122            676,464
    Stamford, CT-NY (CT)..........          2,753,664          1,016,038
    Waterbury, CT.................          2,675,662            900,584
                                   =====================================
Delaware: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............            276,710             95,414
                                   -------------------------------------
    Dover, DE.....................            276,710             95,414
                                   =====================================
Florida: State apportionment and                                        
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          8,433,534          3,152,975
                                   -------------------------------------
    Deltona, FL...................            280,411             96,684
    Fort Pierce, FL...............            671,719            205,216
    Fort Walton Beach, FL.........            651,145            258,405
    Gainsville, FL................            834,486            351,847
    Kissimmee, FL.................            388,678            134,039
    Lakeland, FL..................            853,097            345,542
    Naples, FL....................            561,454            146,868
    Ocala, FL.....................            377,154            147,105
    Panama City, FL...............            566,005            234,999
    Punta Gorda, FL...............            370,133            127,629
    Spring Hill, FL...............            282,947             97,565
    Stuart, FL....................            493,695            170,246
    Tallahassee, FL...............            951,271            393,861
    Titusville, FL................            272,308             93,895
    Vero Beach, FL................            344,868            118,916
    Winter Haven, FL..............            534,163            230,158
                                   =====================================
Georgia: State apportionment and                                        
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          3,692,411          2,169,758
                                   -------------------------------------
    Albany, GA....................            457,351            316,131
    Athens, GA....................            438,495            197,454
    Brunswick, GA.................            252,338             87,007
    Macon, GA.....................            819,733            542,798
    Rome, GA......................            257,245            149,674
    Savannah, GA..................          1,072,531            689,903
    Warner Robins, GA.............            394,718            186,791
                                   =====================================
Hawaii: State apportionment and                                         
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............            981,352            475,852
                                   -------------------------------------
    Kailua, HI....................            981,352            475,852
                                   =====================================
Idaho: State apportionment and                                          
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,942,265            809,759
                                   -------------------------------------
    Boise City, ID................          1,188,500            469,898
    Idaho Falls, ID...............            426,054            146,933
    Pocatello, ID.................            327,711            192,928
                                   =====================================
Illinois: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          8,896,560          5,371,412
                                   -------------------------------------
    Alton, IL.....................            480,795            372,784
    Aurora, IL....................          1,346,571            723,464
    Beloit, WI-IL (IL)............             61,449             25,498
    Bloomington-Normal, IL........            774,567            382,645
    Champaign-Urbana, IL..........          1,093,066            616,763
    Crystal Lake, IL..............            438,876            151,340
    Decatur, IL...................            615,288            446,782
    Dubuque, IA-IL (IL)...........             14,332              8,765
    Elgin, IL.....................            971,352            636,793
    Joliet, IL....................          1,123,162            953,579
    Kankakee, IL..................            440,809            262,596
    Round Lake Beach-McHenry, IL-                                       
     WI (IL)......................            639,654            209,575
    Springfield, IL...............            896,639            580,828
                                   =====================================
Indiana: State apportionment and                                        
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          5,188,859          3,063,742
                                   -------------------------------------
    Anderson......................            419,406            303,284
    Bloomington...................            625,861            287,968
    Elkhart-Goshen................            627,268            288,505
    Evansville, IN-KY (IN)........          1,162,011            712,185
    Kokomo........................            422,358            265,091
    Lafayette-West Lafayette......            839,675            439,016
    Muncie........................            617,265            435,588
    Terre Haute...................            475,015            332,105
                                   =====================================
Iowa: State apportionment and                                           
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          2,824,750          1,777,815
                                   -------------------------------------
    Cedar Rapids, IA..............            877,838            542,576
    Dubuque, IA-IL (IA)...........            427,278            302,695
    Iowa City, IA.................            505,789            207,305
    Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (IA).....            467,145            311,588
    Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA......            546,700            413,651
                                   =====================================
Kansas: State apportionment and                                         
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,371,506            759,970
                                   -------------------------------------
    Lawrence, KS..................            519,362            217,653
    St. Joseph, MO-KS (KS)........              4,287              3,866
    Topeka, KS....................            847,857            538,451
                                   =====================================
Kentucky: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,080,971            635,567
                                   -------------------------------------
    Clarksville, TN-KY (KY).......            131,900             73,054
    Evansville, IN-KY (KY)........            161,971             45,056
    Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH                                        
     (KY).........................            322,997            218,446
    Owensboro, KY.................            464,103            299,011
                                   =====================================
Louisiana: State apportionment and                                      
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          3,201,384          1,868,922
                                   -------------------------------------
    Alexandria, LA................            467,173            326,140
    Houma, LA.....................            328,608            192,233
    Lafayette, LA.................            808,324            428,989
    Lake Charles, LA..............            649,311            413,989
    Monroe, LA....................            617,396            393,577
    Slidell, LA...................            330,572            113,994
                                   =====================================
Maine: State apportionment and                                          
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,393,299            808,464
                                   -------------------------------------
    Bangor, ME....................            286,299            152,758
    Lewiston-Auburn, ME...........            332,675            215,633
    Portland, ME..................            711,338            409,648
    Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH-                                     
     ME (ME)......................             62,987             30,425
                                   =====================================
Maryland: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,549,420            751,514
                                   -------------------------------------
    Annapolis, MD.................            504,649            228,635
    Cumberland, MD-WV (MD)........            268,399            180,307
    Frederick, MD.................            364,129            125,567
    Hagerstown, MD-PA-WV (MD).....            412,243            217,005
                                   =====================================
Massachusetts: State apportionment                                      
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          6,136,422          4,010,979
                                   -------------------------------------
    Brockton, MA..................          1,120,942            966,707
    Fall River, MA-RI (MA)........          1,093,285            628,972
    Fitchburg-Leominster, MA......            443,045            265,581
    Hyannis, MA...................            316,380            109,085
    Lowell, MA-NH (MA)............          1,387,552            997,173
    New Bedford, MA...............          1,202,384            695,995
    Pittsfield, MA................            286,398            211,988
    Taunton, MA...................            286,436            135,478
                                   =====================================
Michigan: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          5,236,571          3,283,763
                                   -------------------------------------
    Battle Creek, MI..............            437,352            313,820
    Bay City, MI..................            488,593            343,896
    Benton Harbor, MI.............            353,412            211,224
    Holland, MI...................            396,640            136,779
    Jackson, MI...................            488,324            327,621
    Kalamazoo, MI.................          1,054,514            614,106
    Muskegon, MI..................            643,210            414,697
    Port Huron, MI................            423,310            218,257
    Saginaw, MI...................            951,216            703,363
                                   =====================================
Minnesota: State apportionment and                                      
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,866,159          1,090,931
    Duluth, MN-WI (MN)............            454,115            358,439
    Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN (MN)....            262,574            152,304
    Grand Forks, ND-MN (MN).......             57,547             37,533
    La Crosse, WI-MN (MN).........             28,190             12,455
    Rochester, MN.................            512,199            287,183
    St. Cloud, MN.................            551,534            243,017
                                   =====================================
Mississippi: State apportionment                                        
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          1,602,131            906,680
                                   -------------------------------------
    Biloxi-Gulfport, MS...........            991,926            552,169
    Pascagoula, MS................            301,051            188,450
    Hattiesburg, MS...............            309,154            166,061
                                   =====================================
Missouri: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          2,207,764          1,205,239
                                   -------------------------------------
    Columbia, MO..................            435,869            222,473
    Joplin, MO....................            306,100            158,607
    Springfield, MO...............          1,028,265            512,465
    St. Joseph, MO-KS (MO)........            437,530            311,694
                                   =====================================
Montana: State apportionment and                                        
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,469,715            865,821
                                   -------------------------------------
    Billings, MT..................            566,809            332,854
    Great Falls, MT...............            528,563            324,442
    Missoula, MT..................            374,343            208,525
                                   =====================================
Nebraska: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,633,875            783,608
                                   -------------------------------------
    Lincoln, NE...................          1,563,196            747,115
    Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (NE).....             70,679             36,493
                                   =====================================
Nevada: State apportionment and                                         
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............                  0                  0
                                   =====================================
New Hampshire: State apportionment                                      
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          1,984,105            930,889
                                   -------------------------------------
    Lowell, MA-NH (NH)............              4,061              1,136
    Manchester, NH................            831,770            425,529
    Nashua, NH....................            665,139            270,768
    Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH-                                     
     ME (NH)......................            483,135            233,456
                                   =====================================
New Jersey: State apportionment                                         
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          1,503,324          1,162,152
                                   -------------------------------------
    Atlantic City, NJ.............          1,083,553            913,408
    Vineland-Millville, NJ........            419,771            248,744
                                   =====================================
New Mexico: State apportionment                                         
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........            818,642            346,371
                                   -------------------------------------
    Las Cruces, NM................            454,759            185,079
    Santa Fe, NM..................            363,883            161,292
                                   =====================================
New York: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          4,542,091          2,887,397
                                   -------------------------------------
    Binghamton, NY................          1,140,084            753,963
    Danbury, CT-NY (NY)...........             15,453              4,225
    Elmira, NY....................            468,155            328,474
    Glens Falls, NY...............            321,942            163,510
    Ithaca, NY....................            324,929            112,051
    Newburgh, NY..................            421,930            203,473
    Poughkeepsie, NY..............            886,320            630,599
    Stamford, CT-NY (NY)..........                105                109
    Utica-Rome, NY................            963,173            690,993
                                   =====================================
North Carolina: State                                                   
 apportionment and limitation for                                       
 areas 50,000 to 200,000 in                                             
 population.......................          7,373,638          3,807,386
                                   -------------------------------------
    Asheville, NC.................            569,150            313,739
    Burlington, NC................            412,871            238,562
    Gastonia, NC..................            604,541            363,032
    Goldsboro, NC.................            313,952            162,993
    Greensboro, NC................          1,300,253            686,529
    Greenville, NC................            361,483            124,657
    Hickory, NC...................            344,754            173,702
    High Point, NC................            581,384            357,277
    Jacksonville, NC..............            561,304            205,012
    Kannapolis, NC................            405,213            207,368
    Rocky Mount, NC...............            323,920            111,702
    Wilmington, NC................            529,813            259,914
    Winston-Salem, NC.............          1,065,000            602,897
                                   =====================================
North Dakota: State apportionment                                       
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          1,432,692            694,941
                                   -------------------------------------
    Bismarck, ND..................            413,127            217,303
    Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN (ND)....            597,489            285,401
    Grand Forks, ND-MN (ND).......            422,076            192,237
                                   =====================================
Ohio: State apportionment and                                           
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          3,939,229          2,454,959
                                   -------------------------------------
    Hamilton, OH..................            814,205            413,830
    Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH                                        
     (OH).........................            207,340            123,238
    Lima, OH......................            444,989            296,760
    Mansfield OH..................            429,618            297,105
    Middletown, OH................            559,808            286,086
    Newark, OH....................            341,085            171,899
    Parkersburg, WV-OH (OH).......             50,507             31,162
    Sharon, PA-OH (OH)............             33,305             20,995
    Springfield, OH...............            647,550            453,628
    Steubenville-Werton, OH-WV-PA                                       
     (OH).........................            232,963            194,158
    Wheeling, WV-OH (OH)..........            177,859            166,098
                                   =====================================
Oklahoma: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............            613,120            386,416
                                   -------------------------------------
    Fort Smith, AR-OK (OK)........             10,756              6,655
    Lawton, OK....................            602,364            379,761
                                   =====================================
Oregon: State apportionment and                                         
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          3,197,413          1,425,107
                                   -------------------------------------
    Eugene-Springfield, OR........          1,505,093            725,646
    Longview, WA-OR (OR)..........             10,010              5,369
    Medford, OR...................            465,142            194,556
    Salem, OR.....................          1,217,168            499,536
                                   =====================================
Pennsylvania: State apportionment                                       
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          8,358,601          5,129,718
                                   -------------------------------------
    Altoona, PA...................            571,009            408,051
    Erie, PA......................          1,468,909            929,251
    Hagerstown, MD-PA-WV (PA).....              5,032              3,855
    Johnstown, PA.................            526,559            437,207
    Lancaster, PA.................          1,328,081            607,678
    Monessen, PA..................            361,422            211,581
    Pottstown, PA.................            342,971            118,272
    Reading, PA...................          1,550,306          1,108,504
    Sharon, PA-OH (PA)............            240,111            184,335
    State College, PA.............            499,732            250,976
    Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV-PA                                      
     (PA).........................              1,745                681
    Williamsport, PA..............            418,909            277,812
    York, PA......................          1,043,815            591,515
                                   =====================================
Puerto Rico: State apportionment                                        
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          7,721,593          3,312,130
                                   -------------------------------------
    Aguadilla, PR.................            675,534            245,837
    Arecibo, PR...................            631,202            284,696
    Caguas, PR....................          1,653,033            615,765
    Cayey, PR.....................            488,741            168,563
    Humacao, PR...................            422,994            145,877
    Mayaguez, PR..................            908,804            453,778
    Ponce, PR.....................          2,022,366          1,056,142
    Vega Baja-Manati, PR..........            918,919            341,472
                                   =====================================
Rhode Island: State apportionment                                       
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........            491,500            246,288
                                   -------------------------------------
    Fall River, MA-RI (RI)........            112,673             54,179
    Newport, RI...................            378,827            192,109
                                   -------------------------------------
South Carolina: State                                                   
 apportionment and limitation for                                       
 areas 50,000 to 200,000 in                                             
 population.......................          2,081,439          1,013,149
                                   -------------------------------------
    Anderson, SC..................            279,937            158,795
    Florence, SC..................            287,937            166,525
    Myrtle Beach, SC..............            301,955            104,116
    Rock Hill, SC.................            320,612            149,201
    Spartanburg, SC...............            558,898            319,995
    Sumter, SC....................            332,100            114,517
                                   =====================================
South Dakota: State apportionment                                       
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          1,033,499            523,345
                                   -------------------------------------
    Rapid City, SD................            329,153            177,805
    Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (SD).....              9,229              4,219
    Sioux Falls, SD...............            695,117            341,321
                                   =====================================
Tennessee: State apportionment and                                      
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          1,599,519            887,865
                                   -------------------------------------
    Bristol, TN-Bristol, VA (TN)..            149,507             90,241
    Clarksville, TN-KY (TN).......            364,523            167,264
    Jackson, TN...................            275,910            148,661
    Johnson City, TN..............            420,576            228,788
    Kingsport, TN-VA (TN).........            389,003            252,911
                                   =====================================
Texas: State apportionment and                                          
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............         14,810,109          7,687,065
                                   -------------------------------------
    Abilene, TX...................            525,437            322,174
    Amarillo, TX..................            974,572            544,163
    Beaumont, TX..................            670,292            436,937
    Brownsville, TX...............            974,252            343,413
    Bryan-College Station, TX.....            652,589            248,808
    Denton, TX....................            352,510            121,550
    Galveston, TX.................            373,934            263,556
    Harlingen, TX.................            478,817            213,740
    Killeen, TX...................            915,846            322,616
    Laredo, TX....................          1,156,685            440,079
    Lewisville, TX................            406,942            140,316
    Longview, TX..................            400,380            205,890
    Lubbock, TX...................          1,140,263            634,745
    Midland, TX...................            499,605            258,553
    Odessa, TX....................            554,243            408,081
    Port Arthur, TX...............            604,596            418,221
    San Angelo, TX................            519,529            269,195
    Sherman-Denison, TX...........            260,056            197,337
    Temple, TX....................            295,237            147,551
    Texarkana, TX-AR (TX).........            238,233            142,859
    Texas City, TX................            633,267            308,822
    Tyler, TX.....................            495,199            272,311
    Victoria TX...................            343,283            202,360
    Waco, TX......................            747,850            436,203
    Wichita Falls TX..............            596,492            387,585
                                   =====================================
Utah: State apportionment and                                           
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............            296,007            102,073
                                   -------------------------------------
    Logan, UT.....................            296,007            102,073
                                   =====================================
Vermont: State apportionment and                                        
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............            519,406            244,385
                                   -------------------------------------
    Burlington, VT................            519,406            244,385
                                   =====================================
Virginia: State apportionment and                                       
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          3,447,788          2,010,460
                                   -------------------------------------
    Bristol TN-Bristol, VA(VA)....            106,438             54,597
    Charlottesville, VA...........            495,759            258,207
    Danville, VA..................            281,530            182,428
    Fredericksburg, VA............            330,524            113,974
    Kingsport, TN-VA (VA).........             20,095             15,609
    Lynchburg, VA.................            471,637            290,441
    Petersburg, VA................            597,908            414,079
    Roanoke, VA...................          1,143,897            681,125
                                   =====================================
Washington: State apportionment                                         
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          3,258,223          1,441,915
                                   -------------------------------------
    Bellingham, WA................            383,883            178,042
    Bremerton, WA.................            743,653            218,876
    Longview, WA-OR (WA)..........            324,826            172,874
    Olympia, WA...................            578,567            220,296
    Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA..            603,572            328,900
    Yakima, WA....................            623,722            322,927
                                   =====================================
West Virginia: State apportionment                                      
 and limitation for areas 50,000                                        
 to 200,000 in population.........          2,504,108          1,811,406
                                   -------------------------------------
    Charleston, WV................          1,007,361            668,361
    Cumberland, MD-WV (WV)........             12,048             10,483
    Hagerstown, MD-PA-WV (WV).....              3,043              2,443
    Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH                                        
     (WV).........................            565,572            434,965
    Parkersburg, WV-OH (WV).......            363,736            275,348
    Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV-PA                                      
     (WV).........................            156,494            128,467
    Wheeling, WV-OH (WV)..........            395,854            291,339
                                   =====================================
Wisconsin: State apportionment and                                      
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............          6,855,105          3,935,089
                                   -------------------------------------
    Appleton-Neenah, WI...........          1,255,293            655,709
    Beloit, WI-IL (WI)............            269,074            155,628
    Duluth, MN-WI (WI)............            117,861             94,707
    Eau Claire, WI................            491,680            237,885
    Green Bay, WI.................            953,399            506,229
    Janesville, WI................            361,849            194,329
    Kenosha, WI...................            658,857            483,440
    La Crosse, WI-MN (WI).........            523,056            276,146
    Oshkosh, WI...................            456,482            282,563
    Racine, WI....................          1,071,608            621,866
    Round Lake Beach-McHenry, IL-                                       
     WI (WI)......................                381                 99
    Sheboygan, WI.................            430,088            238,772
    Wausau, WI....................            319,477            187,716
                                   =====================================
Wyoming: State apportionment and                                        
 limitation for areas 50,000 to                                         
 200,000 in population............            717,661            461,199
                                   -------------------------------------
    Casper, WY....................            329,209            247,399
    Cheyenne, WY..................            388,452            213,800
                                   =====================================
      Total.......................        181,083,494         92,949,803
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   FISCAL YEAR 1997 SECTION 5310 ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES  
                             APPORTIONMENTS                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        State                             Allocation    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................            $895,048
Alaska..............................................             170,260
American Samoa......................................              51,782
Arizona.............................................             793,269
Arkansas............................................             635,877
California..........................................           4,695,021
Colorado............................................             623,112
Connecticut.........................................             708,934
Delaware............................................             239,252
District of Columbia................................             237,736
Florida.............................................           3,179,523
Georgia.............................................           1,150,268
Guam................................................             130,927
Hawaii..............................................             294,868
Idaho...............................................             300,943
Illinois............................................           2,067,652
Indiana.............................................           1,101,400
Iowa................................................             680,976
Kansas..............................................             576,528
Kentucky............................................             859,231
Louisiana...........................................             861,898
Maine...............................................             367,552
Maryland............................................             865,809
Massachusetts.......................................           1,231,723
Michigan............................................           1,774,060
Minnesota...........................................             877,525
Mississippi.........................................             618,758
Missouri............................................           1,116,448
Montana.............................................             278,985
Nebraska............................................             416,763
Nevada..............................................             318,980
New Hampshire.......................................             303,270
New Jersey..........................................           1,471,769
New Mexico..........................................             370,735
New York............................................           3,364,457
North Carolina......................................           1,303,391
North Dakota........................................             242,670
Northern Marianas...................................              51,628
Ohio................................................           2,156,316
Oklahoma............................................             746,261
Oregon..............................................             696,245
Pennsylvania........................................           2,578,386
Puerto Rico.........................................             662,273
Rhode Island........................................             330,982
South Carolina......................................             722,508
South Dakota........................................             259,270
Tennessee...........................................           1,050,534
Texas...............................................           2,661,781
Utah................................................             347,858
Vermont.............................................             220,373
Virgin Islands......................................             132,526
Virginia............................................           1,091,465
Washington..........................................             982,480
West Virginia.......................................             537,338
Wisconsin...........................................           1,002,330
Wyoming.............................................             192,659
                                                     -------------------
        Total.......................................          51,600,613
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 FISCAL YEAR 1997 SECTION 5311 NONURBANIZED AREA FORMULA APPORTIONMENTS 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        State                            Apportionment  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................          $2,614,842
Alaska..............................................             389,929
American Samoa......................................              55,577
Arizona.............................................           1,199,198
Arkansas............................................           2,090,458
California..........................................           5,102,125
Colorado............................................           1,089,100
Connecticut.........................................             987,916
Delaware............................................             246,461
Florida.............................................           3,279,871
Georgia.............................................           3,823,177
Guam................................................             158,215
Hawaii..............................................             429,093
Idaho...............................................             865,683
Illinois............................................           3,507,552
Indiana.............................................           3,388,215
Iowa................................................           2,179,334
Kansas..............................................           1,733,591
Kentucky............................................           2,861,780
Louisiana...........................................           2,366,899
Maine...............................................           1,142,121
Maryland............................................           1,425,883
Massachusetts.......................................           1,528,114
Michigan............................................           4,138,393
Minnesota...........................................           2,381,406
Mississippi.........................................           2,323,943
Missouri............................................           2,773,725
Montana.............................................             701,271
Nebraska............................................           1,058,130
Nevada..............................................             345,463
New Hampshire.......................................             914,696
New Jersey..........................................           1,307,822
New Mexico..........................................           1,028,146
New York............................................           4,603,691
North Carolina......................................           4,890,479
North Dakota........................................             518,622
Northern Marianas...................................              51,504
Ohio................................................           4,978,848
Oklahoma............................................           2,128,406
Oregon..............................................           1,689,973
Pennsylvania........................................           5,553,957
Puerto Rico.........................................           1,659,697
Rhode Island........................................             212,610
South Carolina......................................           2,447,709
South Dakota........................................             632,159
Tennessee...........................................           3,159,713
Texas...............................................           6,671,035
Utah................................................             479,212
Vermont.............................................             565,205
Virgin Islands......................................             120,972
Virginia............................................           2,801,392
Washington..........................................           1,962,900
West Virginia.......................................           1,669,031
Wisconsin...........................................           2,883,889
Wyoming.............................................             403,344
                                                                        
                                                     -------------------
      Total.........................................         109,522,477
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   University Transportation Centers

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................       6,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       6,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    The Committee has approved the budget request of $6,000,000 
for the university transportation centers program. ISTEA added 
three centers to the ten previously established. These centers 
conduct research, training, and development activities related 
to the transportation of passengers and property.
    The Regional Centers and their focus areas are:

    Region I--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Strategic 
Management of Transportation Systems.
    Region II--City University of New York, Regional Mobility 
and Accessibility Investment Strategies.
    Region III--Pennsylvania State University, Advanced 
Technologies in Transportation Operations and Management.
    Region IV--University of North Carolina, Transportation 
Safety.
    Region V--University of Michigan, Commercial Highway 
Transportation.
    Region VI--Texas A&M State University, Mobility for 
Regional Development.
    Region VII--Iowa State University, Midwestern and Rural 
Transportation Policy, Planning, and System Management.
    Region VIII--North Dakota State University, Rural and Non-
Metropolitan Transportation.
    Region IX--University of California, Berkeley, Improving 
Accessibility for All.
    Region X--University of Washington, Operations Management 
and Planning.

    The National Centers are:

    National Center for Transportation and Industrial 
Productivity at the New Jersey Institute of Technology,
    National Center for Transportation Management, Research & 
Development at Morgan State University, and
    Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center 
at the University of Arkansas.

                     Transit Planning and Research

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................     $85,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      85,500,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      85,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    The Committee recommends a total of $85,500,000 for the 
planning and research, training, and human resources programs 
of the FTA. This level is the same level as appropriated in 
fiscal year 1996 and as requested in the budget. The bill 
contains language specifying that $39,500,000 shall be 
available for the metropolitan planning program, $4,500,000 for 
the rural transit assistance program, $8,250,000 for the 
transit cooperative research program, $22,000,000 for the 
national program, $8,250,000 for the state program and 
$3,000,000 for the National Transit Institute.
    Continued support in fiscal year 1997 is provided for a 
number of important, ongoing initiatives including:

Hennepin Community works program, Hennepin County, 
    Minnesota...........................................        $500,000
Project ACTION (Accessible Community Transportation in 
    our Nation).........................................       2,000,000
Advanced technology transit bus.........................       6,500,000
Fuel cell bus technology................................       6,500,000
Advanced transportation and alternative fueled 
    technologies consortia program......................       3,000,000
Southeast Iowa, Iowa commuter feasibility study.........          50,000
Santa Barbara Transportation Institute..................         500,000

    Advanced transportation and alternative fueled technologies 
consortia program.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for 
the advanced transportation technologies program. The Committee 
intends this level of funding to support the ongoing advanced 
transportation technologies projects undertaken by the CALSTART 
consortium.

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................($1,120,850,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (1,920,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,920,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................  (+799,150,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997........(.........................)

    For fiscal year 1997, the Committee has provided 
$1,920,000,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of 
transit expenses. This appropriation is liquidating cash 
necessary to pay the vouchers the FTA expects in fiscal year 
1997.

                          Discretionary Grants

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

Limitation, fiscal year 1996............................($1,665,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (1,799,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,665,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1996.............(.........................)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................  (-134,000,000)

    The bill includes language limiting to $1,665,000,000 
obligations for the discretionary grants program. This 
represents no change from the 1996 enacted level and a 
reduction of $134,000,000 from the budget estimate. The 
Committee has adhered to the requirements of ISTEA that direct 
that of the funds made available under this heading, forty 
percent be available for rail modernization, forty percent be 
available for new start discretionary grants, and twenty 
percent be available for buses and bus-related facilities. The 
budget estimate did not adhere to this statutory requirement. 
The following table shows the fiscal year 1996 limitation, the 
fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1996 enacted       1997 request       Recommended   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed guideway modernization...........................       $666,000,000       $725,000,000       $666,000,000
Buses and bus facilities...............................        333,000,000        274,000,000        333,000,000
New starts.............................................        666,000,000        800,000,000        666,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      1,665,000,000      1,799,000,000      1,665,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
The Committee has redistributed unallocated new start funds 
from projects which were funded in previous fiscal years that 
are not likely to obligate those funds in fiscal year 1996. 
Funds made available in the fiscal year 1994 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and 
previous Acts are available for reallocation in fiscal year 
1997 as availability for these discretionary funds is limited 
to three years from enactment. In addition, $744,000 of funds 
made available for the New Bedford/Fall River project in the 
1995 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act has been reallocated as the project is being 
funded from other resources, and $47,322,000 from the Chicago 
Central Area Circulator project which has been cancelled.
    The following amounts have been reallocated from various 
projects to new starts funding for fiscal year 1997:

Fiscal year 1992:
    Detroit.............................................      $4,890,000
    San Jose-Gilroy.....................................       4,000,000
    Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail........................       1,620,000
Fiscal year 1995:
    New Bedford/Fall River..............................         744,000
Chicago Central Area Circulator balances................      47,322,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      58,576,000

    Therefore, a total of $58,576,000 has been reprogrammed to 
the new systems account, increasing the available funding from 
$666,000,000 to $724,576,000.
    Seattle-Tacoma--The Committee has reprogrammed, without 
prejudice, unobligated balances of $1,620,000 for the Seattle-
Tacoma commuter rail project. In previous years, the Committee 
appropriated funds to establish commuter rail service over 
existing railroad rights-of-way in the heavily congested Puget 
Sound area, including the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett corridor. The 
Committee notes that a Regional Transportation Authority has 
been created which could operate such service and that the 
legislature of the State of Washington has enacted legislation 
permitting city governments to construct, operate, and maintain 
passenger rail systems. The Committee anticipates a local 
ballot regarding commuter rail service in the corridor in the 
fall of 1996 and encourages project sponsors to seek federal 
assistance once the local referendum is approved.

                         bus and bus facilities

    The Committee recommends $333,000,000 for bus purchases and 
bus facilities, including maintenance garages. Bus systems are 
expected to play a vital role in the mass transportation 
systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates that 
approximately 95 percent of the areas that provide mass transit 
service do so through bus transit only and over 60 percent of 
all transit passenger trips are provided by bus. The Committee 
believes that the $333,000,000 recommended under this heading, 
together with other appropriations that are available for bus 
projects, should provide the funding necessary to retain 
existing bus riders as well as to attract new riders who 
currently use private automobiles.
    Under ISTEA, the federal share for most bus projects is 80 
percent. However, the federal share increases to 90 percent for 
the incremental costs of bus-related equipment needed to meet 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Americans with 
Disabilities Act.
    Technology introduction.--The Committee has not provided 
additional funds to accelerate the prototype delivery and 
testing of the advanced technology transit bus (ATTB), to 
incorporate ATTB technologies to produce a trolley bus, or to 
retrofit off-wire trolley buses. Sufficient funds to continue 
research and development of the ATTB in accord with the 
original schedule have been provided under the transit planning 
and research account. Moreover, the Committee believes the bus 
and bus facilities account is to provide assistance to transit 
authorities to meet their capital needs and to assist them in 
complying with federal requirements such as the Clean Air Act 
and the Americans with Disabilities Act, not to provide 
supplemental funds for FTA's research program.
    Michigan reprogramming.--The Committee approves the FTA's 
May 6, 1996 reprogramming request relating to fiscal year 1996 
capital discretionary bus funds to the State of Michigan.
    The recommended amount for buses and bus-related facilities 
includes the following allocations:

State of Arizona:
    Sun Tran maintenance facility.......................      $2,000,000
State of Arkansas, buses and bus facilities.............       5,400,000
State of California:
    Eureka intermodal transportation center.............       1,000,000
    Folsom, buses.......................................         500,000
    Foothills transit bus maintenance facility..........       9,500,000
    Long Beach, buses and bus facilities................       2,000,000
    Mendocino County, buses.............................         600,000
    North Orange County, buses..........................         200,000
    Norwalk, buses and bus facilities...................       2,000,000
    Riverside County, buses and bus facilities..........       1,000,000
    San Francisco, buses................................       8,550,000
    San Ysidro border intermodal center.................       1,400,000
    Santa Barbara metropolitan transit district, buses 
      and bus facilities................................       3,000,000
    Santa Cruz metropolitan transit district, bus 
      facility..........................................       2,000,000
    Sonoma County, park-and-ride facilities.............       1,600,000
    Yolo County, buses..................................       2,000,000
State of Colorado:
    Fort Collins and Greeley, buses.....................       1,000,000
State of Connecticut:
    Bridgeport, buses and bus facilities................       2,000,000
State of Delaware, buses and bus facilities.............       4,000,000
State of Florida:
    Palm Beach County, intermodal facility..............       2,000,000
    Lynx, buses.........................................       5,000,000
    Metropolitan Dade County, buses and bus facilities..       5,000,000
    Volusia County, buses...............................       2,000,000
    Ybor, buses and bus facilities......................       1,000,000
State of Georgia:
    Chatham, bus facility...............................       2,120,000
    MARTA, buses........................................       4,000,000
State of Iowa, buses and bus facilities.................      19,000,000
State of Illinois:
    Chicago, buses and bus facilities...................      10,000,000
    Statewide, buses and bus facilities.................      10,000,000
State of Indiana:
    Statewide, buses and bus facilities.................       7,500,000
    South Bend intermodal facility......................       5,500,000
State of Kansas, buses and bus facilities...............       2,000,000
State of Kentucky:
    Owensboro, vans.....................................         100,000
    Statewide, buses and bus facilities.................       6,000,000
State of Louisiana, buses and bus facilities............      20,000,000
State of Massachusetts:
    Worcester Union Station.............................       3,000,000
    South Station intermodal center.....................       1,000,000
    Gallager transportation terminal....................       1,000,000
State of Maryland, buses and bus facilities.............      10,000,000
State of Michigan:
    Lansing, intermodal facility........................       1,230,000
    SMART, buses and bus facility.......................       2,000,000
    Grand Rapids, intermodal facility...................       2,000,000
    Flint, bus facility.................................       2,000,000
    Kalkaska, buses.....................................         640,000
    Dearborn, intermodal facility.......................       1,000,000
    Kalamazoo, buses and bus facility...................       1,000,000
    Statewide, buses and bus facilities.................       2,130,000
State of Minnesota:
    Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, buses and 
      bus facilities....................................      12,000,000
State of Missouri:
    South St. Louis, buses and bus facilities...........       1,750,000
State of Nevada:
    Clark County, bus facilities........................       5,500,000
State of New York:
    Crossroads intermodal station.......................       1,000,000
    Elmira, buses and bus facilities....................       1,000,000
    New Rochelle, intermodal facility...................       2,500,000
    Syracuse, buses.....................................       4,000,000
    Westchester County, bus facilities..................         500,000
State of North Carolina, buses and bus facilities.......       5,000,000
State of Ohio:
    Statewide, buses and bus facilities.................      25,000,000
    Triskett bus garage and facilities (including CITME)       3,000,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
    Altoona (ISTEA earmark).............................       3,000,000
    Armstrong County Mid-County, buses and bus 
      facilities........................................         262,000
    Berks Area Reading Transit, intermodal facility.....         400,000
    Cambria County, buses and bus facilities............       2,058,000
    Indiana County, buses...............................         680,000
    Lehigh and North Hampton Transportation, buses......         400,000
    Mid Mon Valley Transit, buses.......................          80,000
    North Philadelphia intermodal center................       2,000,000
    Scranton, buses and bus facilities..................       1,500,000
    Somerset County, vans...............................         120,000
    SEPTA...............................................      16,000,000
    Williamsport, buses and bus facilities..............       4,000,000
    Statewide, buses and bus facilities.................       2,880,000
State of Tennessee, buses and bus facilities                   4,000,000
State of Texas:
    Corpus Christi, buses and bus facilities............       1,250,000
    El Paso, buses and bus facilities...................       5,000,000
    Polk County, buses and bus facilities...............       1,250,000
    Statewide, buses and bus facilities.................       4,400,000
State of Utah:
    City of Logan, buses and bus facilities.............       2,000,000
    Statewide, buses and bus facilities.................       3,000,000
State of Vermont, buses and bus facilities..............       2,500,000
Commonwealth of Virginia:
    Reston internal bus system, buses...................         500,000
    Virginia Beach, intermodal facility.................       1,000,000
State of Washington:
    Bremerton, buses and bus facilities.................       4,000,000
    Everett intermodal center...........................       4,000,000
    Thurston County intercity transit buses.............       1,000,000
    Port Angeles, buses and bus facilities..............       1,500,000
    Tacoma Dome.........................................       5,000,000
State of Wisconsin, buses and bus facilities............      20,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     333,000,000

    State of Illinois.--The Committee has provided $20,000,000 
for the Illinois Department of Transportation for replacement 
buses and transit equipment. This amount includes funds for 
replacement buses for the following transit agencies: 
$2,240,000 for Champaign-Urbana; $1,344,000 for Madison County; 
$1,344,000 for Rock Island; $1,400,000 for Springfield; 
$960,000 for rural paratransit; and $2,666,700 for Pace. In 
addition, $10,000,000 is provided for a new bus communications 
system for the Chicago Transit Authority.
    State of Iowa.--The Committee has provided a total of 
$19,000,000 for bus and bus facilities within the State of 
Iowa. Within this total, the Committee has provided $8,822,200 
for the Iowa Department of Transportation and includes $10,100 
to Region 6; $387,600 to Region 13; $294,800 to Region 14; 
$328,800 to Region 15; and $249,600 to Region 16. In addition, 
$61,400 is to be available for bus replacement for Ottumwa; 
$866,700 for buses and bus replacements for Fort Dodge; 
$1,069,700 for buses for Iowa City; $1,490,000 for buses for 
Des Moines; $1,490,000 for park and ride lots for Cedar Rapids; 
and $5,200,000 for an intermodal center for Sioux City.
    State of Louisiana.--The Committee has included $20,000,000 
for buses and bus-related facilities in the State of Louisiana 
to be distributed as follows: $1,195,000 for Alexandria; 
$1,603,000 for Baton Rouge; $2,405,000 for Jefferson Parish; 
$912,000 for Lafayette; $376,000 for Lake Charles; $1,168,000 
for Louisiana DOTC; $360,000 for Monroe; $10,932,000 for New 
Orleans; and $1,049,000 for Shreveport.
    State of Michigan.--The Committee has included a total of 
$12,000,000 for buses and bus facilities within the State of 
Michigan, which includes $10,000,000 provided by Public Law 
102-240. Funds are to be available as follows: $1,230,000 for 
the intermodal facility in Lansing; $2,000,000 for SMART; 
$2,000,000 for an intermodal center in Grand Rapids; $2,000,000 
for a bus facility in Flint; $640,000 for buses in Kalkaska; 
$1,000,000 for an intermodal facility in Dearborn; $1,000,000 
for Kalamazoo; and $2,130,000 to be distributed by the State.
    The Committee has also included a provision (Sec. 337) that 
permits the State of Michigan to use the funds provided in 
Public Law 102-240 for the purchase of buses and for bus 
facilities.
    Fairfax County, Virginia.--Any previously appropriated 
funds remaining after completion of the Fairfax County park-
and-ride facilities may be available for buses in the Dulles 
Corridor.
    Alternative fueled vehicles.--In the Energy Policy Act of 
1992, Congress expressed its intent that the Federal Government 
should promote the acquisition and use of alternative fueled 
vehicles in public transit fleets. In light of this intent, the 
Committee urges the FTA to give special consideration to grant 
applications of transit authorities seeking to purchase 
alternative fueled vehicles.
    Washoe County, Nevada.--The Committee has not included 
funding for the Washoe County Regional Transportation 
Commission. While Washoe County has started to improve its bus 
fleet, the addition of 17 buses would move the commission into 
compliance with greater than half of the ADA requirements. 
Given the limited resources available to the Committee for 
buses and bus-related facilities, and the fact that many 
transit districts are struggling to improve their accessibility 
for the disabled, the Committee was unable to meet the request 
of Washoe County at this date. The Committee encourages the 
project sponsors to continue to seek appropriations.
    State of Wisconsin.--Funds made available in Public Law 
103-331 for a multi-modal transit platform shall be available 
to the State of Wisconsin for the purchase of buses.

                      fixed guideway modernization

    The Committee recommends $666,000,000 from the 
discretionary grants program to modernize existing rail transit 
systems. The funds are to be distributed as follows:

New York................................................    $228,317,868
Southwestern Connecticut................................      30,238,186
Northeastern New Jersey.................................      59,852,995
Chicago/Northwestern Indiana............................      94,083,037
Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey........................      68,353,400
Boston..................................................      46,966,395
San Francisco...........................................      43,346,200
Pittsburgh..............................................      14,619,242
Cleveland...............................................      10,234,467
Baltimore...............................................      11,252,003
New Orleans.............................................       1,977,169
Los Angeles.............................................       5,163,433
Washington, DC..........................................      14,498,674
Seattle.................................................       4,716,616
Atlanta.................................................       5,363,201
San Diego...............................................       1,865,716
San Jose................................................       3,367,284
Providence..............................................         886,831
Dayton..................................................       1,415,918
Tacoma..................................................         170,335
Wilmington..............................................         278,710
Trenton.................................................         493,550
Lawrence-Haverhill......................................         432,833
Chattanooga.............................................          17,404
Baltimore...............................................       2,077,988
Minneapolis.............................................         970,638
St. Louis...............................................         134,739
Denver..................................................         323,695
Norfolk.................................................         341,533
Kansas City.............................................          18,106
Honolulu................................................         221,697
Harford.................................................         376,909
Madison.................................................         176,241
San Juan................................................         891,176
Detroit.................................................         165,760
Dallas..................................................         266,485
Sacramento..............................................         841,768
Hoston..................................................       1,413,969
Buffalo.................................................         378,659
Portland................................................         743,813
Miami...................................................       2,752,667
Phoenix.................................................         997,690
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     661,005,000
        \3/4\-percent takedown..........................       4,995,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total appropriation...............................     666,000,000

                               new starts

    The bill includes $666,000,000 of new authority and 
$58,576,000 of reprogrammed funds for a total of $724,576,000. 
These funds are available for preliminary engineering, right-
of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and 
construction of new systems and extensions. Though the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act authorizes the 
federal share for transit programs up to 80 percent of the 
project costs, the Committee encourages local transit 
authorities to consider contributing more than the minimum 20 
percent required under the law. Such an overmatch would 
indicate significant local and state support and commitment to 
a project. Inasmuch as federal assistance for many projects may 
be declining in the future, an overmatch leverages limited 
federal funds and may provide the basis for continuing federal 
support.
    The funds are to be distributed as follows:

Atlanta-North Springs project...........................     $66,820,000
Baltimore LRT Extension project.........................      10,260,000
Boston Piers (MOS-2) project............................      40,181,000
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project............       5,500,000
Chicago transit improvements............................      25,000,000
Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail line project       3,000,000
DART North Central light rail extension project.........      10,000,000
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project......................      12,500,000
Dekalb County, Georgia commuter rail project............       1,000,000
Denver Southwest Corridor project.......................       3,000,000
Florida Tri-County commuter rail project................       9,000,000
Griffin light rail project..............................       2,000,000
Houston Regional Bus project............................      40,590,000
Jacksonville ASE extenstion project.....................      15,300,000
Kansas City Southtown corridor project..................       1,500,000
Los Angeles--MOS-3 project..............................      90,000,000
Los Angeles-San Diego rail corridor.....................       1,500,000
MARC Commuter Rail Improvements project.................      27,000,000
Miami-North 27th Avenue project.........................       1,000,000
Memphis, Tennessee Regional Rail plan...................       2,000,000
New Jersey Urban Core/Hudson-Bergen LRT project.........      10,000,000
New Jersey Urban Core/Secaucus project..................     105,530,000
New Jersey West Trenton commuter rail project...........       1,000,000
New Orleans Canal Street project........................       8,000,000
New Orleans Desire Streetcar project....................       2,000,000
New York Queens Connection project......................      35,020,000
Northern Indiana Commuter Rail..........................         500,000
Orange County Transitway project........................       5,000,000
Orlando Lynx light rail project.........................       2,000,000
Portland Westside/Hillsboro Extension project...........      90,000,000
Sacramento LRT Extension project........................       6,000,000
Salt Lake City-South LRT project........................      20,000,000
St. Louis St. Clair extension project...................      20,000,000
San Francisco Bay Area projects.........................      35,000,000
    BART Extension to the SFO airport
    San Jose Tasman West LRT project
San Diego-Mid Coast Corridor project....................       3,000,000
San Juan Tren Urbano project............................       9,500,000
Staten Island-Midtown Ferry service project.............         375,000
Tampa to Lakeland commuter rail project.................       2,000,000
Whitehall ferry terminal, New York, New York............       2,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     724,576,000

    Atlanta north line extension.--The Metropolitan Atlanta 
Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is constructing a 1.9 mile, 
two-station extension of the North Line from just north of the 
Dunwoody Station to North Springs. The project is part of the 
larger North Line extension to the MARTA heavy rail rapid 
transit system. The segment from Buckhead to Dunwoody is 
expected to open in June 1996. The initial 5.7-mile segment, 
from Lenox Station to Buckhead, was constructed without FTA 
assistance. When the North Springs extension is completed, it 
will serve the rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which 
includes Perimeter Center and north Fulton County, and will 
connect this area with the rest of the region by providing 
better transit service for both commuters and inner-city 
residents traveling to expanding job opportunities. A full 
funding grant agreement (FFGA) was issued for this project in 
December 1994, providing for a total of $305,100,000 in new 
starts funding. This includes $29,460,000 in fiscal year 1995 
and prior year ISTEA funds (plus $10,000,000 in fiscal year 
1991), all of which have been obligated. The Committee 
recommends $66,820,000 for fiscal year 1997.
    Baltimore-LRT extension project.--The Mass Transit 
Administration (MTA) of Maryland is building three extensions 
of the central light rail transit (LRT) system in metropolitan 
Baltimore with FTA support. The extensions are a 2-mile, 2-
station branch off the LRT main line in Linthicum directly into 
the Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport terminal, 
a 5-mile, 5-station extension from Timonium to Hunt Valley, and 
a quarter-mile, one-station spur off the main line into 
Pennsylvania Station where Amtrak northeast corridor trains and 
MARC commuter trains stop. The project is estimated to cost 
about $106,300,000. ISTEA directed FTA to enter into a FFGA 
with MTA for the three LRT extensions, and MTA and FTA signed 
an FFGA in November 1994. The FFGA requires that, contingent 
upon appropriations, FTA provide MTA with $22,600,000 in fiscal 
year 1996 and $15,100,000 in fiscal year 1997 new start funds. 
In fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $15,200,000. The 
Committee recommends $10,260,000 for fiscal year 1997.
    Boston piers MOS-2 project.--The Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority (MBTA) is developing an underground 
transitway connecting the MBTA's existing transit system with 
the South Boston Piers area, located at the periphery of the 
central business district (CBD). This area is slated for future 
development, and is expected to more than double its existing 
commercial space by 2010. A 1.5-mile tunnel, to be constructed 
in two phases, will extend from the existing Boylston Station 
to the World Trade Center; five underground stations will 
provide connections to MBTA's red, orange, and green lines. 
Electric trolleys or dual-mode vehicles will operate in the 
transitway tunnel and on surface routes in the eastern end of 
the Piers area. -Phase 1 of the project consists of a 1-mile 
bus tunnel with three stations located at South Station, Fan 
Pier, and the World Trade Center. Phase 2 will extend the 
tunnel to Boylston Station. Parts of Phase 1 are integrally 
related to construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel highway 
project now underway. Joint construction will help reduce 
transitway costs, environmental impacts and construction 
impacts. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA directs FTA to enter into an 
FFGA for this project. An FFGA for this project was issued for 
Phase 1 in November 1994, for $330,730,000; this includes the 
$92,450,000 provided in fiscal year 1995 and prior years. The 
fiscal year 1996 budget provided $19,820,000 for this project, 
to which was added $132,750,000 in reallocated prior year 
discretionary funds. This leaves $218,320,000 to complete the 
project. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation 
includes $40,181,000 for the project.
    Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project.--This 
regional line will relieve traffic congestion on Interstate 77 
and help with air quality issues in non-attainment areas. 
Currently, the Ohio Department of Transportation is reviewing 
existing and proposed land use patterns and impacts, 
preliminary ridership estimates, and preliminary cost 
estimates. This phase will be completed by mid-1996. Phase II 
will complete the analysis by assessing the economic and 
environmental implications of a commuter rail system, as well 
as other transportation modes available to meet anticipated 
travel demand. The Committee has included $5,500,000 for the 
proposed Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project and 
commends the Ohio Department of Transportation, as the grantee, 
for ensuring the project's viability by encouraging a three 
city, regional line.
    Chicago transit improvements.--The City of Chicago was 
developing a $775,000,000 light rail project in downtown 
Chicago. The Chicago Central Area Circulator was to have a 
network of 18.5 miles of track and 32 stations and improve 
congestion and circulation in the central business district. 
The project was subsequently canceled. Consistent with the 
City's plans to improve circulation in the central business 
district, the Committee has provided $25,000,000 for transit 
improvements in the downtown Chicago area. The projects 
include: installing a cab signal system for the State Street 
subway; renovations of the State Street subway continuous 
station platform; renovation of the CTA subway station 
mezzanine at the Jackson/Van Buren subway station; mezzanine 
and platform rehabilitation of the CTA Chicago/State subway 
station; and design work for Ravenswood/Douglas Branch 
rehabilitation.
    Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky rail line project.--The 
corridor extends from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky 
International Airport through downtown Cincinnati to Paramount 
King's Island Amusement Park in Warren County, Ohio. This 33-
mile corridor paralleling I-71 generally runs in a 
northeasterly direction, and so is referred to as the Northeast 
Corridor. The capital cost of the rail alternative is 
$800,000,000. The project is currently in the system planning 
studies phase. For fiscal years 1994 through 1996, Congress has 
appropriated $3,500,000 for the corridor. For fiscal year 1997, 
the Committee has included $3,000,000.
    Dallas North Central corridor.--Dallas Area Rapid Transit 
(DART) plans to build a North Central Corridor LRT extension 
beyond the Park Lane Station and their starter system, which is 
currently under construction. The project is 11.4 miles long 
with 6 stations, terminating in Plano. The southern 6.8 miles, 
from Park Lane to the Richardson Transit Center, would be 
double tracked. The northern 5.5 miles would be single tracked 
with limited station development. The project is estimated to 
cost $354,300,000. The project is now in the preliminary 
engineering phase. A draft environmental impact statement 
should be ready for circulation the summer of 1996. There is no 
ISTEA authorization for this project. Through fiscal year 1996, 
Congress has appropriated $5,400,000. For fiscal year 1997, the 
Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this project.
    Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project, phase 2.--The RAILTRAN 
project will provide commuter rail service between Dallas and 
Fort Worth. This project consists of 25 miles of service 
between South Irving and Fort Worth. The system is currently in 
the preliminary engineering phase. Phase 2 is estimated to cost 
$129,010,000. Congress has appropriated $11,400,000 for this 
project to date and recommends $12,500,000 for fiscal year 
1997.
    Dekalb County commuter rail project.--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 for the DeKalb County, Georgia light rail 
project. The project would consist of a preliminary 
determination of the feasibility and impact of a proposed rail 
line connecting the Lindbergh Station with the East Lake 
Station and extending it into south DeKalb to DeKalb College 
South Station. The preliminary conceptual study will consist of 
numerous activities including: initial location studies for 
alignment, stations and maintenance facilities, identify patron 
estimates; parking needs, and preliminary cost estimates; 
consider property acquisition and major street and utility 
relocation; provide preliminary topographic mapping and soil 
analysis; and at least one initial public session on the 
preliminary conceptual plan.
    Denver southwest light rail extension.--The Regional 
Transit District (RTD) in Denver is developing an 8.7 mile 
light rail extension from I-25 and Broadway in Denver to 
Mineral Avenue in Littleton. This double-track line will 
operate over an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and 
connect with the Central Corridor light rail in downtown 
Denver, which opened in October 1994. RTD estimates that it 
will carry 22,000 passengers a day. The existing Central 
Corridor line was built entirely without federal assistance, 
and RTD has $26,000,000 for the Southwest Corridor in its 
capital reserve. The total federal share for the entire system, 
including the locally-funded starter line, is less than 50 
percent. RTD is seeking a commitment of $120,000,000 in section 
3 funds to complete this project. Preliminary engineering and 
environmental reviews have been completed. No prior year funds 
have been earmarked for this project, and no funds were 
provided in fiscal year 1996. FTA issued an FFGA for this 
project in May 1996. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for 
the Denver Southwest light rail extension in fiscal year 1997.
    Florida Tri-County commuter rail project.--The Tri-County 
Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 67-mile commuter 
rail system connecting Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties 
in Florida. Tri-Rail has been adding service and new stations 
to meet increasing demands for service. Tri-Rail's five-year 
capital improvement program includes the addition of a second 
track on part of the line, rehabilitation of the signal system, 
station improvements and parking extensions. The capital 
program is estimated to cost $423,300,000. The project is 
currently in the preliminary engineering phase. To date, 
Congress has appropriated $44,300,000, which are being used for 
station improvements, bridge rehabilitation, and double 
tracking. The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for this project 
in fiscal year 1997.
    Griffin light rail project.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for preliminary engineering for the Griffin line 
light rail project. The Greater Hartford Transit District is 
proposing a 9.2 mile light rail line from Union Station in 
Hartford to Griffin Center Office Park in Bloomfield. The 
project is estimated to cost $176,000,000. A major investment 
study is nearing completion. Congress has not appropriated any 
funds for the project in the past.
    Houston regional bus project.--The Regional Bus Plan 
developed by Houston Metro consists of a package of 
improvements to the existing bus system. It consists of service 
expansions in most of the region, new and extended HOV 
facilities and ramps, several transit centers and park-n-ride 
lots, and supporting facilities. The local share for the 
project is fifty percent. Section 3035 (uu) of ISTEA directs 
FTA to negotiate and sign an FFGA for $500,000,000 for this 
project, provided that a locally preferred alternative for the 
priority corridor project had been selected by March 1, 1992. 
This condition has been met, and the FFGA was issued in 
December 1994, to provide a total of $500,000,000 for this 
project. This includes $118,900,000 provided in fiscal year 
1995 and prior years under ISTEA, as well as $146,070,000 in 
pre-ISTEA earmarks. All of these funds have been obligated. The 
fiscal year 1996 budget provided an additional $22,360,000. The 
FFGA for this project provides $40,590,000 in fiscal year 1997 
new starts funds, with the remaining $172,390,000 needed to 
complete the project to be provided in fiscal years 1998-2000. 
The Committee recommendation reflects the funding schedule 
specified in the FFGA.
    Jacksonville automated skyway express extension project.--
The Committee recommends $15,300,000 to complete the 
Jacksonville automated skyway express. The Jacksonville 
Transportation Authority (JTA) is developing a 0.3 mile 
extension of the automated skyway express south of downtown 
Jacksonville, and completion of a maintenance facility. The 
extension consists of an elevated, double track guideway 
running from the San Marco to Flagler Station segment, now 
under construction, through the South Bank business district to 
the Dupont Station. The final segment totals $25,000,000 for 
which Congress has appropriated $9,500,000. It is the 
Committee's understanding that the JTA has contributed 
$25,000,000 to the Florida Department of Transportation 
exclusively for the reconstruction of the Fuller Warren Bridge 
as a condition funding for the Jacksonville ASE.
    Kansas City, southtown corridor project.--The Kansas City 
Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) is proposing a 15.2-mile 
LRT project in the Southtown Corridor. The project would extend 
from the riverfront and downtown Kansas City south to the 
Country Club Plaza and to 85th Street and Holmes Road. The 
project also includes an eastern line from the Country Club 
Plaza to Watkins Drive and south to 75th Street, KCATA proposes 
to build the project in phases. The starter project is 5.6 
miles in length and runs from the River Market to 51st Street 
at the southern edge of the Plaza. It is estimated to cost 
$200,000,000 and would carry 16,800 riders per day in 2010. 
Section 3035(k) of ISTEA directed the FTA to enter into a 
multiyear grant agreement in the amount of $5,900,000 with 
KCATA to provide for the completion of the alternative analyses 
and preliminary engineering. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress 
has appropriated $1,500,000. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1997.
    Los Angeles, MOS-3 Extensions of Metro Rail.--The 23-mile 
$5,700,000,000 Metro Red Line Rail project is planned as 
``minimum operable segments (MOSs) for funding purposes. ISTEA 
defined MOS-3 to include three Metro Rail extensions including 
the North Hollywood extension, the East Side extension, and the 
Mid-City extension. A full funding grant agreement has been 
signed, committing $1,417,000,000 in funding. To date, Congress 
has appropriated $440,710,000, including $83,980,000 in fiscal 
year 1996. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation 
includes $90,000,000 for the project.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about a number of 
irregularities with the construction of the Los Angeles red 
line. Last year, the Committee learned of problems such as 
tunnel liner integrity, misalignment of tunnels, a sinkhole in 
Hollywood Boulevard, improper use of wooden support wedges 
rather than steel supports, investigations into awards of bids 
and insurance contracts, and other improper activities. This 
year, the Committee has learned more about the life expectancy 
of the tunnel; a potential new alignment planned tunnel in the 
Mid-City section of the project; further sinkage associated 
with subway construction mounting potential legal claims 
against the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority 
(LAMTA), now totaling almost $2,000,000,000; new charges of 
claims billings fraud; and an Arthur Anderson report that 
concluded that the LAMTA has done a poor job overseeing the 
private engineering firms responsible for LAMTA's designs and 
that the LAMTA has other oversight deficiencies. The Committee 
believes that the amount recommended in the bill, in addition 
to other state and local funding, will be sufficient to further 
the project while allowing LAMTA, under new leadership to 
continue to improve its oversight and quality assurance 
programs. Further, the Committee directs the Federal Transit 
Administration to continue its aggressive oversight program by 
retaining the project management oversight staff that were 
added last year.
    The Congress and this Committee have recognized the growing 
trend of states, cities and other municipalities diverting or 
attempting to divert airport revenue. To counter that trend and 
to preclude airports from supplementing cities' coffers, 
Congress included a special provision in the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts for 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 which stated that none of the funds 
provided by those Acts should be available to any state or 
municipality that diverts revenue generated by a public airport 
in violation of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, as 
amended. The Committee continues to be concerned about ongoing 
and proposed diversion of airport revenue. The Los Angeles City 
Council recently rejected a proposed diversion of $30,000,000 
of airport revenues to the City's budget. The Committee 
appreciates this action and will continue to monitor the 
actions of the City of Los Angeles--and other municipalities--
to ensure the proper and legal use of airport revenues. 
Continued attempts to illegally divert revenue from an airport 
will be considered in all decisions regarding the funding for 
transportation projects before the Committee.
    Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor.--The LOSSAN 
improvements are part of a long-range plan to increase speed, 
safety and capacity for rail service in the Los Angeles-San 
Diego rail corridor. The project consists of three grade 
separation projects along the corridor, including one in the 
City of Commerce, the City of Fullerton and the City of Solana 
Beach. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated 
$18,400,000. Project costs total $20,000,000. The project is at 
the 95 percent design stage and will be ready for construction 
soon. For fiscal year 1997, $1,500,000 is recommended for the 
project.
    MARC commuter rail project.--The Committee recommends 
$27,000,000 for the MARC commuter rail project in fiscal year 
1997. The Mass Transit Administration (MTA) of Maryland is 
extending the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system to provide 
service from Point of Rocks to Frederick, Maryland. This 
extension will provide service from suburban Montgomery and 
Frederick counties to Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C. 
The project involves track, signal, station improvements along 
an existing freight line. The environmental assessment of the 
Frederick extension has been completed, station sites have been 
selected, and final design is underway. MARC expects to 
initiate service on this extension in 1998. ISTEA authorized 
funds in the amount of $160,000,000 for this project. An FFGA 
was issued in June 1995, to provide a total of $105,250,000 to 
complete the project. This includes $13,890,000 provided in 
fiscal year 1995; an additional $33,360,000 was appropriated in 
prior years, all of which has been obligated. The fiscal year 
1996 budget provided $9,980,000 for this project, leaving 
$81,480,000 needed to complete the FFGA.
    Miami-North 27th Avenue corridor.--The Metro-Dade Transit 
Agency (MDTA) is considering rail, busway, and bus options for 
improving transportation in the 9.5 mile N.W. 27th Avenue 
corridor. One alternative is an elevated heavy rail line which 
would operate in full integration with stage 1 metrorail, 
connect with major regional educational and sports facilities, 
and terminate at the Dade/Broward county line. The preliminary 
capital cost of the rail alternative is $453-$463 million. This 
includes final design, right-of-way and rolling stock 
acquisition. A major investment study has been completed. There 
is no authorization for this project in ISTEA. Congress has 
appropriated $1,900,000 in fiscal year 1996 which will be used 
to fund preliminary engineering and preparation of draft and 
final environmental impact statements. The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
    Memphis regional rail.--The Memphis Area Transit Authority 
(MATA) is studying transit options in the corridor between 
downtown Memphis and the Medical Center. The Medical Center 
Corridor connects the two largest employment centers in the 
region. One alternative being studied is an expansion of the 
2.2-mile vintage rail trolley that MATA currently operates in 
downtown Memphis. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has 
appropriated $1,700,000 for a regional transit/rail plan. The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
    New Jersey urban core/Hudson-Bergen LRT.--The New Jersey 
Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is proposing a 20.5 mile, 33-
mile-station light rail transit project along the Hudson River 
Waterfront in Hudson County. The line would extend from the 
Vince Lombardi park-n-ride lot in Bergen County to Bayonne, 
passing through Port Imperail in Weehauken, and New Jersey 
City. The core of the system would serve the high-density 
commercial centers in Jersey City and Hoboken, and provide 
connections with NJ Transit commuter rail service, PATH trains 
to Newark and Manhattan, and the Port Imperial ferry from 
Weehauken to Manhattan. This project is a major component of 
the Urban Core program of interrelated projects defined in 
ISTEA, designed to significantly enhance mobility in the 
Northeastern New Jersey area. ISTEA specifically exempted these 
projects from the FTA section 3 evaluation criteria. New Jersey 
Transit is seeking a total of $623,990,000 in section 3 funding 
to complete a 10-mile ``first construction stage'' from Hoboken 
Terminal to 34th Street in Bayonne and Westside Avenue in 
Jersey City. A total of $108,990,000 in fiscal year 1995 and 
prior year funds have been allocated to the Hudson-Bergen LRT, 
including $19,900,000 in pre-ISTEA earmarks, all of which have 
been obligated. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 for 
the Hudson-Bergen LRT project in fiscal year 1997.
    New Jersey urban core/Secaucus.--As part of its Urban Core 
program of interrelated projects, New Jersey Transit is 
constructing a major commuter rail transfer station in 
Secaucus, at the point where its Main and Bergen Lines 
intersect with the Northeast Corridor Line. The project 
consists of a new, three-level transfer station; track, signal 
and bridge updates; and construction of a new platform and 
elevated walkway. It will allow commuters on the Main Line, 
Bergen County Line, Pascack Valley Line, and Port Jervis Line 
to transfer to Northeast Corridor commuter trains destined to 
Penn Station in midtown Manhattan or Penn Station in Newark. 
Located in the Meadowlands, this project is part of a potential 
public/private partnership which could include a major 
commercial center. Section 3031 of ISTEA identifies the 
Secaucus Transfer Station as an element of the New Jersey Urban 
Core program of projects, and requires FTA to enter into a FFGA 
for elements that can be fully funded in fiscal years 1992 
through 1997. In addition, ISTEA earmarked $634,400,000 for the 
entire Urban Core program of projects. Section 3031(c) 
specifically exempts these projects from the project 
justification requirements. An FFGA was issued for the Secaucus 
Transfer project in December 1994 to provide a total of 
$444,260,000 through fiscal year 1998, including $233,180,000 
funds already provided in prior year appropriations, all of 
which has been obligated. The Committee recommends $105,530,000 
for fiscal year 1997.
    West Trenton commuter rail, New Jersey.--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 for the West Trenton commuter rail line. 
The West Trenton line would provide transit service to southern 
and central Somerset County as well as the northern and western 
portions of Mercer County. It is estimated to provide service 
to 1,750 commuters a day. The service would be offered from 
West Trenton to Bound Brook, with potential stops at Hopewell 
and Belle Mead. The train would then join the Raritan Valley 
line and terminate at Newark. Passengers traveling south could 
also board SEPTA trains to Philadelphia.
    New Orleans Canal Street streetcar.--The Regional Transit 
Authority (RTA) is developing a 4.4 mile streetcar project in 
downtown New Orleans. The Canal Streetcar would extend along 
the median of Canal Street from the Canal Ferry at the 
Mississippi River in the Central Business District, through the 
Mid-City neighborhood, to two outer termini at N. Anthony and 
Degado Community College/City Park. The capital cost estimate 
is $92,600,000. The project is currently in the preliminary 
engineering phase. For fiscal years 1994 through 1996, Congress 
has appropriated $18,400,000. The Committee recommendation 
includes $8,000,000 for the Canal Street streetcar in fiscal 
year 1997.
    New Orleans Desire streetcar line reconstruction.--The 
Regional Transit Authority seeks to design and construct the 
fabled Streetcar Named Desire route as a major transit artery. 
Using the Royal and Bourbon/Dauphine Streets, the four mile 
line would travel through the historic New Orleans 
neighborhoods of Bywater, Faubourg Marigny and the Vieux Carre 
(the French quarter). The Committee has included $2,000,000 for 
preliminary engineering and design activities.
    New York Queens connection.--The New York Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority (MTA) is constructing a connection 
from 63rd Street tunnel to the Queens Boulevard subway lines. 
The Queens Boulevard Connection consists of approximately \1/
3\-mile of new tunnel, with corresponding track, signal work, 
and real estate acquisition. This project will relieve severe 
overcrowding on the Queens Boulevard subway lines by diverting 
service from the bottleneck at the 63rd Street Tunnel, allowing 
the operation of an additional 15 trains per hour between 
Manhattan and Queens. Approximately \1/3\ of the 60,000 peak 
passengers currently traveling through the 63rd Street tunnel 
are expected to use this new route.
    An FFGA was issued for this project in February 1994 in the 
amount of $306,100,000. A total of $145,880,000 in fiscal year 
1995 and prior year funds has been obligated for this project, 
and the fiscal year 1996 budget provided an additional 
$125,200,000. This leaves $35,020,000 required to fulfill the 
FFGA, which reflects the Committee's recommendation for fiscal 
year 1997.
    Northern Indiana commuter rail.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for a major investment study for the Westlake Corridor 
commuter rail project in Indiana. The Westlake Corridor would 
be a new commuter rail service that would operate on an 
abandoned right-of-way that was previously secured by the 
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District. Westlake 
Corridor would begin in the Lowell/St. John area of central 
Lake County and travel northward through Munster and Hammond, 
linking with the existing East/West South Shore railroad line 
and terminating at Randolph Street Station in Chicago, 
Illinois. The Westlake Corridor will eventually serve high 
residential growth areas in south central Lake County, Munster 
and Hammond. The major investment study will refine the 
proposed alignment and provide total cost estimates for the 
project.
    Orange County transitway project.--The Orange County 
Transportation Agency (OCTA) and the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans) have recently constructed HOV lanes 
on three Orange County freeways' including I-405, SR-55, and 
SR-57. Construction of joint HOV/transitway facilities is 
currently taking place on I-5 and SR-9 and is scheduled to be 
completed by 2000. Upon completion, the 100-mile transitway/HOV 
network will encompass all of Orange County's major freeways, 
with the exception of SR-22. As originally envisioned, the I-
405/SR-55 Transitway and Direct Access Ramps project consisted 
of the HOV/transitway connector ramps between the I-405 and SR-
55 freeways, 7,759 park-n-ride spaces; and 361 express buses to 
serve six activity centers. The original project has been 
scaled back. OCTA now envisions 6,735 park-n-ride spaces and 50 
new express buses through the year 2010. The project was not 
authorized in ISTEA. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has 
appropriated $20,300,000. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee 
recommends $5,000,000 for this project.
    Orlando Lynx light rail project.--In September 1992, the 
Florida Department of Transportation began developing a 
multimodal master plan to identify improvements to the 
Interstate 4 corridor from the Polk/Osceola county line to I-95 
in Volusia County. That plan contains a light rail transit 
(LRT) component which would encompass approximately 24 miles. 
The minimum operating segment from the Lynx systems plan 
indicates an LRT from Central Parkway (Altamonte Springs) in 
Seminole County to the Orlando/Orange County international 
drive tourist district. The LRT would be located in the median 
of a reconstructed Interstate 4, or adjacent to an existing 
railroad corridor. The total cost of the project, including 
park-n-ride, bus and LRT facilities is approximately 
$650,000,000 to $800,000,000. For fiscal year 1997, the 
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000.
    Westside light rail project, Portland, Oregon.--The 
Westside-Hillsboro Light Rail project extends the existing MAX 
system from the terminus in downtown Portland to downtown 
Hillsboro. The route includes a three mile twin tube tunnel 
under the West Hills. The project is 17.7 miles long with 20 
stations, 9 park-n-ride lots, and parking spaces for 
approximately 3,700 automobiles. The project will include 36 
low-floor light rail vehicles. Section 3035(b) of ISTEA directs 
the FTA to enter into a multiyear agreement with the Tri-County 
Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met) in the 
amount of $515,000,000 for the segment from downtown Portland 
to 185th Avenue. Consistent with P.L. 102-143, two extensions 
were combined into a single $910,000,000 project in December 
1994, and Tri-Met entered into a $910,000,000 FFGA with FTA 
that month. The 1994 FFGA for the Westside-Hillsboro project 
provides a contingent commitment of new start funds of 
$74,000,000 to fund one-third of the Hillsboro extension cost. 
Construction is underway along the entire segment with 
approximately $619,000,000 committed and $382,000,000 spent 
through September 1995. Overall, the project is 40 percent 
complete. The projected revenue service date is 1998. For 
fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommends $90,000,000 for this 
project.
    Sacramento South corridor.--The Sacramento Regional Transit 
District (RT) is developing an 11.3 mile light rail project on 
the Union Pacific right-of-way in the South Sacramento 
Corridor. RT has elected to phase the project to maximize the 
use of available state and local capital funds and to 
correspond with available operating funds. Phase 1, known as 
the Interim Operable Segment (IOS), consists of a 6.3-mile 
segment of the full project. The segment would operate between 
downtown Sacramento and Meadowview Road. The estimated capital 
cost of the IOS is $254,500,000. Phase 2 is estimated to cost 
an additional $22,000,000. Section 3035 of ISTEA directed FTA 
to enter into a multiyear grant agreement with RT for 
$26,000,000 to provide for the completion of alternatives 
analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. Of that 
amount, $4,000,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 
1996 and $6,000,000 is recommended for the Sacramento south 
corridor in fiscal year 1997.
    Salt Lake City/south LRT.--The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) 
is implementing a 15-mile light rail (LRT) line from downtown 
Salt Lake City parallel to I-15 and State Street to suburban 
areas to the south. The LRT line will operate at-grade on city 
streets in downtown Salt Lake City (two miles) and in a 
railroad right-of-way (13 miles) owned by UTA to the suburban 
community of Sandy. The total cost of this project, including a 
maintenance facility, vehicles, stations, park-n-ride centers, 
and finance costs is estimated at $312,500,000. The LRT project 
is part of the Interstate 15 corridor improvements which 
include reconstruction of a parallel segment of I-15. Section 
3035(f) of ISTEA directed FTA to enter into a multiyear grant 
agreement with UTA which provides $131,000,000 in new start 
funds to carry out the construction of the project. Through 
fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $38,600,000 
(including $15,520,000 in funds from fiscal years prior to 
ISTEA) for right-of-way acquisition, engineering, design and 
construction. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee has included 
$20,000,000 for the Salt Lake City/South LRT, of which not less 
than $10,000,000 shall be for related high occupancy vehicle 
lane and intermodal design costs.
    St. Louis, St. Clair County, Illinois corridor, MetroLink 
extension.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is 
proposing a 24.8 mile light rail line between downtown East St. 
Louis, Illinois, and the vicinity of Scott Air Force Base. The 
project would connect with the MetroLink light rail project 
that opened in July 1993. The adopted alignment variation, 
which would add up to 2 miles to the project and serve the 
Belleville Area College, is also being considered. The project 
is estimated to cost $396,000,000. The preliminary engineering 
phase of project development has been initiated. This phase 
will include development of a supplemental draft EIS and a 
final EIS, which are estimated to be completed by September 
1996. The project was not authorized in ISTEA. Through 1996, 
Congress has appropriated $14,000,000 for the project. For 
fiscal year 1997, the Committee has recommended $20,000,000.
    San Francisco area projects.--The Committee recommends a 
total of $35,000,000 for new start projects in the San 
Francisco Bay area and has agreed to provide the funds 
consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's 
(MTC) Resolution 1876. The San Francisco Bay Area's Rail 
Extensions Program is a $3,500,000,000 undertaking of 
interrelated rail projects. The program will extend a total of 
six rail lines in the San Francisco Bay Area: an extension of 
four BART lines, extension of the Santa Clara County 
Transportation Agency's light rail system, and an extension of 
the CalTrain commuter rail system into downtown San Francisco. 
Of the six lines, two will be funded with Section 3 new start 
rail funds, the Tasman light rail extension in Santa Clara 
County and the BART extension to Colma and continuing to San 
Francisco International Airport. Section 3032 of the Federal 
Transit Act provides for multiyear funding for the San 
Francisco Bay area extension program. It further provides that 
the Secretary negotiate and execute full funding grant 
agreements that are consistent with the MTC Resolution No. 
1876.
    A memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been agreed to by 
the MTC, the Santa Clara County Transit District, the Bay Area 
Rapid Transit District (BART), and the San Mateo County Transit 
District (SamTrans), that describes the allocation of available 
federal funds to each project. The parties to this MOU trust 
FTA and MTC to work cooperatively to recommend annual 
appropriations levels needed to meet the funding plan for each 
project. Should one of the region's two projects not be in a 
position to fully utilize the federal funds in a given year, 
the parties to the MOU trust FTA and MTC to continue to 
recommend necessary appropriation levels as long as there is 
demonstrated need for this level of funding for either of the 
region's two projects.
          San Francisco BART extension to the airport.--Local 
        officials in the San Francisco have proposed a four-
        station, 6.4-mile extension of the Bay Area Transit 
        (BART) system from Colma to an intermodal station 
        serving the San Francisco International Airport. The 
        route will serve the cities of South San Francisco and 
        San Bruno, connect with the airport, and continue to 
        Millbrae. The majority of the route is to follow a 
        combination of existing and abandoned railroad rights-
        of-way.
          The Committee has provided sufficient resources to 
        continue the BART proposed extension to the San 
        Francisco International Airport during fiscal year 
        1997. Over the past year, BART and FTA have been 
        working to resolve many of the Committee's concerns. 
        Progress has been made to date; there still remain, 
        however, a number of significant unresolved issues that 
        must be resolved before a long-term financial 
        commitment can be made to this project. For example, 
        the cost estimate of the project is $1,167,000,000. 
        Four assumptions in the finance plan could affect its 
        viability:
          (1) The project's borrowing costs could grow 
        significantly should BART not receive forecasted 
        appropriation levels--levels that are too optimistic--
        over the next seven years. Costs also could be higher 
        than projected if the estimated savings from the 
        design-build approach do not materialize and if 
        escalation is understated.
          (2) California state law prohibits BART from using 
        its own resources for the purpose of extending service 
        or facilities outside its district. BART must establish 
        a borrowing program because expenses are expected to 
        exceed revenues during the height of construction and 
        produce cash shortfalls of up to $240,000,000.
          (3) The airport has committed $200,000,000 to the 
        project, however, the airport has not outlined how 
        airport resources could be used for the BART project 
        and what types of activities could be funded. The 
        aerial structure and how the airport will participate 
        have to be reviewed by the FAA to determine the 
        eligibility, the use of airport passenger facility 
        charges and airport improvement programs funds, and 
        whether the airport's participation is consistent with 
        applicable federal law.
          (4) All of the remaining state and local contributors 
        face financial limitations that have capped their 
        current pledges to the BART project. For example, 
        though the state has committed $98,000,000 to the 
        project, California Transportation Commission officials 
        have said that the transportation capital fund may not 
        have sufficient balances to fully fund the project in 
        the future.
          In addition, the final environmental impact analysis 
        has not been completed and approved, and may face legal 
        challenges.
          Given these numerous concerns, the Committee directs 
        the FTA not to execute a full funding grant agreement 
        (FFGA) until the State of California enacts a change in 
        law that will permit BART to use its own revenues for 
        the purposes of extending service or facilities outside 
        its district or another alternative financing program 
        is established, and until the airport determines the 
        source of funds it would use to pay for that portion of 
        the BART project located on the airport's property and 
        the FAA determines that the share of the cost to be 
        borne by the airport and its users is consistent with 
        federal transportation policy and regulation. In 
        addition, when executing an FFGA, the Committee directs 
        that the federal costs of the project not exceed 
        $750,000,000, including all unanticipated 
        contingencies, interest and other financing costs. BART 
        and the project sponsors and financiers must accept the 
        risks associated with all potential cost overruns.
          The administration and the department have announced 
        its intentions to sign an FFGA for the BART extension 
        airport project. The Committee is disturbed to learn, 
        however, that internal FTA project review and other 
        permitting approval processes have been unjustifiably 
        expedited and that a complete and thorough analysis of 
        the underlying cost estimates, financial plan and 
        ridership estimates by FTA and project management 
        oversight staff may have been compromised. Therefore, 
        the Committee reiterates its directive included in the 
        conference report accompanying the Department of 
        Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
        1996 that directs the FTA to advise the Committee sixty 
        days prior to executing an FFGA that the aforementioned 
        concerns and those included in last year's conference 
        report have been fully addressed.
          Tasman.--The Santa Clara County Transit District 
        (SCCTD) is constructing a 12.4-mile light rail system 
        from northeast San Jose to downtown Mountain View, 
        connecting with both the Guadalupe LRT in northern 
        Santa Clara County and the Caltrain commuter rail 
        system. Construction will proceed in two phases. The 
        Phase 1 West Extension will connect the northern 
        terminus of the Guadalupe Light Rail System in Santa 
        Clara with the CalTrain Commuter Rail station in 
        downtown Mountain View, a distance of 6.7 miles. The 
        Phase 2 East Extension will complete the project. 
        Section 5328(c)(1)(B) defines the Tasman Corridor 
        project as one element of a program of interrelated 
        projects to be considered together for the purposes of 
        federal requirements, along with the BART extensions to 
        Colma and the San Francisco airport. In addition, 
        Section 3032(c) of ISTEA directs the Secretary to 
        approve the construction of these projects, and Section 
        3032(e) of ISTEA authorizes $568,500,000 in new starts 
        funds. An additional $12,750,000 was authorized 
        specifically for the Tasman project by ISTEA section 
        3032(b)(2). Phase 1 is expected to require $90,000,000. 
        This does not include the $93,970,000 provided in 
        fiscal year 1995 and prior years, $33,230,000 remains 
        unobligated.
    San Diego Mid-Coast corridor.--The Metropolitan Transit 
Development Board (MTDB), the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans), and the San Diego Association of 
Governments are proposing commuter rail improvements, a light-
rail line, and high occupancy vehicle lanes in the Mid-Coast 
Corridor. The corridor extends about 12 miles along the I-5 
near the Pacific Ocean from I-8 near Old Town, north to the 
vicinity of the University of California, San Diego, University 
Town Centre shopping mall, and Carmel Valley. The commuter rail 
improvements consist of a new station and parking expansion on 
the existing Coaster line. The project is estimated to cost 
$5,700,000. The 10.3 mile Mid-Coast LRT project would extend 
from Old Town to North University City, and would include 9 
stations. The line would connect the Mission Valley and South 
LRT lines and the Coaster line at the Old Towne Transit Center. 
An initial phase is proposed from Old Town to Balboa Avenue. 
The LRT line and supporting bus services are estimated to cost 
$353,300,000. The proposed HOV lanes would be built by Caltrans 
in the median of I-5 between Carmel Mountain Road and I-8. 
Section 3035(g) of ISTEA directed FTA to sign a multiyear grant 
agreement with MTDB providing $27,000,000 for the completion of 
alternatives analysis and the final environmental impact 
statement and to purchase right-of-way. Through fiscal year 
1996, Congress has appropriated $4,100,000. The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for this project in fiscal 
year 1997.
    San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano.--The Puerto Rico 
Department of Transportation and Public Works (DPTW), through 
its Highway and Transportation Authority (HTA), is proposing a 
10.7 mile double-track guideway between Bayamon Centro and the 
Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce in San Juan. Approximately 
forty percent of the alignment is at or near grade. The 
remainder, aside from a short below-grade section in the Centro 
Medico area and underground through Rio Piedras, is generally 
elevated above roadway rights-of-way. The project is estimated 
to cost $1,110,000,000. ISTEA does not contain an authorization 
for this project. To date, Congress has appropriated 
$12,400,000 for the Tren Urbano project. For fiscal year 1997, 
the Committee recommendation includes $9,500,000 for this 
project.
    Staten Island-Midtown ferry service project.--The New York 
City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) has proposed 
constructing of terminals and initiating high speed ferry 
service between Staten Island and Midtown Manhattan. The 
service would be provided by privately owned and operated 
ferries without public operating subsidies. The estimated cost 
of this project is $12,600,000. The estimate ridership is 4,800 
per day. Section 3035(d) of ISTEA directed the FTA to negotiate 
and sign a multiyear grant agreement for $12,000,000 to carry 
out capital improvements for the proposed project. Congress 
appropriated $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1992. During fiscal year 
1995, FTA approved a grant in the amount of $250,000 for design 
and engineering activities only. Funding of $375,000 is 
recommended by the Committee in fiscal year 1997 for continued 
design, engineering and construction-related activities.
    Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail project.--The Hillsborough 
Area Transit Authority (HART) is undertaking a study of 
transportation alternatives in the 32-mile corridor between 
Tampa and Lakeland, Florida. One alternative to be considered 
is a commuter rail line on existing CSX tracks that parallel I-
4. The commuter rail alternative is estimated to cost 
approximately $30,000,000. HART is about to undertake a major 
investment study that will consider alternatives for addressing 
transportation problems in the I-4 corridor. In fiscal year 
1996, Congress appropriated $500,000 for the corridor. For 
fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 for this project.
    Whitehall ferry terminal.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,500,000 for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal in New 
York City. The New York City Department of Transportation and 
the New York City Economic Development Corporation have 
proposed the redesign and reconstruction of the Staten Island 
Ferry's Whitehall terminal in downtown Manhattan. The terminal 
was largely destroyed by fire in 1991 and ferry service has 
been operating out of interim facilities since then. The 
preliminary estimate of the cost of reconstruction is 
approximately $80,000,000. Currently, 60,000 people use this 
terminal a day. Preliminary design began in March 1996. Final 
design is expected to begin in June 1996 and be completed by 
February 1998. Construction is programmed to begin in late 1998 
and will take three years to complete. Through fiscal year 
1996, Congress has appropriated $5,000,000.

                       Mass Transit Capital Fund

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................($2,375,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (2,000,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (2,000,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996............(.......................)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..........(.......................)

\1\ Includes supplemental of $375,000,000 in the Omnibus Consolidated 
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    This liquidating cash appropriation covers obligations 
incurred under contract authority provided for activities 
previously discussed under the discretionary grant program. The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 in liquidating cash for 
mass transit capital programs.

             Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     200,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     200,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    The bill includes the budget estimate of $200,000,000 for 
the construction of the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system. The 
Committee recognizes that the administration, the transit 
authority and the state and local governments in the 
metropolitan Washington region have reached agreement on 
financing the remaining 13.5 miles of the adopted regional 
system and are committed to completion of the system on the 
``fast track'' schedule. The Committee further recognizes that 
a reliable federal appropriation is critical to securing the 
necessary credit arrangement required to keep the ``fast 
track'' construction program on schedule. The Committee 
supports the completion of the remaining 13.5 miles and is 
recommending the budget request to permit WMATA to proceed with 
the ``fast track'' construction program.

                    Violent Crime Reduction Program

                       (Violent Crime Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................     $10,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
     Appropriation, fiscal year 1996....................................
     Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..................     -10,000,000

    Section 40131 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 authorizes $10,000,000 to establish 
programs for capital improvements and studies to prevent crime 
in public transportation. The Committee has not funded this new 
program in fiscal year 1997 given the current budget 
constraints. Further, a separate categorical program is 
duplicative and unnecessary as the capital expenses described 
above are allowable expenses under the formula program.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    The Corporation's operations program consists of lock and 
marine operations, maintenance, dredging, planning and 
development activities related to the operation and maintenance 
of that part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and 
Lake Erie within the territorial limits of the United States.
    The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the 
commercial use and competitive position of the Saint Lawrence 
Seaway. The general language under this heading is the same as 
the language provided last year and requested in the fiscal 
year 1997 budget. Continuation of this language in addition to 
that under the operations and maintenance appropriation will 
provide the Corporation the flexibility and access to available 
resources needed to finance costs associated with unanticipated 
events which could threaten the safe and uninterrupted use of 
the Seaway. The language permits the Corporation to use sources 
of funding not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund 
by Public Law 99-662, but which have been historically set 
aside for non-routine or emergency use-cash reserves derived 
primarily from prior-year revenues received in excess of costs; 
unused borrowing authority; and miscellaneous income.

                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................     $10,150,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      10,065,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      10,037,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................        -113,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................         -28,000

\1\-Excludes reductions of $586,000 to comply with working capital fund 
and administrative provisions and $15,000 to comply with the Omnibus 
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    The bill includes an appropriation of $10,037,000 for the 
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. The Committee 
has reduced the Seaway's non-pay inflationary adjustment by 
$28,000 so that each operating administration within the 
department receives a 1.5 percent non-pay inflationary 
adjustment. The Seaway had requested a 3 percent non-pay 
inflationary adjustment in its 1997 budget estimate.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

    The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was 
originally established by the Secretary of Transportation's 
organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received 
statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad 
portfolio. Its diverse jurisdictions include hazardous 
materials, pipelines, international standards, emergency 
transportation, and university research. As the department's 
only multimodal administration, RSPA provides research, 
analytical and technical support for transportation programs 
through headquarters offices and the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center.

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program

    The Committee recommends $55,117,000 in new budget 
authority to continue the operations, research and development, 
and grants-in-aid administered by the Research and Special 
Programs Administration. This is $9,558,000 less than the 1996 
amount and $7,280,000 less than the budget estimate. The 
following table summarizes fiscal year 1996 program levels, the 
fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the Committee's 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 1996  Fiscal year 1997   Recommended  in
                          Program                              enacted \1\        estimate          the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special programs.............................       $23,937,000       $28,169,000       $23,929,000
Pipeline safety...........................................        31,448,000        34,028,000        30,988,000
Emergency preparedness training curriculum................           400,000           200,000           200,000
Emergency preparedness grants \2\.........................         8,890,000  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................        64,675,000        62,397,000        55,117,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and the     
  Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.                                              
\2\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  

                     Research and Special Programs

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................     $23,937,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      28,169,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      23,929,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................          -8,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -4,240,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $387,000 to comply with working capital fund, 
awards, and administrative provisions.

    RSPA's research and special programs administers a 
comprehensive nationwide safety program to (1) protect the 
nation from the risks inherent in the transportation of 
hazardous materials by water, air, highway and railroad; (2) 
oversee the execution of the Secretary of Transportation's 
statutory responsibilities for providing transportation 
services during national emergencies; and (3) coordinate the 
department's research and development policy planning, 
university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy, 
legal, financial, management and administrative support to 
RSPA's programs also is provided under this appropriation. The 
total recommended program level for research and special 
programs is $23,929,000. This is a decrease of $8,000 below the 
amount provided in 1996 and a reduction of $4,240,000 below the 
budget request. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation 
are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 1996  Fiscal year 1997   Recommended in 
                                                               enacted \1\        estimate          the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety................................      $12,650 ,000       $12,812,000       $12,772,000
    (Positions)...........................................             (111)             (111)             (111)
Research and technology...................................         3,288,000         7,488,000         3,323,000
    (Positions)...........................................              (13)              (13)              (13)
Emergency transportation..................................         1,022,000           993,000           993,000
    (Positions)...........................................               (7)               (7)               (7)
Program support...........................................         7,388,000         6,876,000         6,841,000
    (Positions) \2\.......................................              (46)              (46)              (46)
Accountwide adjustment....................................          -411,000  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................        23,937,000        28,169,000        23,929,000
        (Positions).......................................             (177)             (177)             (177)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include reductions of $387,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative     
  provisions.                                                                                                   
\2\ Includes one position previously funded in aviation information management not transferred to Bureau of     
  Transportation Statistics.                                                                                    

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request for this appropriation:

Hazardous Materials:
    Delete funding for internship specialist program....        -$40,000
Research and Technology:
    Hold technology development to 1996 level...........      -3,465,000
    Reduce funding for technology dissemination by 50 
      percent...........................................        -100,000
    Hold technology applications at FY 1996 level.......        -600,000
Program Administrative Support:
    Reduce information resources management.............         -35,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Net change to budget estimate.......................      -4,240,000

    Compliance support.--The Committee has provided $220,000 
for compliance support, which is $40,000 less than requested. 
The Committee has not provided funding for the intern 
specialist program because it does not see the merit of this 
program.
    Technology development.--The Committee recommends 
$1,266,000 for technology development, which is the same amount 
as provided in fiscal year 1996. RSPA requested a 271 percent 
increase in this program without adequately addressing why such 
growth is necessary for an agency that does not conduct any 
direct research, but instead is responsible for technology 
sharing, policy formulation, and research agenda-setting.
    Technology dissemination.--The Committee has reduced the 
budget request of $200,000 for technology dissemination by 
$100,000. In 1996, RSPA spent $75,000 on technology 
dissemination. Realizing that people are beginning to access 
the internet for available research information, the Committee 
has provided a slight increase in funding for technology 
dissemination activities but does not believe that a 166 
percent increase is necessary.
    Technology application.--The Committee has provided 
$600,000 for technology applications, which is the same level 
as funded in 1996. The Committee has not increased funding for 
this effort because RSPA did not make a compelling case as to 
why a doubling of the budget was necessary.
    The Committee understands that in fiscal year 1996, 
$430,000 of these funds were transferred to the Secretary's 
office of technology deployment so that this office, in 
conjunction with the Volpe Center, could work on a variety of 
transportation information infrastructure issues. However, 
since the position of director for technology deployment has 
recently become vacant, the Committee believes that RSPA should 
begin to undertake these activities directly. According to 
RSPA, approximately forty to fifty percent of the staff time 
within RSPA's office of research policy and technology transfer 
is devoted to coordinating transportation research and 
technology transfer programs with the office of technology 
deployment in support of department-wide coordination 
initiatives. Without having to undertake these coordination 
efforts, RSPA could more effectively utilize its staff and work 
on a variety of research projects.
    The Committee suggests that RSPA review the mission and 
structure of the intelligent transportation systems joint 
program office, which has dual reporting responsibility to both 
the Deputy Secretary and the FHWA Administrator, to determine 
whether its office of research policy and technology transfer 
could be redesigned in a similar manner so that it would not 
duplicate activities with OST's office of technology 
deployment. RSPA should consider such a structure to better 
ensure coordination within the operating administrations' 
research programs and with private sector organizations.
    Information resources management.--Due to budget 
constraints, the Committee has provided $435,000 for 
information resources management, which is $35,000 less than 
requested.
                            Pipeline Safety
                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................     $28,750,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      31,500,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      28,460,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................        -290,000
     Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..................      -3,040,000

\1\ Excludes reductions of $213,000 to comply with working capital fund, 
awards and administrative provisions, and $65,000 to comply with the 
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

    The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national 
regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to 
life and property in the transportation of natural gas, 
petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The 
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the 
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection 
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and 
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The 
office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and 
administers a grants-in-aid program to state pipeline programs.
    The bill includes $30,988,000 to continue pipeline safety 
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid 
in fiscal year 1997. This represents a decrease of $460,000 
below the level provided in 1996 and a reduction of $3,040,000 
below the budget request. The bill specifies that, of the total 
appropriation, $2,528,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund and $28,460,000 is to be derived from the 
pipeline safety fund. In addition, the Committee has included 
language that permits the office of pipeline safety (OPS) to 
use $1,000,000 from its reserve fund for one-call notification 
grants.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request for this appropriation:

Hold information systems to 12 percent increase.........       -$140,000
Delete funding for nondestructive evaluation............        -900,000
Reduce funding for state grants.........................        -500,000
Delete funding for new risk management initiative.......        -500,000
Fund one-call through reserve account...................      -1,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Net change to budget request........................     -$3,040,000

    Information systems.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has provided $1,350,000 for information and analysis, 
which is $140,000 less than requested. At this level, the 
office will be able to begin integrating external data into the 
OPS information systems and continue its shift to risk 
management.
    Nondestructive evaluation.--The Committee has deleted 
funding for nondestructive evaluation. OPS has recently signed 
a contract to determine if ``pig'' technology can be used to 
detect outside force damage. This contract is estimated to cost 
$2,700,000 from fiscal years 1996-1998. Currently, OPS has 
$1,700,000 available for the nondestructive evaluation project, 
which consists of fiscal year 1996 appropriated funds and prior 
year funding. Although the Committee agrees that completing the 
nondestructive evaluation project is a critical step in 
improving government and industry's technical ability to 
diagnose and characterize defects in pipelines and allocate 
resources for remedial actions on a prioritized basis, the 
large amount of prior year funding that has been earmarked for 
this project reduces the need to fully fund this project in 
fiscal year 1997, when it will not be completed until the 
following fiscal year.
    State grants.--The Committee has reduced the funding for 
state grants by $500,000. This will provide the same level of 
funding in fiscal year 1997 as was provided in fiscal year 
1996. Even though OPS received $12,000,000 for assistance to 
states in carrying out pipeline safety programs in 1996, 
$1,000,000 of this total was earmarked for damage prevention 
programs. Because the Committee is not providing funding for 
one-call under the state grant program in fiscal year 1997, the 
Committee is actually providing a $1,000,000 increase to the 
state grant programs, which will better fund states' 
participation in the OPS compliance and inspection programs.
    Risk management grants.--The Committee has not provided the 
$500,000 requested for risk management grants to states due to 
budget constraints. In fiscal year 1997, OPS plans to award 
risk management demonstration projects to 4-6 participants, 
which means that risk management programs will only be ongoing 
in a few states. If these states receive 50 percent of their 
grant funding from OPS, they should be able to participate in 
the risk management demonstration projects without adversely 
affecting their compliance and inspection programs. Instead of 
funding risk management in the other states, which are not 
expected to participate directly in the first few years of the 
risk management program, the Committee has fully funded OPS 
training initiatives. This will provide state inspectors and 
other personnel with the necessary training in risk management 
practices. Until training is completed in most states, it 
appears to be unnecessary to fund risk management initiatives 
across the board.
    One-call notification.--The Committee has not appropriated 
any funding for one-call notification systems; however, the 
Committee has provided bill language that allows OPS to use up 
to $1,000,000 from its reserve fund for this initiative. OPS 
currently has $18,400,000 in its reserve fund. Each year, OPS 
uses its reserve to finance various aspects of its program 
until user fees are collected from the natural gas and the 
liquid petroleum industries. OPS plans to collect user fees in 
the first quarter of fiscal year 1997, instead of the second 
quarter in fiscal year 1996 or the third quarter in fiscal year 
1995. This indicates that OPS will not be as dependent on the 
user fees and could spend down some of its reserve fund without 
negatively impacting its operations.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (emergency preparedness fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................        $400,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................         200,000
Recommended in the bill.................................         200,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................        -200,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a 
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 
public sector emergency response training and planning and 
provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions 
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a 
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
    The bill includes $200,000, the same amount requested for 
fiscal year 1997, for activities related to emergency response 
training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by 
section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA.
    The bill also deletes language, as requested, that 
specified an obligation limitation for the emergency 
preparedness grants program. Removing this limitation will 
allow RSPA to obligate carryover balances and recoveries from 
prior years, which the language had prohibited in the past.

                      Office of Inspector General

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................     $40,238,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................      39,771,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      39,450,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriaton, fiscal year 1996......................        -788,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................        -321,000

    The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to 
provide an objective and independent organization that would be 
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, 
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2) 
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation 
and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and 
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and 
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the 
Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of 
Transportation and to the Congress.
    The bill provides $39,450,000 for the office of inspector 
general, a decrease of $788,000 below the fiscal year 1996 
enacted level. The President's budget requested $39,771,000. 
The bill specifies that none of the funds may be utilized for 
contract audits. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, audits of 
specific acquisition programs and acquisition contracts by the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) will be financed by the 
programs themselves, consistent with the Committee's report 
language last year. The budget proposed cost sharing between 
the IG and the individual programs for these audit services. 
The Inspector General should also discontinue inclusion of DCAA 
report findings in the semi-annual reports of the office of 
inspector general, since the IG will serve largely as an 
intermediary for the acquisition of these services, and will no 
longer finance them directly through the IG budget.
    Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector 
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to 
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to 
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review 
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings.

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics

                     office of airline information

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................      $2,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................       3,100,000
Recommended in the bill..................... ...........................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      -2,200,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      -3,100,000

    The Committee has not provided $3,100,000 from the airport 
and airway trust fund to finance the office of airline 
information within the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 
(BTS). The Committee has included bill language that would 
permit the BTS to collect up to $3,100,000 in user fees to 
conduct activities related to airline statistics.
    The work of the BTS consists of compiling transportation 
statistics, implementing a long-term data collection system, 
coordinating information collection, and making statistics 
available. The Bureau acquired the office of airline 
information in 1995 from RSPA. The office of airline 
information collects financial and operational information from 
U.S. certified airlines.
    The BTS is directed to prepare a report analyzing aviation 
statistics fees to be raised from private and government 
entities. Such analyses shall include a proposed fee schedule, 
demand elasticity, effect on private business, and any 
additional proposals to ensure that the aviation statistics 
program is fully funded from offsetting collections. This 
report should be forwarded to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations not later than September 1, 1996.
    The Committee notes that section 6006 of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 provides an 
additional $25,000,000 to the BTS, an increase of $5,000,000, 
or 25 percent, above the 1996 level. These funds are available 
to compile, analyze, and publish a comprehensive set of 
transportation statistics to provide timely summaries and 
totals (including industry-wide aggregates and multi-year 
averages) of transportation-related information. It is the 
opinion of the Committee that these funds could be available 
for the compilation of airline statistics should the BTS be 
unable to raise sufficient funds to cover the costs of 
analyzing aviation statistics. The Committee may also consider 
augmenting the funds available to the BTS through agency 
reimbursable agreements should the user fee analysis conclude 
that the fees collected would be insufficient to cover the 
costs of airline statistics.

                      Surface Transportation Board

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................      $8,421,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \2\...................       3,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      12,344,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      +3,923,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................      +9,344,000

\1\ Included under section 342 for the successor of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission.
\2\ Represents $15,344,000 in user fees of which a maximum of $3,000,000 
would become available as an appropriation and subsequently reduced as 
offsetting collections are received.

    The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 
1996 by P.L. 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) 
Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend 
toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, 
the Act abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that 
had previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core 
rail and certain other provisions to the Board and certain 
other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway 
Administration. The Board is specifically responsible for 
regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-
licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The 
new law empowers the Board through its exemption authority to 
promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis 
and continues intact the important rail reforms of the Staggers 
Rail Act of 1980, which have helped substantially improve rail 
service and the profitability of the railroad industry.
    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$12,344,000. This appropriation consists of the following 
components:

Salaries and expenses...................................     $11,344,000
Severance costs.........................................       1,000,000

    Salaries and expenses.--The Committee has included 
$11,344,000 to provide for salaries and expenses of 134 staff 
years in fiscal year 1997. This is $2,923,000 more than was 
appropriated in fiscal year 1996; however, the Board was funded 
only for three-quarters of the year.
    Severance costs.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for 
the statutory liability of severance payments and unemployment 
compensation costs for former Interstate Commerce Commission 
and Board employees who were separated from government service 
by reductions-in-force during fiscal year 1996 and whose 
payments continue into fiscal year 1997. If the Board does not 
require the total amount provided for severance costs, the 
remaining funds should be shifted to the salaries and expenses 
account.
    User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request 
to fund the entire operation of the Surface Transportation 
Board, or $15,344,000, from the collection of user fees. The 
budget estimate includes a $3,000,000 appropriation that would 
be reduced as offsetting collections are received during the 
fiscal year, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1997 
appropriation of not more than $0.
    Current statutory authority, under the Independent Offices 
Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), grants the Board the 
authority to collect user fees; however, not to the level 
provided in the budget estimate. Legislative change to the 
Board's authorizing statute to mandate an industry assessment 
program of $15,344,000 would require Congress to enact such 
authority prior to October 1, 1996, which is not likely. Even 
assuming that Congress approves legislation that would 
authorize the Board to recover the full costs of administering 
its programs, the Board would have to undertake necessary 
rulemakings to determine the appropriate level of these 
assessments. These rulemakings could not be completed in a 
timely manner to ensure adequate funding for the Board in 
fiscal year 1997.
    The Board is in the process of updating and changing its 
user fees. As such, the Board has issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that anticipates collecting approximately $3,000,000 
in fiscal year 1997. The Committee has included the collection 
of some or all of these user fees in its calculation of the 
Board's needs as these user fees will supplement direct 
appropriations provided for fiscal year 1997.
    The Committee has retained the bill language which provides 
that any fees received in excess shall remain available until 
expended but shall not be available for obligation until 
October 1, 1997.

                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................      $3,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................       3,540,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       3,540,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................         +40,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

    The Committee recommends $3,540,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
an increase of $40,000 above the 1996 levels, and the same as 
the budget estimate.
    The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance 
with the standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers 
Act; ensuring that public conveyances, including rolling stock, 
are readily accessible to and usable by physically handicapped 
persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to 
the elimination of architectural, transportation, communication 
and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being 
taken to eliminate these barriers; developing minimum 
guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards; and 
providing technical assistance to all programs affected by 
Title V of the Rehabilitation Act.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................     $38,774,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\...................      42,407,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      42,407,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................      +3,633,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................

\1\ The President's budget request was for $40,300,000; however, it was 
later amended to $42,407,000.

    Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving 
transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting 
special studies, developing recommendations to prevent 
accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation 
safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of 
adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and 
licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of 
Transportation.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $42,407,000 for the 
NTSB, an increase of $3,633,000 above the 1996 level. This 
amount is the same as the amended budget request. The amount 
recommended provides for a full-time equivalent employment 
(FTE) level of 370, an increase of 20 FTEs.
    Currently, the Safety Board is participating in the highest 
level of major accident investigations in its history, with 
limited resources. During fiscal year 1996, the Safety Board 
undertook a variety of efforts to readjust to its resources so 
that it could continue to provide in-depth coverage on a 
variety of domestic and international aviation accidents, rail 
accidents, and hazardous materials investigations, in addition 
to its ongoing investigations on all modes of transportation. 
In fiscal year 1997, an increase is necessary so that the 
Safety Board has sufficient resources and personnel available 
to fully investigate these accidents in a timely manner. The 
Committee recommends that the Safety Board make every effort to 
fill its new FTE positions with trained investigators so that 
it has enough depth within each specialty to cover back-to-back 
accidents.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program 
level, the President's fiscal year 1997 request, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year 1996         Fiscal year 1997       Recommended in bill  
                                               enacted                  estimate        ------------------------
               Program                --------------------------------------------------                        
                                        Staff       Budget       Staff       Budget       Staff       Budget    
                                        years      authority     years      authority     years      authority  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction.................       45      $5,506,000       45      $5,694,000       45      $5,694,000
Aviation safety......................      122      13,439,000      129      14,696,000      129      14,696,000
Surface transportation...............       94      10,290,000       99      11,207,000       99      11,207,000
Research and engineering.............       48       5,485,000       56       6,618,000       56       6,618,000
Administration.......................       31       2,737,000       31       2,831,000       31       2,831,000
Administrative law judges............       10       1,317,000       10       1,361,000       10       1,361,000
      Total..........................      350      38,774,000      370      42,407,000      370      42,407,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes 
to deviate in any way from the total FTE allocations or by more 
than ten percent from the funding allocations listed above.
    Pilot age.--In 1959, the FAA issued the ``Age 60 Rule'' 
which prevented pilots from flying air carriers past the age of 
60 because of concerns about safety. Since 1959, this rule has 
been challenged repeatedly, but unsuccessfully. In December 
1995, FAA made the ``Age 60 rule'' applicable to commuter 
operations as well.
    The Committee directs NTSB to undertake a study that would 
determine the feasibility of allowing pilots to fly past age 
60. Currently 8 countries allow pilots to fly past age 60, 
although maximum age varies among the countries. This study 
should review, among other things, (1) pilot age and accident 
data for commuter aviation pilots in the United States and air 
carrier pilots flying past age 60 in other countries to 
determine if there is a relationship between the two variables 
and (2) new studies, which will be released shortly, that 
review the effect of pilot age on the multitude of cognitive 
and physical skills needed to safely operate an air transport 
aircraft. Also, this report should discuss the feasibility of 
combining age and performance testing as an alternative to the 
``Age 60 rule''. NTSB should provide this report to the House 
and Senate Committee on Appropriations by April 1, 1997.

                        PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

    Administrative Expenses and Limitation on Operating and Capital 
                                Expenses

                                                                        
                                                         Limitation on  
                                      Administrative       operating/   
                                         expenses           capital     
                                                                        
Limitation, fiscal year 1996......        $50,741,000  .................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.  .................  .................
Recommended in the bill...........  .................  .................
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriations fiscal year                                          
     1996.........................        -50,741,000  .................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
     1997.........................  .................  .................
                                                                        

    The Committee has concurred with the budget request to 
delete the limitation on administrative expenses of the Panama 
Canal Commission.
    On February 10, 1996, the Department of Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 was enacted into law, 
Public Law 104-106 contained provisions which amended the basic 
statute governing the structure of the Panama Canal Commission 
and reconstituted the Commission as a U.S. government 
corporation.
    This status as a government corporation is not new for the 
Canal, as the Commission's predecessor, the Panama Canal 
Company, operated the waterway between July 1951 and October 
1979 as a wholly owned U.S. government corporation in the 
executive branch. When the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty entered 
into force in 1979, the Congress established the Commission as 
an appropriated-fund agency. Under that arrangement, the 
Commission was subject to annual appropriations by the Congress 
for all of its operating expense and capital improvements. 
After a period of demonstrated fiscal responsibility, the 
Commission, which generates all of its own revenues and 
operates at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer, was converted from an 
appropriated fund to a revolving fund.
    With these latest amendments in February 1996, the Canal 
has come full circle, returning to the government corporation 
status under which it operated the Canal for the 28 years 
immediately preceding the treaty period.
    Public Law 104-106 does not exempt the agency from 
oversight by the Congress and Executive Branch. The Commission 
is subject to all the Congressional review provisions of the 
Government Corporation Act, including the requirement to submit 
to Congress its budget proposal. P.L. 104-106 did not repeal 
the requirement for annual appropriation legislation for the 
Commission's administrative expenses. Congress retains the 
ability to review the Commission's budget and the flexibility 
to exercise appropriate oversight over the Commission's budget 
and programs.
    With enactment of P.L. 104-106, the Commission is better 
positioned to manage the transfer of control over the Canal to 
the Government of Panama on December 31, 1999.

                               TITLE III

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     (including transfers of funds)

    The Committee concurs with the general provisions that 
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
as proposed in the budget with the following changes:
    The Committee has not approved the requested deletion of 
the following sections, all of which were contained in the 
fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers are different):
    Section 313 prohibits the use of funds for regulations that 
would establish a vessel traffic safety fairway in California.
    Section 315 prohibits the use of funds to award multi-year 
contracts for production end items that include certain 
specified provisions.
    Section 319 prohibits the use of funds to enforce certain 
regulations relating to slot management at O'Hare International 
Airport.
    Section 320 limits funds to compensate in excess of 335 
staff years under the federally-funded research and development 
contract between the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.
    Section 321 reduces funding for activities of the 
Transportation administrative service center of the Department 
of Transportation and limits obligational authority of the 
center to $114,812,000.
    Section 323 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, 
or promulgate any regulation pursuant to title V of the Motor 
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate 
average fuel economy standards for automobiles as defined in 
such title, in any model year that differs from standards 
promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
section.
    Section 324 prohibits the use of funds to be used for 
planning, engineering, design or construction of a sixth runway 
at the new Denver International Airport.
    Section 327 prohibits the use of funds for any type of 
training which (a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, 
and abilities bearing directly on the performance of official 
duties; (b) could be highly stressful or emotional to the 
students; (c) does not provide prior notification of content 
and methods to be used during the training; (d) contains any 
religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a person's 
values or lifestyle; or (e) is for AIDS awareness training, 
except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS 
and workplace rights.
    Section 328 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for 
activities designed to influence Congress on legislation or 
appropriations except through proper, official channels.
    Section 329 requires the Federal Transit Administration's 
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
(WMATA) to be based in Washington, D.C.
    Section 330 prohibits the use of funds for the improvement 
of Miller Highway in New York City, New York.
    Section 331 limits funds provided in this Act to $850,000 
for expenses of advisory committees.
    The Committee has included the following general provisions 
as requested with modifications:
    Section 302 requires fiscal year 1997 pay raises for 
programs to be absorbed within appropriated levels in this Act 
or previous appropriations Acts, similar to that contained in 
the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act. The Committee would not allow pay 
raises to be absorbed within unexpired unobligated balances of 
previous appropriations Acts.
    Section 305 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and 
expenses of more than one hundred and seven political and 
Presidential appointees of the Department of Transportation.
    Section 310 would be continued with modifications. The 
Committee continues to limit first quarter obligations to 12 
percent. The Committee would not place separate obligation 
limitations on various appropriated and contract-authority 
funded demonstration projects, and would not subject the bonus 
program to the obligation limitation for federal-aid highways 
programs. Also, the Committee would not set-aside $30,000,000 
for highway and highway safety construction programs; 
$15,000,000 for the Symms Recreational Trails program; 
$20,000,000 for a construction skills training program; and 
$15,000,000 for a congestion pricing program. Also, the 
Committee would not restrict funding for the timber bridge 
program.
    Section 325 provides that not to exceed $3,100,000 in 
expenses of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics necessary 
to conduct activities related to airline statistics may be 
incurred but only to the extent such expenses are offset by 
user fees.
    The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the 
budget:
     (1) pertaining to the Panama Canal Commission; (2) 
allowing the Director of the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics to enter into grants, cooperative agreements, and 
other transactions to collect data on the impact of natural 
disasters on transportation systems; and (3) allowing transfer 
authority not to exceed 5 percent between discretionary 
appropriations in this Act.
    In addition, the following new general provisions are 
recommended by the Committee:
    Section 334 prohibits funds in this Act for a third track 
on the Metro-North Railroad Harlem Line in Bronxville, New 
York.
    Section 335 amends section 5328(c)(1)(E) of title 49, 
U.S.C., to include the locally preferred alternative for the 
South/North Corridor project in Oregon.
    Section 336 allows previous appropriations for the 
Cleveland Dual Hub corridor project to be available for the 
Berea Red Line extension project.
    Section 337 allows the State of Michigan flexibility in 
distributing Federal discretionary funds for buses and bus 
facilities.
    Section 338 provides $2,400,000 for activities of the 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission.
    Section 339 requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
convey to the Montauk Historical Association the U.S. 
government's interest in Light Station Montauk Point, located 
in Montauk, New York.

                                TITLE IV

                    MISCELLANEOUS HIGHWAY PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends a new title that contains 
miscellaneous highway provisions, as follows:
    Section 401 restricts the operations of tandem and other 
large vehicles on U.S. 15 in the Commonwealth of Virginia from 
the Maryland border to the intersection of U.S. Route 29.
    Section 402 amends item 30 of section 1107(b) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to 
allow unobligated funds provided for the I-10 West Tunnel 
reconstruction project to be used for a new bridge over the 
Mobile River in Alabama.
    Section 403 amends item 94 of the table contained in 
section 1107(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 pertaining to the St. Thomas, Virgin 
Islands, VIPA Molasses Dock intermodal port facility.
    Section 404 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
enter into an agreement modifying the agreement entered into 
pursuant to section 356 of Public Law 104-50 to provide an 
additional line of credit up to $25,000,000 for construction of 
Orange County toll roads.
    Section 405 amends Public Law 100-202 relating to the 
traffic improvement demonstration project in Petoskey, 
Michigan, to extend the authorization to include the upgrade of 
existing roads.

              House of Representatives Report Requirements

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:

                     inflationary impact statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the House of Representatives 
requires that each Committee report on a bill or resolution 
shall contain a statement as to whether enactment of such bill 
or resolution may have an inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the operation of the national economy.
    The accompanying bill contains appropriations and other new 
spending authority totaling $36,937,761,000. Of the amount 
recommended, about 25 percent is for personnel and operating 
costs of the various transportation bureaus and agencies.
    The Committee does not believe that these personnel costs 
will have a measurable impact on the aggregate rate of 
inflation. Approximately two percent of the amounts recommended 
in the bill will finance transportation planning and operating 
costs for states, cities, and certain private organizations, 
and one percent will finance various transportation research 
and development activities.
    The remaining 72 percent will finance transportation 
construction and development projects in various parts of the 
nation. The Committee believes these activities will improve 
our nation's transportation system. Improved and lower cost 
transportation can reduce the prices of goods by lowering the 
costs of production and by improving labor productivity through 
specialization. The Committee also believes that improved and 
lower cost transportation provides more producers with the 
opportunity to sell their products in more markets, thereby 
enhancing competition and providing consumers with broader 
choices and lower prices. Consequently, the level of financing 
provided for transportation construction activities would have 
an inflationary impact only to the extent that the benefits 
resulting from lower cost transportation were offset by higher 
prices resulting from insufficient capacity in the construction 
industry to meet all of the demands for construction by the 
public and private sectors.

                              rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of 
Representatives, the following table is submitted describing 
the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:

Office of the Secretary, Payments to air carriers 
    (airport and airway trust fund).....................    -$28,600,000
Office of the Secretary, Payments to air carriers.......      -1,133,000
Coast Guard, Acquisition, construction, and improvements      -3,755,000

                           transfers of funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of 
Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee recommends the following transfers between 
accounts:
    Under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
Highway Traffic Safety Grants: Provided further, That the 
unobligated balances of the appropriation ``Highway-related 
Safety Grants'' shall be transferred to and merged with this 
``Highway Traffic Safety Grants'' appropriation.
    Under section 318 of the general provisions: 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds 
appropriated before October 1, 1993, under chapter 53 of title 
49 U.S.C., that remain available for expenditure may be 
transferred to and administered under the most recent 
appropriation heading for any such section.
    Under section 326 of the general provisions: The Secretary 
of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated 
in this Act to ``Rental Payments'' for any expense authorized 
by that appropriation in excess of the amounts provided in this 
Act.

                 compliance with clause 3 of rule xiii

    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):

        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991

          * * * * * * *

                    TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

                       Part A--Title 23 Programs

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 1107. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS.

    (a) * * *
    (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 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Cadiz, Ohio                        Construction of 4-lane Limited Access Highway from Cadiz,         20.0  
                                         OH to Interstate 70 Interchange at St. Clairsville, OH                 
                                         along U.S. Rt. 250.                                                    
                         *          *          *          *          *          *          *                    
     Mobile, Alabama                    For reconstruction of the West Tunnel Plaza Interchange on        15.0  
                                         I-10 from Virginia Street to Mobile River Tunnel, Mobile,              
                                         Alabama and for feasibility studies, preliminary                       
                                         engineering, and construction of a new bridge and                      
                                         approaches over the Mobile River.                                      
                         *          *          *          *          *          *          *                    
     [St. Thomas,] Virgin Islands       Feasibility study of constructing a second road to the             1.7  
                                         west end of the island of St. Thomas and improvements to               
                                         the VIPA Molasses Dock intermodal port facility on the                 
                                         island of St. Croix to make the facility capable of                    
                                         handling multiple cargo tasks.                                         
                         *          *          *          *          *          *          *                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              SECTION 5328 OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 5328. Project review

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Program of Interrelated Projects.--(1) In this 
subsection, a program of interrelated projects includes the 
following:
          (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (E) the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 
        District of Oregon [Westside] Light Rail Program, 
        consisting of the locally preferred alternative for the 
        Westside Light Rail Project, including system related 
        costs, contained in the Department of Transportation 
        and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991 (Public 
        Law 101-516, 104 Stat. 2155), and defined in House 
        Report 101-584, [and] the Hillsboro extension to the 
        Westside Light Rail Project contained in that Act, and 
        the locally preferred alternative for the South/North 
        Corridor Project.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


                        ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1987

  AN ACT Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
                     1988, and for other purposes.

          * * * * * * *

               Traffic Improvement Demonstration Project

    For 80 percent of the expenses necessary to carry out a 
highway bypass project or upgrade existing local roads in the 
vicinity of Petoskey, Michigan, that demonstrates methods of 
improving economic development and regional transportation, 
there is authorized to be appropriated $28,000,000, to remain 
available until expended, of which $475,000 is hereby 
appropriated, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
That all funds appropriated under this head shall be exempt 
from any limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways and 
highway safety construction programs.
          * * * * * * *

                        Changes in Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effects of provisions in the accompanying bill 
which might be construed, under some circumstances, as directly 
or indirectly changing the application of existing law.
    The bill provides that appropriations shall remain 
available for more than one year for a number of programs for 
which the basic authorizing legislation does not explicitly 
authorize such extended availability.
    The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, 
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of 
Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board. 
Similar provisions have appeared in many previous 
appropriations Acts.
    The bill provides for transfer of funds which might be 
construed as changing the application of existing law. Similar 
provisions have appeared in previous appropriations Acts. These 
items are discussed under the appropriate heading in the 
report.
    The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase 
of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar 
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
    Several limitations on obligations are contained in Title 
I. Although these provisions are strict limitations, they do 
have the effect of reducing obligations below the levels that 
otherwise would be available.
    Language is included in several instances permitting 
certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
    Language is included that does not permit the Department of 
Transportation to maintain duplicate physical copies of airline 
tariffs.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Salaries and Expenses,'' which would allow crediting the 
account with up to $1,000,000 in user fees to support the 
electronic tariff filings system.
    Language is included that limits operating costs and 
capital outlays of the Transportation Administrative Service 
Center of the Department of Transportation and limits special 
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those 
assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to 
and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
    Language is included under ``Payments to air carriers'' 
limiting the liquidating cash under the program, stipulating 
that no claims may be paid except in accordance with the 
limitation and provides certain criteria for distribution of 
the limitation.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' which specifies that the number of aircraft on hand 
at any one time cannot exceed two hundred and eighteen.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' which specifies that none of the funds appropriated 
shall be available for pay or administrative expenses in 
connection with shipping commissioners.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation 
to the amount of fees collected from yacht owners.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both 
military and civilian employment levels to comply with 
Executive Order No. 12839.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds received 
from the sale of the VC-11A and HU-25 aircraft to this account 
to purchase new aircraft.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds from the 
disposal of surplus property by sale or lease to be credited to 
this appropriation and allows $20 million in offsetting 
collections from the sale of Coast Guard property in Wildwood, 
New Jersey.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Research, 
development, test, and evaluation'' that credits funds received 
from state and local governments and other entities for 
expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and 
evaluation.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Boat Safety'' 
account that establishes a discretionary boat safety grant 
program.
    Language is included under FAA, ``Operations'' that allows 
the collection of $30,000,000 in additional user fees and 
allows the fees to be credited to the appropriation as 
offsetting collections, and reduces the general fund 
appropriation on a dollar for dollar basis as the fees are 
received and credited.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' 
permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant agreement 
with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop 
safety standards.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations,'' that prohibits the use of funds 
for new applicants of the second career training program.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' that 
prohibits the use of funds for premium pay unless an employee 
actually performed work during the time corresponding to the 
premium pay.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Facilities and 
equipment,'' that allows certain funds received for expenses 
incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 
navigation facilities to be credited to the account
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Research, 
engineering, and development,'' that allows certain funds 
received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and 
development to be credited to the account.
    Language is included prohibiting funds for aircraft loan 
guarantees.
    The bill includes a limitation on general operating 
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration.
    The bill includes language prohibiting obligations for 
right-of-way acquisition.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Operations and research'' prohibiting the 
planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling 
passenger car tires for low rolling resistance.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting 
obligations for certain safety grant programs.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Office of the administrator,'' authorizing the Secretary to 
receive payments from the Union Station Redevelopment 
Corporation, credit them to the appropriation charged with the 
first deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of 
trust.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Railroad safety'' that allows reimbursement of states' 
employees travel and per diem costs when directly supporting 
federal railroad safety programs.
    Language is included authorizing the Secretary to issue 
fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under 
sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
Regulatory Reform Act.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Rhode Island railroad development'' that specifies that the 
federal contribution shall be matched on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis and that the Providence and Worcester railroad shall 
reimburse Amtrak and/or the Federal Railroad Administration up 
to the first $8,000,000 in legal damages if damages occur 
resulting from provision of vertical clearances in excess of 
those required for present freight operations.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Direct loan financing program'' that provides $58,680,000 for 
direct loans not to exceed $400,000,000 for the Alameda 
corridor under section 505 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976; provides that such loans shall 
not exceed certain amounts specified for fiscal years 1997 
through 1999; provides that such loans be structured with a 
maximum 30-year repayment after completion of construction at 
an annual rate of not to exceed the 30-year U.S. Treasury rate; 
waives section 505(a) (b) and (d); and deems the Alameda 
Corridor Transportation Authority as a financially responsible 
person.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,'' that 
prohibits capital improvement funds until July 1, 1997.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,'' 
regarding the use of funds for lease or purchase of passenger 
motor vehicles.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Formula grants,'' limiting mass transit operating assistance.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Discretionary grants,'' reprogramming funds previously 
provided for projects specified in this Act.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Discretionary grants,'' specifying the distribution of funds 
for new fixed guideway systems in this Act.
    Language is included under the Federal Transit 
Administration, ``Discretionary grants,'' allowing Salt Lake 
City light rail transit project funds to be used for high 
occupancy vehicle lane and corridor design costs.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' which would 
allow up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 
5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
offsetting receipts.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' that credits 
certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and 
other activities.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that allows up to 
$1,000,000 for one-call notification systems to be funded from 
amounts previously collected and held in a reserve account.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants,'' specifying 
the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate 
funds provided under this head.
    Language is included under Office of Inspector General, 
``Salaries and expenses'' prohibiting funds for the conduct of 
contract audits.
    Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, 
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $3,000,000 
in fees and providing that fees collected in excess of 
$3,000,000 shall not be available until October 1, 1997.
    Language is included under ``Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, ``Salaries and 
expenses,'' that provides that funds received for publications 
and training may be credited to the appropriation.
    Language is included in several instances rescinding budget 
authority previously provided.
    Section 301 through 337 of the bill contains a number of 
general provisions that place limitations or funding 
prohibitions on the use of funds in the bill and which might, 
under some circumstances, be construed as changing the 
application of existing law.
    Sections 301 through 337 of the bill contain a number of 
general provisions that allow for the redistribution of 
previously appropriated funds.
    The bill includes language regarding the administration of 
the federal-aid highway obligation limitation.
    Section 314 allows airports to transfer to the Federal 
Aviation Administration instrument landing systems which 
conform with FAA specifications and the purchase of such 
equipment was assisted by a federal airport aid program.
    Section 321 reduced funding for activities of the 
transportation administrative service center of the Department 
of Transportation and limits obligational authority of the 
center to $114,812,000.
    Section 323 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, 
or promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle 
Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average 
fuel economy standards for automobiles.
    Section 324 prohibits funds for the sixth runway at the new 
Denver International Airport unless the Administrator or the 
Federal Aviation Administration determines, in writing, that 
safety conditions warrant obligation of such funds.
    Section 326 allows the Secretary to transfer from other 
office of the secretary accounts for rental payments in excess 
of the amounts provided in the bill.
    Section 327 prohibits funds for any type of training which: 
(a) is personally offensive to students; (b) discusses or 
teaches religious concepts or ideas; (c) attempts to teach or 
modify one's personal values or lifestyle; (d) is for AIDS 
awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical 
ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights of employees; or (e) 
does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities 
bearing directly on the performance of official duties.
    Section 329 requires Federal Transit Administration 
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
to be based in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
    Section 332 allows the Secretary of Transportation to 
exempt any class of vehicle deemed appropriate under 49 CFR 
part 580.6.
    Also, the bill includes several new or modified provisions 
that could be construed as changing existing law as follows:
    Section 321 reduced funding for activities of the 
transportation administrative service center of the Department 
of Transportation and limits obligational authority of the 
center to $114,812,000.
    Section 325 allows funds received by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products be 
credited to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of 
reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses and provides 
$3,100,000 in user fees for the aviation statistics program.
    Section 337 allows funds provided under section 3035(kk) of 
Public Law 102-240 to the State of Michigan for the purchase of 
buses and bus-related equipment and facilities.
    Section 339 enacts section 423 of H.R. 1361, as passed the 
House of Representatives on May 9, 1995, in regards to the 
conveyance of Light Station Montauk Point, located in Montauk, 
New York.
    The bill also includes a new title IV, ``Miscellaneous 
Highway Provisions'', that amends the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; restricts the operations 
of tandem and other large vehicles in Virginia; authorizes the 
Secretary of Transportation to provide an additional line of 
credit for construction of Orange County toll roads; and 
extends the authorization relating to the traffic improvement 
demonstration project.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the 
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
  United States Coast Guard
  Federal Aviation Administration
  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Operations 
        and Research
  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Highway 
        traffic safety grants
  Federal Railroad Administration (except office of the 
        administrator and rail safety)
  Research and Special Programs Administration, Pipeline Safety
  Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Aviation Statistics
  National Civil Aviation Review Commission

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing 
new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the new 
authority compares with the reports submitted under section 
602(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  602(b) allocation             This bill       
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Budget                    Budget               
                                                               authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................................      $12,190      $35,453      $11,852      $35,453
Mandatory...................................................          605          602          608          602
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill provides new spending authority as defined under 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, as 
follows: Under Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad 
rehabilitation and improvement financing funds, authority is 
provided to issue notes necessary to pay obligations under 
section 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
Regulatory Reform Act. This provision has been included at the 
request of the administration because the government's 
financial obligations under this program are difficult to 
determine in advance and may require immediate expenditures of 
funds. The Committee has received no indication to date that 
this authority will be used in fiscal year 1995. Similar 
provisions have been included in many previous appropriations 
Acts.

                       Five-Year Outlay Projects

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, the following information was provided to the 
Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:


Budget authority....................................     $12,460,000,000
Outlays:                                                                
    1997............................................      12,270,000,000
    1998............................................      12,970,000,000
    1999............................................       5,928,000,000
    2000............................................       2,105,000,000
    2001............................................       1,525,000,000
                                                                        

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of Public Law 93-
344, the Congressional Budget Office has provided the following 
estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the 
accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and local 
governments:

Budget authority........................................    $737,000,000
Fiscal year 1997 outlays................................   3,729,000,000




