[Senate Report 104-126]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 163
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

   1st Session                                                  104-126
_______________________________________________________________________


 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  1996

                                _______


   August 4 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2002]
    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2002) making appropriations for the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, reports the same to 
the Senate with amendments and recommends that the bill as 
amended do pass.


Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 1996

Amount of bill passed by the House...................... $12,810,725,806
Amount of bill as reported to Senate....................  12,613,811,567
Amount of budget estimates, 1996........................  35,468,964,831
Fiscal year 1995 enacted................................  14,214,401,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                    SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

                                                                   Page
Total obligational authority.....................................     4

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                        Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses............................................     5
Office of Civil Rights...........................................     5
Transportation planning, research, and development...............     6
Office of Commercial Space Transportation........................     6
Working capital fund.............................................     6
Payments to air carriers.........................................     7
Rental payments..................................................    10
Headquarters facilities..........................................    12
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................    12
Minority business outreach.......................................    12
ICC sunset.......................................................    13
State infrastructure banks.......................................    13
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.........    14

                            U.S. Coast Guard

Operating expenses...............................................    23
Acquisition, construction, and improvements......................    32
Environmental compliance and restoration.........................    40
Port safety development..........................................    41
Alteration of bridges............................................    41
Retired pay......................................................    42
Reserve training.................................................    42
Research, development, test, and evaluation......................    43
Boat safety......................................................    43

                    Federal Aviation Administration

Operations.......................................................    44
Air Traffic Control Corporation..................................    55
Facilities and equipment.........................................    58
Research, engineering, and development...........................    77
Grants-in-aid for airports.......................................    84
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program.........................    89

                     Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on general operating expenses.........................    90
Administrative expenses..........................................    91
Motor carrier safety operations..................................    91
Highway-related safety grants....................................   109
Federal-aid highways.............................................   110
Interstate substitute highways...................................   122
Right-of-way revolving fund......................................   126
Motor carrier safety grants......................................   127
Surface transportation projects..................................   130

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research..........................................   132
Highway traffic safety grants....................................   145

                    Federal Railroad Administration

Office of the Administrator......................................   150
Local Rail Freight Assistance Program............................   151
Railroad safety..................................................   152
Railroad research and development................................   155
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program...........................   158
Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing funds..........   161
Next generation high-speed rail..................................   162
Alaska railroad rehabilitation...................................   165
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project.......................   165
Rhode Island rail development....................................   166
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).......   166

                     Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses..........................................   171
Formula grants...................................................   171
University transportation centers................................   173
Transit planning and research....................................   173
Trust fund share of transit programs.............................   175
Discretionary grants.............................................   175
Mass transit capital fund........................................   194
Interstate transfer grants--transit..............................   194
Washington Metro.................................................   194
Violent crime reduction programs.................................   195

              St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance.......................................   196

              Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs....................................   198
Pipeline safety..................................................   204
Emergency preparedness grants....................................   209

                      Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses............................................   209
Bureau of Transportation Statistics..............................   210

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: 
  Salaries and expenses..........................................   211
National Transportation Safety Board:
    Salaries and expenses........................................   212
    Emergency fund...............................................   213
Interstate Commerce Commission:
    Salaries and expenses........................................   213
    Payments for directed rail service...........................   214
Panama Canal Commission: Panama Canal Revolving Fund.............   214
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority...................   215

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions...............................................   217
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   220
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   220
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   221
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   227
  Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds

    In addition to the appropriation of $12,613,811,567 in new 
budget authority for fiscal year 1996, large amounts of 
contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits 
for which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The 
principal items in this category are the trust funded programs 
for Federal-aid highways, for mass transit, and for airport 
development grants. For fiscal year 1996, estimated obligation 
limitations total $21,320,363,536.

                     program, project, and activity

    During fiscal year 1996, 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 appropriations acts (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 and 
discretionary grant allocations made through either bill or 
report language. 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.
                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................     $57,625,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      57,459,000
House allowance.........................................      55,011,500
Committee recommendation................................      56,500,000

\1\ Excludes amounts transferred for civil rights activities.

    Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of 
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment 
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The 
Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the 
Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General 
Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for 
transportation policy, aviation and international affairs, 
budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration. 
These secretarial offices have policy development and central 
supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall 
planning and direction of the Department of Transportation, 
including staff assistance and general management supervision 
of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of 
the Department.
    The Minority Business Resource Center, previously funded in 
this account, is proposed to be funded under a separate account 
in 1996.
    The Committee recommends a total of $56,500,000 for the 
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation including $60,000 for reception and 
representation expenses.

                         Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 1995....................................      ( 1 )
Budget estimate, 1996...................................     $12,793,000
House allowance.........................................       6,554,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,083,000

\1\ Transfer authority for $5,376,000 included under salaries and 
expenses.

    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity 
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for 
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small 
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as 
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the 
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and 
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In 
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing 
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally 
operated and federally assisted transportation programs. In 
fiscal year 1995, the management of internal civil rights 
activities was consolidated in OST with transfer authority 
provided in the ``Salaries and expenses'' account. In fiscal 
year 1996, a separate appropriation is requested which will 
fund all civil rights activities in the Department including 
handling of external matters, thereby completing the effort 
initiated in 1995.
    The Committee concurs with the administration's proposal 
and has provided a total of $12,083,000 for the Office of Civil 
Rights.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriations, 1995....................................      $8,293,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      15,710,000
House allowance.........................................       3,309,000

Committee recommendation

                                                               9,710,000

    The Office of the Secretary performs those research 
activities and studies which can more effectively or 
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This 
research effort supports the planning, research and development 
activities, and systems development needed to assist the 
Secretary in the formulation of national transportation 
policies. The program is carried out primarily through 
contracts with other Federal agencies, educational 
institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private 
firms. The Committee has fully funded the integrated personnel/
payroll system at $3,900,000 and the document management system 
at $1,000,000, but has deferred funding the new automated 
procurement system, -$6,000,000.

               Office of Commercial Space Transportation

                        Operations and Research
Appropriations, 1995....................................      $6,060,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................       6,541,000
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                             ...........................

    The Office of Commercial Space Transportation provides 
regulatory, research and development, and studies needed to 
carry out the Secretary's responsibilities as defined in 
Executive Order 12465 to encourage, facilitate, and promote 
commercial space launches by the United States private sector 
and to license and regulate commercial launches, launch site 
operations, and certain payloads under the Commercial Launch 
Act (Public Law 98-575).
    The Department's reorganization plans would shift this 
activity to the FAA. The Committee has included funding for 
this office within the Federal Aviation Administration's 
``Operations'' account.

                          Working Capital Fund
Limitation, 1995........................................   ($93,000,000)
Limitation estimate, 1996...............................   (104,364,000)
House allowance.........................................   (102,231,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                           (104,364,000)

    The working capital fund [WCF] provides for centralized 
financing of certain common administrative services (for 
example, publishing and graphics and computer services) in the 
interest of economy and efficiency. The fund is reimbursed from 
the appropriations of the operating agencies of the Department 
at rates that recover all operating expenses in full.
    A budget amendment proposes to eliminate all appropriations 
language, consistent with other working capital fund accounts 
in the Government. As part of its reorganization proposals, the 
Department plans to create a service bureau financed by the 
working capital fund to perform common services. The 
administration also proposed the elimination of any 
appropriation limitations on the WCF to facilitate the 
responsive operation of the service bureau.
                        Payments to Air Carriers

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................   ($33,423,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................    (15,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                            (26,738,536)

    The Secretary of Transportation administers the section 419 
Subsidy Program, which was created as part of the Airline 
Deregulation Act of 1978. Subsidy under this program is paid to 
airlines, primarily commuter carriers, to support the provision 
of essential air service to points that would not be served but 
for the subsidy. The budget proposed elimination of this 
program in 1996.
    Many points are located in remote rural areas: 81 of 100 
communities served by the Essential Air Service Program are 
more than 100 highway miles and 47 are more than 200 miles from 
the nearest hub airport as defined by section 419. Thirty more 
communities are located in Alaska, where, in all but two cases, 
year-round road access does not exist. Without air service, 
such communities would be further isolated from the Nation's 
economic centers. Moreover, businesses are typically interested 
in locating in areas that have convenient access to scheduled 
air service. Loss of service would seriously hamper small 
communities' ability to attract new business or even to retain 
those they now have, resulting in further strain on local 
economies and loss of jobs.
    The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract 
authorization of $26,738,536 for fiscal year 1996 payments to 
air carriers which is the same as the limitation on 
obligations.

                       limitation on obligations

    The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of 
$26,738,536, which is $26,738,536 above the administration's 
request.
    Under the Committee's recommended level, funding would not 
be available to: (1) points that are located fewer than 75 
highway miles from the nearest large-, medium-, or small-hub 
airport; and (2) points that require a rate of subsidy per 
passenger in excess of $200, when that point is less than 200 
miles from a large or medium hub.
    The amount recommended by the Committee would be for the 
following points:

                      PROJECTED SUBSIDIZED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE [EAS] FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Estimated                                                  
                                                    mileage to     Average daily  Annual subsidy                
                                                    nearest hub    enplanements   rate projected    Subsidy per 
               States/communities                     (small,      at EAS point     for fiscal       passenger  
                                                    medium, or     (year ending      year 1996                  
                                                      large)      June 30, 1994)                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:                                                                                                        
    Kingman.....................................             103            10.7        $162,880          $24.34
    Page........................................             274            20.5         201,466           15.66
    Prescott....................................             103            41.1         162,880            6.34
Arkansas:                                                                                                       
    El Dorado/Camden............................             108            10.9         850,472          124.89
    Harrison....................................             139            10.3         756,491          117.60
California: Crescent City.......................             233            13.0         298,868           36.68
Colorado:                                                                                                       
    Cortez......................................             253            27.9         144,273            8.27
    Lamar.......................................             162             4.1         172,139           67.32
Illinois: Mount Vernon..........................              93             7.9         576,192          116.12
Iowa: Ottumwa...................................              92             6.3         309,704           79.07
Kansas:                                                                                                         
    Dodge City..................................             156            13.1         280,874           34.15
    Garden City.................................             209            21.9         280,874           20.49
    Goodland....................................             190             3.2         172,139          139.67
    Great Bend..................................             116             4.8         280,874           92.76
    Hays........................................             175            16.7         280,874           26.90
    Liberal/Guymon..............................             162            10.1         172,139           27.28
    Topeka......................................              76            31.8          47,788            2.40
Maine:                                                                                                          
    Bar Harbor..................................             164            17.6         452,889           41.09
    Rockland....................................              79            11.2         452,889           64.60
Minnesota:                                                                                                      
    Fairmont....................................             153             4.0         191,688           76.28
    Fergus Falls................................             185            10.9         227,340           33.21
    Mankato.....................................              75             4.5         191,688           68.58
Missouri:                                                                                                       
    Cape Girardeau..............................             133            18.8         254,525           21.58
    Fort Leonard Wood...........................             130            12.2         293,184           38.52
    Kirksville..................................             158             8.4         366,503           69.39
Montana:                                                                                                        
    Glasgow.....................................             279             5.9         350,719           94.33
    Glendive....................................             223             2.9         608,761          339.14
    Havre.......................................             251             4.4         507,660          185.14
    Lewiston....................................         \1\ 400             3.6         507,660          224.73
    Miles City..................................         \1\ 400             3.0         608,760          321.59
    Sidney......................................             273             7.7         608,761          125.73
    Wolf Point..................................             295             6.3         350,719           88.97
Nebraska:                                                                                                       
    Alliance....................................             242             2.3         223,029          151.93
    Chadron.....................................             301             2.3         223,029          152.66
    Hastings....................................             160             3.0         178,810           93.86
    Kearney.....................................             186            11.2         507,672           72.38
    McCook......................................             259             3.4         328,862          155.86
    North Platte................................             282             5.2         144,292           44.05
    Scottsbluff.................................             202             8.6         144,292           26.92
Nevada: Ely.....................................             236             5.7         727,082          203.61
New Mexico:                                                                                                     
    Alamogordo/Holloman AFB.....................              92            11.6         277,360           38.30
    Clovis......................................             106            14.6         310,860           34.01
    Silver City/Hurley/Deming...................             163            10.4         408,814           62.62
New York:                                                                                                       
    Massena.....................................             149            20.1         205,665           16.32
    Ogdensburg..................................             127            10.5         205,665           31.27
North Dakota:                                                                                                   
    Devils Lake.................................             403            11.8         322,943           42.75
    Dickinson...................................             313             7.5         163,295           34.57
    Jamestown...................................             304            10.8         322,943           11.94
Oklahoma:                                                                                                       
    Enid........................................              91             9.4         446,752           70.71
    Ponca City..................................              88            11.8         446,752           56.26
Pennsylvania: Oil City/Franklin.................              91            30.5         168,592           18.87
Puerto Rico: Ponce..............................              80            31.2         325,247           16.63
South Dakota: Yankton...........................              96            10.1         417,220           67.50
Texas: Brownwood................................             153             4.7         429,722          162.27
Utah:                                                                                                           
    Cedar City..................................             173            18.7         503,354           43.11
    Moab........................................             241             6.1         484,552          127.51
    Vernal......................................             171            17.0         305,311           28.70
Virginia: Staunton..............................             108            35.0         308,054           14.04
Washington: Ephrata/Moses Lake..................             122            16.1         326,875           32.42
West Virginia:                                                                                                  
    Beckley.....................................             186            19.3         250,498           20.74
    Clarksburg/Fairmont.........................             107             8.8         259,689           46.92
    Morgantown..................................              75            12.0         259,689           34.60
    Princeton/Bluefield.........................             145            21.6         250,498           18.56
Wyoming: Worland................................             164             9.1         167,583           29.38
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal of long-term non-Alaska rates....  ..............  ..............      21,169,673  ..............
Other projected subsidy obligations:                                                                            
    Long-term Alaska rates......................  ..............  ..............       1,806,143  ..............
    Expected subsidy rate adjustments and                                                                       
     carrier selections in fiscal year 1996.....  ..............  ..............       2,262,720  ..............
    Estimated fiscal year 1996 hold-in                                                                          
     compensation...............................  ..............  ..............       1,500,000  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total projected fiscal year 1996                                                                        
         obligations............................  ..............  ..............      26,738,536  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Distance from medium or large hub airport.                                                                  


                        Payments to Air Carriers

                 (rescission on contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)
Rescission, 1995........................................    ($4,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\...............................    (38,600,000)
House allowance.........................................    (23,600,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (11,861,464)

\1\ Consistent with the budget proposal to eliminate this program in 
1996, contract authority previously enacted is proposed to be rescinded.

    The House has included bill language which would rescind 
$23,600,000 of contract authority funding for the payments to 
air carriers program, because the fully authorized level of 
$38,600,000 in contract authority would not be available under 
the House's proposed $15,000,000 limitation on obligations. 
Under the Senate proposal only $11,861,464 of the contract 
authority would be unused.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                              (Rescission)
Rescission, 1995........................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................     -$6,786,971
House allowance.........................................      -6,786,971

Committee recommendation

                                                              -6,786,971

    The amount proposed for rescission represents balances 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'' account. 
Starting in fiscal year 1992, this program has been funded from 
the ``Payments to air carriers trust fund'' account. 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
Appropriations, 1995....................................    $144,419,000
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\ \2\...........................     143,436,000
House allowance.........................................     130,803,000
Committee recommendation................................     139,689,000

\1\ Rental payments for the FHWA are separately budgeted but reimbursed 
to this account.
\2\ Includes budget amendment to reduce this account by $2,000,000 to 
offset an increase for aviation security.

    Rental payments to the General Services Administration 
[GSA] are included as a separate line-item appropriation in the 
bill.
    The Committee has provided an appropriation of $139,689,000 
for rental payments in fiscal year 1996, plus $18,750,000 to be 
paid by reimbursement from the highway trust fund. This is a 
2.5-percent decrease from the 1995 enacted level.

                                                                 GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS \1\                                                                
                                                         [Dollars and square feet in thousands]                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year 1994enacted  Fiscal year   Fiscal year 1995enacted   Fiscal year 1996request
                        Administration                        --------------------------   1994 GSA  ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Funding    Square feet    billings     Funding    Square feet    Funding    Square feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration...............................   [$17,524]        [987]    [$16,503]    [$18,044]        [987]    [$18,750]        [991] 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............       4,511          154        4,407        4,716          155        4,483          155 
Federal Railroad Administration..............................       3,524          141        3,082        3,363          135        3,318          138 
Federal Transit Administration...............................       3,295          108        3,184        3,332          109        3,317          108 
Federal Aviation Administration..............................      74,858        4,063       71,024       75,820        4,374       74,710        4,082 
U.S. Coast Guard.............................................      44,746        2,430       40,602       42,281        2,347       41,028        2,308 
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation..................         175            6          170          181            6          169            6 
Research and Special Programs Administration.................       2,303           76        2,258        2,378           77        2,459           80 
Office of the Inspector General..............................       2,604           95        2,309        2,579           94        2,542           94 
Office of Secretary of Transportation........................      13,475        1,442       13,257        9,679        1,440       11,306        1,441 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics..........................         114            3          114           90            3          104            7 
OST--rental payments to GSA..................................   [149,605]   ...........   [140,407]    [144,419]   ...........   [143,436]   ...........
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................     149,605        8,518      140,407      144,419        8,740      143,436        8,419 
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rescissions..............................................     [1,781]   ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Federal Highway Administration...............................      17,524          945       16,476       18,044          987       18,750          991 
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Department of Transportation (excludes MarAd)...     165,348        9,463      156,883      162,463        9,727      162,186        9,410 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Enacted as a single account under the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The budgets propose appropriations language which directs the      
  reimbursement of FHWA GSA rent from FHWA LGOE account to the consolidated account.                                                                    

                        Headquarters Facilities
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................    $331,000,000
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                             ...........................

    The administration has requested funding for the 
acquisition or construction of a Department of Transportation 
headquarters building. Leases for two headquarters buildings 
will expire within the next 8 years--Nassif building in 2000 
and Transpoint in 2003. Since purchase of headquarters space 
will be more cost effective than leasing, this strategy 
includes the acquisition of 1.1 million square feet of space 
near the current location. Funding is requested in 1996 to 
provide for orderly planning and acquisition of the space. 
Funds are budgeted in DOT as a result of a change in 
administrative policy to budget for space acquisition in the 
affected agency rather than through GSA.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program
Appropriations, 1995....................................      $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................       1,900,000
House allowance.........................................       1,900,000

Committee recommendation

                                                               1,900,000

    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
[OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC].--The OSDBU/
MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working 
capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-
owned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE's]. In fiscal year 1996, the 
short-term loan program will focus on the lending of working 
capital to DBE/MBE/WBE's for transportation-related projects in 
order to strengthen their competitive and productive 
capabilities.
    Since fiscal year 1993, the loan program has been a 
separate line item appropriation, which reflects the 
President's budget proposal, which segregated such activities 
in response to changes made by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 
1990. The limitation on direct loans under the Minority 
Business Resource Center is at the administration's requested 
level of $15,000,000.
    The Department is projecting that the authorized loan level 
of $15,000,000 will be reached in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. 
The program provides a valuable source of working capital for 
minority businesses to manage their transportation-related 
contracts.

                       Minority Business Outreach
Appropriations, 1995....................................         ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      $2,900,000
House allowance.........................................       2,900,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,100,000

\1\ Previously funded under OST, salaries and expenses.

    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 support to 
historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is 
requested by the administration since this program provides 
grants and contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and 
not just OST purposes.

                               ICC Sunset
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      $4,705,000
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                                               4,705,000

    A separate salaries and expenses request was included in 
the budget for $4,705,000 representing functions that would 
transfer to DOT upon sunset of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. The administration proposed legislation to sunset 
the Interstate Commerce Commission with residual rail and motor 
carrier functions transferring to the DOT. Handling of consumer 
complaints regarding household goods movers and review of rail 
mergers and acquisitions were proposed to be transferred to the 
Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, 
respectively.

                       State Infrastructure Banks
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\...............................  $2,000,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................     250,000,000

    \1\ The administration included funding to capitalize State 
infrastructure banks in the ``Unified Transportation Infrastructure 
Investment Program'' account.

    The Committee has included a general provision, section 
349, to establish infrastructure banks. The bill language 
allows States to deposit funds into the bank from non-Federal 
or Federal sources, including apportioned highway funds, for 
initial capital of the bank. In addition, the Committee has 
appropriated $250,000,000 from the airport and airway trust 
fund to cover expected aviation-related infrastructure 
improvements.
    The Committee considers the Alameda transportation corridor 
in Los Angeles County, CA, as an example of a project that 
would greatly benefit from the innovative financing option as 
provided in this bill. The project will streamline rail and 
highway transportation between the Ports of Los Angeles and 
Long Beach, and intermodal connections in downtown Los Angeles. 
The rail portion of the project will consolidate the operations 
of three freight carriers into one higher speed corridor and 
eliminate conflicts with highway crossings. Highways will also 
be improved to provide better access from the ports to the 
freeways. The increased transportation efficiency will provide 
the added benefit of decreased air pollution.
    The Senate recently designated the route as a high-priority 
corridor on the National Highway System, enabling the Secretary 
of Transportation to work cooperatively with the project 
sponsors on using creative financing to advance the project, 
including eligibility for a line of credit. Shipping revenues 
from the completed project will enable the sponsors to repay 
construction financing.

        Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $24,392,976,000
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                             ...........................

    The budget request submitted by the administration proposed 
that certain programs for the Department of Transportation be 
funded from the Unified Transportation Infrastructure 
Investment Program [UTIIP]. This new account is structured in 
two parts: Federal activities and State and local activities, 
reflecting the administration's initiative to shift programs to 
State and local decisionmaking.
    While infrastructure spending is $2,300,000,000 below 
comparable fiscal year 1995 funding, new and more flexible 
funding mechanisms are proposed which should allow States and 
localities to stretch and leverage reduced Federal dollars. The 
new programs proposed include an $18,000,000,000 unified 
allocation grant that will be available to States and 
localities to spend on their transportation priorities. UTIIP 
also includes a $1,000,000,000 discretionary grant to focus on 
projects of national or regional significance and 
$2,000,000,000 to capitalize State infrastructure banks. 
Funding for such activities as Amtrak, Northeast corridor, and 
transit operating assistance which were separately appropriated 
in previous years are included as line items in UTIIP. Also 
included is $1,100,000,000 for prior commitments including full 
funding agreements for transit new start projects, WMATA, and 
existing airport letters of intent. The following table 
compares funding levels for fiscal year 1995 and those proposed 
in 1996 both under UTIIP and current law.

UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM--APPROPRIATIONS
                       AND OBLIGATION LIMITATIONS                       
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1996 President's budget   
                               1995      -------------------------------
                            comparable      Current law                 
                                                \1\        UTIIP policy 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
     State and local                                                    
                                                                        
Unified grant...........  \2\ 22,911,258  \2\ 23,941,663      18,000,000
State infrastructure                                                    
 banks..................  ..............  ..............       2,000,000
Transit operating                                                       
 assistance.............         710,000         500,000         500,000
Prior commitment (LOI's,                                                
 new starts, WMATA).....       1,009,018       1,142,972       1,142,972
Rhode Island rail                                                       
 development............           5,000          10,000          10,000
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total, State and                                                  
       local initiatives      24,635,276      25,594,635      21,652,972
                                                                        
 Direct Federal Programs                                                
                                                                        
Discretionary grants                                                    
 (new program)..........  ..............     \3\ 300,000       1,000,000
Federal lands...........         448,000     \4\ 348,432         441,775
Research and development                                                
 \5\....................         239,079         217,237         219,027
Grants to Amtrak........         772,000         750,000         750,000
Northeast corridor                                                      
 improvement project....         200,000         235,000         235,000
Pennsylvania Station                                                    
 redevelopment..........          40,000          50,000          50,000
Administrative expenses                                                 
 \6\....................          43,060          44,202          44,202
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total, direct                                                     
       Federal..........       1,742,139       1,944,871       2,740,004
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total, UTIIP......      26,377,415      27,539,506      24,392,976
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects the impact of reductions pursuant to ISTEA section 1003(c),
  for example, Federal lands.                                           
\2\ Includes portions of Federal-aid highways, grants-in-aid for        
  airports (except for existing LOI's), transit formula capital and     
  discretionary grants (except for FFGA's), and local rail freight      
  assistance (fiscal year 1995 only).                                   
\3\ Congestion relief initiative.                                       
\4\ Estimated obligations.                                              
\5\ Includes in each year intelligent transportation systems, university
  transportation centers, and transit planning and research.            
\6\ Includes transit only; FHWA limitation on general operating expenses
  included as drawdown under unified grant.                             

                           general provisions

    Advisory committee cap.--The Committee has included bill 
language which would limit the total amount to be spent for 
advisory committees to $850,000. Twenty-eight committees 
currently exist to provide advisory services to nine different 
modal and administrative agencies of the Department of 
Transportation. The amount recommended is the same as the 
fiscal year 1995 level. The House has not included bill 
language which caps advisory committee expenses.
    The Committee believes that the Department's use of 
advisory committees, when carried out judiciously, is a cost-
effective means of obtaining advice and information. Advisory 
committees generally have the advantages of timeliness and 
objectivity over the alternatives of internal task forces and 
external contracting. These advantages are especially germane 
when the issues being studied are subjective and controversial 
and require conclusions to be drawn on the basis of qualitative 
data. The Committee strongly encourages DOT to continue to draw 
heavily on the expertise, guidance, and breadth of the 
intelligent transportation systems community perspective of the 
Intelligent Transportation Society of America and the avionics 
expertise of the RTCA.
    Department appointees.--The Committee has included bill 
language, which is similar to that included in previous years, 
which limits the total number of political and Presidential 
appointees in the Department of Transportation. The 
Department's appointee cap is set at 100.
    Cooperative agreements.--The Committee continued a general 
provision, included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations 
bill, which will grant the Secretary of Transportation specific 
statutory authority to enter into grants, cooperative 
agreements, and other transactions with any entity in execution 
of the technology reinvestment project [TRP] authorized under 
the Defense Conversion, Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance 
Act of 1992 and related legislation.
    Telecommuting public information program.--The Committee 
has included a general provision which directs the Department 
of Transportation to identify successful telecommuting programs 
used by Government agencies and private companies and to 
publicize information about such programs in order to broaden 
public awareness of the benefits of telecommuting. The 
Secretary would also be required to report to Congress on his 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations with respect to 
telecommuting within 1 year of enactment. It is in the national 
interest to encourage telecommuting because it can enable 
flexible family-friendly employment, reduce air pollution, and 
conserve energy.
    Bonus and award payments.--The Department of Transportation 
has budgeted $26,627,927 for performance awards for all 
employee levels. All of the bonus and award payments are 
discretionary. The Committee has included language limiting the 
allowable Department bonuses and awards to the amounts depicted 
below.
    In each of the accounts that contain personnel funds, the 
reduction associated with the bonuses and awards is depicted as 
an accountwide adjustment. The total amount recommended for 
each agency versus the 1996 budget request is depicted below. 
The Committee has included a general provision in the bill 
which limits funds for employee bonuses and awards to 
$25,875,075.

                           PERFORMANCE AWARDS                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year                   
        Agency           Fiscal year      1996 budget       Committee   
                       1995 limitation      estimate      recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the                                                           
 Secretary...........         $662,036         $681,000         $662,036
Coast Guard..........        1,728,626        1,720,000        1,720,000
Federal Aviation                                                        
 Administration......       20,957,888       21,678,000       20,957,888
Federal Highway                                                         
 Administration......        1,342,432        1,303,500        1,303,500
Bureau of                                                               
 Transportation                                                         
 Statistics..........           13,981           22,427           18,000
National Highway                                                        
 Traffic Safety                                                         
 Administration......          304,897          305,000          304,897
Federal Railroad                                                        
 Administration......          307,900          314,000          307,900
Federal Transit                                                         
 Administration......          220,857          221,000          220,857
St. Lawrence Seaway                                                     
 Development                                                            
 Corporation.........           49,217           49,000           49,000
Research and Special                                                    
 Programs                                                               
 Administration \1\..          148,170          148,000          145,000
Office of Inspector                                                     
 General.............          185,996          186,000          185,996
                      --------------------------------------------------
      Total..........       25,922,000       26,627,927       25,875,075
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.              

                           DOT REORGANIZATION

    Both the administration and Congress have been engaged in a 
fundamental reassessment of the means by which the Federal 
Government fulfills its responsibilities to the American 
people. The President initiated the ``National Performance 
Review'' [NPR] soon after taking office, and it has already 
produced substantial downsizing and performance gains at DOT. 
Efforts to reduce annual deficits have also put increasing 
pressure on the Department to find ways to do more with less.
    It has become clear that the most fundamental barrier to 
implementing broad-based, flexible, and well balanced 
transportation policy and programs is the outmoded division of 
authority among the different modes of transportation. DOT was 
originally created as a holding company for existing agencies, 
including the Federal Highway Administration, the Coast Guard, 
and the Federal Aviation Administration. Over time, new 
organizations have been created or grafted onto this structure, 
so DOT now includes nine separate agencies, plus the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics. This brings with it tremendous 
redundancy, particularly in administrative and headquarters 
activities targeted by the NPR for substantial streamlining. 
Further, it means a high degree of complexity and potential 
confusion for DOT customers--in industry, State and local 
government, and the public at large--who now must go to many 
separate offices for different services and programs. 
Organization change is also essential as ambitious goals are 
implemented for downsizing of the Department.
    The DOT proposal for consolidation, which was submitted to 
Congress on April 4, 1995, involves three major areas. First, 
all surface and maritime activities, other than Coast Guard and 
the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC], would 
be combined in a single Intermodal Transportation 
Administration [ITA]. Second, the Federal Aviation 
Administration would continue its safety and security 
functions, incorporating also commercial space activities now 
housed with the Office of the Secretary. Third, is the Coast 
Guard--a military service that transfers to the Navy upon 
declaration of war or when the President directs, and which has 
a distinct set of functions. No change in the Coast Guard's 
current status or activities is proposed, except for transfer 
of bridge-related functions to the ITA. The SLSDC is already a 
wholly owned Government corporation and would be made a free-
standing entity, eliminating an additional management layer. 
The following table lists those accounts affected by the 
reorganization.

Accounts proposed to be merged into the Intermodal Transportation 
        Administration:

    Unified transportation infrastructure investment program; 
Federal-aid highways; Right-of-way revolving fund liquidating 
account; Highway-related safety grants; Motor carrier safety 
grants; Motor carrier safety; Operations and research [NHTSA]; 
Operations and research, trust fund [NHTSA]; Highway traffic 
safety grants; Office of the Administrator [FRA]; Railroad 
safety; Railroad research and development; Next generation 
high-speed rail; Railroad rehabilitation and improvement 
program account; Trust fund share of next generation high-speed 
rail; Violent crime reduction programs; Alteration of bridges; 
Operating-differential subsidies; Maritime security program; 
Operations and training (Maritime Administration); Maritime 
guaranteed loan (title XI) program account; Research and 
special programs; Pipeline safety; and Emergency preparedness 
grants.

Accounts proposed to be included in the Federal Aviation 
        Administration:

    Operations; Aviation insurance revolving fund; Aircraft 
purchase loan guarantee program; Facilities and equipment; and 
Research, engineering, and development.

Accounts proposed to be included in the Coast Guard:

    Operating expenses; Acquisition, construction, and 
improvements; Environmental compliance and restoration; Retired 
pay; Reserve training; and Research, development, test, and 
evaluation.

Account proposed to be established as an independent agency:

    St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: Operations and 
maintenance.

                IMPACTS OF BUDGET CUTS ON TRANSPORTATION

    Under the budget resolution, Federal transportation 
spending will decrease significantly, from an outlay level of 
$39,300,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 to $32,000,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2002, a cut of approximately 20 percent in nominal 
dollars. Such a dramatic reduction clearly calls for a 
fundamental review of transportation programs, and the roles of 
Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector in 
meeting transportation needs.
    Absent changes in the current structure of transportation 
programs, the cuts in the budget resolution will be 
devastating. Existing programs were not designed to absorb such 
cuts and the projected spending levels will not support current 
programs and services. Both the Senate Budget Committee in its 
report, and the House-Senate conference in its report, noted 
this and called for major changes in the Department of 
Transportation and its programs, including but not limited to 
program downsizing, streamlining and consolidation, and air 
traffic control privatization.
    The top priority of our economic agenda is deficit 
reduction, and transportation must play a role in that effort. 
However, if this is carried out as nothing more than a budget-
cutting exercise, without changes in the way Government 
provides services, the results on the Nation's mobility and 
economy could be devastating. These reductions not only provide 
an opportunity for revamping transportation programs, but also 
demand it, to ensure that at the same time that we carry 
through on our commitment to reduce the deficit, we also 
maintain our commitment to a safe and efficient national 
transportation system.
    Reform of transportation programs should be made in the 
context of overall governmental reform efforts underway in the 
administration and the Congress. Principles such as downsizing, 
streamlining, and the introduction of market forces can and 
should be a part of any DOT reorganization. Such actions can 
eliminate redundancies, such as the existence of 10 separate 
personnel and budget offices throughout the Department. This 
step would not only make the Department more efficient in its 
use of taxpayer funds, but also maximize the investment in 
infrastructure and services, rather than in a Federal 
bureaucracy.
    Investment in transportation infrastructure.--Recent 
reports indicate that America's infrastructure deficit, the 
incremental cost above and beyond existing expenditures of 
bringing our highways and bridges into good repair, is more 
than $300,000,000,000. At the same time, transportation demand 
is growing. The impacts of this situation are startling. Over 
70 percent of peak hour travel on urban interstates now occurs 
under congested conditions. The Nation's passenger rail system 
is starved for capital improvement. With American businesses 
increasingly relying on an efficient, well-maintained 
intermodal transportation network to serve just-in-time 
delivery systems, disinvestment in transportation 
infrastructure could have devastating impacts on our mobility 
and on our economic well-being.
    Under these circumstances, a variety of strategies are 
necessary to stretch the Federal dollar and attract investment 
from new sources, including the private sector. DOT has 
successfully launched an innovative finance initiative designed 
to increase private investment in transportation. As Federal 
funding becomes more restricted, however, efforts must focus on 
eliminating redtape, and focusing investments in as efficient a 
way as possible. The administration has proposed greater 
flexibility in transportation funding and project selection, 
with a greater reliance on the planning process created under 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. 
Particularly given the budgetary constraints facing 
transportation, this approach merits serious consideration.
    Air traffic control.--An area of particular concern is the 
operation of the air traffic control system. This concern is 
widespread, as evidenced by such proposals as the 
administration's plan for a Government-owned corporation to 
take over the system, to the budget resolution's call for a 
privatized system, to various proposals to make the FAA an 
independent agency.
    The Committee has been frustrated with the inability of the 
FAA, working under the traditional governmental structure and 
rules, to keep its modernization program on track and with the 
pattern of cost overruns and inefficiencies, that have plagued 
the FAA. Even with the significant and positive changes 
recently made, the prospects for a system that can keep pace 
with the demands of a growing aviation industry are dim unless 
fundamental changes are made in the structure and financing of 
the air traffic control system.
    The provision of air traffic control [ATC] services is a 
unique function in government. Unlike traditional regulatory or 
grant-making functions, ATC services are directly and actively 
linked with the day-to-day operations of an entire industry. As 
the industry grows, so must the ability to serve it through 
ATC. Over the last decade, this Committee has worked to provide 
adequate funding to help match services with demand. However, 
the budget resolution seriously jeopardizes the Committee's 
ability to provide support services that keep up with demand. 
It is projected by the FAA that the demand for ATC services 
will grow by 18 percent from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 
2002. However, under the budget resolution, the resources 
available to the FAA, in the form of outlays, would shrink by 
approximately 19 percent in that same timeframe. Under this 
scenario, the level of service that exists today simply cannot 
be supported.

                COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO BUDGET RESOLUTION

    The majority of the changes necessary to address the out-
year budget problems comes under the jurisdiction of other 
committees. To date, no significant transportation reform 
legislation has been considered in the Senate. However, because 
of the need to begin dealing with the budgetary realities, and 
in an attempt to minimize adverse impacts on the Department's 
programs and services, the Committee has taken several key 
steps to provide new flexibility and to begin introducing the 
necessary elements of governmental reform. These measures are 
described below. The Committee looks forward to the 
consideration of more comprehensive reforms to the Department 
and its programs and services by the authorizing committees, 
and will take those changes into account when preparing future 
appropriations for the Department.
    State and regional infrastructure banks.--The Committee has 
included a general provision, section 349, to establish a new 
funding mechanism for States' infrastructure. Eligibility for 
State infrastructure banks [SIB] would be the same as under the 
administration's proposed unified allocation. This provides for 
a surface transportation program which includes all currently 
eligible ISTEA activities as well as additional surface 
transportation activities such as freight rail and port access. 
It also includes all currently eligible aviation activities and 
certain new air eligibility such as off-airport access roads. 
The Committee believes that large intermodal projects and 
projects with their own revenue streams make the best 
candidates. Under the Committee's proposal, SIB's will be 
initially capitalized at $250,000,000 from the airport trust 
fund and funds deposited in the bank by States using 
apportioned highway funds.
    Funds would be apportioned among the States, in order to 
provide State and local governments with enhanced ability to 
tap private markets for infrastructure projects; to enter into 
shared-financing partnerships with private transportation 
entities; and to create new intergovernmental financing 
partnerships among State and sub-State entities. SIB's would 
have limited ongoing Federal financial oversight and would have 
no federally imposed sub-State or population set-aside nor any 
functional set-asides. State participation in SIB's would be 
voluntary.
    In addition to project loans, SIB's could also finance 
various forms of credit enhancement, acquisition or lease of 
rolling stock for the purpose of lease pooling, back-stop 
financing for construction loans, pooling of debt issuances, 
and refinancing of outstanding debt. SIB's could also receive 
grants of leveraged funds or fund transferred to the SIB from a 
State's other Federal infrastructure program funds.
    According to AASHTO, about 17 States have current 
legislation or proposed legislation which is directed toward 
establishing SIB's or SIB-type institutions. The Committee 
believes that all 50 States could participate in the SIB's in 
one form or another.
    FAA personnel and procurement reform.--Sections 350 and 351 
of the Committee bill provide that funds provided for FAA 
operations and capital improvements are exempt from various 
Federal personnel and procurement requirements. This will 
result in the more efficient modernization of the ATC system, 
and in a more efficient and cost-effective deployment of the 
air traffic control work force. This does not, however, do away 
with the need for fundamental reform of the budget process with 
regard to air traffic control. It is intended only as an 
interim step toward a reformed air traffic control structure.
    Aviation user fee structure.--The Committee directs the 
Department to prepare a new aviation user fee structure for air 
traffic control and other services that would more closely 
align payments with costs imposed, and to submit a report on 
such a new structure not later than December 1, 1995. This 
would assist in preparing a more accurate determination of 
system needs, and in the consideration of an alternative budget 
treatment for air traffic control and other aviation funding.
    Report on impacts of budget cuts.--The Committee directs 
the Department to submit to the Committee, not later than 
November 1, 1995, a report on the impacts on transportation of 
the budget resolution if no significant changes in 
transportation authorizations occur. This report shall include 
discussion of services that would be discontinued, programs 
that would be eliminated, and the reductions in investment 
programs that would result from lower levels of spending 
without the benefit of changes such as those assumed in the 
budget resolution.
    Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking [ANPRM].--The FAA is 
directed to initiate, in not more than 90 days, an ANPRM on the 
range of regulatory and operational changes, and their impacts, 
necessitated by funding limitations that would result from a 
lack of change in the FAA's structure and funding. Issues 
addressed in the ANPRM should include: closure of level I or II 
air traffic towers; closure of flight service stations; delays 
in the issuance of aircraft, airmen, and other certificates; 
the effect on delays in the aviation system and any measures 
necessary to address increased delays; impacts on airport 
capacity and safety if Federal assistance is terminated; 
reductions in the number and frequency of safety and security 
inspections; and the impact on the FAA's efforts to enhance the 
international safety of Americans abroad. The Committee expects 
the FAA to seek widespread participation in this process by the 
public and the user community, including through public 
meetings.
    Asset sales.--The Coast Guard and FAA, like many other 
agencies, are reorganizing and downsizing while providing 
critical services to the public at less cost. Both the Senate 
and House of Representatives, in their respective versions of 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for 1996, indicated 
clear support for seeking a change in the rules that currently 
do not allow agencies to obtain budgetary credit for the sale 
of governmental assets.
    The Committee believes that the Coast Guard, the FAA, and 
the Government as a whole, would benefit substantially if 
allowed budgetary credit for property they expect to excess as 
part of downsizing efforts. The President's fiscal year 1996 
budget also proposed a change in the asset scoring rule to 
allow the proceeds of sales to be scored as credits in the 
budget.
    The Committee strongly supports the lifting of the 
prohibition on the scoring of asset sales for budget purposes 
and the concurrent generation of receipts to reduce the Federal 
budget deficit. Clearly, there is the potential for a very 
positive benefit if the Coast Guard and the FAA are permitted 
to receive credit for the value of excessed property.
    Field office and other consolidations.--The Committee has 
retained section 335 of the general provisions title proposed 
by the House, which permanently cancels $25,000,000 from 
budgetary resources provided to the Department of 
Transportation. These savings are expected from the Secretary 
reducing the existing field office structure and, to the extent 
practicable, consolidating the Department's administrative 
activities. In testimony presented to this Committee by the 
General Accounting Office, it was stated that the Department 
may realize significant savings by consolidating many of its 
existing field offices into larger and less specialized 
offices. The Committee expects that these savings will not 
necessarily come through simple consolidation, but that the 
Department will also seek to consolidate overhead activities 
such as payroll, public affairs, grants administration, as well 
as accounting and personnel functions.
                            U.S. COAST GUARD

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The U.S. 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. In 1939, the U.S. 
Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed 
by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The 
Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities the enforcement 
of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of 
safety of life and property at sea; assistance to navigation; 
protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a 
state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the 
Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2).
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$3,654,822,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal 
year 1996. The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year                                                      
                  Program                     1995 enacted     Fiscal year   Houseallowance       Committee     
                                                   \1\        1996 estimate                  recommendations \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses.........................   \3\ 2,635,839       2,618,316       2,565,607          2,586,000  
Acquisition, construction, and improvements                                                                     
 \4\.......................................         362,937         428,200         375,175            366,800  
Environmental compliance and restoration...          23,497          25,000          21,000             21,000  
Port safety development....................  ..............  ..............  ..............             15,000  
Alteration of bridges......................  ..............           2,000          16,000              2,000  
Retired pay................................         562,585         582,022         582,022            582,022  
Reserve training...........................          64,977          64,859          61,859             62,000  
Research, development, test, and evaluation          20,306          22,500          18,500             20,000  
Boat safety................................          25,000  ..............          20,000  ...................
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total................................       3,695,141       3,742,897       3,660,163          3,654,822  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 330 and 331 of Public Law 103-331 and amounts transferred to OST,  
  salaries and expenses for civil rights activities.                                                            
\2\ Includes $300,000,000 provided by the Department of Defense for national defense missions.                  
\3\ Includes $11,200,000 in Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995 and $28,297,000 in Emergency         
  Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1995.                                                                        
\4\ Excludes $6,378,000 reduction of unobligated balances for procurement and procurement-related expenses      
  canceled pursuant to section 323 of Public law 103-331.                                                       

                           Operating Expenses

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         General            Trust             Total     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations,                                                         
 1995 \1\.........    $2,585,839,347       $50,000,000    $2,635,839,347
Budget estimate,                                                        
 1996.............     2,593,316,000        25,000,000     2,618,316,000
House allowance...     2,515,607,000        50,000,000     2,565,607,000
Committee                                                               
 recommendation...     2,261,000,000        25,000,000  \2\ 2,586,000,00
                                                                       0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $11,200,000 by transfer from the Department of Defense and 
  $28,297,000 in Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1995.       
\2\ Includes $300,000,000 by transfer from the Department of Defense.   


    The ``Operating expenses'' appropriation provides funds for 
the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels, 
aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the 
coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in 
selected areas overseas.
    The program activities of this appropriation fall into the 
following categories:
    Search and rescue.--One of its earliest and most 
traditional missions, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide 
system of boats, aircraft, cutters, and rescue coordination 
centers on 24-hour alert.
    Aids to navigation.--To help mariners determine their 
location and avoid accidents, the Coast Guard maintains a 
network of manned and unmanned aids to navigation along our 
coasts and on our inland waterways, and operates radio stations 
in the United States and abroad to serve the needs of the armed 
services and marine and air commerce.
    Marine safety.--The Coast Guard insures compliance with 
Federal statutes and regulations designed to improve safety in 
the merchant marine industry and operates a recreational 
boating safety program.
    Marine environmental protection.--The primary objectives of 
this program are to minimize the dangers of marine pollution 
and to assure the safety of U.S. ports and waterways.
    Enforcement of laws and treaties.--The Coast Guard is the 
principal maritime enforcement agency with regard to Federal 
laws on the navigable waters of the United States and the high 
seas, including fisheries, drug smuggling, illegal immigration, 
and hijacking of vessels.
    Ice operations.--In the Arctic and Antarctic, Coast Guard 
icebreakers escort supply ships, support research activities 
and Department of Defense operations, survey uncharted waters, 
and collect scientific data. The Coast Guard also assists 
commercial vessels through ice-covered waters.
    Defense readiness.--During peacetime the Coast Guard 
maintains an effective state of military preparedness to 
operate as a service in the Navy in time of war or national 
emergency at the direction of the President. As such the Coast 
Guard has primary responsibility for the security of ports, 
waterways, and navigable waters up to 200 miles offshore.
    Headquarters administration.--The headquarters 
administration activity provides executive direction and 
servicewide administrative support at the headquarters location 
of the Coast Guard.

                    committee funding recommendation

    The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating 
expenses is $2,586,000,000, including $25,000,000 from the 
oilspill liability trust fund and $300,000,000 from DOD for 
national defense missions.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year                                               
                                                          1995     Budgetrequest  Houseallowance     Committee  
                                                        enacted                                   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and allowances:                                                                                             
    Military pay and benefits.......................    1,226,672     1,230,154       1,209,853       1,212,254 
    Civilian pay and benefits.......................      173,367       177,263         177,613         176,438 
    Permanent change of station.....................       59,967        60,233          60,233          60,233 
    Medical care and equipment......................      124,487       124,185         117,885         124,185 
    Leased housing..................................  ...........  .............         14,900          14,900 
    Activitywide adjustments........................  ...........  .............          9,850          -8,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total, pay and allowances.....................    1,584,495     1,591,835       1,570,634       1,580,010 
                                                     ===========================================================
Depot level maintenance:                                                                                        
    Aircraft........................................      148,741       139,041         139,041         139,041 
    Electronics.....................................       36,032        31,549          31,549          31,549 
    Shore facilities................................       94,126        95,645          95,645          94,126 
    Vessels.........................................      101,165        99,081          99,081          99,081 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total, depot level maintenance................      380,064       365,316         365,316         363,797 
                                                     ===========================================================
Operations and support:                                                                                         
    Area operations and support:                                                                                
        Cutters:                                                                                                
            Medium endurance (WMEC).................       18,219        15,451          15,451          15,451 
            High endurance (WHEC)...................       10,807        11,070          11,070          10,807 
            Polar WAGB's............................        1,936         2,024           2,024           2,024 
        Area offices................................       11,333        12,156          12,156          11,333 
        Maintenance and logistics commands..........      122,882       125,616         125,616         122,882 
        Communication stations......................        3,107         3,262           3,262           3,107 
    District operations and support:                                                                            
        District offices............................       61,426        56,641          51,041          56,641 
        Groups/bases................................       68,015        68,592          68,592          68,015 
        Combined group/air station..................        9,468         9,827           9,827           9,468 
        Air stations................................       46,927        45,028          45,028          45,028 
        Marine safety offices.......................        7,645         9,785           9,785           8,500 
        Long-range electronic navaids (Loran).......        6,254         6,491           6,491           6,254 
        Cutters-WLB's and smaller; Mackinaw.........       27,984        29,599          29,599          29,599 
        Vessel traffic service [VTS] systems........          219           247             247             247 
    Ammunition and small arms.......................        5,791         4,707           4,707           4,707 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total, operations and support.................      393,083       400,496         394,896         394,063 
                                                     ===========================================================
Recruiting and training support:                                                                                
    Recruiting......................................        5,861         5,467           5,467           5,467 
    Training centers (Yorktown and Petaluma)........       27,535        26,522          26,522          26,522 
    Coast Guard Academy.............................       12,635        12,747          12,747          12,747 
    Professional training and education.............       25,833        26,207          25,207          26,207 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total, recruiting and training support........       71,864        70,943          69,943          70,943 
                                                     ===========================================================
Coast Guard-wide centralized services and support:                                                              
    Headquarters-managed units:                                                                                 
        Supply centers..............................        8,914         8,554           8,554           8,554 
        Finance center..............................        4,682         4,776           4,776           4,776 
        Military pay and personnel center...........        1,115         1,137           1,137           1,137 
        Activities Europe...........................        5,552        -1,372          -1,372          -1,372 
        Coast Guard yard............................        1,913         1,945           1,945           1,945 
        Strike teams................................        2,531         2,678           2,678           2,678 
        National Pollution Funds Center.............        1,207         1,231           1,231           1,231 
        COMDAC support facility.....................        2,024         2,054           2,054           2,054 
        Air station Washington, DC..................          907           925             925             925 
        Operations Systems Center...................        5,123         6,901           6,901           6,901 
        Telecommunications/information systems                                                                  
         command....................................        2,801         2,919           2,919           2,900 
        Navigation Systems Center...................        3,866           404             404             404 
        Intelligence Coordination Center............          258           263             263             263 
        Electronics Engineering Center..............        2,828         3,533           3,533           3,533 
        Coast Guard Institute.......................          744           759             759             759 
        Research and Development Center.............          429           436             436             436 
        Military Personnel Center...................          786           801             651             801 
    Headquarters....................................      120,918       120,125         119,497         119,800 
    Centralized bill paying:                                                                                    
        Postal......................................        7,516         6,674           6,674           6,674 
        FTS.........................................       12,500        12,060          10,626          11,500 
        Federal employment compensation.............        6,243         6,890           6,243           6,890 
        Unemployment compensation...................        4,546         4,661           4,546           4,546 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Coast Guard-wide centralized                                                                   
           services and support.....................      197,403       189,726         185,380         187,335 
                                                     ===========================================================
          Total, accountwide adjustments............  ...........  .............         18,562          10,148 
                                                     ===========================================================
          Total appropriation.......................    2,607,542     2,618,316       2,565,607       2,586,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Fiscal year 1995 total includes $11,200,000 provided in the DOD Appropriations Act for military pay raise 
  and $28,297,000 provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.                                    


                           PAY AND ALLOWANCES

    Military pay and benefits.--The Committee has concurred 
with the House's recommendation which reduces the general 
detail account, also known as the overhead account, from the 
requested level of $174,812,000 to $171,812,000. In addition, 
under the military pay and benefits line, the Committee has 
concurred with the House's initiative to separate the leased 
housing payments from the ``Military pay and benefits'' 
account, to create its own subaccount. The reductions 
associated with these two moves is $17,900,000. The Committee 
has restored the $1,401,000 which was cut by the House. This 
would restore the military pay raise to the 2.4 percent which 
was requested in the administration's request.
    Though the Committee supports the military essentiality 
initiative, which would where possible convert military 
positions to civilian positions, it does not include a 
reduction of $1,000,000, which the House estimates would be 
saved if 65 positions were converted from military to civilian.
    Civilian pay and benefits.--The Committee has provided 
$176,438,000 for civilian pay and benefits. The Committee's 
reduction of $825,000, which was also included by the House, 
would reduce the youth opportunity staffing request. The 
Committee does not agree with the House's position which 
recommended an additional $1,000,000 above the budget request 
for the Coast Guard to hire 10 additional Senior Executive 
Service staffing positions. The Committee believes that, if the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard thought it was the best use of 
his resources to hire additional SES staff, he would so inform 
the Committee and request it in the budget.
    Medical care and equipment.--The Committee has provided the 
full amount requested for medical care and equipment, which is 
$6,300,000 above that provided by the House. The Committee 
feels that the Coast Guard has done a good job to keep its 
medical care and equipment line item under budget. In fact, 
this account has seen a slight decrease from the amount of 
resources required in fiscal year 1995.
    Activitywide adjustments.--The Committee has reduced the 
overall ``Pay and allowances'' account by $8,000,000, with the 
admonition to the Coast Guard to accelerate its existing 
streamlining and restructuring plans where possible without 
jeopardizing safety-related operations. The House had included 
a reduction of $4,850,000 associated with accelerating the 
existing streamlining plan, and $5,000,000 associated with the 
acceleration of its 1997 restructuring plan.

                        DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE

    Shore facilities.--The Committee has made only one small 
adjustment to the overall depot level maintenance request, 
which was $365,316,000. That adjustment was to hold the depot 
level maintenance for shore facilities request to the fiscal 
year 1995 level. In each of the other depot level budgets, the 
fiscal year 1996 request was below the amount of funding 
required in 1995; and the Committee has, in those items, 
provided the full amount requested.

                         OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

Area operations and support

    Cutters.--The Committee has provided the full amount 
requested for the medium endurance [WMEC] and polar [WAGB] 
cutters. The Committee has held the funding for the high 
endurance [WHEC] cutters to the fiscal year 1995 level.
    Area offices.--The Committee has held the funding level for 
area offices to the 1995 enacted level, which results in a 
reduction of $23,000 from the fiscal year 1996 request.
    Maintenance and logistics commands.--The Committee has held 
the maintenance and logistics commands funding level to 
$122,882,000, which was the fiscal year 1995 resource level. 
This results in a reduction of $734,000 from the request. The 
Committee has also taken the same position for communications 
stations, and held it to the fiscal year 1995 level of 
$3,107,000, a slight reduction of $55,000 from the request.

District operations and support/district offices

    The Committee has restored funding for the district 
offices, and does not agree with the specific cut of $5,600,000 
directed by the House. The Committee has provided the full 
amount requested, which was $56,641,000. The Committee agrees 
with the House's observation that the Coast Guard does have an 
extensive field organization, including districts, area 
commands, groups, bases, stations, and maintenance and 
logistics command centers. However, the Committee feels 
strongly that, if consolidations and streamlining are to take 
place, the Coast Guard itself may be in the best position to 
judge which offices and district operations may be reduced.
    Others.--For other district operations and support 
activities, the Committee has essentially provided either the 
budget request, which in many cases was below the fiscal year 
1995 funding level, or rolled the funding level back to the 
1995 level.

                    RECRUITING AND TRAINING SUPPORT

    The recruiting and training support category has several 
subsets, including recruiting, training centers (Yorktown and 
Petaluma), the Coast Guard Academy, and professional training 
and education. The Committee has provided the full amount 
requested, which was $70,943,000, and notes that the Coast 
Guard has again requested a fiscal year 1996 funding level 
which was below the amount provided in 1995. The Committee has 
restored the $1,000,000 cut which the House took out of 
graduate school tuition payments. The Committee believes that 
the Coast Guard has done a good job in trying to hold costs 
down whenever and wherever possible, and though its budget for 
professional training and education is sizable, at $26,207,000, 
a targeted cut is not necessary at this time.

                    CENTRALIZED SERVICES AND SUPPORT

    The centralized services and support line item includes a 
number of individual activities. The Committee has provided 
$187,335,000 overall for centralized services and support, a 
reduction of $2,391,000 from the requested level (-1.3 
percent). The reductions in this activity include a slight 
reduction of $19,000 from the telecommunications and 
information systems command request; a reduction of $160,000 
from the FTS 2000 telecommunications request; and a $325,000 
reduction from the headquarters administration line item (a 
three-tenths-of-1 percent cut).
    Even though the House's staffing positions list is only a 
suggestion, the Committee believes that the Commandant should 
have full discretion in the number of positions/billets 
assigned to each of the offices within headquarters.

                        ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

    Because of budget constraints, the Committee found it 
necessary to impose an accountwide adjustment for Coast Guard 
operations. The Committee agrees with the specific 
recommendations of the House, which includes the following:

Recreational equipment reduction........................       -$146,000
Nonpay inflation adjustment.............................      -5,842,000

Nonoperational travel reduction

                                                              -1,831,000

    And, the Committee has an undistributed accountwide 
adjustment of $329,000. The Committee does not support the 
House's observation that the military pay and personnel center 
could save $500,000 by contracting out operations. This was 
based on testimony early in the year by the Inspector General's 
Office, for which the Committee can find no basis, and, 
therefore, does not support the House's initiative in this 
area.
    In assessing the accountwide adjustment, the Committee 
directs the Coast Guard to look carefully at whether cost 
savings could be achieved on vehicles loaned or leased from the 
General Services Administration. The inspector general's audit 
of this activity disclosed that 45 percent of the Coast Guard's 
leased vehicles did not meet GSA's minimum mileage use 
requirements during fiscal year 1993; and that the required 
vehicle retention justifications were not maintained or were 
not adequate to support the retention of 66 percent of the 279 
leased vehicles sampled during the audit; and, required usage 
records were not maintained for 59 percent of the 279 vehicles 
reviewed. The inspector general estimated that, if the Coast 
Guard eliminated GSA-leased vehicles averaging 500 miles or 
less monthly at those units with more than one vehicle 
assigned, approximately $1,000,000 would be saved each year. 
The Committee directs the Coast Guard to review this situation, 
and suggests it as a good candidate as the agency makes its 
accountwide adjustments.

                    HOUSE-INITIATED BILL PROVISIONS

    Motor vehicle purchase.--The Committee concurs with the 
House's inclusion of bill language which includes a limitation 
on the purchase of motor vehicles to five, even though the 
Coast Guard testified that there were no current plans to 
purchase any motor vehicles during fiscal year 1996. This 
provision is included to allow the Coast Guard flexibility if 
the need arises.
    Drug enforcement.--The Committee has stricken the House's 
bill language that specifies that no less than $314,200,000 may 
be obligated or expended on drug enforcement programs during 
fiscal year 1996. The Committee notes that this is the amount 
which was included by the Coast Guard in its budget for drug 
enforcement activities. However, as important a mission as drug 
enforcement is, the Coast Guard conducts many important 
missions, and the Committee feels that a minimum restriction as 
included by the House could hamper the Coast Guard responding 
to emergencies and other needs as they arise. Given the Coast 
Guard's increased responsibilities and activities in many 
areas, including migrant interdiction, marine safety, marine 
environmental protection, and search and rescue operations, the 
Committee, without prejudice, has struck the House language. 
The Committee feels the Coast Guard has done its best to 
estimate the total amount that would be spent on drug law 
enforcement, and will expend the resources necessary for this 
very important activity.

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE READINESS

    The Committee on Appropriations Department of Defense bill 
includes $300,000,000 for Coast Guard support. These funds are 
provided by DOD to enable the Secretary of the Navy to provide 
support for the national defense mission of the Coast Guard. 
The Coast Guard plays a key role in support of military 
missions under the U.S. Atlantic and Southern Commands in 
support of drug interdiction missions, refugee and immigration 
support, and enforcement and joint military training. The 
Committee believes, as does the Defense Subcommittee, that 
these costs should and could be addressed through Defense 
appropriations. That subcommittee has recommended, and 
authorized the Secretary of the Navy to provide, up to 
$300,000,000 in fuel, spare parts, munitions, repair services, 
and other support activities necessary to maintain the 
readiness of the Coast Guard so that it may best participate in 
national defense missions. The services the Secretary of the 
Navy will make available to the Coast Guard include ship and 
aviation fuel, spare parts, munitions, ship stores, commissary 
goods, ship and aircraft repair services, ship and aircraft 
parts, and other assistance as necessary to ensure the national 
defense capabilities and readiness of the Coast Guard.
    The Coast Guard is a cost-effective force which is 
multimissioned. Its ships, aircraft, shore units, and people 
have four primary roles: maritime safety, maritime law 
enforcement, marine environmental protection, and national 
defense. These roles are complementary and contribute to the 
Coast Guard's unique niche within the national security 
community. The value of the Coast Guard forces and their 
mission experience was clearly evident by their active 
participation in Operations Desert Shield/Storm in Iraq, and 
more recently, in operations restore/uphold democracy in Haiti. 
The Coast Guard is one of the five Armed Forces, and is a full 
partner on the joint national security team. To be a credible 
partner, the Coast Guard must maintain a high state of 
operational readiness. Many parts of the Coast Guard's budget 
contain funding requests that, if cut, would severely impair 
the Coast Guard's operational readiness and, therefore, its 
ability to meet national security commitments.

                                 OTHER

    Small boat station/search and rescue.--Besides conducting 
direct public service such as search and rescue, fisheries law 
enforcement, and boating while intoxicated enforcement, Coast 
Guard small boat stations, boats and personnel also perform a 
preventive role in their operating areas, similar to the cop on 
the beat. Coast Guard presence is a constant public reminder 
that encourages safe boating and deters potential violations of 
law in the maritime arena. These very real, though intangible, 
benefits were not included in the Coast Guard's analysis of 
small boat units. The Committee believes that these intangible 
benefits, when considered with the direct benefits defined by 
the Coast Guard analysis, outweigh the management efficiencies 
and budget savings that will result from closing small boat 
units. The Committee has, therefore, included a general 
provision, section 358, which disallows the closure of any 
multimission small boat stations or subunits. Under the 
Committee's language, the Commandant may implement management 
efficiencies within the overall small boat system, which may 
include modifying the operational posture of units.
    Marine safety resources.--As part of its budget request for 
fiscal year 1996, the Coast Guard proposed to eliminate 21 
billets from the marine safety program for a savings of 
$685,000. The Committee believes, however, that, given the 
extraordinary unmet needs in the marine safety program, the 
time is not yet right to downsize the number of trained marine 
safety personnel.
    The recently-initiated port State control initiative has 
placed several additional burdens on most marine safety offices 
and their marine inspectors. This initiative calls for such 
inspectors to participate in the targeted boardings of all 
high-priority vessels. Yet, too often, the limited number of 
inspectors and their extensive responsibilities has undermined 
their ability to participate in all such boardings. The recent 
addition of Panama to the list of substandard flag States 
targeted for additional boardings will only exacerbate this 
problem. Given these growing challenges, the Committee has 
restored $685,000 and 21 billets to the Coast Guard's operating 
base. The Committee does not, however, expect these funds to be 
used to restore the same 21 billets slated by the Coast Guard 
for termination. Rather, the Committee directs that these 
billets be strategically deployed in a manner determined by the 
Commandant in order to strengthen the port State control 
initiative and address other marine safety priorities. The 
Committee requests that the Commandant submit a report to the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees by March 1, 1996, 
providing a detailed accounting how each of the restored 
billets and resources will be used and assigned.
    Identification of substandard classification societies.--
The port State control initiative, as mandated by the 
Committee, requires the Coast Guard to target its safety 
boardings on vessels belonging to substandard owners and 
vessels associated with substandard flag States and substandard 
classification societies. In April 1994, the Commandant 
testified that, while lists of substandard owners and flag 
States had already been developed, a list of substandard 
classification societies could not be developed until October 
1994. As an interim step, the Coast Guard testified that it 
would target only those classification societies that were not 
in compliance with the guidelines called for under IMO 
Resolution A.739(18).
    The Committee is greatly disappointed to learn that a new 
list of substandard classification societies, rather than being 
available in October 1994, may not be available until the late 
winter of 1996. The Committee's disappointment is fueled, in 
part, by its concern that certain classification societies of 
questionable quality are currently enjoying the presumption of 
having adequate safety controls solely because they have been 
determined to be in compliance with the IMO guidelines.
    Recent experience with the Coast Guard's boarding 
activities reveals that substandard ships are still, 
periodically, being classed by even the most reputable 
classification societies. However, within the universe of those 
societies that have been determined to be in compliance with 
the IMO resolution, certain societies have experienced a 
disproportionately and unacceptably high number and frequency 
of safety interventions. As such, the Committee requests the 
Commandant to redouble his efforts to develop a new list of 
substandard classification societies. The Committee further 
requests that, upon completion of this list, he submit a report 
to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing the 
methodology he used in developing this list. This report, which 
should be provided no later than April 1, 1996, should include 
appendices providing all available and relevant safety data 
used to evaluate the adequacy of all major classification 
societies.
    Vessel traffic systems [VTS].--The Committee concurs with 
the House's direction that the Coast Guard should more fully 
examine the implementation costs associated with the vessel 
traffic service VTS 2000 program. Based on General Accounting 
Office reports, the costs of operating the vessel traffic 
system would approach approximately $65,000,000 a year, versus 
the current cost of almost $20,000,000. In addition, it will 
take significant capital resources to install the equipment in 
the currently envisioned VTS 2000 program.
    In light of the GAO's earlier report on VTS 2000 costs of 
$310,000,000 to establish and $65,000,000 to operate, the 
Committee emphatically directs the Coast Guard to review its 
plans for VTS, including the institution of user fees whereby 
users would pay the bill for the service provided. Given the 
budget situation, the Committee cannot support taking on new 
responsibilities where services are provided free to the users.
    The Committee believes it would be wise to study how this 
system could be developed through a public sector/private 
sector partnership. As each port is different, privatization 
may not be the proper model for all the ports in the Coast 
Guard's plans. However, given the success of the Los Angeles-
Long Beach system, which is funded on fees based on size of 
ships, and is staffed by both civilians and Coast Guard 
personnel, it appears that this is an excellent model to study 
and possibly apply to the rest of the VTS 2000 ports.
    Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The Committee remains 
supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association 
[MFSA] to provide specialized fire fighting training and 
maintain an oilspill response contingency plan for the Columbia 
River. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide 
funding for MFSA consistent with the authorization.
              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              General          Trust           Total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995....    $330,437,400     $32,500,000    $362,937,400
Budget estimate, 1996...     395,700,000      32,500,000     428,200,000
House allowance.........     342,675,000      32,500,000     375,175,000
Committee recommendation  \1\ 370,400,00                                
                                       0      32,500,000  \1\ 402,900,00
                                                                       0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $36,100,000 in reprogrammed resources.                     


    This appropriation provides for the major acquisition, 
construction, and improvement of vessels, aircraft, shore 
units, and aids to navigation operated and maintained by the 
Coast Guard. Currently, the Coast Guard has in operation 
approximately 250 cutters, ranging in size from 65-foot tugs to 
399-foot polar icebreakers, more than 2,000 boats, and an 
inventory of more than 200 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. 
The Coast Guard also operates approximately 600 stations, 
support and supply centers, communications facilities, and 
other shore units. The Coast Guard provides over 48,000 
navigational aids--buoys, fixed aids, lighthouses, and radio 
navigational stations.

                        committee recommendation

    The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year      Fiscal year     House program      Committee   
                                                1995 enacted    1996 estimate    levelallowance   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels.....................................     $187,900,000     $203,700,000     $191,200,000  \1\ $192,000,00
                                                                                                               0
Aircraft....................................       11,800,000       19,500,000       16,500,000       14,500,000
Other equipment.............................       29,700,000       56,300,000       42,200,000       47,600,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation.....       89,350,000       99,800,000       82,275,000  \2\ 102,300,000
Personnel and related support...............       44,187,400       48,900,000       43,000,000       46,500,000
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................      362,937,400      428,200,000      375,175,000  \3\ 402,900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $14,000,000 in reprogrammed resources.                                                             
\2\ Includes $22,100,000 in reprogrammed resources.                                                             
\3\ Includes $36,100,000 in reprogrammed resources.                                                             

                                vessels

    The Committee recommends $192,000,000 for vessel 
acquisition and improvement, of which $14,000,000 is made 
available through prior-year reprogrammings. The projected 
allocation of these funds is shown in the table below:

                                 VESSELS                                
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year                      Committee  
                           1996 estimate  Houseallowance  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquire vessels and                                                     
 equipment:                                                             
    Seagoing buoy tender                                                
     [WLB] replacement..          65,000          65,000          65,000
    Coastal buoy tender                                                 
     [WLM] replacement..          93,000          93,000          93,000
    47-foot motor                                                       
     lifeboat [MLB]                                                     
     replacement project             500             500             500
    82-foot WPB                                                         
     capability                                                         
     replacement........           4,000  ..............       \1\ 2,000
    Follow-on for polar                                                 
     icebreaker                                                         
     replacement........           4,300           4,300       \1\ 4,300
    Buoy boat                                                           
     replacement project           8,500  ..............           8,500
    Survey and design--                                                 
     cutters and boats..             500             500             500
    Norwegian crew                                                      
     search/rescue boat.           2,000           2,000       \1\ 2,000
    Self-propelled barge                                                
     replacement........             900             900         \1\ 900
    Surface search radar                                                
     replacement project           3,500           3,500       \1\ 3,500
Repair, renovate, or                                                    
 improve existing                                                       
 vessels and small                                                      
 boats:                                                                 
    210-foot medium-                                                    
     endurance cutter                                                   
     [WMEC], major                                                      
     maintenance                                                        
     availability [MMA].          14,500          14,500          10,500
    378-foot shipboard                                                  
     command and control           1,300           1,300       \1\ 1,300
    Configuration                                                       
     management.........           5,700           5,700  ..............
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total (new program                                                
       level)...........         203,700         191,200     \2\ 192,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded through reprogrammings.                                      
\2\ Includes $14,000,000 in reprogrammed resources.                     

    Point class patrol boat replacement project.--The Committee 
has provided $2,000,000 in reprogrammed resources for the Point 
class patrol boat replacement project. The amount provided is 
$2,000,000 less than the President's request. This project has 
been delayed due to the requirement to recompete the contract 
for the lead ship. At this point, it appears likely that the 
program will carry forward the entire fiscal year 1995 
appropriation into either the first or second quarter of fiscal 
year 1996. The Committee has reduced the amount provided for 
project management costs in fiscal year 1996 to account for 
this delay.
    Surface search radar replacement project.--The Committee 
has provided reprogrammed resources to fully fund the 
President's request for the surface search radar replacement 
project. However, the Committee is disturbed to learn that the 
scope of the program may be undergoing substantial change that 
could increase cost risk. The Committee understands that the 
financial participation of the Navy in this procurement is now 
seriously in doubt. This information is especially disturbing 
since the Committee received a report from the Commandant dated 
July 14 that cited this project as a joint Navy-Coast Guard 
procurement and makes no mention of the risk associated with 
the loss of Navy participation. The Committee would appreciate 
an informal communication from the Commandant prior to 
conference committee deliberations on this bill which discusses 
in detail the outlook for Navy participation in this project, 
as well as any likely changes in program cost that will result 
from the loss of Navy participation in this program.
    Medium-endurance cutter major maintenance availability 
[MMA].--The Committee has provided $10,500,000 of the 
$14,500,000 requested for the major maintenance availability 
program for the Coast Guard's fleet of 210-foot medium-
endurance cutters. This vessel rehabilitation program is 
conducted at the Coast Guard yard at Curtis Bay, MD. The 
Committee finds that, by stretching out the duration of this 
program, the Coast Guard can better maintain employment levels 
at the Coast Guard yard and potentially avoid the cost of 
severance payments to Federal employees at the yard. The 
Committee recognizes fully its responsibility to finance the 
remaining costs associated with this program in future years.
    Tactical data information system [TACDIS].--The Committee 
has fully funded the President's request for the installation 
of this shipboard command and control system on the Coast 
Guard's fleet of high-endurance cutters [WHEC's]. While this 
procurement has had a very troubled history, the critical value 
of this equipment as a command and control tool during AMIO 
operations around Haiti and Cuba cannot be questioned. The 
amount provided will be the last increment of funding necessary 
to complete this program.
    Configuration management.--The Committee has not provided 
the $5,700,000 requested for the configuration management 
program. The Committee believes that funds provided for this 
program in prior years will be sufficient to finance an 
adequate number of cutter configuration reviews in fiscal year 
1996.
    Reprogrammings.--The Committee has utilized reprogrammed 
resources to fully fund the President's request for the polar 
icebreaker replacement follow-on costs. In combination with the 
reprogrammings cited above, a total of $14,100,000 in 
reprogrammed resources will be made available from this 
subaccount to better enable the Committee to finance the Coast 
Guard's critical vessel needs in fiscal year 1996. These funds 
will be made available from unobligated balances in the 
seagoing buoy tender [WLB] replacement project and the coastal 
buoy tender [WLM] replacement project.
    In the last 9 months, the Coast Guard's estimate of 
unobligated balances to be carried forward into fiscal year 
1996 from these two programs has grown from zero to almost 
$20,000,000. These balances were principally budgeted for 
contract change orders and economic price adjustments. Rather 
than being an indication of program difficulties, the fact that 
these balances have not been required indicates that the Coast 
Guard's acquisition strategy based on performance-based 
specifications has, to date, kept program costs under control. 
Both the Coast Guard and the contractor are to be commended for 
their initial performance in keeping both the WLB and WLM 
programs on schedule and within budget. The Committee 
recognizes that some amount of these balances may be necessary 
as the Coast Guard takes delivery of its first WLM and WLB 
hulls in the coming months. As such, the Committee grants the 
Commandant the flexibility to move unobligated balances between 
these two programs as they are needed in fiscal year 1996. The 
Committee expects to be kept informed as to how this 
flexibility is utilized through the Commandant's quarterly 
acquisition reports.

                                aircraft

    For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends 
$14,500,000. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are distributed as 
follows:

                                AIRCRAFT                                
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year                      Committee  
                           1996 estimate  Houseallowance  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic alert and                                                       
 collision avoidance                                                    
 system [TCAS]--phase IV          13,000          10,000           8,000
Global positioning                                                      
 system installation--                                                  
 phase VI...............           1,900           1,900           1,900
HH-65 helicopter--                                                      
 transmission gearbox                                                   
 upgrade................           2,500           2,500           2,500
HC-130 sidelooking                                                      
 airborne radar [SLAR]                                                  
 upgrade................           2,100           2,100           2,100
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total.............          19,500          16,500          14,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Traffic alert and collision avoidance system [TCAS].--The 
Committee has provided $8,000,000 for the traffic alert and 
collision avoidance system [TCAS], $5,000,000 less than the 
President's request. With the successful installation of this 
important safety feature in the Coast Guard's fleet of fixed-
wing aircraft, this program now proceeds to the much greater 
challenge of integrating this feature into the Coast Guard's 
helicopter fleet. To date, there have been no production 
installations of TCAS in helicopters. The Coast Guard has not 
yet awarded its helicopter integration contract and the 
Committee believes that there is likely to be substantial 
technical and schedule risk associated with this integration 
effort. As such, the Committee has reduced the President's 
funding request and will carefully monitor the progress of this 
integration effort in the coming months.
    Sale of surplus Coast Guard aircraft.--The Committee has 
concurred in bill language requested by the administration 
allowing funds received from the sale of the Coast Guard's VC-
11A and HU-25 aircraft to be credited to this subaccount. The 
Committee commends the Coast Guard for its recent sale of the 
VC-11A aircraft and expects to be informed shortly as to how 
the receipts of the sale will be utilized. Moreover, the 
Committee encourages the Commandant to market aggressively his 
fleet of redundant HU-25 Falcon aircraft so that he can better 
meet the costs of modernizing the Coast Guard's aviation 
infrastructure.
                            other equipment

    The Committee recommends $47,600,000. The following table 
displays the project allocation:

                             OTHER EQUIPMENT                            
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year                      Committee  
                           1996 estimate  Houseallowance  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system..           3,000           3,000  ..............
Marine information for                                                  
 safety and law                                                         
 enforcement [MISLE]....          11,000          11,000          11,000
Global maritime distress/                                               
 safety system--phase                                                   
 III....................             500             500             500
Differential global                                                     
 positioning system                                                     
 [DGPS] transmitter                                                     
 replacement............           1,700  ..............           1,700
Vessel traffic services                                                 
 [VTS] 2000.............           5,000           5,000           2,000
Differential global                                                     
 positioning system                                                     
 [DGPS] in 2d District..           2,400  ..............           2,400
Search and rescue                                                       
 simulation model                                                       
 [SARSIM]...............             500             500             500
Supply center computer                                                  
 replacement [SCCR].....           1,000           1,000           1,000
Vessel navigation                                                       
 training simulator.....           1,500           1,500           1,500
Conversion of software                                                  
 applications...........          11,100           6,100           9,000
Vessel traffic services                                                 
 equipment replacement                                                  
 projects...............           3,000           3,000           3,000
Finance Center                                                          
 information system                                                     
 replacement............           2,600           2,600           2,500
Local notice to mariners                                                
 automation.............             500             500             500
Communication system                                                    
 [COMMSYS] 2000.........          11,000           6,000          11,000
Seagoing buoy tender                                                    
 [WLB] and coastal buoy                                                 
 tender [WLM] support                                                   
 facility...............           1,500           1,500           1,000
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total.............          56,300          42,200          47,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Fleet logistics system [FLS].--The Committee has not 
provided the $3,000,000 requested for the fleet logistics 
system [FLS]. The Committee continues to have deep-seated 
concerns regarding this program. The program's cost risk, 
schedule risk, and technical risk continue to be rated as high. 
The Committee questions whether the project should award its 
centralized configuration management [CCM] contract in fiscal 
year 1996 under such conditions.
    Vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 of the $5,000,000 requested for the VTS 
2000 program. Consistent with this reduced funding allocation, 
the Committee directs that the Coast Guard not conduct any site 
surveys for new systems in fiscal year 1996. It is not at all 
clear that the anticipated baseline for domestic discretionary 
spending will allow for the deployment of new VTS 2000 systems 
at all ports identified with a positive cost/benefit quotient 
in the Coast Guard's port needs study. As such, the Committee 
believes the Coast Guard should target available resources on 
those ports for which surveys have already been completed.
    Conversion of software applications.--The Committee has 
provided $9,000,000 of the $11,100,000 requested for the 
conversion of software applications. The Committee recognizes 
that the Coast Guard is required to convert its numerous 
current software applications to be compatible with an open 
systems environment. However, the Committee believes that this 
small funding reduction can be easily accommodated by 
converting fewer applications in fiscal year 1996. This 
reduction will not undermine the program over the long run.
    Communication system [COMMSYS] 2000.--The Committee takes 
strong exception to the recommendation of the House to reduce 
funding below the President's request for the communication 
system [COMMSYS] 2000 program. This program has already 
demonstrated its value in reducing the Coast Guard's personnel 
and operating costs by remoting existing communication stations 
to consolidated facilities with substantially fewer employees. 
The Coast Guard's budget request for operating expenses for 
fiscal year 1996 already assumes some personnel savings 
associated with this acquisition request. Slowing the progress 
of this program will only undermine the Coast Guard's ability 
to eliminate unnecessary personnel and operating costs.
    Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] and coastal buoy tender [WLM] 
support facility.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 of the 
$1,500,000 requested for the WLB and WLM support facility. 
Given the delivery schedule for the new buoy tender fleet, the 
Committee believes that full funding of this $6,500,000 
facility may be premature at this time. Moreover, the Committee 
questions whether an existing Coast Guard facility, such as the 
Coast Guard yard, might be adequate to meet the needs of this 
project.

                shore facilities and aids to navigation

    The program level recommended is $102,300,000. Within this 
amount, $22,100,000 is made available through reprogrammed 
resources. The following table displays the project allocation:

                 SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION                
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year                      Committee  
                           1996 estimate  Houseallowance  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore--General:                                                         
    Survey and design of                                                
     various shore                                                      
     projects...........           8,000           8,000           6,000
    Minor AC&I shore                                                    
     construction                                                       
     projects...........           5,000           5,000           4,000
    Streamlining                                                        
     initiatives--unspec                                                
     ified..............           5,000           5,000  ..............
Shore--Air stations:                                                    
 Streamlining initiative                                                
 consolidation..........          11,000          11,000      \1\ 11,000
Shore--Supply centers/                                                  
 support centers/yard:                                                  
 Baltimore, MD--Coast                                                   
 Guard yard land-based                                                  
 ship handling facility.          15,100  ..............           7,000
Shore--Personnel support                                                
 facilities: Public                                                     
 family quarters........          22,700          20,275      \2\ 20,000
Shore--Groups/bases/                                                    
 stations/MSO's:                                                        
    Station, Boothbay                                                   
     Harbor, ME--                                                       
     renovate/expand....           2,800           2,800           2,800
    Base, San Juan, PR--                                                
     reconstruction                                                     
     phase II...........           3,150           3,150  ..............
    Base, South                                                         
     Portland, ME--                                                     
     construct station                                                  
     operations building           2,600           2,600           2,600
    Station, Port                                                       
     Isabel, TX--                                                       
     reconstruct/expand                                                 
     waterfront                                                         
     facilities.........           2,650           2,650           2,650
    Station, Portage,                                                   
     MI--relocate/                                                      
     replace station                                                    
     facilities.........           4,200           4,200           4,200
    Station, Chetco                                                     
     River, OR--                                                        
     construct mooring/                                                 
     waterfront support                                                 
     facility...........           2,000           2,000           2,000
    Station, Honolulu,                                                  
     HI--replacement....           5,000           5,000           5,000
Shore--Streamlining                                                     
 initiatives--project                                                   
 execution costs:                                                       
    Wadsworth, NY--                                                     
     Activities New                                                     
     York--construct                                                    
     group/MSO                                                          
     headquarters and                                                   
     vessel traffic                                                     
     control center.....  ..............  ..............           9,000
    Rosebank, NY--Pier                                                  
     and station                                                        
     rehabilitation.....  ..............  ..............           4,000
    Bayonne, NJ--Pier                                                   
     improvements and                                                   
     aids to navigation                                                 
     team [ANT].........  ..............  ..............           5,700
    Sandy Hook, NJ--                                                    
     Construct group                                                    
     engineering                                                        
     building...........  ..............  ..............           2,750
    Portsmouth, VA--                                                    
     Integrated support                                                 
     center                                                             
     administrative                                                     
     space..............  ..............  ..............           4,000
    Boston, MA--                                                        
     Integrated support                                                 
     center                                                             
     rehabilitation.....  ..............  ..............           2,000
    Yorktown, VA--                                                      
     Reserve training                                                   
     center--Yeoman                                                     
     school building                                                    
     modifications......  ..............  ..............           1,100
    New London, CT--                                                    
     Chief petty                                                        
     officers academy                                                   
     [CPOA] and                                                         
     leadership school..  ..............  ..............           2,500
Training centers: Coast                                                 
 Guard Academy, Roland                                                  
 Hall--renovation.......           5,100           5,100  ..............
Aids to navigation                                                      
 facilities: Waterways                                                  
 aids-to-navigation                                                     
 projects...............           5,500           5,500           4,000
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total.............          99,800          82,275     \3\ 102,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded through reprogrammings.                                      
\2\ Funded through $11,100,000 in reprogrammed resources and $8,900,000 
  in new budget authority.                                              
\3\ Includes $22,100,000 in reprogrammed resources.                     

    Streamlining initiatives.--Over the last several months, 
the Coast Guard has had under development, a broad-based 
streamlining plan intended to substantially reduce the Coast 
Guard's personnel and operating costs, while maintaining the 
current level of services to the public. This initiative will 
necessitate considerable investment in reengineering the Coast 
Guard's existing physical plant so that the expected savings in 
operating costs can be realized.
    While the entire streamlining plan has not yet been 
finalized, the Committee has worked with the Coast Guard to 
identify several shore facility projects that can be initiated 
in fiscal year 1996 to generate operational cost savings in the 
near term. This was done, in part, out of recognition that the 
current budget environment will require the Coast Guard to move 
out on its streamlining plan more expeditiously than originally 
planned in order to maintain services to the public at reduced 
funding levels.
    It must be noted, however, that in a number of instances, 
certain shore facility projects that were included in the 
budget request were required to be reduced, deferred, or 
canceled in order that funding could be provided to those 
streamlining projects that would yield near-term operational 
savings. Such is the case for the Committee's reduced funding 
recommendations for shore survey and design projects, the Coast 
Guard yard land-based ship handling facility, minor AC&I 
projects, public family quarters, base San Juan reconstruction, 
and ATON waterways projects.
    In total, the Committee has provided $42,050,000 for 
projects associated with Coast Guard streamlining activities as 
follows:


Shore facility funding for streamlining activities

Wadsworth, NY--Activities New York--construct group/MSO 
    headquarters and vessel traffic control center............$9,000,000
Rosebank, NY--Pier and station rehabilitation................. 4,000,000
Bayonne, NJ--Pier improvements and aids to navigation team 
    [ANT]..................................................... 5,700,000
Sandy Hook, NJ--Construct group engineering building.......... 2,750,000
Portsmouth, VA--Integrated support center administrative space 4,000,000
Boston, MA--Integrated support center rehabilitation.......... 2,000,000
Yorktown, VA--Reserve training center--Yeoman school building 
    modifications............................................. 1,100,000
Atlantic City, NJ--Construct hangar for consolidated air 
    stations..................................................11,000,000
New London, CT--Chief petty officers academy [CPOA] and 
    leadership school......................................... 2,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................42,050,000

    The Committee greatly prefers this procedure of providing 
funding to well-justified, defined projects than the funding 
approach taken by the House Committee. Under the House's 
recommendation, the Commandant is provided with blanket 
reprogramming authority of up to $50,000,000 to finance these 
projects. The Committee believes that, under the House's 
approach, the Congress will not have adequate opportunity to 
review and approve individual aspects of the Coast Guard's 
streamlining plan. The Committee recognizes that additional 
funds may be required in fiscal year 1996 to finance all the 
streamlining activities that the Coast Guard may want to 
initiate in fiscal year 1996. The Committee will give full 
consideration to such reprogramming requests throughout the 
year on a case-by-case basis.
    Coast Guard yard land-based ship handling facility.--The 
Committee takes great exception to the recommendation of the 
House to provide no funding for this request. The current ship 
handling capability at the Coast Guard yard is clearly 
inadequate and is in need of modernization. The Committee, in 
consultation with the Coast Guard, has determined that this 
project can be executed over several phases. The first phase 
will require an appropriation of $7,000,000 which the Committee 
has fully funded. This funding will be used for the purchase of 
lift equipment and associated waterfront work. The Committee 
recognizes that additional funding will be required in fiscal 
year 1997 to finance more land-based work associated with this 
project. Providing the necessary funding in two phases will not 
delay the completion date for this project.
    Personnel support facilities--public family quarters.--As 
stated above, funding for this activity was necessarily 
reduced. The Committee recommendation assumes that phase II of 
the housing project at Cape Hatteras, NC, will be deferred.
    Roland Hall renovation.--The Committee has not funded the 
$5,100,000 requested for the renovation of the Roland Hall 
gymnasium building at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, 
CT. While the Committee does not belittle the importance of the 
Academy's critical training function, the current budgetary 
environment does not allow for the financing of new or 
renovated athletic facilities. Given the overwhelming unmet 
need to rehabilitate facilities that are essential to the Coast 
Guard's critical operational missions, the Committee cannot 
support funding for gymnasium renovations at this time.
    Reprogrammings.--The Committee has utilized reprogrammed 
resources to fully finance the $11,000,000 requested for the 
consolidation of two existing air stations and $11,100,000 of 
the $20,000,000 provided for public family quarters. These 
funds are to be made available from the following sources:

Fiscal year:
    1994: Cape May barracks savings.....................      $1,500,000
    1995:
        Base San Juan reconstruction....................      10,750,000
        Overseas loran closures.........................       6,000,000
        Station Ocracoke housing........................       2,100,000
    Various: General shore project savings..............       1,750,000
                     PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

    The program level recommended is $46,500,000. Within the 
amount provided, $500,000 shall be for core acquisition costs. 
The House provided a total of $43,000,000, of which $500,000 
was for core acquisition costs. The House capped positions at 
717, which is the same level as that provided in fiscal year 
1995.
                Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $23,497,300
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      25,000,000
House allowance.........................................      21,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              21,000,000

    The Committee recommends funding of $21,000,000 to continue 
the environmental restoration and compliance-related actions 
throughout the Coast Guard.
    These fiscal year 1996 funds will be used to address 
environmental problems at former and current Coast Guard units 
as required by applicable Federal, State, and local 
environmental laws and regulations. Planned expenditures for 
these funds include major upgrades to petroleum and regulated-
substance storage tanks, restoration of contaminated ground 
water and soils, remediation efforts at hazardous substance 
disposal sites, and initial site surveys.
    The Committee is aware that lead-acid batteries have been 
dumped by the U.S. Coast Guard in Lake Memphremagog and Lake 
Champlain, VT. EPA guidelines and title 24, section 2201 of 
Vermont Statutes prohibit such dumping of lead-acid batteries. 
These batteries contain lead and mercury that can pose a threat 
to water quality and to the fish and people that ingest it. 
Already Lake Champlain contains levels of mercury high enough 
to require health warnings for pregnant women, children, and 
the elderly who eat fish from the lake.
    The Committee requests the U.S. Coast Guard to prepare a 
report to the Committee no later than 30 days after passage of 
this act that details past incidents of battery dumping in Lake 
Memphremagog, Lake Champlain, and other navigable waters of 
Vermont. This report should include the number of batteries 
dumped, their lead and mercury content, and the location and 
date of their dumping. The report should also include a 
description of the Coast Guard's current practice of battery 
disposal, the cleanup planned for existing dump sites in 
Vermont, and an assessment of the health risk posed by these 
batteries. In determining the health risk, the Coast Guard will 
take into consideration varying conditions that could affect 
the release of pollutants such as freezing conditions.

                        Port Safety Development
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                                             $15,000,000

    The Committee has included funding to support 
infrastructure-related development at the Port of Portland, OR, 
including reduction of debt from prior infrastructure 
development guaranteed by local taxpayers. Recent legislation 
allows Alaska North Slope oil to be exported rather than be 
used exclusively for domestic purposes. This change in Federal 
policy jeopardizes substantial investments made by the port in 
response to anticipated increases in demand. Because of 
increased repair work and dockings, substantial sums were 
borrowed to make infrastructure improvements necessary to 
satisfy capacity, safety, and environmental issues. Recent 
congressional action jeopardizes the port's expected cash flow 
and impairs its ability to make orderly payments on debt 
retirement. This appropriation will allow the port to retire 
some of the debt.

                         Alteration of Bridges
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      $2,000,000
House allowance.........................................      16,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                               2,000,000

    The ``Alteration of bridges'' appropriation provides funds 
for the Coast Guard's share of the cost of altering or removing 
bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the 
Truman-Hobbs Act of June 21, 1940, as amended (33 U.S.C. 511 et 
seq.), the Coast Guard, as the Federal Government's agent, is 
required to share with owners the cost of altering railroad and 
publicly owned highway bridges which obstruct the free movement 
of navigation on navigable waters of the United States in 
accordance with the formula established in 33 U.S.C. 516.
    Beginning in 1995, the administration decided that the 
Coast Guard could no longer fund the alteration of highway 
bridges determined to be unreasonable obstructions to 
navigation. The Federal share of such projects would be 
financed from bridge program funds of the Federal Highway 
Administration [FHWA], under the continuing direction of the 
Coast Guard.
    Funding of $2,000,000 was requested by the administration 
to continue work on the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge 
over the Mississippi River at Burlington, IA. According to the 
administration's budget justification, FHWA discretionary 
bridge funds will continue the alteration of highway bridges at 
Brunswick, GA; Chelsea, MA; the Port of New Orleans, LA; and, 
to begin work in Limehouse, SC.
    The House provides funding for the Burlington, IA, bridge 
as requested. The House, however, provides the following 
unrequested funds:

New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue, railroad/highway bridge......$2,000,000
Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge................... 8,000,000
Boston, MA, Chelsea Street Highway Bridge..................... 2,000,000

St. John's, SC, Limehouse Highway Bridge

                                                               2,000,000
                              Retired Pay
Appropriations, 1995....................................    $562,585,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................     582,022,000
House allowance.........................................     582,022,000

Committee recommendation

                                                             582,022,000

    The ``Retired pay'' appropriation provides for retired pay 
of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard 
Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse Service, and for 
annuities payable to beneficiaries of retired military 
personnel under the retired serviceman's family protection plan 
(10 U.S.C. 1431-1446) and survivor benefit plan (10 U.S.C. 
1447-1455), and for medical care of retired personnel and their 
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. The average 
number of personnel on the retired rolls is estimated to be 
29,450 in fiscal year 1996, as compared with an estimated 
28,493 in fiscal year 1995 and 27,778 in fiscal year 1994.
    The bill includes $582,022,000 for retired pay, which is 
the same as the House allowance and the budget request.

                            Reserve Training
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $64,976,725
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      64,859,000
House allowance.........................................      61,859,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              62,000,000

    Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 145, the Secretary of 
Transportation is required to adequately support the 
development and training of a Reserve force to ensure that the 
Coast Guard will be sufficiently organized, manned, and 
equipped to fully perform its wartime missions. The purpose of 
the Reserve training program is to provide trained units and 
qualified persons for active duty in the Coast Guard in time of 
war or national emergency, or at such other times as the 
national security requires. Coast Guard reservists must also 
train for mobilization assignments that are unique to the Coast 
Guard in times of war, such as port security operations 
associated with the Coast Guard's Maritime Defense Zone [MDZ] 
mission and include deployable port security units.
    The Committee has provided $62,000,000 for Reserve 
training. The amount provided is $2,859,000 less than the 
President's request. The amount provided will support a 
Selected Reserve Force of 8,000 members, the same level as 
fiscal year 1995.
    The Coast Guard is provided Reserve training funding as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            President's      Committee  
       Functional program element          request (8000  recommendation
                                              SELRES)      (8000 SELRES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drill pay and benefits..................     $25,343,000      24,600,000
Full-time support personnel.............      20,254,000      19,400,000
Annual training program.................      10,361,000       9,700,000
District administration/training........       4,241,000       4,050,000
Recruiting..............................       1,783,000       1,500,000
O/M support to training facilities......       1,648,000       1,575,000
Headquarters administration.............       1,229,000       1,175,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................      64,859,000      62,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              General          Trust           Total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995....     $17,156,000      $3,150,000     $20,306,400
Budget estimate, 1996...      19,350,000       3,150,000      22,500,000
House allowance.........      15,350,000       3,150,000      18,500,000
Committee recommendation      16,850,000       3,150,000      20,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Coast Guard's Research and Development Program seeks to 
improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries 
out its varied operational missions and to increase the 
knowledge base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory 
responsibilities.
    The bill includes $20,000,000 for research, development, 
test, and evaluation, which is $2,500,000 below the budget 
request and $1,500,000 above the House allowance.
    The Committee recommendation for funding distribution is as 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year                                
                                                       Fiscal year      1996      Houseallowance     Committee  
                                                          1995        estimate                    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget data:                                                                                                    
    Search and rescue...............................      $860,000      $500,000       $500,000        $500,000 
    Aids to navigation..............................     1,325,000     1,950,000      1,250,000       1,325,000 
    Marine safety...................................     1,415,000     3,425,000      1,650,000       2,000,000 
    Marine environmental protection.................     1,300,000     1,075,000        725,000       1,075,000 
    Enforcement of laws and treaties................       600,000       725,000        725,000         725,000 
    Mission capabilities assessment.................     2,020,000     1,795,000      1,706,000       1,780,000 
    Multimission/administrative support.............    12,786,400    13,030,000     11,944,000      12,595,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
        Total.......................................    20,306,400    22,500,000     18,500,000      20,000,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Boat Safety

                     (aquatic resources trust fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\...............................................
House allowance.........................................      20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ The President's budget proposed, contingent on enactment of 
legislation, that $30,000,000 be available as a direct (mandatory) 
program and no discretionary funds.

    This account provides financial assistance for a 
coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for 
the several States. Title 46, United States Code, section 
13106, establishes a ``Boat safety'' account from which the 
Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist 
in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying 
State programs. The ``Boat safety'' account consists of amounts 
transferred from the highway trust fund which are derived from 
the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon). The President's 
budget requests no discretionary funding in 1996.
    The President's request proposed to provide all funding for 
the State boating safety grant program by increasing from 
$10,000,000 to $30,000,000 the amount of mandatory funding from 
the ``Sport fish restoration'' account as authorized under the 
Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (title V of the Oceans Act of 1992).
                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The Federal Aviation Administration traces its origins to 
the Air Commerce Act of 1926, but more recently to the Federal 
Aviation Act of 1958 which established the independent Federal 
Aviation Agency from functions which had resided in the Airways 
Modernization Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and 
parts of the Civil Aeronautics Board. FAA became an 
administration of the Department of Transportation on April 1, 
1967, pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act (October 
15, 1966).
    The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 1996 amounts to $7,846,263,000 including a $1,250,000,000 
obligation limitation on the use of contract authority for the 
Airport Grants Program. The following table summarizes the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year                                  
                    Program                        Fiscal year     1996 budget         House         Committee  
                                                  1995 enacted       estimate        allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.....................................   \1\ 4,582,522       4,704,000        4,600,000       4,550,000
Facilities and equipment.......................   \2\ 2,087,489   \3\ 1,917,847        2,000,000       1,890,377
    Rescission.................................         -35,000  ...............         -60,000         -70,000
Research, engineering, and development.........         259,192         267,661          143,000         215,886
Grants-in-aid for airports.....................   \4\ 1,450,000    \5\ (218,028)       1,600,000       1,250,000
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................       8,344,203       7,107,536        8,283,000       7,836,263
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 330 and 331 of Public Law 103-331 and amounts transferred to OST,  
  salaries and expenses for civil rights activities.                                                            
\2\ Excludes $55,000,000 reduction of unobligated balances for procurement and procurement-related expenses     
  canceled pursuant to section 323 of Public Law 103-331.                                                       
\3\ Includes budget amendment of $10,000,000 for advanced security equipment.                                   
\4\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  
\5\ Funding for existing airport grant letters of intent included under Unified Transportation Infrastructure   
  Investment Program within the line item prior commitments.                                                    

                               Operations

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           General           Trust            Total     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.   $2,132,272,300   $2,450,250,000   $4,582,522,300
Budget estimate, 1996    2,094,877,000    2,609,123,000    4,704,000,000
House allowance......    2,728,500,000    1,871,500,000    4,600,000,000
Committee                                                               
 recommendation......    2,685,000,000    1,865,000,000    4,550,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    FAA's ``Operations'' appropriation provides funds for the 
operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of 
the air traffic control and navigation systems and activities. 
It also covers the administration and management of the 
regulatory, airports, medical and engineering and development 
programs.
    The bill includes a total of $4,550,000,000 for the 
operations activities of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
of which $1,865,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and 
Airway Trust Fund. The account total is $32,522,300 more than 
the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
    As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to 
the Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are 
insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic 
control system.
    The activities of the operations accounts comprise 12 main 
areas:
    Operation of air traffic control system.--The operation of 
a national system of air traffic management in the United 
States, its territories, and its possessions on a 24-hour 
basis.
    NAS logistics support.--Procurement, contracting, and 
materiel management programs; administrative communications; 
supply; and other logistics support.
    Maintenance of air traffic control system.--The direction 
and engineering services related to the maintenance, 
improvement, and modification of facilities and equipment in 
the traffic control system; and technical operation and 
maintenance of a national network of air navigation aids and 
traffic control facilities.
    Leased telecommunications services.--Finances the 
noncapital costs of FAA's operational and administrative 
telecommunications systems.
    Aviation regulation and certifications.--The promotion of 
flight safety of civil aircraft by assuring the airworthiness 
of aircraft; the competence of pilots, aviators, and aviator 
technicians; the adequacy of flight procedures and air 
operations; and the evaluation of inflight facility performance 
for compliance with prescribed standards.
    Aviation standards.--Includes the airmen and aircraft 
registry, aviation medicine, and the care and maintenance of 
FAA's aircraft fleet.
    Aviation security.--Provides for the overall planning, 
direction, management, evaluation, and enforcement of civil 
aviation security; supports efforts covering the investigation 
and interdiction of illegal drugs and the assessment of foreign 
airports.
    NAS design and management.--Provides technical and 
administrative program management for the NAS plan; and the 
planning, direction, and evaluation of the research, 
engineering, and development program (excluding aviation 
medicine), direct project costs of which are financed under the 
research, engineering, and development appropriation.
    Administration of airports.--Provides for the 
administration of airport grants and the safety inspection and 
certification of the Nation's airports.
    Human resources management.--Administration of employee 
recruitment, development, compensation, training, and labor-
management relations programs.
    Executive direction and management.--Funds the 
administrative functions that establish policy and direct and 
develop programs which provide for the following administrative 
services: policy and plans, accounting, budget, civil rights, 
international aviation, data systems; public affairs; 
information technology; executive directors; and legal counsel. 
This is a new activity, combining two previously separate, 
administrative activities--headquarters administration and the 
direction staff and supporting services. This consolidation 
will streamline operations, save resources, and provide FAA 
management with greater flexibility.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and House 
allowance:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year     Fiscal year                                  
                                                  1995 program     1996 budget   Houseallowance     Committee   
                                                    level \1\       estimate                     recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation of air traffic control system........       2,200,319       2,228,634       2,220,324        2,200,324
NAS logistics support..........................         175,665         185,158         186,058          180,665
Maintenance of air traffic control system......         842,331         868,297         866,197          864,695
Leased telecommunications services.............         316,793         328,423         321,743          326,345
Aviation regulation and certification..........         361,119         399,711         383,950          390,450
Aviation standards.............................         108,751         111,395         108,751          108,751
Aviation security..............................          63,933          65,769          64,849           65,000
NAS design and management......................          54,078          53,277          45,000           53,000
Administration of airports.....................          39,299          42,173          41,530           41,500
Commercial space transportation................  ..............           6,541           5,770            5,770
Human resource management......................         229,964         231,947         200,005          208,500
Executive direction and management.............         190,270         189,216         175,000          180,000
Accountwide adjustments........................  ..............  ..............         -19,177          -65,000
Offsetting receipts............................  ..............  ..............  ..............          -10,000
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................       4,582,522       4,710,541       4,600,000        4,550,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $916,000 carryover from prior years.                                                               

                operation of air traffic control system

    The Committee recommends a total of $2,200,324,000 for the 
operation of the national air traffic control and flight 
service system. This is $28,310,000 less than the budget 
estimate and the same as the fiscal year 1995 level.
    Over the next decade, the Committee expects to see the 
billions of dollars of new technology being developed, 
procured, and implemented under the ``Facilities and 
equipment'' account--computers, communications equipment, and 
information analysis capability--reflected in a trend toward 
more productive work forces and, therefore, lower operations 
budget estimates.
    The major activities under operation of air traffic control 
system include:

               national airspace system logistics support

    The Committee notes shortfalls in funding in the logistics 
activity during earlier years due to the delay of new systems 
coming on-line. However, in accordance with information 
provided by FAA, the Committee recommends a more modest 
increase of $5,000,000 for this activity over the 1995 program 
level. This increase would bring the total recommended for this 
budget activity to $180,665,000.

               maintenance of air traffic control system

    The Committee recommends $864,695,000 and 9,302 FTE's for 
this budget activity. The Committee has reduced the $3,602,000 
associated with undefined inflationary increases.

                   leased telecommunication services

    The Committee recommends $326,345,000 for this budget 
activity. The Committee does not agree with the House 
recommendation to reduce funding for leased communications 
activities. Because of delays in developing new communications 
systems and reductions in funding for others, the Committee 
recommends restoration of $4,602,000 for FAA's leased 
telecommunication services. The Committee expects that, in 
general, costs for leased telecommunication services will 
decline in future years when new and more advanced technology 
is in place.
                 aviation regulation and certification

    The Committee recommends $390,450,000 and 4,600 full-time 
permanent positions for this activity. The Committee disagrees 
with the House's recommendation for eliminating funding for the 
Omega navigation system and has restored $6,500,000 for FAA to 
assume operation of the system which the Coast Guard is 
dropping. The Committee expects that Federal funding for Omega 
will soon be eliminated and supported through user fees.

                           aviation standards

    The Committee agrees with the House's recommendation for 
aviation standards, which is $108,751,000, the same as the 
fiscal year 1995 level.

                        civil aviation security

    The Committee recommends $65,000,000 and 790 FTE's for this 
budget activity.

                       nas design and management

    The Committee recommends $53,000,000 and 495 FTE's for this 
budget activity, which is actually a 2-percent reduction from 
the fiscal year 1995 enacted level.
    Out of the funds provided, the Committee expects FAA to 
continue its contribution for firefighting and emergency 
services at the Atlantic City International Airport, either 
alone or in conjunction with the New Jersey Air National Guard.

                       administration of airports

    The Committee concurs with the House reduction and 
recommends $41,500,000 and 495 FTE's for this activity.
    The Committee agrees with the House's including 20 new 
positions for airport inspection and three new positions for 
management improvements. The Committee, however, has only 
included five new positions for compliance.

                    COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

    A budget amendment proposed transfer of funding for this 
activity from the Office of the Secretary. This activity 
finances regulatory activities, research and development, and 
studies needed to carry out the Secretary's responsibilities as 
defined in Executive Order 12465 to encourage, facilitate, and 
promote commercial space launches by the U.S. private sector 
and to license and regulate commercial launches, launch site 
operations, and certain payloads under the Commercial Space 
Launch Act (Public Law 98-575).
    The Committee concurs with the House allowance of 
$5,770,000 and 32 FTE's for this activity

                       human resources management

    The Committee recommends $208,500,000 and 1,170 FTE's for 
this budget activity. The Committee has not included 
unrequested funds for the Mid-American Aviation Resource 
Consortium.

                   executive direction and management

    The Committee recommends $180,000,000 and 1,734 FTE's for 
this budget activity, a reduction of $9,216,000 from the 
requested amount. The Committee has made this reduction due to 
budget constraints.

                        accountwide adjustments

    The Committee generally agrees with the thrust of the 
House's approach making accountwide adjustments in order to 
bring the overall ``FAA operations budget'' account within the 
budget constraints faced by that Committee and this Committee 
in putting together a fiscal year 1996 bill. However, the 
Committee does not agree with the recommendation to terminate 
funding for the Society of Automotive Engineers. This small 
research grant of $105,000 is well spent.
    The SAE is a major source of performance standards which 
are used by the FAA for certification requirements for aircraft 
components. SAE provides the technical organization and 
expertise necessary to develop and maintain these standards at 
the request of FAA. The organization has been developing 
standards and recommending practices to FAA and the aviation 
industry since 1947.
    The Committee does agree with the House regarding holding 
the permanent change of station funding to the fiscal year 1995 
level. FAA has appealed that an increase in this line item is 
necessary to meet minimal permanent change of station 
requirements. However, the Committee is concerned about the 
administration of the permanent change of station program, and 
finds it hard to believe, as reported in newspaper articles, 
that FAA reported on June 14 that $2,500,000 was set aside to 
simply cover personal relocation costs for employees who 
transferred from Stapleton Airport to Denver International. 
These airports are approximately 17 miles apart from each other 
and are connected by a modern, four-lane divided highway. The 
Committee does not have information regarding the number of 
controllers who used the benefit, or the approximate cost of 
each move, but finds it very difficult to defend a cost of 
$2,500,000 for a movement of employees 17 miles.
    Operational differential pay.--United States Code provides 
various types of premium pay for air traffic controllers. A 
major cost for the FAA, approximately $90,000,000, is 
associated with the 5-percent operational differential, which 
is known as the air traffic controllers strike pay replacement. 
These funds were originally intended to rehire air traffic 
controllers immediately following the 1981 PATCO strike as an 
incentive to attract new employees. Fourteen years later, this 
pay differential is included in the base of FAA, and no longer 
serves as an incentive, a differential, or a promotion to 
attract new controllers.
    The Committee has seen in the controller pay area many 
programs originally started as temporary programs become 
instituted in the pay baseline, such as this pay differential, 
and the hard-to-staff pay demonstration program, which was also 
extended.
    Air traffic controllers pay has several other operational 
differentials in existence, including a 1.6-percent premium pay 
for controllers at centers and terminals who are certified as 
proficient to perform duties including the separation and 
control of aircraft, even though not required to be so 
certified as a condition of employment.
    There is also a 10-percent premium pay to controllers who 
are providing on the job training to another controller while 
the trainee is directly involved in the operation and control 
of air traffic. And there is a 25-percent premium pay to a 
controller or flight service station specialist required by his 
supervisor to work through the fourth through sixth hour of a 
regular 8-hour day without a 30-minute meal break.
    There are reasons for a number of these pay differentials, 
and in many cases they serve a worthwhile purpose or are a 
protection of employees rights. But given the budget 
constraints this Committee faces, it is incumbent upon the FAA 
to get a better handle on its administrative and pay costs, 
including differentials that may be outdated and unnecessary as 
we move toward a more independent operation. Differentials are 
in addition to overtime pay, night differentials, holiday pay, 
Sunday pay, locality pay, and the hard-to-staff pay, all of 
which are part of the personnel, benefits, and computation 
factor.
    This is not intended as criticism of controllers. In fact, 
the job they perform is outstanding, given the conditions under 
which they have to work. Outmoded equipment, equipment failure, 
and overcrowded workspace are just some of the conditions that 
have to be endured. It is contingent upon the FAA and the 
controllers to work together to alleviate the staff shortages 
that exist at some stations and the equally inefficient surplus 
of controllers at other facilities. Agreed-upon staffing 
standards, implemented through a rational change of station 
process, would help.
    All told, the Committee has included accountwide 
adjustments of $65,000,000, of which approximately $45,000,000 
is attributable to a 50-percent reduction in the operational 
pay differential. The sum of $5,000,000 is reduced to hold the 
inflation nonpay adjustment of the operations account to a 1.5-
percent increase above the fiscal year 1995 level, and through 
expected savings on the disposition and/or use of 
administrative aircraft and leased and purchased GSA vehicles.

                    other recommendations and issues

    Offsetting collections.--The Committee has included bill 
language within the FAA operations account to allow the agency 
to collect up to $10,000,000 in offsetting collections, which 
would be used to offset the proposed budget cuts. Collections 
would be deposited into the ``FAA operations'' account for use 
by the agency without further appropriation.
    The Committee believes that there are numerous areas for 
new or expanded user fees within the FAA. Imposition of fees in 
some or all of the following areas: Standards, regulation and 
certification, and security, should be implemented to allow FAA 
to at least cover the full cost of its activities.
    Aviation standards.--There are approximately 270,000 airmen 
certification examinations, and based on the information 
provided by the agency, the current fees for conducting these 
examinations do not cover the full costs.
    There are also approximately 250,000 aircraft registration 
examinations conducted where the current fees do not cover the 
full costs of the examinations. In addition, there are 
approximately 495,000 airmen medical certificates processed by 
FAA, and the Committee strongly believes that all such 
certificate and examination fees should cover the costs for 
administering them.
    Aviation regulation and certification.--In the aviation 
regulation and certification area, once again the fees do not 
recover the full costs. There are approximately 380,000 airman 
and operator certificates in existence, and the fees collected 
do not cover the full cost for administering the program. In 
addition, there are approximately 8,000 new aircraft and/or 
parts or avionics certificated by the agency. The current fees 
for providing this service do not recover the full cost. There 
are in existence 3,500 airworthiness certificates which the 
administration does not charge the full cost for administering. 
Approximately 400,000 inspections are conducted in the aviation 
regulation and certification area, and it is not clear to the 
Committee that the FAA recovers the cost of the program.
    Aviation security.--The Committee is aware that the FAA 
does not fully cover the cost for administering the security 
program. There are over 11,000 domestic air carrier and 3,000 
foreign carrier inspections at U.S. airports conducted 
annually. There are over 870 foreign airport/foreign carrier 
inspections conducted by FAA's foreign stations.
    There are nearly 4,500 hazardous materials inspections 
conducted; and, in addition, the agency conducts about 11,000 
DUI/DWI pilot investigations for which no fees are assessed.
    In addition, the Committee believes that FAA should look at 
the costs involved with administering the air tariff data base, 
and if warranted, prescribe a schedule of fees to cover the 
costs of carrying out the air tariff data base, which obtains 
and processes tariffs showing the prices of foreign air 
transportation.
    Given the number of examinations, inspections, 
certifications, and investigations conducted by the agency, the 
Committee believes that the agency should be able to recover 
the $10,000,000 which was allowed in the bill language.
    Diamond Head FAA combined center radar approach control 
[CENRAP] relocation.--In fiscal year 1994, Congress instructed 
the FAA to fund the relocation of its facility out of Diamond 
Head crater. In fiscal year 1995, Congress instructed the FAA 
to complete the site acquisition for this relocation. There has 
been no progress toward fulfilling these mandates. Accordingly, 
this Committee directs the FAA to report within 3 months what 
specific steps it will take to acquire a new site for this 
facility and complete its relocation.
    Installation of next generation weather radar [Nexrad].--In 
fiscal year 1993, this Committee directed the FAA to install 
Nexrad equipment originally requested for DOD facilities that 
are closed or scheduled for immediate closure to cover the 
southern flank of the Island of Hawaii, and to expedite the 
deployment of the original three Nexrad's for the Hawaiian 
Islands. The Committee is disappointed to learn that, to date, 
only two of the four Nexrad's designated for Hawaii have been 
installed and that the FAA has no intention of installing the 
fourth Nexrad designated for the southern flank of the Island 
of Hawaii. The blatant disregard by the FAA of this 
congressional mandate is unacceptable. Accordingly, this 
Committee directs the FAA to report within 3 months what 
specific steps it will take to deploy the two remaining 
Nexrad's designated for the State of Hawaii.
    Martinsburg Airport surveillance radar installation.--The 
Committee is disturbed by the delays experienced in the 
installation of a new airport surveillance radar [ASR-9] at 
Martinsburg, WV. Schedules supplied to the Committee indicate 
that this critical equipment enhancement may not be completed 
until a full 7 years following the initiation of funding for 
the project. The Committee finds these delays to be 
unacceptable and requests the Administrator to redouble his 
efforts to ensure the timely completion of this project at the 
earliest possible opportunity.
    Loran-C.--The Committee has previously indicated that FAA 
should take full advantage of the compatibility of loran with 
GPS, and believes that loran can be used as a cost-effective 
alternative system to GPS until satellite technology is 
available as a sole means of safe and efficient navigation. 
Total system infrastructure operations and maintenance costs 
are about $17,000,000 annually. The technology is established, 
operationally proven, reliable, and cost effective. In view of 
the favorable benefits versus costs associated with loran and 
because of the enhancement it provides to user safety, the 
Committee concurs with the House report language which calls 
for a plan that addresses future funding for loran in 
cooperation with other Federal entities both within and outside 
of DOT. Given advances in GPS, the Committee expects decreased 
funding in future years for this navigation system. The 
Committee does not support expedited implementation of the 
automatic blink system, pending receipt of the requested 
funding plan. Given the budget outlook for the future, FAA 
should address its role with less resources.
    Aeronautical charts.--The Committee understands that the 
FAA is currently exploring the possibility of assuming 
responsibility from NOAA for producing and distributing 
aeronautical charts. The Committee further understands that 
NOAA is amenable to such an arrangement and is involved in the 
discussions. We encourage these discussions, and look forward 
to working with FAA and NOAA to develop a final proposal. Based 
on preliminary data, the Committee is concerned that the total 
NOAA costs for the program run to approximately $38,000,000, 
which includes: $16,000,000 for FAA-related reimbursements; 
$8,100,000 for Defense Mapping Agency related needs; $2,000,000 
of retained revenues; and $11,700,000 in appropriated funds to 
cover nonreimbursed costs.
    Federal surplus personal property for public airport 
purposes.--The Committee directs the FAA to continue its 
administration of the Federal Surplus Personal Property 
Program. The Committee believes that this program is of 
particular importance to smaller airports, in that it reduces 
equipment acquisition costs associated with federally mandated 
programs. The Committee urges the FAA to work with the General 
Services Administration to ensure that airports are receiving 
the highest priority available to Federal grant recipients; and 
work with industry to ensure that the property is distributed 
in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
    Contract tower program.--In recent years, the Committee has 
provided resources to expand and streamline the level I 
contract tower program because of the substantial budgetary 
savings that can result for the Federal Government and users. 
The Committee has found that air traffic services at these 
facilities are safe and efficient and there is also the same 
positive effect on airport growth as at FAA-staffed facilities. 
In our current austere budgetary situation, it is important to 
continue support steps to assure that the program remains cost 
effective.
    The Committee is concerned that the current approach to 
wage determinations at contract tower facilities may 
significantly increase the cost of the program. Because an 
important objective is to contain expenses and ensure the 
ongoing success of the program, the Committee believes 
additional action is warranted. Therefore, the Secretary of 
Transportation, in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, is 
directed to initiate any action necessary to discontinue 
prospective or retroactive wage determinations for professional 
employees at all level I contract tower locations where there 
are five or fewer employees, as provided for in the Service 
Contract Act of 1965.
    Cape Girardeau, MO.--It is the Committee's understanding 
that the Cape Girardeau location is being operated by the city 
at a cost that is 30 percent less than is typical for many 
other facilities included in the contract tower program, and 
can be used as a model for operating such facilities at low 
cost to the Federal Government.
    The Committee understands that this facility should have a 
benefit/cost ratio exceeding 1.0 in the near future. Moreover, 
this facility has been utilized as an emergency transportation 
center for hundreds of flood disaster relief aircraft in recent 
years as a staging point for Coast Guard and other military 
emergency operations. Also, as the site for emergency 
earthquake relief training exercises, as the designated airport 
center of operations in the event of earthquake activity on the 
new madrid fault. The Committee directs FAA to review the 
benefit/cost ratio of this facility and to continue funding of 
the facility during this review.
    Controller training.--For many years, the FAA has trained 
air traffic controllers at its largest facilities using an 
outside contractor at what the Committee believes was a 
substantial cost savings. Last year, it recompeted this 
contract and signed a new, 7-year contract. However, the FAA is 
only utilizing the contract at about 40 percent of its 
authorized ceiling. The Committee believes that the FAA should 
make maximum use of the contract in order to provide 
proficiency training for its current controller work force and 
to expedite training of new controllers. The Committee does not 
support bringing this training in-house. Controllers, 
especially highly qualified senior ones, are needed for the 
safe and efficient operation of the ATC system. Removing them 
from operating duties for long periods of time to conduct 
training or other staff work is an inefficient use of their 
time and expertise. This approach is also an unwise use of 
scarce resources when a more cost-effective method is 
available.
    New York Air Route Traffic Control Center outages.--This 
past June, the FAA released a preliminary report regarding 
three power outages which occurred at the New York Air Traffic 
Control Center between April 6 and May 25, 1995. The Committee 
encourages the FAA to aggressively pursue solutions to problems 
that were discovered as a result of the examination. The 
Committee believes that the FAA's examination should not only 
focus on the causes of past power outages, but should also 
identify and address potential problems that could cause future 
outages. In addition, the FAA should apply the information 
gained during this investigation to other control centers 
throughout the air traffic control system, in order to prevent 
similar outages from occurring in other parts of the country.
    Wind shear protection for New York City's airports.--In 
order to resolve longstanding problems regarding siting of 
terminal doppler weather radars serving Kennedy International 
Airport and LaGuardia Airport, the conference report on the 
fiscal year 1995 Transportation appropriations bill directed 
the FAA to site a terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR] at an 
appropriate location and to install a low-level wind shear 
alert system [LLWAS] at LaGuardia Airport. The conferees also 
had approved FAA's decision not to site the radar at either 
North Bellmore or Roslyn, NY.
    The Committee is extremely concerned that the FAA has made 
no progress on siting either the TDWR or the LLWAS. Therefore, 
in order to enhance aviation safety in the New York metro area, 
the Committee directs the FAA to complete the site selection 
process and to begin any environmental review process that may 
be required for the TDWR installation, and to install the LLWAS 
at LaGuardia Airport. The Committee expects the FAA to provide 
monthly progress reports on its actions to follow these 
directions.
    Ogden-Hinckley Municipal Airport.--Ogden-Hinckley serves as 
the primary reliever to Salt Lake International Airport. Ogden-
Hinckley does not have the security capability to handle 
passengers from these diverts. The needed capability to handle 
diverts is further heightened by the expected air travel needs 
associated with the 2000 Winter Olympics.
    The Committee, in the Senate report accompanying the fiscal 
year 1993 Transportation appropriations bill, directed the FAA 
to give priority consideration to the grant requests for 
upgrade or replacement of terminal facilities at Ogden-Hinckley 
Municipal Airport. Subsequent to passage of the bill, the FAA 
opined that it had no authority, despite this Committee's 
direction, to allocate funds to Ogden-Hinckley because of its 
status as a reliever.
    The FAA has now recognized that Ogden-Hinckley, as a 
reliever, is eligible to receive terminal improvement funds. In 
order to reinstate the priority status given by this Committee 
in the 102d Congress to Ogden-Hinckley's grant application, the 
Committee again directs the FAA to give priority consideration 
to the grant requests for upgrade or replacement of terminal 
facilities to meet Federal security, Americans with 
Disabilities Act, seismic and other requirements.
    FAA valuation of airport land donated for AIP grants.--The 
Committee directs the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration to reevaluate the agency's method of valuing 
privately owned reliever airport land that's donated to the 
local match of an Airport Improvement Program grant. FAA's 
guidance should provide for current market value for airport 
land (privately sponsored) that is donated to meet the 
airport's local match for an AIP grant. FAA presently allows 
land donations to attain the local AIP match, but the land is 
valued at date-of-acquisition value.
    The Committee expects that this revision would mandate FAA 
compliance with Office of Management and Budget regulations 
governing Federal grant programs. The text addressing matching 
of Federal funds allows market value for donated land (49 CFR 
18.24(f)).
    This change in FAA's land valuation method would also 
conform to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization 
Act of 1994 conference report language (Report 103-677), which 
requested FAA to reconsider its date-of-acquisition valuation 
of donated land in view of the inequity of date-of-acquisition 
valued land imposed on privately owned, public-use airports.
    Current market value land valuations should be allowed only 
for land donated to attain the private airport sponsor's local 
matching share of an AIP grant. Date-of-acquisition valuation 
for land will continue for FAA reimbursement of the cost of 
previously acquired land.
    Airport preservation.--The Committee directs the Federal 
Aviation Administration to give priority consideration to the 
preservation of public use, general aviation, and reliever 
airports in those States whose general aviation and reliever 
airports are threatened with closure, and where such closures 
would significantly add to the extensive delays already 
encountered at major hubs serving those States.
    Significant emphasis should be placed on those States whose 
critical reliever airports and general aviation airports are 
predominantly privately owned public use facilities, which are 
threatened with closure but are under consideration for 
preservation through public ownership.
    Princeton Airport.--The Committee is aware of ongoing 
concerns regarding the routing of flights over the residential 
areas near Princeton Airport, NJ. Princeton Airport is now in 
the process of developing a master plan and airport layout plan 
[ALP], which must be approved by the FAA as well as by the 
State.
    In order to encourage prompt resolution of the issues at 
Princeton Airport, the Committee directs the FAA to (1) 
withhold release of any additional AIP funds to the Princeton 
Airport for any airport development project; and (2) to 
negotiate with the State of New Jersey to amend the State Block 
Grant Pilot Program Agreement of July 10, 1993, and the State 
Block Grant Agreement of July 19, 1993, to provide for 
withholding the release of any State Block Grant Pilot Program 
funds to Princeton Airport for any airport development project, 
until the current environmental assessment and the master plan/
ALP have been completed and evaluated with full public input 
and comment; and, until the Secretary is satisfied and reports 
to the Committee that fair consideration has been given to the 
interests of the communities affected by Princeton Airport, as 
required by section 509(b)(4) of the Airport and Airway 
Improvement Act of 1982 for direct AIP grants; and, that any 
proposed project in Princeton Airport's master plan is 
consistent with adopted master plans of communities affected by 
the airport.
    Similar language was included in last year's report. The 
Committee is pleased to learn that progress on this issue has 
been made. The Committee encourages parties associated with 
this dispute to continue their negotiations so that a final 
solution to this problem can be reached.
    Flood-damaged Missouri airports.--It is the Committee's 
understanding that the FAA assured the State of Missouri funds 
for 1993 flood-damaged airports. In addition, it is the 
Committee's understanding that the State has provided the 
necessary documentation requested by the FAA, including damage 
reports and estimates of repairs. At this time, the FAA has not 
fulfilled its commitment. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
FAA to fulfill its commitment to the State by providing 
$2,100,000 from existing funds to finish the flood repair 
projects to ensure that the air transportation system remains 
safe, efficient, and available for public use.
    Maryland air noise.--The Committee directs the Federal 
Aviation Administration to enforce all applicable rules and 
regulations governing noise abatement procedures at Washington 
National Airport and closely monitor aircraft noise in 
Montgomery County, MD. The Committee also directs the FAA to 
work with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to 
continue efforts aimed at reducing aircraft noise in Montgomery 
County.

                    Air Traffic Control Corporation

    The Committee for years has been frustrated by delays and 
cost overruns by the FAA in its capital improvement programs. 
The Committee also has expressed repeatedly its concerns over 
the FAA's ability to adequately staff air traffic control 
facilities, particularly in the wake of the PATCO strike. 
Accordingly, the Committee commends Vice President Gore and his 
National Performance Review effort and Secretary Pena for his 
efforts to address these and other issues facing the FAA and 
the air traffic control [ATC] system.
    It should be noted that the Department has taken several 
significant steps to better manage programs that have been 
plagued by delays and overruns, including the advanced 
automation system [AAS]. The Committee commends these efforts. 
However, it also recognizes that many of the problems with 
programs such as the AAS result in large part from the 
interrelated issues--procurement, personnel, and budget--
identified by the administration in its ATC reform proposal; 
and, further, that the long-term success of the 
administration's changes are affected by these same issues. The 
Committee is also aware that the FAA has undertaken some two 
dozen internal reorganizations in the last decade without being 
able to successfully address the underlying problems that have 
plagued the ATC system.
    It is clearly the top priority of the air traffic control 
system to ensure the safety of all those using the Nation's 
airspace. In order to ensure that the outstanding safety record 
of U.S. aviation continues, it is essential that new 
technologies be brought on line more quickly and cost 
effectively than has been the case under current FAA 
procedures. In its May 1994 Air Traffic Control Corporation 
study, the administration provided extensive summaries of the 
problems contributing to the inefficiencies of the ATC system 
and discussed a range of options for addressing those problems, 
both within the existing FAA and through the proposed creation 
of the U.S. Air Traffic Services Corporation [USATS].
    This proposal is of significant interest to this Committee 
for two principal reasons. First, the proposal attempts to 
address problems identified and focused on by this Committee. 
Second, any proposal to significantly alter the structure and 
the function of the FAA would have direct impacts on programs 
funded through the Committee, and on the appropriations process 
more generally. The Committee intends to continue working with 
the administration in efforts to bring meaningful reform to the 
air traffic control system.

                           general provisions

    FAA technical center.--The Committee has a general 
provision naming the Federal Aviation Administration technical 
center located at Atlantic City International Airport in 
Pomona, NJ, as the William J. Hughes Technical Center. 
Congressman Hughes served the citizens of the Second District 
of New Jersey for 20 years. During his tenure in Congress his 
statesmanship won him the admiration of all of his colleagues. 
The Committee believes the naming of the technical center in 
the congressional district he once served would be a fitting 
tribute and sign of appreciation to a man of Congressman 
Hughes' stature.
    O'Hare Airport slot management.--The Committee agrees with 
the House bill language contained in section 323 which would 
prohibit the Department of Transportation from withdrawing 
domestic slots at Chicago's O'Hare Airport and replacing them 
with slots for international carriers. Statutory provisions 
such as this would normally limit the Department's flexibility 
in managing the bilateral negotiation process with other 
countries and could reduce the U.S. ability to obtain access 
for domestic carriers to foreign markets. However, since slots 
are usually reallocated before the start of the winter season, 
the Committee believes the Department has adequate time to 
manage the slots at O'Hare.
    Collective bargaining for international flightcrews of U.S. 
carriers.--The Committee has included a general provision which 
seeks to protect the public interest in uninterrupted 
international air service and the stability of collective 
bargaining relationships between U.S. air carriers and their 
flightcrew employees (flight deck crewmembers and flight cabin 
crewmembers). This is done by confirming that the Railway Labor 
Act applies to U.S. air carriers and their flightcrew employees 
while operating to, from, or between points outside the United 
States.
    The proposed amendment preserves the act's preference for 
systemwide collective bargaining agreements and permits such 
agreements to be enforced in the statutory adjustment board in 
accordance with the parties' intent. The amendment also 
prevents either a U.S. air carrier or a flightcrew labor 
organization from evading its obligations under the act by 
simply relying on the geographical location of a particular 
operation or event within the system.
    Passenger facility charge increase.--The proposed change to 
section 40117(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, will 
permit an airport to increase the passenger facility fee it has 
the authority to impose pursuant to its approved application by 
no more than $2, and in such a manner as prescribed in 
regulations, for the purpose of financing an eligible airport-
related project. The proposed change also allows an airport to 
make an annual adjustment to the amount of its approved fee, 
and any adjustment to that fee of no more than $2, by the 
Consumer Price Index for each respective year to finance any 
increase in the costs of constructing an eligible airport-
related project.
    Passenger facility charge termination.--The objectives 
behind creating passenger facility fees were to enhance airport 
capacity and to increase investment in airport infrastructure. 
One of the primary goals of the program was to allow passenger 
facility revenues to leverage long-term financing through a 
predictable flow of funds. However, the Secretary's ability to 
terminate any part of the agency's authority to impose a 
passenger facility fee because the agency used such fees to 
finance a project not covered within the meaning of section 
40117 has severely limited the ability to attract investment 
capital.
    The passenger facility fee termination provision is viewed 
by the investment community as empowering the Secretary to 
terminate the agency's authority to impose a passenger facility 
fee unilaterally, with little warning, and without protecting 
airport bond investors. Consequently, no passenger facility fee 
bonds have been issued with an investment grade rating by 
Moody's or Standard & Poor's.
    The proposed change to Section 40117(h)(2) would prevent 
termination of passenger facility revenues pledged to pay debt 
service where the proceeds of bonds sold were used to construct 
eligible airport-related projects.
                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................  $2,087,489,000
    Rescission..........................................    (35,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................   1,917,847,000
House allowance.........................................   2,000,000,000
    Rescission..........................................    (60,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................   1,890,377,000

    Rescission

                                                            (70,000,000)

    Under the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation, 
safety, capacity and efficiency of the Federal airway system 
are improved by the procurement and installation of new 
equipment and the construction and modernization of facilities 
to keep pace with aeronautical activity and in accordance with 
the Federal Aviation Administration's comprehensive capital 
investment plan [CIP], formerly called the national airspace 
system [NAS] plan.

                                                      CIP MILESTONES FOR MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITIONS                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Year of first-site implementation                   Year of last-site implementation         
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   System name                      1983 NAS                                            1983 NAS                                        
                                                      plan       1991 CIP     1993 CIP     1995 CIP       plan       1991 CIP     1993 CIP     1995 CIP 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced automation system [AAS]................         1990         1991         1991      ( \1\ )         1994         2001         2004      ( \1\ )
    Display system replacement [DSR]............  ...........  ...........  ...........         1998  ...........  ...........  ...........         2000
    Standard terminal automation replacement                                                                                                            
     system [STARS].............................  ...........  ...........  ...........         1998  ...........  ...........  ...........         2003
    Tower control computer complex [TCCC].......  ...........  ...........  ...........         1997  ...........  ...........  ...........         2000
Air route surveillance radar [ARSR-4]...........         1988         1993         1994         1995         1991         1996         1996         1997
Airport surface detection equipment [ASDE-3]....         1987         1992         1993         1993         1990         1994         1996         1999
Automated weather observing system [AWOS].......         1986         1989         1989         1989         1990         1997         1997         1997
Central weather processor [CWP].................         1990         1991         1991         1991         1991         1998     \2\ 1992     \2\ 1993
Flight service automation system [FSAS].........         1984         1991         1991         1991         1989         1995         1994         1995
Mode S..........................................         1988         1993         1994         1994         1993         1996         1996         1996
Radio microwave link [RML] replacement and                                                                                                              
 expansion......................................         1985         1986         1986         1986         1989         1994         1993         1993
Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]...........      ( \3\ )         1993         1994         1994      ( \3\ )         1996         1996     \4\ 1996
Voice switching and control system [VSCS].......         1989         1995         1995         1995         1992         1997         1997         1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En route [DSR], terminal [STARS], and tower [TCCC].                                         
\2\ Dates denoted are for MWP I only. The CWP-RWP segment has been eliminated as a continuation of the CWP Program, and has been merged with MWP II into
  the Weather and Radar Processor [WARP] Program.                                                                                                       
\3\ The TDWR was not included in the 1983 NAS plan.                                                                                                     
\4\ Schedule under review for last-site implementation.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Source: FAA 1983 NAS plan, 1991, 1993, 1995 CIP.                                                                                                        


          REASONS FOR DELAY AND COST INCREASES IN CIP PROJECTS          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        System name                       Reasons for delay             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced automation system   In general, AAS delays were due to an      
 [AAS].                       overly ambitious plan, inadequate FAA     
                              oversight of the contractor, and          
                              ineffective resolution of requirements    
                              issues. The AAS Program has been          
                              restructured into three areas: En route,  
                              terminal, and tower.                      
Air route surveillance       Problems with the radar's development and  
 radar [ARSR-4].              site preparation delayed first-site       
                              implementation. Testing took longer than  
                              originally expected. More recently, delays
                              have occurred due to changes in system    
                              design and interface problems with other  
                              ATC systems.                              
Airport surface detection    Original delays occurred because FAA and   
 equipment [ASDE-3].          the contractor underestimated software    
                              complexity, FAA changed some requirements,
                              and testing uncovered some performance    
                              problems. Software development,           
                              establishing remote towers, site selection/
                              preparation, and the addition of seven    
                              systems have delayed the program.         
Automated weather observing  Site prep, installation, and maintenance   
 system [AWOS].               problems, as well as delays in receiving  
                              Government-furnished equipment contributed
                              to original delays.                       
Central weather processor    Early software development problems and    
 [CWP].                       software discrepancies during testing     
                              delayed the system in early stages. The   
                              program was descoped to just the CWP-MWP I
                              segment, which is now fully implemented.  
Flight service automation    Original delays occurred because of        
 system [FSAS].               software development and testing problems 
                              with the Model I system. Scheduled for    
                              completion in 1995.                       
Mode S.....................  Problems in developing hardware and        
                              software during initial phases delayed the
                              system, and software problems caused a    
                              delay in first-site implementation.       
Radar microwave link [RML]   In the early stages, site acquisition and  
 replacement and expansion.   prep problems delayed the system. Other   
                              delays occurred because of a change in the
                              prime contractor and due to problems      
                              encountered during operational test and   
                              evaluation. Program implementation is     
                              complete.                                 
Terminal doppler weather     Site availability and land acquisition     
 radar [TDWR].                problems have delayed last-site           
                              implementation.                           
Voice switching and control  Early delays were due to the two prototype 
 system [VSCS].               contractors having technical difficulties 
                              in meeting FAA's requirements for system  
                              reliability. Additional delays occurred   
                              because of software development and       
                              integration problems during the upgrade of
                              the prototype to a production model. The  
                              implementation schedule has not changed   
                              since the 1991 CIP.                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The bill includes an appropriation of $1,890,377,000 for 
the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of 
the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows:

                                            FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year                                           
                       Projects                           1996 budget    Houseallowance  Committeerecommendation
                                                           estimate                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering, development, test, and evaluation:                                                                 
    En route programs:                                                                                          
        Aviation weather services improvements........     $13,700,000     $26,100,000           $13,700,000    
        En Route Automation Program...................     317,400,000     256,700,000           256,700,000    
        Aeronautical data link........................  ..............      27,400,000            27,400,000    
        Oceanic automation system.....................      47,100,000      47,100,000            47,100,000    
        Voice switching and control system [VSCS]--                                                             
         EDT&E........................................      11,000,000      11,000,000            11,000,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, en route programs...............     389,200,000     368,300,000           355,900,000    
                                                       =========================================================
    Terminal programs:                                                                                          
        Airport survillance radar [ASR]...............      14,300,000      14,300,000            14,300,000    
        Remote maintenance monitoring [RMMS]--sustain.       3,000,000       3,000,000   .......................
        Terminal Automation Program...................      31,600,000      31,600,000            24,400,000    
        Tower Automation Program......................      29,500,000      29,500,000            29,500,000    
        Terminal area surveillance sensor [TASS]......  ..............       5,800,000             5,000,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, terminal programs.................      78,400,000      84,200,000            73,200,000    
                                                       =========================================================
    Research, test, and evaluation equipment and                                                                
     facilities:                                                                                                
        Independent operational test and evaluation                                                             
         [IOT&E] sup..................................       1,500,000       1,500,000             1,500,000    
        FAA Technical Center facility--technical                                                                
         building lease...............................       5,290,000  ...............            5,290,000    
        Utility plant modifications...................       1,560,000  ...............            1,560,000    
        General airport improvement...................         150,000  ...............              150,000    
        NAS improvement of system support laboratory..       2,000,000  ...............            2,000,000    
        Technical Center facilities...................       9,600,000      20,600,000             9,600,000    
        Technical Center fiber data distribution                                                                
         interface....................................       2,000,000  ...............            2,000,000    
        CAMI infrastructure--modernization............         600,000         600,000               600,000    
        Cabin research facility construction..........         500,000         500,000               500,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, research, test, and evaluation                                                              
           equipment and facilities...................      23,200,000      23,200,000            23,200,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
          Total, engineering, development, test, and                                                            
           evaluation.................................     490,800,000     475,700,000           452,300,000    
                                                       =========================================================
Air traffic control facilities and equipment:                                                                   
    En route programs:                                                                                          
        Display channel complex rehosts...............  ..............  ...............           20,000,000    
        Long Range Radar [LRR] Program--replace/                                                                
         establish....................................      12,800,000      12,800,000            12,800,000    
        Radar microwave link [RML] system replacement/                                                          
         expansion....................................       1,000,000       1,000,000             1,000,000    
        Next generation weather radar [Nexrad]--                                                                
         provide......................................      10,800,000      10,800,000            10,800,000    
        Air traffic control en route radar facilities                                                           
         improvements.................................      17,700,000      11,800,000            11,800,000    
        En Route Automation Program...................      17,700,000      17,700,000            17,700,000    
        Air traffic operations management system                                                                
         [ATOMS]......................................       1,000,000       1,000,000             1,000,000    
        Weather and radar processor [WARP]............       7,800,000       7,800,000             7,800,000    
        Aeronautical data link [ADL] applications.....      15,000,000  ...............  .......................
        ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements      42,100,000      59,100,000            59,100,000    
        Voice switching and control system [VSCS].....     112,700,000     106,100,000           106,100,000    
        Remote communication facilities [RCF's]--                                                               
         expand/relocate..............................       1,000,000       1,000,000             1,000,000    
        Traffic flow management.......................      28,500,000      40,300,000            34,000,000    
        Data multiplexing network [DMN]...............       7,900,000       7,900,000             7,900,000    
        Critical communications support...............       3,000,000  ...............            2,000,000    
        En route communications and control facilities                                                          
         improvement..................................       3,181,000       3,181,000             3,181,000    
        Satellite communications circuit backup.......       4,000,000       4,000,000             4,000,000    
        DOD base closure--facility transfer...........       5,000,000       5,000,000             5,000,000    
        Backup emergency communications [BUUEC]--                                                               
         interim......................................       2,000,000       2,000,000             2,000,000    
        Volcano monitor...............................  ..............  ...............            2,000,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, en route programs...............     293,181,000     291,481,000           309,180,000    
                                                       =========================================================
    Terminal programs:                                                                                          
        Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]--provide       4,900,000      47,400,000             7,400,000    
        Mode S--provide...............................      12,700,000      12,700,000            12,700,000    
        Terminal Automation Program...................      22,800,000      17,300,000            17,300,000    
        Airport movement area safety system [AMASS]...      11,300,000      31,300,000   .......................
        Remote maintenance monitoring system [RMMS]--                                                           
         provide......................................      27,500,000      15,000,000            24,500,000    
        Terminal air traffic control facilities--                                                               
         replace......................................      60,400,000      60,400,000            60,400,000    
        Air traffic control tower [ATCT]/TRACON                                                                 
         facilites--improve...........................      25,664,000      22,800,000            25,600,000    
        Metroplex control facility--advanced facility                                                           
         planning.....................................       2,000,000       2,000,000             2,000,000    
        Emergency transceivers--replacement...........       2,000,000       2,000,000             2,000,000    
        Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR]......       7,000,000      14,000,000             7,000,000    
        Radio control equipment [RCE]--provide........       1,100,000       1,100,000             1,100,000    
        Terminal radar [ASR]--improve.................       3,506,000       3,506,000             2,700,000    
        Airport surface detection equipment [ASDE]--                                                            
         additional establishment.....................       8,800,000       8,800,000             8,800,000    
        Low-cost ASDE.................................  ..............       8,000,000   .......................
        Loop technology (surface detection)...........  ..............       2,000,000   .......................
        Potomac project metroplex.....................      12,600,000      12,600,000            10,400,000    
        Northern California metroplex.................  ..............      10,000,000             2,000,000    
        Atlanta metroplex.............................  ..............      10,000,000             3,800,000    
        Employee safety/OSHA and environmental                                                                  
         compliance standards.........................      23,000,000      23,000,000            23,000,000    
        ARTS IIIA data entry/display..................       1,000,000       1,000,000             1,000,000    
        Chicago metroplex--limited consolidation......       1,000,000       1,000,000             1,000,000    
        Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex program...........      13,000,000      13,000,000            13,000,000    
        Precision runway monitors.....................       1,200,000       1,200,000   .......................
        New Austin Airport at Bergstrom...............      14,800,000      14,800,000            12,000,000    
        Southern California metroplex.................       2,000,000       2,000,000             2,000,000    
        Integrated network management system..........         300,000  ...............  .......................
        Terminal communications improvements..........       3,495,000       3,495,000             3,495,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, terminal programs.................     262,065,000     340,401,000           243,195,000    
                                                       =========================================================
    Flight service programs:                                                                                    
        Flight service station [FSS] modernization....       1,000,000       1,000,000             1,000,000    
        Automated surface observing system [ASOS].....      24,500,000      24,500,000            24,500,000    
        FSAS operational and supportability                                                                     
         implementation system [OASIS]................      18,700,000      18,700,000            16,700,000    
        Flight service facilities improvement.........         805,000         805,000               805,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, flight services...................      45,005,000      45,005,000            43,005,000    
                                                       =========================================================
    Landing and Navigational Aids Program:                                                                      
        VOR/DME/TACAN network plan....................       1,000,000       1,000,000             1,000,000    
        Instrument landing system [ILS]--replace (Mark                                                          
         1A, 1B, and 1C)..............................       6,900,000       6,900,000             6,900,000    
        Instrument landing system [ILS]--establish/                                                             
         upgrade......................................      30,000,000      33,500,000            35,000,000    
        Visual navaids--establish/expand..............       2,000,000       2,000,000             2,000,000    
        Low level windshear alert system [LLWAS]--                                                              
         upgrade to phase III.........................       1,000,000      15,000,000            15,000,000    
        Runway visual range [RVR].....................       2,000,000       9,000,000             2,000,000    
        Instrument approach procedures automation                                                               
         [IAPA].......................................         900,000         900,000               900,000    
        Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program...............       4,900,000       4,900,000             4,900,000    
        Instrument landing system [ILS]--replace GRN                                                            
         27...........................................       6,900,000       6,900,000             6,900,000    
        Wide area augmentation system for GPS.........      86,900,000      86,900,000            86,900,000    
        Navigational and landing aids--improve........       3,864,000       3,864,000             3,864,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, landing and navigational aids...     146,364,000     170,864,000           165,364,000    
                                                       =========================================================
    Other ATC facilities programs:                                                                              
        Alaskan NAS interfacility communications                                                                
         system [ANICS]...............................       5,900,000       5,900,000             5,900,000    
        Fuel storage tank replacement and monitoring..      25,000,000       9,400,000            23,800,000    
        FAA buildings and equipment--improve/modernize       7,232,000       7,232,000             7,232,000    
        Electrical power systems--sustain/support.....       5,400,000       5,400,000             5,400,000    
        Air navigational aids and air traffic control                                                           
         facilities (local projects)..................       2,500,000  ...............            1,000,000    
        Air navigational facilities/air traffic                                                                 
         control system support--provide..............       4,500,000  ...............            2,500,000    
        Purchase land or easement for existing                                                                  
         facilities...................................       1,500,000       1,500,000             1,500,000    
        Aircraft and Related Equipment Program........       4,900,000       4,900,000             3,900,000    
        Aircraft fleet modernization..................      55,000,000      55,000,000            55,000,000    
        Airport cable loop systems--sustained support.       2,000,000       2,000,000             2,000,000    
        Computer-aided engineering graphics [CAEG]                                                              
         replacement..................................       1,500,000       1,500,000             1,500,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, other ATC facility programs.....     115,432,000      92,832,000           109,732,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
            Total, air traffic control facilities and                                                           
             equipment................................     862,047,000     940,583,000           870,477,000    
                                                       =========================================================
Non-air traffic control facilities and equipment:                                                               
    Support equipment:                                                                                          
        NAS Management Automation Program [NASMAP]....       2,000,000  ...............            1,500,000    
        Hazardous materials management................      22,100,000      21,000,000            22,100,000    
        National airspace system recovery                                                                       
         communications [RCOM]........................       2,000,000       2,000,000             2,000,000    
        Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS]........      19,400,000      19,400,000            19,400,000    
        Operational data management system [ODMS].....       4,900,000       4,900,000             4,900,000    
        Child care facilities.........................       2,600,000       5,200,000             2,600,000    
        FAA employee housing--provide.................       4,900,000       4,900,000             4,900,000    
        Logistics support systems and facilities......       2,000,000       2,000,000             2,000,000    
        Test equipment--maintenance support for                                                                 
         replacement..................................       1,000,000       1,000,000             1,000,000    
        Integrated flight quality assurance...........       1,000,000       1,000,000             1,000,000    
        Safety performance analysis system [SPAS].....       3,200,000       3,200,000             3,200,000    
        Portable performance support system pen-based                                                           
         technology...................................       2,100,000       2,100,000             2,100,000    
        National Aviation Safety Data Center [ASAAP]..       2,000,000       2,000,000             2,000,000    
        Aviation security.............................      10,000,000      10,000,000            10,000,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, support equipment.................      79,200,000      78,700,000            78,700,000    
                                                       =========================================================
    Training, equipment, and facilities:                                                                        
        Computer-based instruction/distance learning..       8,800,000       8,800,000             8,800,000    
        Aeronautical center training and support                                                                
         facilities...................................       6,900,000       6,900,000             6,900,000    
        National airspace system [NAS] training                                                                 
         facilities...................................       3,000,000       3,000,000             3,000,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, training, equipment, and                                                                  
             facilities...............................      18,700,000      18,700,000            18,700,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
            Total, non-air traffic control facilities                                                           
             and equipment............................      97,900,000      97,400,000            92,400,000    
                                                       =========================================================
Mission support:                                                                                                
    System support and services:                                                                                
        System engineering and technical assistance                                                             
         [SETA].......................................      72,400,000      72,400,000            69,400,000    
        Program support leases........................      27,000,000      31,117,000            27,000,000    
        Logistics support services....................       7,000,000       7,000,000             7,000,000    
        Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center--lease......      15,000,000      15,000,000            15,000,000    
        In-plant national airspace system [NAS]                                                                 
         contract support services....................       4,900,000       4,900,000             4,900,000    
        Transition engineering support................      50,000,000      60,000,000            50,000,000    
        Frequency and spectrum engineering--provide...       1,300,000       1,300,000             1,300,000    
        Acquisition oversight.........................         400,000         400,000               400,000    
        FAA system architecture.......................       4,900,000       2,000,000             4,000,000    
        Technical services support contract [TSSC]....      62,200,000      61,200,000            60,200,000    
        Permanent change of station [PCS].............      15,000,000      15,000,000            15,000,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
          Total, mission support......................     260,100,000     270,317,000           254,200,000    
                                                       =========================================================
Personnel and related expenses........................     207,000,000     216,000,000           216,000,000    
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total, all activities...........................   1,917,847,000   2,000,000,000         1,890,377,000    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             engineering, development, test, and evaluation

    The Committee recommends $359,900,000 for various 
engineering, development, test, and evaluation activities.
    Advanced automation system [AAS].--The advanced automation 
system's purpose is to modernize essential outdated components 
of the air traffic control system so that they are more 
reliable and efficient, are able to handle more air traffic 
with fewer delays, and will enable airlines to realize savings 
in fuel and crew costs. The AAS includes real time data 
processing software and computers, and new air traffic control 
consoles which will be installed in FAA en route centers, 
terminal facilities, and towers.
    In response to the Committee's longstanding concerns of 
cost growth and schedule delays, a major restructuring of the 
AAS Program was completed in 1995. This restructuring included 
both technical and management changes resulting in an estimated 
savings of nearly $1,600,000,000. From the technical 
standpoint, program risk has been reduced, software coding 
practices have been improved, and a greater emphasis has been 
placed on off-the-shelf hardware and software. FAA management 
of AAS has been separated into three product areas: (1) en 
route automation, (2) terminal automation, and (3) tower 
automation. These product areas are to improve FAA program 
management through increased accountability of these areas.
    En route automation includes the display system replacement 
[DSR] as a cost-effective modification to the initial sector 
suite system [ISSS]; display channel complex rehost [DCCR], a 
low-risk contingency system; advanced en route automation 
[AERA], enhancements providing direct benefits to airway users; 
en route software development support [ERSDS], maintains 
software in existing system; en route automation equipment, 
maintains existing hardware; flight data input/output [FDIO]; 
and en route stand alone radar training system [ESARTS].
    An independent study by the Carnegie-Mellon Software 
Executive Institute found the ISSS/DSR software architecture to 
be sound. A follow-on, in-depth, FAA study concluded the 
software carried over from ISSS to DSR was acceptable. The DSR 
will continue under the modified contract with Loral who 
completed the purchase of IBM Federal Systems in 1995. Other 
system procurements are separate efforts and will be 
accomplished under existing contracts or competitively awarded 
contracts. To carry out the necessary modernization efforts in 
the en route automation segment, the Committee recommends 
fiscal year 1996 funding of $256,700,000 under budget line item 
engineering, development, test, and evaluation, and $17,700,000 
under budget line item procurement and modernization for en 
route programs.
    Terminal automation includes the standard terminal 
automation replacement system [STARS], a cost-effective 
alternative to the canceled terminal advanced automation system 
[TAAS]; automated radar terminal system [ARTS] IIIE, interim 
system for large facilities, digital bright radar indicator 
tower equipment [DBRITE], display equipment for tower air 
traffic controllers; terminal software development [TSD], 
interim software maintenance to existing system.
    The STARS will be competitively procured based on minimal 
enhancements to existing off-the-shelf systems. For terminal 
automation modernization, the Committee recommends fiscal 1996 
funding of $24,400,000 under budget line item engineering, 
development, test, and evaluation, and $17,300,000 under budget 
line item procurement and modernization for terminal programs.
    Tower automation includes the tower control computer 
complex [TCCC], which upgrades tower computers and displays, 
will continue under a separate contract agreement with Loral. 
The Committee recommends fiscal year 1996 funding of 
$29,500,000 under budget line item engineering, development, 
test, and evaluation to complete development and test, and 
install TCCC at one key site. Additional systems are planned 
for approximately 70 of the FAA's busiest towers.
    Aviation weather services.--The Committee has provided the 
full amount requested by the administration for aviation 
weather services, $13,700,000. This funding level would reduce 
the House allowance by $12,400,000. The Committee does not 
believe that the aviation weather services program as described 
should be funded within the ``Facilities and equipment'' 
account, and the resources provided would be best spent in the 
``Aviation weather research'' account within research and 
development.
    Aeronautical data link.--The Committee has provided 
$27,400,000 under the en route engineering, development, test, 
and evaluation program. The Committee agrees with the House 
that increased funding is necessary for this program, to 
accelerate implementation of the data link infrastructure.
    Voice switching and control system [VSCS].--The Committee 
concurs with the House recommendation to provide $11,000,000 
for further engineering, development, test, and evaluation of 
the Voice Switching and Control System. Funding is provided 
under this particular budget activity rather than the 
procurement subcategory, to more accurately reflect the nature 
of the work being performed.

  procurement and modernization of air traffic control facilities and 
                               equipment

                           en route programs

    The Committee's recommendation is for $165,364,000.
    Display channel complex rehosts.--The Committee has 
provided $20,000,000 above the administration's request for the 
display channel complex rehost. The Committee feels that this 
is the best short-term remedy for the aging computers that are 
now at busy air traffic control centers. It was obvious with 
the recent outages at the Chicago center that speedy 
replacement of the display channel complex at the centers is 
necessary.
    The Committee believes that, until air traffic control's 
modernization efforts come to fruition, this funding, if 
properly used, would provide some insurance against further 
problems that place the entire air route control system in 
jeopardy.
    The Committee believes that FAA needs to implement the 
display channel complex replacement or rehosting program as 
soon as possible, and that a solution to the 1970's vintage, 
IBM 9020E computer is necessary. The Committee believes that 
rehosting may be necessary until the successor to this 
equipment, the display channel complex replacement which is now 
only being prototyped at the FAA technical center, is 
operational.
    The Committee further believes that attention should 
immediately be paid to the five IBM 9020E sites, which are 
Chicago, Cleveland, Washington, New York, and Dallas/Fort 
Worth. The Committee directs that funds available after the 
rehosting of these centers be used at the remaining 17 FAA 
centers. If necessary, the FAA can use some of these funds for 
necessary administrative costs of its airways system 
specialists.
    Traffic control en route facilities improvements.--The 
Committee has reduced the en route radar facilities 
improvements request to the House level of $11,800,000 due to 
what it considers inadequate justification for the total 
funding requested.
    Air route traffic control center [ARTCC] improvement/plant 
modernization/space expansion.--FAA is requesting $42,100,000 
to perform needed modernization and expansion at its ARTCC's to 
accommodate new equipment that will comprise the advanced 
automation system. The Committee has provided $59,100,000, 
which was also included by the House. This is a $17,000,000 
increase over the original budget request. The Committee 
believes that this increase is necessary for display system 
replacement [DSR].
    Voice switching and control systems [VSCS].--The House has 
reduced funding under procurement and modernization for VSCS by 
$6,600,000. The Committee agrees with the House recommendation 
to provide funding of $106,100,000 for VSCS. The Committee 
believes that this reduction to engineering support for 
maintenance, program management, airway facilities training, 
and technical services can be accommodated within the existing 
schedule for fiscal year 1996.
    Traffic flow management.--The Committee has provided 
$5,500,000 above the administration's request for the traffic 
flow management program. At this funding level, however, it is 
still $5,700,000 below the House allowance. The Committee does 
agree with the general thrust of the House approach, which was 
to provide additional funding to accelerate the center/TRACON 
automation system. The Committee also expects that the 
additional funding provided would be for the terminal air 
traffic control automation program [TATCA].
    Critical telecommunications support.--The Committee has 
reduced funding under the activity by $1,000,000 due to budget 
constraints.
    Volcano monitor.--The Committee has included funding for 
the Alaska Volcano Observatory to place seismological equipment 
and data transmission facilities on suspect volcanoes across 
the Alaska peninsula and the Aleutian Islands.

                           TERMINAL PROGRAMS

    Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR].--The Committee has 
included $2,500,000 above the budget request for the TDWR 
program. It expects that this increased funding would be used 
for the installation of the TDWR at Las Vegas, and the 
environmental impact statement process in New York. The House 
had included funding for an additional five new TDWR's. 
However, the FAA has appealed this on the basis that the more 
cost-effective way to meet future windshear requirements is 
through the ASR/windshear alert program.
    Terminal automation.--The Committee has reduced the 
requested level for the terminal automation program to 
$17,300,000. The Committee has reduced funding for this program 
because of the unobligated balance of $7,000,000 that FAA is 
holding out for potential problems arising in developing and 
fielding new software. However, based on information, the 
software would not be fielded until 1997 at the earliest.
    Airport movement area safety system [AMASS].--The House has 
included $20,000,000 above the administration's request for the 
airport movement area safety system [AMASS]. Airport movement 
area safety system is designed to provide audio and visual 
alerts for controllers who are using the airport surface 
detection equipment [ASDE-3). This system is expected to help 
alleviate false target problems experienced at some sites that 
are using the ASDE-3 equipment. As of fiscal year 1995, the 
agency has received approximately $26,000,000 for the AMASS 
system, and is requesting an additional $11,300,000 in fiscal 
year 1996 for production and installation of AMASS at 11 of 40 
sites.
    The fiscal year 1996 request would cover the procurement of 
an additional 11 AMASS units, but it is unclear to the 
Committee what the obligation plans are for those funds. It is 
the Committee's understanding that the current schedule does 
not plan for ordering full production of the AMASS systems 
until May 1997, and, therefore, the unobligated balances that 
currently exist should be sufficient to allow the agency to 
order three full-scale development and seven low-rate initial 
production units [LRIP] systems.
    The House has provided $31,300,000 for the AMASS system. 
The Committee supports the program, but believes that because 
of schedule delays and slippages, additional funding is not 
warranted at this time.
    Remote maintenance monitoring [RMMS].--The Committee has 
reduced the requested level for remote maintenance monitoring 
by $3,000,000. This reduction was due to budget constraints. 
The Committee has provided $9,500,000 above the House level, 
and expects that the restored funding will provide improvements 
to software and hardware systems that will be the basis for the 
open system architecture in order to better facilitate 
centralized maintenance.
    Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR].--The Committee 
has reduced the House allowance by $7,000,000, restoring this 
line item to the original fiscal year 1996 budget request of 
$7,000,000. The Committee has no evidence that, with the 
increased funding for the terminal voice switch replacement 
project, this funding could be obligated in fiscal year 1996, 
though it does support the House's emphasis to support the 
enhanced TVSR procurement.
    Terminal radar [ASR]--improve.--The Committee has slightly 
reduced the request for the terminal radar improvement program 
(-$800,000). The Committee has reduced funding for the 
contingency funding which was requested by FAA, and has also 
cut the fiscal year 1996 request based on funding available 
through previous projects coming in significantly under budget. 
The Committee feels there are sufficient unobligated balances 
in this account to handle correction of site-specific problems 
or deficiencies that typically arise during the course of the 
year.
    Below-cost ASDE.--The Committee has eliminated funding 
provided by the House for the below-cost ASDE program. No 
funding was requested under the ``Facilities and equipment'' 
account by the administration. The Committee believes that FAA 
can and should use research, engineering, and development 
funding to explore low-cost surface detection technology 
alternatives, but has not provided funding in this account, 
which is used for procurement.
    Loop technology (surface detection).--The Committee has not 
included the $2,000,000 which was provided by the House for 
loop technology surface detection. FAA has appealed to the 
Committee that the sponsored demonstration program of this 
technology determined that loop technology is not as effective 
as other technologies for airport surface detection.
    Potomac Metroplex.--The Committee has reduced the requested 
funding for the Potomac Metroplex by $2,200,000, because it 
believes that actual land costs should and could be lower than 
originally planned by the Federal Aviation Administration. The 
Committee was briefed that FAA will do all that is possible to 
find a low-cost or a no-cost site, and, therefore, the 
Committee believes the $6,000,000 budgeted for land purchase is 
extremely high. The $6,000,000 figure was estimated on the need 
for a 20-acre site costing $300,000 per acre. Other TRACON's 
across the country are housed on much less land than the 20 
acres budgeted by FAA.
    Northern California Metroplex.--The House has included 
$10,000,000 above the budget request for the northern 
California Metroplex. The Committee supports the need for 
expediting site selection and engineering work in the northern 
California area for the metroplex, and has provided $2,000,000 
for that purpose.
    Atlanta Metroplex.--The House has included $10,000,000 for 
an Atlanta Metroplex, funding which was not requested by the 
administration. The Committee supports expeditious creation of 
an Atlanta Metroplex, and has included $3,800,000 for land 
acquisition, environmental impact statements, and preliminary 
engineering work, but believes that remaining funding can be 
deferred until fiscal year 1997.
    Precision runway monitors.--The House has included 
$1,200,000 for the precision runway monitor program. For fiscal 
year 1996, the administration requested $1,200,000 for 
engineering and program support for the installation of 
procured systems. This program has an unobligated balance of 
approximately $30,000,000. To date, FAA has installed only one 
precision runway monitor, and delay in the validation of 
additional sites makes it unlikely that additional systems will 
be purchased or installed in fiscal year 1995. Consequently, 
the unobligated prior-year funds should be sufficient to cover 
any 1996 engineering and program support needs.
    New Austin Airport.--The Committee has reduced the 
requested funding for the new Austin Airport by $2,800,000. The 
Committee has reduced funding by one-half, which was originally 
estimated for the cable-loop system. It does not appear that 
FAA will obligate any of the $18,500,000 received in fiscal 
year 1995 for the new Austin Airport until August of this year. 
If other alternatives are selected for a combined tower TRACON 
at the airport, it would push out the project's schedule even 
further, and possibly reduce FAA's funding needs because of the 
need to replan the project. Also, FAA is in discussion with the 
city of Austin for cost sharing some of the project's costs. 
Therefore, the Committee feels that the funding cut will not 
impair nor slow down implementation of this project, which the 
Committee supports.

                        flight service programs

    Automated surface observing system [ASOS].--The Committee 
has provided $24,500,000 for ASOS, which is the same as the 
House level and the administration's request. The Committee is 
aware of a recent report regarding technical problems in 
commissioning ASOS sites. The Committee understands there are 
off-the-shelf solutions to these problems but implementation of 
these have been slow. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA 
to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
no later than November 1995, regarding the intended solutions 
to the technical and installation problems associated with this 
program and the timeline for which it will be implemented.
    Flight service automation system [OASIS].--OASIS is 
designed to provide a life-cycle replacement and upgrade of the 
current flight service automation system. It appears as though 
the contract award for the OASIS is scheduled for June 1996. 
The funds budgeted for the OASIS system will be needed barring 
any further delays in issuing requests for proposal. However, 
four OASIS minimum configuration units which were to be 
initially acquired for the training academy could be eliminated 
and, therefore, about $2,000,000 of the original request could 
be reduced.

                 landing and navigational aids program

    Instrument landing system [ILS] establish/upgrade.--As part 
of its report accompanying the Transportation Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 1995, the Committee directed the FAA to 
deploy an ILS at Newark International Airport on runway 
22Right. In the past, the Committee has been frustrated by the 
extensive delays that plagued the installation of ILS systems 
at Newark. The Committee encourages the FAA to work 
aggressively to install the ILS on runway 22Right so that its 
benefits to safety and efficiency can be realized as soon as 
possible. The Committee has included $4,500,000 for a CAT II/
III ILS at Lanai Airport, HA.
    Low-level windshear alert system [LLWAS].--The Committee 
agrees with the House's allowance of $15,000,000 for the low-
level windshear alert system. This is $14,000,000 above the 
original fiscal year 1996 request. The Committee believes that 
this increase can be used for systems that detect dangerous 
windshear conditions, and funds could also be used to restore 
existing LLWAS-II's to original performance standards and 
provide for new supportable and maintainable equipment.
    Runway visual range.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
for the runway visual range program, which was the fiscal year 
1996 budget request. Under existing budget constraints, the 
Committee believes that the scarce resources could be allocated 
to higher priority programs.

                     other atc facilities programs

    Fuel storage tank replacement.--The House allowance would 
cut the fuel storage tank replacement and monitoring program 
from the requested level of $25,000,000 to $9,400,000. The 
Committee has restored most of the House's reduction by 
providing $23,800,000. The restored funding is essential, and 
is required to comply with Federal and State laws which require 
the removal of fuel storage tanks by the end of December 1998. 
Funding for this program is necessary to be in place to address 
the multitude of tanks and sites that need removal and 
replacement to meet environmental laws.
    ATC facilities (local projects).--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 for the air traffic control facilities 
local projects. This restored funding would be used to achieve 
more effective and cost-efficient management. The funding 
provided by the Committee is expected to allow regions to 
respond to various types of emergencies that arise during the 
year which involve air traffic control facilities, and is 
needed for timely response by FAA to correct site-specific 
emergencies.
    Air navigation facilities--provide.--The Committee has 
provided $2,500,000 for the air navigation facilities support 
and provide line item. The restored funding will provide for 
critical air traffic control facility implementation efforts, 
which the Committee expects would be directly related to safety 
improvements of the air traffic control system. It can also be 
used as a fund to enable the resolution of unforeseen project 
problems.
    Aircraft and related equipment.--The Committee has reduced 
the ``Aircraft and related equipment'' account $1,000,000 below 
the requested level. Funding was requested to upgrade avionics 
and flight inspection systems used in FAA-owned aircraft, and 
to procure and enhance other systems used in scheduling and 
monitoring the aircraft. Based on budget reports from FAA, 
there appears to be a significant amount of unobligated 
balances that were provided in prior years. The funding 
earmarked for the aircraft-800 avionics upgrade project appears 
to be $1,000,000 more than current estimates for the upgrade. 
Therefore, the Committee has reduced the fiscal year 1996 
request by that amount.
                        major equipment activity

                     TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Commissioning  
            City                  Delivery dates             dates      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma City--FAA Academy.  Dec. 9, 1991 \1\.......  NA                
Memphis....................  June 2, 1992 \1\.......  Dec. 13, 1994.    
Houston Intercontinental...  Oct. 2, 1992 \1\.......  July 21, 1994.    
Atlanta....................  Jan. 13, 1993 \1\......  August 1995.      
Washington National........  July 8, 1993 \1\.......  July 1995.        
Denver.....................  July 6, 1993 \1\.......      Do.           
Chicago O'Hare.............  Sept. 17, 1993 \1\.....  September 1995.   
St. Louis..................  Jan. 3, 1994 \1\.......  Feb. 1, 1995.     
Orlando....................  Mar. 17, 1994 \1\......  December 1995.\2\ 
New Orleans................  Apr. 2, 1994 \1\.......  September 1995.\2\
Tampa......................  May 16, 1994 \1\.......  October 1995.     
Miami......................  June 6, 1994...........  November 1995.\2\ 
Pittsburgh.................  July 10, 1994 \1\......  September 1995.   
Andrews....................  Aug. 13, 1994 \1\......      Do.           
Newark.....................  ...do..................      Do.           
Boston.....................  Aug. 29, 1994 \1\......  August 1995.      
Kansas City................  Oct. 2, 1994 \1\.......  July 1995.        
Detroit....................  Oct. 15, 1994..........  September 1995.\2\
Houston Hobby..............  Apr. 8, 1995...........  October 1995.\2\  
Dallas Love................  Nov. 1, 1994 \1\.......  August 1995.\2\   
Oklahoma City--PSF facility  Dec. 14, 1994..........  NA                
Dallas/Fort Worth..........  Jan. 30, 1995..........  October 1995.\2\  
Dayton.....................  Dec. 19, 1994 \1\......  November 1995.    
Wichita....................  Feb. 6, 1995...........  November 1995.\2\ 
Indianapolis...............  Mar. 5, 1995...........  January 1995.\2\  
Cincinnati.................  December 1995..........  September 1996.\2\
Philadelphia...............  July 1995..............  March 1996.\2\    
Phoenix....................  September 1995.........  July 1996.\2\     
Milwaukee..................  May 12, 1995...........  February 1996.\2\ 
Chicago Midway.............  To be determined \3\...  To be             
                                                       determined.\3\   
Cleveland..................  August 1995............  May 1996.\2\      
Columbus...................  November 1995..........  August 1996.\2\   
San Juan...................  To be determined \3\...  To be             
                                                       determined.\3\   
West Palm Beach............  June 1995..............  March 1996.\2\    
Nashville..................  March 1996.............  December 1996.\2\ 
Louisville.................  June 1996..............  March 1997.\2\    
Washington Dulles..........  October 1995...........  July 1996.\2\     
Charlotte..................  August 1995............  December 1995.\2\ 
Salt Lake City.............  November 1995..........  August 1996.\2\   
Fort Lauderdale............  To be determined \3\...  To be             
                                                       determined.\3\   
Baltimore..................  January 1996...........  October 1995.\2\  
Raleigh/Durham.............  April 1996.............  January 1997.\2\  
Minneapolis................  February 1996..........  November 1996.\2\ 
Oklahoma City..............  January 1996...........  October 1996.\2\  
Tulsa......................  May 1996...............  February 1997.\2\ 
New York City (JFK and LGA)  To be determined \3\...  To be             
 \4\.                                                  determined.\3\   
Las Vegas \4\..............  To be determined \3\...  To be             
                                                       determined.\3\   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA has completed contract inspection and acceptance of equipment.  
\2\ Date indicated is for planning purposes only, subject to change;    
  commissioning date to be established after FAA actually accepts       
  equipment.                                                            
\3\ These locations are not yet scheduled for implementation due to     
  delays encountered in resolving environmental issues and public       
  opposition, and in acquiring land.                                    
\4\ The radar for New York City will serve both JFK and LGA airports;   
  the radar planned for LGA is relocated in Las Vegas.                  
                                                                        
NA: Not available.                                                      


              AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT [ASDE-3]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Commissioning 
          Site location               Delivery date           date      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Academy \1\.................  NA..................  NA              
FAA Technical Center \2\........  NA..................  NA              
Pittsburgh, PA..................  December 1989.......  May 1995.       
San Francisco...................  November 1991.......  June 1995.      
Dallas/Fort Worth...............  February 1992.......  March 1995.     
Philadelphia....................  February 1992.......  May 1995.       
Los Angeles \3\.................  August 1992.........  April 1995.     
Detroit.........................  August 1992.........  December 1994.  
Cleveland.......................  August 1992.........  December 1994.  
Boston..........................  August 1992.........  March 1995.     
Portland........................  August 1992.........  December 1994.  
Atlanta.........................  September 1992......  January 1995.   
Seattle.........................  September 1992......  December 1993.  
Los Angeles \3\.................  February 1993.......  February 1995.  
Denver (DIA) \3\ \4\............  March 1993..........  April 1995.     
St. Louis.......................  December 1993.......  February 1995.  
Denver (DIA)....................  December 1993.......  May 1995.       
New York-Kennedy................  January 1994........  February 1995.  
Minneapolis.....................  July 1994...........  March 1995.     
Anchorage.......................  August 1994.........  June 1995.      
New Orleans.....................  October 1994........  June 1995.      
Baltimore.......................  November 1994.......  May 1995.       
Kansas City.....................  December 1994.......  May 1995.       
Miami...........................  February 1995.......  July 1995.      
Houston \3\.....................  February 1995.......  July 1995.      
Memphis.........................  June 1995...........  November 1995.  
Chicago.........................  July 1995...........  December 1995.  
Houston \3\.....................  September 1995......  February 1996.  
Charlotte \5\...................  October 1995........  March 1996.     
Raleigh-Durham..................  December 1995.......  May 1996.       
Washington National.............  January 1996........  June 1996.      
Cincinnati \5\..................  March 1996..........  August 1996.    
Dulles \5\......................  April 1996..........  September 1996. 
San Diego \5\...................  June 1996...........  November 1996.  
Orlando \5\.....................  September 1996......  February 1997.  
Andrews AFB.....................  March 1997..........  August 1997.    
Orange County...................  April 1999..........  September 1999. 
Tampa...........................  June 1999...........  November 1999.  
New York-LaGuardia..............  August 1999.........  December 1999.  
Newark..........................  October 1999........  March 2000.     
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA training/field support/depot support facility.                  
\2\ FAA R&D system for runway incursion.                                
\3\ Dual sensor facilities.                                             
\4\ Second system was procured in fiscal year 1993.                     
\5\ Fiscal year 1993 congressionally mandated sites.                    

                  Instrument landing systems--establish

        Location                                                  Runway
Equipment:
    Category III:
        Atlanta, GA...............................................   27L
        St. Louis, MO.............................................   14R
        Dallas/Fort Worth, TX.....................................   16L
        Dallas/Fort Worth, TX.....................................   34R
Installation:
    CAT I sites:
        St. Louis, MO.............................................    06
        Islip, NY.................................................   15R
        Newburgh, NY..............................................    27
        Rantoul, IL...............................................    27
        Manchester, NH............................................    17
        Colorado Springs, CO......................................   17L
        Orlando, FL...............................................   35R
        New Orleans, LA...........................................    19
    CAT II sites:
        New York, NY..............................................   22L
        Pittsburgh, PA............................................   10R
    CAT III sites:
        Kansas City, MO...........................................   01R
        Chicago, IL...............................................   27L
        Chicago, IL...............................................   27R
        Salt Lake City, UT........................................   34F
        Atlanta, GA...............................................   26R
        Charlotte, NC.............................................   36R
        Memphis, TN...............................................    35
        Little Rock, AR...........................................   22R
        St. Louis, MO.............................................   32L
        Detroit Metro, MI.........................................    22
        Boston, MA................................................   33L
        Louisville, KY............................................   35L
        Dallas-Fort Worth, TX.....................................   36L
        Chantilly, VA.............................................   01L

           Instrument landing systems--Mark 1A, B, C--replace

        Location                                                  Runway
Installation:
    Boise, MT.....................................................   10R
    Lancaster, PA.................................................     8
    Philadelphia, PA..............................................   27R
    Los Angeles, CA...............................................   07L
    Rutland, VT...................................................    19
    Texarkana, TX.................................................    22
    Hazelton, PA..................................................    28
    Reedsville, PA................................................     6
    Houghton, MI..................................................    31
    Elkins, WV....................................................     4
    Parkersburg, WV...............................................     3
    Traverse City, MI.............................................    28
    International Falls, MN.......................................    31
    Minneapolis, MN...............................................    22
    Carbondale, PA................................................   18L
    Detroit Metro, MI.............................................   27R
    Rockland, ME..................................................     3
    Springfield, VT...............................................     5
    St. Petersburg, FL............................................   17L
    Anniston, AL..................................................     5
    Chesterfield, MO..............................................   08R
    Dothan, AL....................................................    32
    Hobbs, NM.....................................................     3
    Waco, TX......................................................    23
    Hot Springs, AR...............................................     5
    Lawrence, MA..................................................     5
    New Orleans, LA...............................................     1

               Instrument landing systems--GRN-27--replace

        Location                                                  Runway
Installation:
    Boston, MA....................................................   04R
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX.........................................   18R
    FAA Academy, OK.....................................................
    Indianapolis, IN..............................................   05L
    Los Angeles, CA...............................................   25L
    Anchorage, AK.................................................   06R
    Fairbanks, AK.................................................   01L
    Andrews AFB, MD...............................................   19R
    Greer, SC.....................................................    03
    New York (JFK), NY............................................   13L
    Philadelphia, PA..............................................   09R
    Andrews AFB, MD...............................................   01L
    Chicago, IL...................................................   14L
    Pittsburgh, PA................................................   10L
    Salt Lake City, UT............................................   34R
    Huntsville, AL................................................   18R
    Spokane-Geiger, WA............................................    21
    Syracuse, NY..................................................    28
    Nashville, TN.................................................   02L
    New Orleans, LA...............................................    10
    Sacramento (Metro), CA........................................   16R
    Spokane-Geiger, WA............................................     3
    San Francisco, CA.............................................   28R
    St. Louis, MO.................................................   30R
    Washington (National), DC.....................................    36
    Bangor, ME....................................................    15
    Bristol, TN...................................................    23

Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that 
installation priorities be modified.
                          Runway visual range

Asheville, NC
Atlanta, GA
Atlanta, GA
Charleston, SC
Charlotte, NC
Columbia, SC
Daytona Beach, FL
Fayetteville, NC
Fort Myers, FL
Hickory, NC
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Knoxville, TN
Lexington, KY
Miami, FL
North Myrtle Beach, SC
Orlando, FL
Tampa, FL
West Palm Beach, FL
Bakersfield, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Las Vegas, NV
Modesto, CA
Redding, CA
Reno, NV
Santa Maria, CA
Stockton, CA
Van Nuys, CA

    Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that 
installation priorities be modified.
                             Visual navaids

                                                                  Runway
Establish precision approach path indicators [PAPI's]:
    Pittsburgh, PA................................................   10C
    Shreveport, LA................................................    32
    Homestead, FL.................................................    18
    Bridgeport, CT................................................    11
    Tulluride, CO.................................................    27
                Terminal air traffic control facilities

Funding for towers started in fiscal year 1990-94:
  Little Rock, AR
  Santa Barbara, CA
  Covington, KY
  Kansas City, MO
  St. Louis, MO
  Newark, NJ
  Islip, NY
  La Guardia, NY
  Dallas (Addison), TX
Phase II funding for towers started in fiscal year 1995:
  Merrill, AK
  Birmingham, AL
  Oakland, CA
  Fort Lauderdale, FL
  Salina, KS
  St. Louis, MO
  Manchester, NH
  Columbus, OH
  San Angelo, TX
  Salt Lake City, UT
  Newport News, VA
  Roanoke, VA
  Everett, WA
Phase I funding for towers started in fiscal year 1996:
  Grand Canyon, AZ
  Vero Beach, FL
  Champaign, IL
  Bedford, MA
  Albany, NY
  Abilene, TX
  Corpus Christi, TX
  Seattle, WA
procurement and modernization of nonair traffic control facilities and 
                               equipment

    The Committee recommends $92,400,000 for this budget 
category.

                           SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

    NAS management automation program.--The Committee has 
provided $1,500,000 of the original $2,000,000 requested. The 
House provided no funding for this activity. The Committee 
expects that the restored funding is necessary to achieve more 
cost-efficient management of the national airspace system 
infrastructure.
    Child care facilities.--The House has provided double the 
amount requested for child care facilities. The Committee has 
provided the full amount requested by the administration, 
$2,600,000. Due to budget constraints faced by the Committee it 
believes that funding could be allocated to higher priority 
safety-related programs, and has reduced the House's allowance 
to the originally requested level.
    Aviation security.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 
for the aviation security line item, which is $3,000,000 more 
than requested by the administration. The Committee agrees with 
the House's observation that the procurement, installation, and 
testing of prototype aviation security equipment in airports is 
necessary, and that they should be ready in fiscal year 1996 
for prototyping.

                facilities and equipment mission support

    The Committee recommends $259,200,000 for this budget 
category.
    Transition engineering support.--The Committee has provided 
the amount requested for transition engineering support, 
$50,000,000. This level is, however, $10,000,000 below the 
House allowance. The Committee agrees with the House's 
observation that new equipment must be installed and 
commissioned in a timely manner, but believes that the original 
request is sufficient to conduct the necessary transition 
engineering support work.
    FAA system architecture.--The Committee has provided 
$4,000,000 for FAA system architecture, which will enable FAA 
to better manage and control software cost schedules and 
quality.

                     personnel and related expenses

    Personnel and related expenses.--The Committee has provided 
$9,000,000 above the administration's request for personnel and 
related expenses, and agrees with the House that positions 
which are already authorized need to be funded, in order to 
provide FAA the level of resources necessary to install the 
backlog of navigational and landing systems that have been 
procured with facilities and equipment dollars.
                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................    $259,192,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................     267,661,000
House allowance.........................................     143,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                             215,886,000

    This appropriation finances research, engineering, and 
development programs to improve the national air traffic 
control system by increasing its safety, security, 
productivity, and capacity. The programs are designed to meet 
the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote 
flight safety. The major objectives are to keep the current 
system operating safely and efficiently; to protect the 
environment; and to modernize the system through improvements 
in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order 
to insure that the system will safely and efficiently handle 
the volume of aircraft traffic expected to materialize in the 
future.
    The bill includes $215,886,000 for research, engineering, 
and development. This level is $51,775,000 below the budget 
request and $72,886,000 above the House allowance. The 
Committee suggests the following allocation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year    Fiscal year                                
                                                          1995       1996 budget  Houseallowance     Committee  
                                                     appropriation    estimate                    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development and infrastructure:                                                                          
    System planning and resource management........     $3,623,000    $3,953,000     $3,000,000      $3,700,000 
    Technical laboratory facility..................      5,800,000     9,598,000      5,800,000       8,800,000 
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................      9,432,000    13,551,000      8,800,000      12,500,000 
                                                    ============================================================
Capacity and air traffic management technology:                                                                 
    Air traffic management technology..............      9,174,000     9,875,000  ..............      8,000,000 
    Oceanic automation program.....................     10,649,000    10,470,000      8,000,000       8,000,000 
    Terminal air traffic control automation [TATCA]     16,891,000    15,624,000  ..............  ..............
    Runway incursion reduction.....................      8,099,000     8,177,000  ..............      8,000,000 
    System capacity, planning, and improvements....     12,082,000    12,256,000      6,000,000      12,000,000 
    Cockpit technology.............................      4,820,000     8,266,000      6,500,000       8,200,000 
    General Aviation and Vertical Technology Flight                                                             
     Program.......................................      4,837,000     3,327,000      2,629,000       2,600,000 
    Modeling, analysis, and simulation.............      9,631,000     7,807,000      2,000,000       4,000,000 
    Future airway facilities technology............        800,000     3,403,000  ..............  ..............
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal...................................     76,983,000    79,205,000     25,129,000      50,800,000 
                                                    ============================================================
Communications, navigation, and surveillance:                                                                   
    Communications.................................     18,080,000    15,367,000     10,000,000      10,000,000 
    Navigation.....................................     14,922,000    15,963,000     10,000,000      15,963,000 
    Surveillance...................................      3,962,000  ............  ..............  ..............
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................     36,964,000    31,330,000     20,000,000      25,963,000 
                                                    ============================================================
Weather............................................      2,909,000     6,493,000      6,493,000       6,493,000 
Airport technology.................................      8,200,000     9,278,000      1,000,000       8,000,000 
Aircraft safety technology:                                                                                     
    Aircraft systems fire safety...................      1,200,000     3,906,000  ..............  ..............
    Advanced materials/structural safety...........      5,245,000     2,973,000      2,000,000       2,500,000 
    Propulsion and fuel systems....................      3,436,000     4,059,000  ..............      4,055,000 
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.....      5,000,000     4,173,000      4,173,000       4,173,000 
    Aging aircraft.................................     25,000,000    21,415,000     15,000,000      21,415,000 
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention                                                                    
     research......................................      2,705,000     4,357,000      2,705,000       2,705,000 
    Fire research..................................      4,500,000     4,604,000  ..............  ..............
    Fire research and safety.......................  .............  ............      5,700,000       5,700,000 
    General aviation renaissance...................  .............     1,005,000  ..............  ..............
    Cabin safety...................................  .............     1,055,000  ..............                
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................     47,086,000    47,547,000     29,578,000      40,548,000 
                                                    ============================================================
System security technology:                                                                                     
    Explosives and weapons detection...............     23,675,000    33,179,000     23,000,000      30,000,000 
    Airport security technology integration........      1,000,000     2,530,000  ..............      1,500,000 
    Aviation security human factors................      3,124,000     4,603,000  ..............      3,000,000 
    Aircraft hardening.............................      7,828,000     3,496,000  ..............      3,400,000 
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................     35,627,000    43,808,000     23,000,000      37,900,000 
                                                    ============================================================
Human factors and aviation medicine:                                                                            
    Flightdeck/maintenance system..................     16,508,000    11,182,000     15,500,000      11,182,000 
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human                                                                 
     factors.......................................     11,259,000    10,193,000     10,000,000      10,000,000 
    Aeromedical research...........................      4,233,000     4,485,000      2,500,000       4,000,000 
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal...................................     32,000,000    25,860,000     28,000,000      25,182,000 
                                                    ============================================================
Environment and energy.............................      5,200,000     5,429,000      1,000,000       4,500,000 
Innovative/cooperative research....................      4,800,000     5,160,000  ..............      4,000,000 
                                                    ============================================================
      Total........................................    259,192,000   267,661,000    143,000,000     215,886,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The objectives of and Committee recommendations for the 10 
major activities in FAA's Research, Engineering, and 
Development Program are discussed below.

                 system development and infrastructure

    Objectives: To provide (1) a systems engineering approach 
and benefit/cost analyses to the development of a comprehensive 
research, engineering, and development program and (2) 
visibility, accountability, coordination, and control of the 
research, engineering, and development activities.
    The Committee has reduced the $13,551,000 request by 
$1,051,000.
    The House has made a number of reductions to the system 
development and infrastructure line item, including $953,000 
associated with advisory committee, and international program 
support. The Committee has restored these funds.
    Advisory committee.--The Aviation Safety Research Act of 
1988 directed FAA to establish an advisory committee to provide 
a strategic look at those research and development efforts that 
would encourage FAA to take advantage of current technology and 
interface with activities being performed with other Government 
agencies and research laboratories. The Committee believes that 
this is a good use of Federal funds and has restored the 
reduction associated with the advisory committee and funding 
associated with the work of the requirements and technical 
concepts for aviation [RTCA].
    FAA Technical Center--Human Factors Laboratory.--The House 
has deleted the administration's request of $3,798,000 
associated with a budget realignment treatment of resources of 
the FAA technical center. The Committee fully funds the 
administration request.
    Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.--The 
Committee supports the House position which maintains at the 
1995 level the amount of resources for the Mitre support 
contract.

             capacity and air traffic management technology

    Objectives: To ensure that air traffic management 
operations safety is maintained and then improved, to increase 
system capacity and utilization of existing airspace and 
airport resources, and to accommodate greater user flexibility 
and efficiency.
    Air traffic management technology.--The House has reduced 
the air traffic management technology category by $9,875,000. 
The Committee believes that restoration of these funds is 
necessary to avoid delays in the development of new traffic 
flow management capabilities for the air traffic control 
system. New flow management is necessary to appreciate fuel 
savings for air carriers and to support continued development 
high altitude routing systems. In addition, the Committee 
believes a real-time operational prototype system is necessary 
to provide FAA traffic managers with simulation capabilities to 
monitor and assess air carrier proposals regarding flight 
patterns and schedules and safe adoption of the free flight 
concept, as well as conflict resolution strategies.
    Oceanic Automation Program.--The House has included 
$2,470,000 below what was requested for the Oceanic Automation 
Program. The Committee does not believe that the requested 
funding for this program is necessary at this particular time, 
and agrees with the House allowance. However, the Committee 
expects that FAA will continue to support the data link 
prototype system being installed in the Oakland center.
    Terminal air traffic control automation [TATCA].--The House 
has recommended transferring $15,624,000 for the terminal air 
traffic control automation project to the ``Facilities and 
equipment'' account under the traffic flow management line 
item, and has directed the FAA to accelerate the center TRACON 
automation system program. The Committee agrees with the House 
recommendation in this area.
    Runway incursion reduction.--The House has eliminated all 
funding under the ``Research and development'' account for the 
runway incursion reduction program, and recommends that these 
funds be used under the ``Facilities and equipment'' account 
line item AMASS. The Committee is concerned that a transfer of 
this funding under facilities and equipment would delay new 
communications and surveillance capabilities associated with 
automation improvements for surface traffic management. New 
nonradar solutions and evaluations are needed, and the 
Committee believes that if these funds are transferred to the 
``Facilities and equipment'' account, the surface management 
advisor program would not be given the priority the Committee 
believes it should have. Therefore, the Committee 
recommendation is to restore $8,000,000 to the runway incursion 
reduction program.
    System capacity planning and improvements.--The Committee 
has provided $12,000,000 for system capacity, planning, and 
improvements, which is virtually the fiscal year 1995 level.
    Cockpit technology.--The House has reduced the 
administration's request under the cockpit technology by 
$1,766,000 due to higher priorities than the TCAS-IV research. 
The Committee has restored funding to this line item, believing 
that work is necessary on the software and logic development 
for TCAS-II avionics now operating in a significant number of 
aircraft. The Committee has, however, slightly reduced the 
request due to budget considerations.
    General Aviation and Vertical Flight Technology Program.--
The Committee has provided $2,600,000 for the Vertical Flight 
Program.
    Modeling analysis and simulation.--The Committee believes 
that under the House's reduction, critical support for FAA's 
free flight initiative would be reduced. Free flight is a 
technique supported by the Committee and by U.S. air carriers 
in general. Therefore, the Committee has provided $4,000,000 
for modeling analysis and simulation.
    Future airway facilities technology.--The House has 
eliminated funding for this activity. The administration 
believes that the House reduction will result in total 
curtailment of R&D activities regarding the operational infra 
structure. The Committee believes that this research is 
operationally driven and can safely be deferred.

              communications, navigation, and surveillance

    Objectives: To develop and exploit high-quality 
communications, navigation, and surveillance services and make 
them available anywhere on the surface of the Earth, using 
satellite and data-link technologies when they are cost 
effective.
    Communications.--The Committee agrees with the House's 
reduction in the communications line item to $10,000,000. The 
Committee believes that, under the funding provided, sufficient 
funding is available for the FAA to go forward on the 
aeronautical data link communications and aeronautical data 
link applications initiatives.
    Navigation.--The House has provided $5,963,000 below the 
amount requested by the administration. The Committee has 
provided the requested amount for the navigation line item. The 
Committee is concerned that, under the House's reduction, 
important navigation initiatives such as the local area 
augmentation system, the wide area augmentation system, the GPS 
interference analysis, and the GPS safety notification system 
for pilots would be jeopardized, and, therefore, has provided 
the full amount requested for this line item.

                                weather

    Objectives: To improve the timeliness and accuracy of 
weather forecasting in order to enhance flight safety, increase 
system capacity, improve flight efficiency, reduce air traffic 
control [ATC] and pilot workload, improve flight planning, and 
increase productivity.
    The Committee has provided the full amount of $6,493,000 
requested by the administration and provided in the House 
allowance for the Weather Program.

                           airport technology

    Objectives: To provide new and improved standards, 
criteria, and guidelines to plan, design, construct, operate, 
and maintain the Nation's airports, heliports, and vertiports.
    The House has reduced funding for the airport technology 
request from the requested level of $9,278,000 to $1,000,000 
stating that such activities can be performed by the public 
sector. The Committee has restored funding to approximately 
last year's level of $8,000,000.

                       aircraft safety technology

    Objectives: To develop technologies, standards, and 
maintenance regulations that maintain or improve aircraft 
safety in an evolving, changing, and demanding aviation 
environment.
    Aircraft systems fire safety.--This line item has been 
merged with related activities in a new line item, fire 
research and safety.
    Advanced materials/structural safety.--The Committee has 
restored $500,000 to the House allowance for advanced 
materials/structural safety. The Committee continues to support 
advanced composite materials research which leads to the 
support of certification and airworthiness regulations in the 
material and structural area.
    Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee has restored 
the fiscal year 1996 budget request for propulsion and fuel 
systems, which the House zeroed out in its recommendation. 
Propulsion and fuel systems line items support engine 
reliability and alternative fuels research, including the 
engine titanium consortium which conducts research centered on 
finding improved methods for detecting cracks and imperfections 
in aircraft engines to prevent in-flight engine breakup and 
failures.
    Flight safety atmospheric hazards research.--The Committee 
has provided the full amount requested to continue the 
development of ice detector systems, the development of anti-
icing materials, and to continue research on the effect of ice 
contamination on airplane stalls.
    The Committee notes with approval FAA's current initiatives 
in the area of aircraft icing. Recent events have heightened 
awareness of this issue, particularly the serious nature of 
icing caused by supercooled large droplets. The Committee 
believes that this area should continue to receive priority 
consideration. An important element of improved safety in icing 
conditions is providing pilots with better tools for detecting 
ice. The research and testing programs underway at the Atlantic 
City Technical Center on wide area ice detection technology 
have already shown great promise. In order to evaluate the 
effectiveness of such technology at smaller regional airports 
the Committee directs the FAA to add the Rhinelander-Oneida 
County Airport as a test site for evaluation of innovative 
deicing technology. The Committee strongly recommends continued 
funding to make this advanced safety technology available to 
pilots as soon as possible.
    Aging aircraft.--The Committee has provided the full amount 
requested for FAA's research in the aging aircraft area. This 
restores $6,415,000 above the House allocation. This research 
supports airborne data monitoring systems, corrosion fatigue 
research, and the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability and 
the Center of Excellence, which conduct research in these 
areas. The Committee is concerned that passenger enplanements 
are exceeding the current U.S. air carrier supply, and that 
carriers are relying increasingly on older-aged aircraft, which 
leads to increasing risk of failure, and has, therefore, 
provided the full amount requested in this area.
    General aviation renaissance.--The Committee agrees with 
the House's reduction in the general aviation renaissance line 
item.
    Cabin safety.--The Committee agrees with the House's 
reduction in the cabin safety line item. The FAA has appealed 
this cut, believing that the private sector would not fund 
research in this area. However, the Committee concurs with the 
House position, which holds that such research on airworthiness 
should and could be done by the private sector.

                       system security technology

    Objectives: To enhance the security of passengers and crews 
in all aspects of aircraft, airports, and related ATC 
facilities by developing systems that prevent or deter 
terrorist activities.
    Explosives and weapons detection.--The Committee has 
restored $7,000,000 to the House allowance, which still leaves 
a cut of $3,179,000 below the administration's request for the 
explosives and weapons detection line item. This activity is 
used to conduct research in trace and bulk detection of 
explosives and cargo screening. Given the increased terrorist 
threats and attacks, the Committee believes restoration of the 
requested funding is warranted.
    Airport security technology integration.--The Committee has 
provided $1,500,000 for airport security technology 
integration. This line item supports computer and simulation 
tools used to plan integration of security systems in airports, 
so they will be better able to defend efficiently against 
terrorist attacks. The amount provided by the Committee is 
$500,000 above the fiscal year 1995 level.
    Aviation security human factors.--The Committee has 
provided $3,000,000 for the aviation security human factors 
research, which is approximately the amount provided in fiscal 
year 1995. Research in this area is used for domestic passenger 
profiling, screener training systems, and explosives detection 
system deployment support. The Committee believes that 
eliminating funding for this category as proposed by the House 
would delay recent progress for human systems integration in 
new security technologies.
    Aircraft hardening.--The Committee has provided $3,400,000 
for the aircraft hardening activity. The Committee believes 
that the House's funding level seriously jeopardizes FAA's 
ability to field test hardened cargo containers and to write 
final hardening specifications on containers and aircraft 
fuselages.

                  human factors and aviation medicine

    Objectives: To establish ways to improve the effectiveness 
of human performance in the operation of the aviation system 
and to seek better methods for preventing human error, 
accidents, and incidents.
    Flight deck/maintenance system.--The House has added 
$4,318,000 above that requested in the flight deck, human 
factors, and aviation medicine category. The Committee believes 
that the funding requested by the administration is sufficient 
to continue its existing work with NASA and DOD under the 
national plan for aviation human factors.
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The 
Committee has provided the same level as the House, 
$10,000,000, for the human factors research in air traffic 
control and airway facilities, which is slightly less, by 
$193,000, than the requested amount.
    Aeromedical research.--The Committee has restored the 
aeromedical research funding to $4,000,000, which is slightly 
less than the fiscal year 1995 level. However, under this 
level, the Committee expects that FAA will be able to 
adequately maintain its capability at the Civil Aeromedical 
Institute for Forensic Toxicological and Accident Research, and 
expects there will be no diminution in protection/survival 
related research.

                         environment and energy

    Objectives: To protect the environment, conserve energy, 
and keep the U.S. air transportation industry strong and 
competitive.
    Environment and energy.--The Committee has provided 
$4,500,000 for the environment and energy line item. Under the 
House's reduction, the Committee was concerned that serious 
delays would be caused in environmental assessments, primarily 
in the noise area; that research and noise reduction technology 
would be delayed; and that necessary research in engine 
emissions reduction and control would be seriously curtailed, 
if not terminated. Therefore, the Committee has provided 
$3,500,000 above the House allowance for the environment and 
energy line item.

                    innovative/cooperative research

    Objectives: To maximize the total effectiveness of 
research, engineering, and development by incorporating the 
efforts of other Government agencies, the industry, and 
universities.
    The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for innovative 
cooperative research.
    Innovative/cooperative research.--The House has eliminated 
all funding for the innovative/cooperative research line item. 
This elimination would terminate all FAA research and 
development partnerships with industry, academia, and other 
government agencies. The Committee believes that funding is 
necessary in this area so that FAA will be able to best 
leverage scarce resources, and get the best return for its 
investment. This is a key funding source for cooperative 
research and development agreements [CRDA's] and small business 
innovation research contracts. The Committee has restored 
$4,000,000 for this activity.
                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

            (including rescission of contract authorization)
Appropriations, 1995....................................($1,500,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (1,500,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,500,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,500,000,000)

    (Rescission)

                                                            (-5,000,000)

    The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 
authorizes a program of grants to fund airport planning and 
development and noise compatibility planning and projects for 
public use airports in all States and territories.
    The Committee recommends $1,500,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the 
Committee's obligation limitation on airport grants.

                       limitation on obligations

    The administration proposed to replace the Airport Grant 
Program with funding from the new Unified Transportation 
Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP]. Airport projects 
previously funded in this account will be eligible for funding 
through UTIIP. Additionally, the UTIIP account specifically 
includes $218,027,822 to honor the fiscal year 1996 payments 
for existing airport letters of intent.
    The bill also includes a limitation on obligations for 
airport development and planning grants which are financed 
under contract authority. The limitation recommended for fiscal 
year 1996 is $1,250,000,000. This is $350,000,000 below the 
House allowance and $250,000,000 below the budget request.
    The recommended amount is intended to be sufficient to 
continue the important tasks of enhancing airport safety, 
ensuring that airport standards can be met, maintaining 
existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity.
    The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of 
funding is now available to airports in the form of passenger 
facility charges [PFC's]. The first PFC charge began for 
airlines tickets issued on June 1, 1992. DOT data shows that as 
of April 3, 1995, 217 airports have been approved for 
collection of PFC's in the amount of $11,000,000,000. During 
calendar year 1994, airports collected $851,000,000 in PFC 
charges and $936,000,000 is estimated to be collected in 
calendar year 1995. Of the airports collecting PFC's, over 20 
percent collected about 85 percent of the total, and all of 
these are either large or medium hub airports. DOT estimates 
that airports will collect between $750,000,000 and 
$780,000,000 in 1996, depending on the number of applications 
received and approved.
    While large hubs collected most of the PFC funds during the 
last 2 years, small airports benefited significantly from these 
collections because of the redistribution mechanism in the PFC 
legislation. According to the provision, an airport collecting 
PFC's must have its apportionment under the AIP grant program 
reduced by 50 percent of the forecast PFC revenue, but the 
reduction cannot be more than one-half of the airport's earned 
apportionment for that fiscal year. FAA then redistributes 
these returned trust funds primarily to small airports. For 
example, in fiscal 1995 $88,000,000 that would have been 
distributed as grants based on passenger enplanements to PFC-
charging airports is being redistributed to small airports. In 
1996, FAA expects this redistributed amount to increase to 
about $101,800,000 under an obligation ceiling of 
$1,500,000,000. In redistributing these funds, FAA provides 
three-quarters of the total to the small airport fund, another 
12.5 percent is available to small hubs, and the remaining 12.5 
percent goes to FAA's discretionary account that can be 
provided to small, medium, or large airports. Therefore, even 
though the Committee's recommendation is $1,250,000,000 small 
airports should not be affected because they will have access 
in 1996 to this additional amount. And, as noted above, many 
other airports are supplementing their grant funds with PFC's.

                                        AIP FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Budget estimate   House allowance  Committeerecommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation limitation.......................    $1,500,000,000    $1,600,000,000      \1\ $1,250,000,000     
Entitlements:                                                                                                   
    Primary airports...........................       444,131,590       483,594,288             348,137,445     
    Cargo airports (3.5 percent)...............        41,968,276        48,743,796              27,414,413     
    Alaska supplemental........................        10,528,980        10,528,980              10,528,980     
    States (12 percent)........................       165,560,171       181,101,651             128,280,834     
    Carryover entitlements.....................       100,000,000       100,000,000             100,000,000     
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal entitlements....................       762,189,017       823,968,715             614,361,673     
                                                ================================================================
Discretionary set asides:                                                                                       
    Noise (12.5 percent).......................       172,458,511       188,647,553             133,625,869     
    Reliever airports (5 percent)..............        68,983,405        75,459,021          \1\ 50,000,000     
    Commercial service (1.5 percent)...........        20,695,021        22,637,706              16,035,104     
    System planning (0.75 percent).............        10,347,511        11,318,853               8,017,552     
    Military airport program (2.5 percent).....        34,491,702        37,729,511          \1\ 20,000,000     
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal discretionary set asides........       306,976,150       335,792,645             227,678,526     
                                                ================================================================
Returned entitlements: Small airport/hub fund..       105,834,833       115,238,641              82,959,801     
Other discretionary:                                                                                            
    Capacity/safety/security/noise.............       243,750,000       243,750,000             243,750,000     
    Remaining discretionary....................        81,250,000        81,250,000              81,250,000     
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal other discretionary.............       325,000,000       325,000,000             325,000,000     
                                                ================================================================
      Total entitlement........................       762,189,017       823,968,715             614,361,673     
      Total discretionary......................       737,810,983       776,031,285             635,638,327     
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total..............................     1,500,000,000     1,600,000,000           1,250,000,000     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relievers capped at $50,000,000 and MAP capped at $20,000,000                                               
                                                                                                                
Note: Based on preliminary enplanement data for calendar year 1994.                                             


                           LETTERS OF INTENT

    Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI's] to 
fund multiyear airport improvement projects that will 
significantly enhance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also 
to consider a project's benefits and costs in determining 
whether to approve it for AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of 
committing to LOI's no more than about 50 percent of forecasted 
AIP discretionary funds allocated for capacity, safety, 
security, and noise projects. The Committee viewed this policy 
as reasonable because it gave FAA the flexibility to fund other 
worthy projects that do not fall under a LOI. Both FAA and 
airport authorities have found letters of intent helpful in 
planning and funding airport development.
    The Committee appreciates the complexity of assessing a 
project's impact on systemwide capacity but believes that FAA 
should do its best in this regard before committing future AIP 
funds under a LOI. Further, with reduced discretionary funding 
in fiscal year 1995, FAA will have difficulty both meeting LOI 
commitments and funding other needed projects. This is due, in 
part, to FAA planning LOI funding commitments on the basis of a 
higher level of discretionary funds.
    The Committee in the past was concerned that FAA had not 
exercised sufficient control over the use of LOI's. This means 
that some commitments could be in jeopardy if AIP funding 
levels are significantly reduced. Accordingly, to maintain 
program integrity and ensure LOI commitments are met, the 
Committee repeats its recommendation that FAA be granted the 
authority to award new LOI's only after (1) scheduled LOI 
payments fall to less than 50 percent of AIP discretionary 
funds and (2) FAA has improved its ability to estimate airport 
development projects' impact on systemwide capacity.
    The letters of intent program assumes the following fiscal 
year 1996 grant allocations:

California: Sacramento Metropolitan.....................      $4,780,000
Colorado: Denver International..........................      29,911,145
Florida:
    Daytona Beach Regional..............................       1,700,000
    Jacksonville International..........................       4,977,019
Georgia: Savannah International.........................       2,000,000
Illinois: Scott AFB (reliever)..........................      14,000,000
Indiana: Indianapolis International.....................      11,113,622
Kentucky:
    Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky........................      17,300,000
    Standiford Field, Louisville........................      15,900,000
Louisiana: New Orleans International....................      11,800,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan..........................      15,500,000
Mississippi: Golden Triangle Regional...................         400,000
Nevada: Reno Cannon International.......................       6,500,000
New York: Greater Buffalo International.................       9,558,650
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State...................       6,500,000
South Carolina: Hilton Head.............................         532,293
Tennessee:
    Nashville International.............................       2,180,000
    Memphis International...............................      13,750,000
Texas:
    Austin (new)........................................      11,430,113
    Dallas/Fort Worth International.....................      12,500,000
    Miller International................................         594,980
Virginia:
    Washington Dulles International.....................       1,500,000
    Washington National.................................      23,600,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     218,027,822

    Two sources exist to fund FAA's commitment to an airport's 
LOI. One is the discretionary portion of FAA's airport 
improvement program appropriation, and the other is the 
entitlement funding that an airport receives through the AIP on 
the basis of its passenger enplanements. Even though FAA 
expects an airport receiving an LOI to put all of its 
entitlement funding toward the project being funded by the LOI, 
this source provides only about one-quarter of the annual LOI 
funding. Thus, of the $218,000,000 that FAA has committed to 
LOI's during fiscal year 1996, the Committee estimates that 
approximately $170,400,000 will need to come from the AIP's 
discretionary limitation. As shown in the preceding AIP funding 
chart under both the House and Senate levels would provide 
sufficient discretionary funding to cover LOI's; however, 
little flexibility is left to fund other high-priority capacity 
projects not included under an LOI.
    Applications are pending for capacity enhancement projects 
which would, if constructed, significantly reduce congestion 
and delay. These projects require multiyear funding 
commitments. The Committee recommends that the FAA enter into 
letters of intent for multiyear funding of such capacity 
enhancement projects. While letters of intent would be subject 
to future appropriations, they represent an important component 
of the Airport Improvement Program. The Committee understands 
that an application for a letter of intent is pending for 
construction of a new dependent runway for Seattle-Tacoma 
International Airport. Subject to the completion of the 
required environmental review, the Committee supports the 
expeditious consideration of SEA-TAC's application for the 
letter of intent with the project sponsor for construction of 
the runway project.
    Northwest Arkansas Regional airport.--In fiscal year 1995, 
the Committee endorsed the expeditious consideration of a 
multiyear letter of intent for the Northwest Arkansas Regional 
Airport. The Committee understands that the Federal Aviation 
Administration is now considering the issuance of master 
agreements for multiyear development projects. The Committee 
still encourages the Federal Aviation Administration to enter 
into a letter of intent or master agreement that allows for 
future reimbursement of all allowable costs related to the 
approved project. The region's existing airport can not meet 
future demands because of the area's profound growth in 
population and economic activity.
    Huntsville International Airport.--The Committee is 
disappointed that the FAA has not provided a discretionary 
grant to the Huntsville International Airport for an urgently 
needed runway-taxiway rehabilitation project during this fiscal 
year, despite the Committee's expressed interest in having this 
project fully funded through a discretionary improvement funds 
allocation this year. Given that this project is a high FAA 
priority and has been deemed an eligible recipient for a 
discretionary grant by the administration, the Committee 
disapproves of FAA's delay in funding the project and FAA's 
attempt to earmark the airport's regular entitlement funds for 
the taxiway portion of the project. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the FAA to provide $2,100,000 in discretionary 
improvement grant funding to the Huntsville International 
Airport for the project no later than the end of the first 
quarter of fiscal year 1996.
    Tunica, MS, airport.--The Committee commends to FAA's 
attention the recent developments in the region around the 
Tunica, MS, airport. Given recent economic developments in the 
area, major infrastructure improvements and expansion are 
necessary to keep up with current and projected traffic, and 
the Committee directs FAA to work with officials of the airport 
on future capital improvements.
    Midland International Airport.--The Committee is aware of 
the Federal Aviation Administration's past practices on 
issuance of letters-of-intent to qualified airports which 
assists them in obtaining financing for physical improvements 
as part of the Airport Improvements Program [AIP]. The 
Committee believes letters-of-intent serve a useful role in 
allowing airports to more effectively plan long-term financing. 
The Committee urges consideration of an AIP application from 
the Midland International Airport for the construction of a new 
terminal to enhance capacity and promote safety by increasing 
ramp areas and resolving a control tower line-of-sight problem, 
and encourages the FAA to work with Midland officials either in 
the letter-of-intent process or an alternative mechanism on 
these improvements.
    Philadelphia International Airport [PHL].--The Committee 
further understands that an application for a letter of intent 
for multiyear funding of $120,000,000 is pending for 
construction of a new parallel runway for Philadelphia 
International Airport, which is needed to provide a level of 
service sufficient for residents and businesses in 
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. The airport has 
demonstrated that its local share of the project costs will 
consist of airport revenue bonds and a steady stream of 
passenger facility charges. Given that capacity constraints 
have caused considerable delays at the airport, leading to 
annual costs in the millions of dollars, the Committee calls 
for the FAA to enter into a letter of intent with the project 
sponsor for construction of the runway project.

                Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

                  (limitation on borrowing authority)
Appropriations, 1995....................................    ($9,970,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................     (1,600,000)
House allowance.........................................     (1,600,000)
Committee recommendation................................     (1,600,000)

    The Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program was 
established pursuant to Public Law 85-307, as amended, which 
gave the Secretary of Transportation the authority to provide 
Government guarantees of private loans to certain air carriers 
for the purchase of modern aircraft and equipment when 
financing was not otherwise available on reasonable terms. The 
authority to provide new guarantees expired on October 23, 
1983.
    The accompanying bill contains authority for the Secretary 
of Transportation to borrow funds from the Treasury to cover 
the costs of aircraft loan defaults by air carriers on existing 
loans.
    This program is continuing only for the purpose of making 
payments to private lenders upon default of existing loans by 
air carriers. No new loan guarantees are expected.
    The Committee has included bill language, as requested, 
that permits the Secretary of Transportation to borrow up to 
$1,600,000 from the Secretary of the Treasury to pay for 
defaulted loans.
                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The principal missions of the Federal Highway 
Administration are: administration, in cooperation with the 
States, of the Federal-aid Highway Construction Program, 
including the interstate, primary, bridge, secondary, and urban 
programs; regulation and enforcement of Federal requirements 
relating to the safety of operation and equipment of commercial 
motor carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce; and 
governing the safety in movement over the Nation's highways of 
dangerous cargoes such as explosives, flammables, and other 
hazardous material.
    Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level 
of $19,439,432,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 1996.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program 
levels, the fiscal year 1996 budget estimates, the House 
allowance, and the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year     Fiscal year                                  
                    Program                       1995 program     1996 budget   Houseallowance     Committee   
                                                    level \1\       estimate                     recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on general operating expenses.......       (521,796)   \2\ (689,486)       (495,381)        (548,434)
Highway-related safety grants \3\..............         10,800          10,000          10,000           13,000 
    Rescission.................................        -20,000   ..............  ..............  ...............
    (Liquidation of contract authority)........        (10,800)        (10,000)        (10,000)         (13,000)
Federal-aid highways \3\.......................     17,160,000     \4\ 200,000      18,000,000       17,000,000 
Exempt Federal-aid obligations (CA)............      2,589,803          80,000       2,311,932        2,333,591 
    (Liquidation of contract authority)........    (17,000,000)    (19,200,000)    (19,200,000)     (19,200,000)
Right-of-way revolving fund \5\................         42,500   ..............  ..............  ...............
Motor carrier safety grants \3\................         74,000          85,000          79,150           75,000 
    (Liquidation of contract authority)........        (73,000)        (68,000)        (68,000)         (68,000)
Motor carrier safety \6\.......................         50,000   ..............  ..............  ...............
Other highway programs.........................        366,055   ..............  ..............          39,500 
    Rescission.................................        -12,004   ..............  ..............  ...............
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................     20,211,154         375,000      20,401,082       19,461,591 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 323, 330, and 331 of Public Law 103-331.                           
\2\ Proposed for funding as a drawdown within UTIIP.                                                            
\3\ Obligation limitation on contract authority.                                                                
\4\ Obligation limitation on demonstration programs; balance of program is replaced by UTIIP.                   
\5\ Limitation on direct loans, included in totals.                                                             
\6\ Proposed for separate funding contingent upon enactment of UTIIP; included within limitation on general     
  operating expenses in 1995.                                                                                   

                Limitation on General Operating Expenses
Appropriations, 1995....................................  ($521,796,000)
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\1\ (639,486,000)
House allowance.........................................   (495,381,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (548,434,000)

\1\ Included under UTIIP.

    The limitation on general operating expenses controls 
spending for virtually all the salaries, expenses, and research 
and development programs of the Federal Highway Administration.
    The Committee recommends that a limitation of $548,434,000 
be provided for salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway 
Administration.
    The following table reflects the Committee's 
recommendation, the House allowance, and that requested by the 
administration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Fiscal year                              
           Program             1996 budget      House        Committee  
                                estimate      allowance   recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses.....       261,225       304,714        253,525 
Motor carrier safety........       ( \1\ )       ( \2\ )         46,000 
Contract programs:                                                      
    Highway research,                                                   
     development, and                                                   
     technology.............        79,706        55,772         58,574 
    Intelligent vehicle/                                                
     highway systems                                                    
     research...............       238,579        93,250        139,179 
    Technology assessment                                               
     and deployment.........        17,241        11,622         14,622 
    Long-term pavement                                                  
     performance............        10,701         8,489         10,500 
    National Highway                                                    
     Institute..............         4,369         4,369          4,369 
    Local Technical                                                     
     Assistance Program.....         3,015         3,015          3,015 
    International                                                       
     transportation.........           500           500            500 
    Technical assistance--                                              
     Russia.................           400           400            400 
    Minority business.......        10,000        10,000         10,000 
    OJT support services....         5,000  ............          5,000 
    Truck dynamic test                                                  
     facility...............         1,500           750            750 
    Transportation                                                      
     investment analysis....         2,250  ............  ..............
    Cost allocation study                                               
     (truck size and weight)         5,000         2,500          2,000 
    Accountwide adjustment..  ............        -5,252  ..............
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total limitation......       639,486       495,381        548,434 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The administration's request funds motor carrier safety             
  administrative expenses in a separate account at $50,000,000.         
\2\ The House includes motor carrier safety administrative expenses     
  within the overall FHWA administrative expenses.                      

                        Administrative Expenses

    Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee's allowance 
includes the following reductions from the budget request:

Information resource management.........................     -$2,000,000
Equipment...............................................      -1,500,000
Travel and transportation of persons....................      -2,000,000
Career development program..............................      -1,000,000
Transportation of things................................        -200,000

Other category

                                                              -1,000,000
                    Motor Carrier Safety Operations

    The Committee recommends $46,000,000 for motor carrier 
safety operations, not including the funding of $7,774,000 for 
research which is included in the research, development, and 
technology line.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $4,800,000 for ADP 
deployment and information processing, which is $300,000 more 
than requested. Required reductions may not be taken from any 
field activity directly supporting the conduct of compliance 
reviews or reviews of CDL implementation. OMC shall minimize 
the amount of funds spent on providing educational materials 
and technical assistance on the Federal motor carrier safety 
regulations to nongovernmental entities. None of the positions 
proposed for elimination shall be from positions allocated for 
personnel who conduct compliance reviews or are regulatory 
specialists. When OMC responds satisfactorily to the 
suggestions and directives identified in this report, the 
Committee will consider funding the amount requested for this 
program.
    The Committee acknowledges several substantial 
accomplishments recently achieved by the OMC. For example, OMC 
has instituted an effective accident countermeasures program 
that provides targeted advice to specific motor carriers; has 
improved its safety fitness rating methodology to incorporate 
more performance-based information; and has designed and 
ensured successful testing of the ASPEN pen-based computer 
system, which has been well received by the MCSAP community. 
This Agency has also created an analysis unit which will 
provide the necessary data on which to base future regulatory 
actions and program changes. In addition, OMC has vigorously 
pursued the Committee's directive to establish 200 MCSAP sites 
equipped with the latest ITS technology by mid-1997. The 
Committee is most pleased with the progress of the inspection 
selection system and recognizes the substantial contribution 
that various members of the MCSAP community and the University 
of North Dakota made in the development of this software. The 
recent truck and bus safety summit, which was sponsored by OMC, 
has yielded substantial input to help guide OMC's future 
program.
    There are, however, numerous areas of concern regarding the 
OMC program which demand increased and immediate attention by 
the FHWA Administrator. These include the following:
    One, although FHWA has identified more than 70 problems or 
shortcomings that interfere with full and effective 
implementation of the Commercial Drivers License [CDL] Program, 
these issues persist and will require more definitive actions. 
Some actions will require legislation which has not yet been 
sought by FHWA. As long as these remaining problems exist, FHWA 
and the States will not be able to ensure that each commercial 
driver only has one license and that convictions for certain 
unsafe driving actions adversely affects CDL issuance or 
suspension--basic tenets of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act of 1986. Furthermore, 2 years ago, the Committee asked for 
specific data to assess CDL effectiveness on a State-by-State 
basis. The Committee still awaits this information.
    Before next year's hearing, the Committee directs FHWA, 
with substantial input and consultation with the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and NHTSA, to 
submit to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a 
detailed report identifying each of the constraints to more 
effective implementation of the CDL Program; specifying 
regulatory, administrative and legislative changes that are 
needed to address each of these concerns; and presenting a 
timetable for action to address each constraint. To help 
address some of these concerns, the Committee's allowance 
includes $150,000 which shall be spent to work with judges, 
prosecutors, and court systems to improve CDL implementation.
    Two, for more than 5 years, the Committee has stressed the 
importance of a vigorous but fair motor carrier safety 
enforcement program. A year or so after the 1990 Motor Carrier 
Safety Act, FHWA responded with substantial improvements in the 
effectiveness and productivity of its enforcement program. But 
more recently, FHWA submitted information that indicates the 
vitality and vigor of its enforcement activities may be waning. 
For example, a comparison of fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 
1993 data shows that the number of enforcement cases closed 
decreased, the amount of civil penalties assessed and collected 
decreased, and the number of compliance reviews conducted by 
Federal safety specialists decreased. The Committee is 
especially displeased that the number of reviews of hazardous 
materials carriers and shippers also has dropped precipitously 
during the last few years. Unfortunately, OMC has disbanded its 
hazardous materials unit in headquarters, leaving less central 
leadership for the 30 or more Hazmat safety specialists and 
managers in the field.
    While this decrease in the vitality of OMC's enforcement 
presence was occurring, the number of deaths resulting from 
crashes involving trucks weighing 10,000 pounds or more has 
been increasing, going from 4,767 in 1992, 4,849 in 1993, to 
5,112 in 1994. The number of non-fatal injuries from crashes 
involving these trucks also increased from 109,000 in 1992 to 
133,000 in 1994. With roughly one-third of the vehicles/or 
drivers declared out-of-service for critical safety violations 
at the roadside, and with about 40 percent of rated carriers 
unable to achieve a satisfactory safety rating, there is no 
excuse for anything less than a vigorous enforcement program. 
The Committee repeats the finding of Congress in the Motor 
Carrier Safety Act of 1990 which stated, `` relying primarily 
upon voluntary compliance methods has not resulted in an 
acceptable level of commercial motor vehicle safety.''
    Although the extraction of civil penalties is not an end 
onto itself, there is substantial documentation that this 
method of promoting compliance gets the attention of many of 
those truck and bus companies that violate the Federal motor 
carrier safety regulations. The Committee is concerned that the 
benefit to be derived from this enforcement tool is not being 
maximized. OMC needs to remember that a strong civil penalty 
program helps promote compliance with the safety requirements 
and reduces risks to the public.
    In response to concerns raised in last year's report, the 
FHWA Administrator wrote the Committee stating that 
``Enforcement casework from Federal staff reviews has likely 
reached a peak for a variety of reasons * * *.'' The Committee 
vigorously questions whether FHWA should be willing to settle 
for stagnation in its enforcement workload in order to 
accommodate the achievement of other missions.
    The Committee believes that too much time spent on total 
quality management task forces, education and technical 
assistance on regulatory requirements, economic regulatory 
compliance issues related to the international fuel tax 
agreement and the International Registration Program, 
unnecessary training unrelated to the basic missions of the 
Agency, and lengthy strategic planning sessions are interfering 
with the fundamental mission of OMC. The Office of the 
Secretary and the FHWA Administrator are urged to reduce 
unnecessary demands on OMC that interfere with the conduct of 
basic safety functions, especially those related to enforcement 
activities.
    Time spent on these secondary activities needs to be 
balanced with more time spent on the primary safety/enforcement 
mission of the Agency. Accordingly, the Committee directs OMC 
to maximize the safety and compliance benefits derived from the 
work of OMC safety specialists. This strategy must include an 
increase in the number of more effective compliance reviews. 
The Committee reminds the Administrator that the Motor Carrier 
Safety Acts of 1984 and 1990 are clear legislative statements 
of the congressional intent that enforcement is a critical 
function of OMC.
    FHWA stated to the Committee that ``* * * our efforts 
should be measured by improvements in safety.'' The Committee 
would like to see quantitative evidence next year of 
improvements in safety statistics and a revitalization of a 
much stronger enforcement program. The Committee requests the 
Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers to review critical 
positions in the field and in headquarters to examine whether 
additional positions can be assigned to conduct an increased 
number of targeted compliance reviews and other effective 
safety strategies, to consider how the hazardous materials 
program can be revitalized, and to evaluate the use of field 
staff time on activities other than CDL implementation, MCSAP, 
and compliance reviews.
    The Committee strongly believes that the best customer 
service that OMC can provide is to ensure that the public 
suffers less of the tragic results of crashes involving 
commercial motor vehicles.
    In fairness to OMC, it should be noted that this Agency is 
spending a substantial amount of time working with its State 
partners to improve their activities. This training activity 
may reduce the productivity of Federal personnel in the short 
term, but over the long term, it improves the Federal/State 
partnership in commercial motor vehicle safety. OMC also can 
document many cases in which a motor carrier that was subject 
to intensive scrutiny or enforcement actions by OMC improved 
its safety rating and had a reduction in accident frequency.
    Three, some OMC regional directors are dedicated toward 
implementing a vigorous enforcement program, others appear to 
be less inclined. Data submitted by FHWA show that three of the 
regions are issuing more than 90 percent of the compliance or 
consent orders and that six of the regions are rarely using 
these enforcement tools. The Committee directs FHWA to issue 
comprehensive, uniform, and updated guidance for more effective 
and uniform implementation of its enforcement program.
    Four, although the Committee was assured that FHWA would 
use fiscal year 1995 funds to conduct a study on the role of 
shippers in promoting noncompliance with the safety 
regulations, this contract was postponed without prior notice 
to the Committee. Fiscal year 1996 research funds will be used 
to support contract work in this area.
    Five, despite the 1991 MCSAP reauthorization statute, only 
three States conduct onsite reviews of hazardous materials 
shippers. Despite encouragement from the Committee, FHWA has 
not been persuasive in convincing States to expand the scope of 
their coverage to this key component of hazardous materials 
transportation safety.
    In view of these illustrative concerns, which are probably 
symptomatic of an array of problems, the Committee directs 
FHWA's Office of Program Review to conduct a comprehensive 
review of the functioning and operation of the Office of Motor 
Carriers. At a minimum, the following topics should be 
considered: the adequacy of the civil penalty process in light 
of an increasing number of fatalities and injuries resulting 
from crashes involving commercial motor vehicles, ways to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the compliance 
review process, and ways to assign more staff to the field to 
increase contact with the commercial motor vehicle industry. 
This review and relevant recommendations for improvement should 
be submitted to the FHWA Administrator with copies forwarded to 
the House and Senate Committee's on Appropriations before June 
1996.
    FHWA is unlikely for at least 2 or more years to issue 
final regulations to revise current hours-of-duty status 
(hours-of-service) requirements and address all of the concerns 
raised by the NTSB in its recent work on driver fatigue. FHWA 
has been working on possible revisions to these regulations 
since the 1970's, with an intensified program since the late 
1980's. Although the issues involved are indeed complex, the 
Committee believes this rulemaking process must be placed on a 
definitive timetable. The Committee directs FHWA to issue an 
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with a variety 
of fatigue-related issues (including 8 hours of continuous 
sleep after 10 hours of driving, loading and unloading 
operations, automated and tamper-proof recording devices, rest 
and recovery cycles, fatigue and stress in longer combination 
vehicles, fitness for duty, and other appropriate regulatory 
and enforcement countermeasures for reducing fatigue-related 
incidents and increasing driver alertness) no later than March 
1, 1996. This ANPRM must be followed by an NPRM within 1 year, 
and a final rulemaking or a final decision not to proceed with 
additional regulations in this area no later than 2 years 
thereafter. FHWA should not expect any substantial funding 
increase in its motor carrier research or operations programs 
unless satisfactory progress is demonstrated in this area.

             highway research, development, and technology

    The Committee recommends a total of $58,574,000 to be 
distributed as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Budget                                  
               Activity/program element                   Program     estimate,   Houseallowance     Committee  
                                                        level, 1995      1996                     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway research and development:                                                                               
    Safety............................................        7,768        9,690          8,768           9,790 
    Materials.........................................        5,451  ...........  ..............  ..............
    Pavements.........................................        7,476        9,283          9,247          10,027 
    Structures........................................        6,311       12,486         13,211          13,211 
    Environment.......................................        5,593        6,481          5,593           5,593 
    Right-of-way......................................          429          429            429             429 
    Policy............................................        6,681        8,434          5,681           5,681 
    Planning..........................................        6,069        7,895          6,069           6,069 
    Motor carrier.....................................        7,774        9,008          6,774           7,774 
    NSTC priority projects............................  ...........       16,000  ..............  ..............
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total, highway research and development.........       53,552       79,706         55,772          58,574 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Safety.--The Committee recommends $9,790,000 for highway 
safety research and development [R&D]. The combination of 
various ISTEA and general operating expenses [GOE] funds will 
result in a fiscal year 1996 highway safety R&D program of not 
less than $13,790,000 of new authority. This amount is derived 
by adding $9,790,000 of GOE funds and $4,000,000 for safety R&D 
out of the section 6005 program. During fiscal year 1995, FHWA 
plans to spend $4,000,000 on safety R&D out of the section 6005 
program. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 
$100,000 to be allocated to a national organization to help 
implement ongoing public information and education campaigns 
conducted by State and local volunteers working to promote 
highway/rail grade crossing safety.
    The Committee also supports the development of enhanced 
research and demonstration activities into a safety initiative 
for older drivers and special user groups. An older drivers 
initiative should seek to demonstrate technologies and 
practices that improve the driving performance of older drivers 
at risk of losing their licenses to operate motor vehicles. 
Demonstration activities should be conducted initially in 
States which have the highest population of aging citizens for 
which driving is their primary means of mobility.
    Pavements.--The Committee recommends $10,027,000 for 
pavements R&D, including $1,000,000 to advance the use of high 
performance concrete as proposed by the National Science and 
Technology Council [NSTC]. In addition, the Committee 
reiterates its support for research in composite materials and 
directs that not less than $1,000,000 be available for a joint 
university/industry effort in the area where Federal funding is 
privately matched (which could include in-kind contributions).
    Structures.--The Committee recommends $13,211,000 for 
structures R&D, including $3,000,000 for a project proposed by 
the NSTC.
    Structures research deals with construction, repair, and 
rehabilitation of the highway infrastructure; system management 
to increase service life; and structural safety for heavier 
traffic loads on highway bridges.
    Environment.--The Committee has provided the same level of 
funding as provided in fiscal year 1995.
    Transportation systems noise prediction.--The Committee 
recognizes that transportation systems represent a major source 
of community noise. The Department has a continuing 
responsibility to monitor the environmental impact of such 
noise and provide guidance to States and local communities on 
the impact of changing traffic patterns, new construction and 
other transportation related noise.
    The Committee supports a grant to the National Center for 
Physical Acoustics to develop and verify improved models to 
predict community noise. The Secretary will establish sources 
and scenarios of highest priority to the Department and may 
choose to direct the National Center for Physical Acoustics to 
apply acoustic or ultrasonic techniques to monitor traffic and/
or pipeline maintenance.
    Right-of-way.--The Committee has provided the full amount 
requested by the administration.
    Policy.--The Committee has provided $5,681,000 for policy 
research which is $1,000,000 below the fiscal year 1995 level. 
The Committee encourages FHWA to continue its work on private 
sector participation in highway financing.
    Planning.--The goal of the planning program is to develop 
and disseminate improved planning methods, congestion 
management procedures, intermodal procedures, statewide 
planning methods, and to assist State and local transportation 
agencies. The Committee has included $6,069,000, the same as 
the fiscal year 1995 level and the House allowance.
    Motor carrier.--Because of budgetary limitations and 
inadequate justification of portions of the request, the 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,774,000 for motor 
carrier research. The Committee notes the substantial expansion 
of this program during the last few years and suggests that a 
more careful review of research proposals by experts within and 
outside of FHWA is needed. Associated funding such as the ITS/
CVO program and MCSAP R&D also has increased in recent years. 
Research projects funded in these areas were previously 
included under this category.
    In Senate Report 103-150, the Committee complimented OMC 
for its first 5-year strategic plan on motor carrier research. 
The Committee agrees with the House that an updated plan is 
necessary and requests that this plan also review the progress 
made against the objectives specified in the first strategic 
plan previously submitted to the Committee. A draft plan should 
be submitted for review by the National Motor Carrier Advisory 
Committee during its September 1996 meeting as well as by other 
experts within and outside FHWA for comment. The plan will pay 
particular attention to the future course of OMC's human 
factors research with special emphasis on driver fatigue. The 
plan will identify the scope and nature of future projects in 
this area, and present an analysis of how this research lays 
the foundation for timely rulemakings and responses to relevant 
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. 
The plan will detail how and when FHWA will complete research 
on questions pertaining to work and rest cycles, off-duty time, 
and adequate rest in team driving operations. An initial draft 
of the final plan shall be submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations before April 1, 1996, and the 
final plan shall be submitted no later than February 1, 1997. 
The plan also should detail the future direction of the ITS/CVO 
program and the MCSAP R&D activities.
    Because the scientific basis for future rulemakings must be 
sound, FHWA is directed to restructure its fiscal year 1996 
research program in such a way as to ensure that not less than 
$2,000,000 of the funds appropriated for motor carrier R&D will 
be used for work on driver fatigue (including sleep apnea) and 
issues associated with possible revisions to regulations 
dealing with hours-of-duty status. This allocation would be 
consistent with the results of the recent truck and bus safety 
summit, which concluded that the No. 1 issue deserving 
attention was driver fatigue. This research will include work 
on loading/unloading vehicles, fatigue related to local or 
short hauls, sleeper berth issues, and driver fitness for duty 
testing. Furthermore, OMC is directed to sign a contract before 
November 1, 1995, to conduct a research project to determine 
the scope, nature, and extent of shipper involvement in 
noncompliance with the safety regulations.
    The Committee has included $1,500,000 above that requested 
for studies:
    (a) To identify and field test technological interventions 
to offset driver fatigue. The congressionally directed study on 
driver fatigue and alertness has generated a wealth of data on 
the causes and incidence of both drowsy and alert driving in 
truckdrivers, as well as descriptions of numerous devices 
purported to alert drivers before the onset of drowsiness. This 
study would examine the most promising technologies, test them 
in a controlled environment, and field test them in actual 
trucking operations. Particular emphasis would be placed on 
alerting functions tied to known periods of reduced human 
performance.
    (b) To determine the extent of various scheduling practices 
and their influence on truckdriver fatigue. Cargo delivery 
schedules have tended to become less flexible in recent years 
as shippers reduce their inventory costs and rely on trucks to 
deliver cargo at the exact time it is required. The smallest 
delays can induce truckers to drive faster, work longer hours, 
or give up sleep in order to make up for lost time. This study 
would survey a wide variety of drivers, motor carriers, and 
shippers to determine the prevalence of various scheduling 
practices, and randomly sample driver logs to determine 
correlations between the scheduling practices and hours of 
service.
    The Committee recognizes that the amount of funds 
recommended herein is insufficient for OMC to conduct a study 
on freight mobility or to examine routing of hazardous 
materials shipments near prisons. The Committee's 
recommendation does not include any funds for outreach and 
technical assistance to regulated entities, to help complete 
program uniformity activities, or to eliminate barriers to 
effective intermodal freight transportation.
    National Science Transportation Council [NSTC] priority 
projects.--The Committee's allowance does not include the 
$16,000,000 requested for the NSTC priority projects for three 
reasons: (1) budgetary limitations; (2) the need to reserve 
funds for FHWA's core infrastructure research, development, and 
technology programs; and (3) because this proposal was not 
subject to intensive peer review through FHWA's technical 
working groups and Research and Technology Executive Board. 
Nevertheless, the Committee recognizes the importance of 
improving the Nation's physical infrastructure and has 
carefully reviewed the request for NSTC priority projects. The 
Committee agrees with the House recommendation to incorporate 
within the pavements and structures R&D programs funds for two 
key research projects that were identified by the NSTC. Thus, 
the Committee recommends $1,000,000 to accelerate the 
utilization of high-performance concrete. The Committee's 
recommendation also includes $3,000,000 as part of the 
structures R&D program to construct or use one or more 
facilities that would evaluate and calibrate bridge and 
pavement nondestructive evaluation [NDE] technologies. FHWA 
shall select appropriate sites through competitive evaluations 
which consider the technical expertise and experience 
associated with the facility, infrastructure resources, 
proximity to an established university or research facility 
experienced in NDE technologies and composite materials, and 
access for Federal staff.
                  intelligent vehicle highway systems

    The administration's request of $238,579,000 for 
intelligent vehicle/highway systems [IVHS] included $27,479,000 
for research and $22,500,000 for operational testing. The 
Committee directs that funding be provided only up to the level 
specified for the projects listed below, with funding for other 
operational testing projects to be distributed at the 
discretion of the Secretary.
    The Committee recommends a total of $139,179,000 to be 
distributed as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Program level,      Budget           House         Committee  
                                                       1995       estimate, 1996     allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent vehicle highway system:                                                                             
    Research and development....................          35,000          27,479          25,000          24,479
    Operational tests...........................          22,500          22,500          18,750          45,000
    Commercial vehicle operations...............          10,700          10,700          12,700          15,700
    Automated highway system....................          10,000          18,700          10,000          17,500
    Advanced technology applications............          15,000          15,000           2,500  ..............
    Priority corridors..........................          10,000          10,000  ..............          10,000
    Crash avoidance research \1\................  ..............          17,200          13,000          15,000
    Trailblazer initiative......................  ..............         100,000  ..............  ..............
    Program and systems support.................          11,300          17,000          11,300          11,500
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total IVHS................................         114,500         238,579          93,250         139,179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $7,500 in 1995 is counted under NHTSA head.                                                                 

    Research and development.--The Committee recommends 
$24,479,000 for the IVHS Research and Development Program.
    IVHS operational tests.--The Committee recommends 
$45,000,000 for the operational test program. Of this amount, 
$20,000,000 will be allocated to conduct at least four 
different operational tests. In combination, these operational 
tests will achieve the following objectives: advance the 
results of R&D on traffic management systems including new 
approaches for traffic surveillance, provide an opportunity to 
test different institutional or partnership arrangements to 
further data integration on traffic systems, advance CVO 
technology of critical importance to safety, test various 
elements of systems architecture or advance standards 
development, and fill critical technology needs identified in 
the national ITS program plan.
    The remainder of these program funds will be used to 
initiate two operational tests that will integrate the use of 
core infrastructure features, including those dealing with 
advanced traffic management systems and advanced traveler 
information systems, and simultaneously test the evolving 
national systems architecture. Testing the feasibility of 
integrating the core infrastructure will yield data on benefits 
and costs on ITS services and allow decisionmakers to view real 
world demonstrations of multiple ITS technologies working 
together. In addition, these operational tests of ITS 
integration will provide data to expedite the standards setting 
process. For these two projects, FHWA will: (1) require at 
least 50 percent cost sharing (hard and soft match); (2) 
maximize the use of the private sector and give priority to 
innovative financial and operational considerations; and (3) 
give priority to areas in which much of the core infrastructure 
has been established.
    Commercial vehicle operations [CVO].--The Committee's 
allowance includes $15,700,000 for the commercial vehicle 
operations portion of the national ITS program, which is 
$5,000,000 above the administration's request. Consistent with 
past guidance, the primary focus of the CVO Program shall be on 
promoting the safety of commercial vehicles and drivers. The 
Committee's allowance includes the $3,550,000 requested to 
improve and operate the SAFER and supporting information 
systems, which helps ensure that high-risk motor carriers 
receive a priority for inspections. FHWA informed the Committee 
that it plans to improve the current carrier-based SAFER system 
so that vehicle- and driver-specific inspection information can 
be provided to MCSAP officers. To ensure that this happens in a 
timely fashion, the Committee's recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 to equip at least 50 additional sites across the 
Nation by mid-1998 with the SAFER/inspection system that will 
provide information on recently declared out-of-service 
vehicles and other vehicle- and driver-specific safety data. 
This technology will be especially useful in improving 
compliance with out-of-service orders.
    Within the funds provided, the Committee has included 
$6,000,000 for the development and initial pilot testing of the 
CVO communications infrastructure. This system, which will 
benefit the traveling public, the States, and the motor carrier 
industry, will support the transfer and linking of information 
systems necessary to facilitate a variety of user services. 
These services pertain to fuel tax payments, vehicle 
registration, overweight permits, and safety information.
    The Joint Program Office and the FHWA must ensure that the 
CVO communications infrastructure, also known as the commercial 
vehicle information systems network [CVISN], and other 
associated systems will provide at the earliest possible date 
driver-, car- rier-, and vehicle-specific information to 
officers at the roadside. The testing of the system must 
include license readers and other cross referencing technology 
which will link license plate numbers to U.S. DOT numbers and 
provide information on specific vehicles without transponders. 
None of the funds provided herein will be used for the purchase 
of transponders, except for identification systems that are to 
be used exclusively by the enforcement community.
    Since automated clearance and one-stop shopping will be of 
major benefit to various CVO stakeholders, FHWA should 
vigorously pursue cost-sharing opportunities with the private 
sector and the States in all stages of this project. FHWA 
should consider the feasibility of eventually turning the 
entire information network over to a non-Federal entity. FHWA 
should be prepared to report on a plan to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations outlining cost-sharing 
arrangements and specifying how the operating and maintenance 
responsibility for the information system will eventually be 
transferred to a non-Federal entity.
    The Committee strongly encourages the FHWA, working with 
the Joint Program Office, to develop a spending plan that would 
allow completion of the development and pilot testing of the 
CVO communications infrastructure within a budget ceiling 
considerably below the $17,500,000 originally planned.
    In order to ensure that only the highest-priority projects 
are funded, the Committee's recommendation includes not more 
than $250,000 for outreach and institutional activities, 
$200,000 for emergency response systems, and no funds for a 
study on freight mobility.
    Automated highway systems.--The Committee recommends 
$17,500,000 for the AHS project. The Committee recognizes the 
importance of this long-term project to the Nation's 
transportation future and the substantial commitment of the 
numerous partners to this project. The amount recommended is 
judged adequate to maintain the initial partnership agreement, 
but will require an extension of this project beyond the 
original 7-year duration.
    Advanced technology applications.--The Committee has not 
included additional funds for the Advanced Technology 
Applications Program. The Committee notes that the Department 
of Defense [DOD] supports the Defense Reinvestment and 
Conversion Program. DOT must work more closely with the DOD and 
the Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure increased 
use of these funds to achieve the purposes of the Defense 
Reinvestment and Conversion Program and the National IVHS 
Program simultaneously.
    Priority corridors.--Four priority corridors have been 
designated by DOT based on criteria established in ISTEA: The 
I-95 Northeast priority corridor, the Midwest priority 
corridor, the Houston priority corridor, and the southern 
California priority corridor. Operational tests and other 
activities within these corridors will lead to their 
development as technical and institutional showcases for IVHS.
    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the priority 
corridors program.
    IVHS Program and system support.--The Committee recommends 
$11,500,000 for ITS program and systems support. Within the 
funds provided, training activities shall receive substantial 
priority over any outreach activities. The Committee directs 
that the total amount of GOE funds spent on institutional 
studies be less than $2,500,000.
    The Committee requests the FHWA and FTA Administrators and 
the Director of the Joint Program Office [JPO] to submit before 
October 1, 1996, a letter to both the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees detailing and quantifying the amount 
of Federal dollars that have been used to advance projects 
using ITS technologies. The documentation supporting this 
analysis should delineate the nature of the technologies 
deployed or tested. The letter should relate the specific 
amount of funds expended for ITS deployment activities to 
specific early deployment studies that were sponsored by the 
FHWA and to evaluate whether the ITS champion program and the 
expert network activity is worth continuing in light of the 
findings of this study.
    The Committee appreciates the challenge of establishing the 
entire complex of standards needed to ensure compatible or 
interoperable ITS systems. A great deal of work already has 
been expended by FHWA, the ITS AMERICA Standards and Protocols 
Committee, and various standards development organizations to 
identify, catalog, and advance standards useful for the 
national ITS program. Despite these activities, considerably 
more work is required to reach agreement on all of the 
standards needed for a successful national ITS program.
    Title VI of the ISTEA states that the Secretary shall 
develop and implement standards and protocols to promote the 
widespread use of ITS technology. Thus far, DOT has been 
reluctant to use this authority for a variety of reasons. The 
Department should rethink how it can strengthen and further 
underpin the standards-setting process. For example, the 
Committee urges the Department, in cooperation with ITS AMERICA 
and the standards-setting community, to take the necessary 
steps, when appropriate, to accelerate the issuance of 
consensus standards related to message sets and protocols, ATMS 
interface standards, and location referencing standards. The 
Committee is concerned that without DOT assuming a more 
vigorous role, interoperability in ITS systems cannot be 
assured. The Department should be prepared to report 
substantially more progress leading toward consensus agreement 
and issuance of needed standards before next year's markup, 
especially if continued support of the ITS program is expected.
    Incident management.--The costs of congestion to the Nation 
are often estimated at over $100,000,000,000 per year. Various 
FHWA-sponsored studies indicate that about 60 percent of 
nonrecurring congestion is caused by incidents such as vehicle 
crashes and breakdowns. Within the fiscal year 1996 request for 
ITS, FHWA intended to fund approximately $400,000 in the area 
of incident management and within the request for technology 
assessment and deployment, FHWA intended to fund $100,000 to 
advance this strategy.
    The Committee questions whether the scope of these 
activities and amount of funds being allocated to incident 
management is adequate relative to the costs of congestion. 
FHWA should intensify its involvement in incident management, 
which is a key congestion management strategy, and is also 
viewed as a central part of the ITS core infrastructure. The 
Committee directs that $1,400,000 be used to investigate and 
deploy better methods of incident detection and other incident 
management technologies and practices, develop case studies of 
model incident management programs, facilitate technology 
transfer among jurisdictions implementing incident management 
programs, and most importantly, provide sufficient information 
and guidance to convince State and local officials that an 
effective incident management program is a significant tool for 
reducing nonrecurring congestion.
    Joint Program Office.--The Committee agrees with the House 
that stronger steps must be taken to ensure a more cost 
conscious and strategically focused program. Consequently, the 
Committee directs the Deputy Secretary and the Assistant 
Secretary for Budget and Programs to empower the Joint Program 
Office [JPO] to: (1) exercise more vigorous control over the 
entire ITS budget, (2) review and monitor specific project 
objectives, costs, and schedules to accomplish JPO-approved 
program milestones, and (3) submit as part of the GOE budget a 
consolidated ITS program budget in fiscal year 1997 including 
the FTA, NHTSA, RSPA, and FHWA components of the program. The 
Committee suggests that these additional measures will increase 
the likelihood that the next GAO or inspector general review of 
the program will be more favorable than previous reports. The 
Committee expects the JPO to continue to monitor the specific 
costs and schedule performance of all active ITS projects. This 
ongoing process will ensure that the JPO exercises more 
stringent fiscal and strategic control over the ITS program.
    The Committee wants to ensure that ITS-related reports that 
result from the expenditure of public funds are entered 
promptly into the National Technical Information Service. The 
Director of the JPO working with each of the modal 
administrations is expected to ensure that this objective is 
achieved.

                 long term pavement performance [ltpp]

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,500,000 
for the LTPP Program, which will be supplemented by $6,000,000 
of ISTEA contract moneys. The program is of fundamental 
importance in evaluating the impact of traffic loads, 
environment, and maintenance strategies on the Nation's highway 
system. Well over $100,000,000 has been invested in 
constructing test sections and developing a practical and 
usable data base.
    The program is a cooperative effort with all 50 States and 
every Canadian province as active participants. Nearly 1,000 
sites with over 2,000 test sections are in the LTPP Program. 
All test sections were nominated by State and provincial 
participants to represent typical, local pavement types and 
environmental conditions, and to provide a statistically sound 
test matrix which represented all of the significant variables 
in the experiment. Each of these sites represents considerable 
investment of local resources as their portion of sharing the 
program costs. The LTPP Program is now ready to begin to 
deliver the pavement performance analysis for which it was 
created. The data and global analysis will provide 
participating agencies the ability to: (1) improve the design 
guides; (2) compare performance and select among various 
pavement design options; (3) improve tools and predictive 
models for pavement management decisions; and (4) provide sound 
technical data for wide ranging policy decisions. The funds 
provided will maintain the performance data collection 
activities and conduct the critical analysis work.

                  technology assessment and deployment

    The Committee recommends $14,622,000 for technology 
assessment and deployment. The Committee directs that not less 
than $3,050,000 of these funds will be allocated toward safety 
activities (excluding congestion and incident management) and 
not less than $2,400,000 of the section 6005 funds shall be 
allocated toward safety applications. The Committee supports 
the priority technologies initiative funded under the section 
6005 program.
    For many years, the Office of Technology Applications [OTA] 
has consistently demonstrated a record of accomplishments and 
considerable cost effectiveness in its operations. Because of 
foreseeable budgetary limitations, the OTA needs to explore 
with industry a variety of new approaches to leverage better 
the funding of its technology transfer projects. The Committee 
requests OTA to work diligently with the private sector to 
increase the non-Federal contributions to those activities that 
are of direct benefit to commercial entities. OTA will deploy 
as soon as possible a strategy to accomplish this objective.
    OTA is requested to detail by letter to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations before January 1, 1997, the 
scope and nature of the current and planned strategies and 
activities to implement the objective of increased leveraging 
and cost sharing. To the extent possible, OTA will provide 
quantitative data and qualitative assessments that will 
demonstrate the extent to which it was successful in 
accomplishing this objective. The Committee will carefully 
consider the success of these efforts in future funding 
decisions regarding the OTA program.
    The Committee has reviewed and is pleased with the response 
of the OTA to previous directives of the Committee to expedite 
innovations to promote motor carrier safety. The Committee 
expects OTA to continue providing such assistance to the Office 
of Motor Carriers.
    In special report No. 244 to the FHWA, the Transportation 
Research Board [TRB] concluded that the entire highway industry 
needs to address attitudes and practices that stifle 
innovation. In light of the TRB findings, the OTA should 
vigorously work toward completion of action plans or marketing 
approaches to create an improved environment for technical 
change and quicker application of the products of research. OTA 
should incorporate such strategies into its projects and other 
actions to reduce barriers to innovation. Furthermore, before 
next year's hearing, the FHWA is requested to submit a letter 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations specifying 
the initial results of the FHWA/AASHTO/NCHRP study entitled 
``Facilitating the Implementation of Research Findings'' and 
subsequent followup actions to be taken by FHWA and the highway 
community.

                       national highway institute

    The Committee recommends $4,369,000 for the National 
Highway Institute [NHI], the amount requested. NHI has 
developed a series of courses to further training, important to 
the National IVHS Program. The Committee expects the NHI to 
ensure that a good portion of the moneys provided herein will 
be used to complete the development of these courses and to 
start their delivery as soon as possible.

                   local technical assistance program

    The Committee believes that the Local Technical Assistance 
Program centers [LTAP], should play an increased role by 
serving as depositories of NHTSA documents and materials 
dealing with highway safety. This function is consistent with 
the legislative mandate regarding LTAP centers to enhance 
programs for the movement of passenger and freight. To this 
end, FHWA shall work with NHTSA to provide to each of the LTAP 
centers training materials and various publications designed to 
benefit State and local officials dealing with highway safety, 
including driver behavior challenges. In close cooperation with 
the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety 
Representatives, FHWA and NHTSA shall jointly issue a 
memorandum to the LTAP centers suggesting ways that these 
centers could benefit the broader highway safety community. The 
feasibility of providing NHTSA-sponsored training courses 
through the centers should be explored. This will be especially 
important in assisting States with the Safer Communities 
Program, a new initiative funded under the section 402 program. 
Increased coordination among the LTAP centers, the Governors' 
Highway Safety Representatives, and the NHTSA regional offices 
should be encouraged. In their annual work plan statements 
which will be reviewed by FHWA, each of the LTAP centers shall 
detail how the information and training needs of the broader 
highway safety community would be strengthened.
    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
[ISTEA] of 1991 greatly expanded the audience to be served by 
the Local Technical Assistance Program [LTAP]. In addition to 
serving governments in small and rural areas, the technical 
assistance program was mandated by section 6004 of ISTEA to 
provide training and technical assistance to urban areas in the 
populations range of 60,000 to 1 million. ISTEA also mandated 
the creation of a minimum of two technology transfer centers to 
serve American Indian tribal governments. This has greatly 
expanded the LTAP audience, which must now address over 38,000 
counties, cities, and towns and over 540 tribal governments.

                international transportation activities

    The Committees recommends $500,000 for the International 
Transportation Activities Program. The Committee encourages 
FHWA to redouble its efforts to find supplemental funding to 
help accomplish the objectives of this program.

                technical assistance program for russia

    The Committee recommends $400,000 for technical assistance 
for Russia and expects that a proportionate amount of these 
funds will be provided to other countries formerly part of the 
U.S.S.R.

                          ojt support services

    Funding originally authorized by 23 U.S.C. 140(b) was 
intended to increase the effectiveness of on-the-job [OJT] 
efforts in highway construction crafts in which minorities, 
including women, were underrepresented. State managers have 
been reluctant to divert funding from the basic construction 
program to training. Consequently, minorities have been hired 
for the more marginal jobs. The Committee has included the 
$5,000,000 requested by the administration for the necessary 
coordinated recruitment and training efforts.

                      TRUCK DYNAMIC TEST FACILITY

    FHWA has signed a partnership agreement that will allow the 
Agency to have access to a non-Federal test facility. In light 
of this cost-saving arrangement, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $750,000, which is 50 percent of the 
administration's request.

             COST ALLOCATION STUDY (TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT)

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the truck size and 
weight and cost allocation studies. The Committee maintains 
that FHWA should reduce the number and scope of the topics 
proposed for examination in the truck size and weight study, 
and focus on those items most likely to be debated during 
reauthorization of the highway program. FHWA must ensure that 
these studies are available for consideration during the 
upcoming debate on highway reauthorization. FHWA indicated that 
approximately $8,000,000 will be required to complete both 
studies. With the $1,100,000 of fiscal year 1995 policy 
research funds that have been applied to these studies, the 
Committee believes that the total amount of funds recommended 
will be more than sufficient. The Committee directs the FHWA to 
complete a major portion of the cost-allocation study before 
completing phase III of the truck size and weight study. FHWA 
must ensure that policy decisions on truck size and weight 
should be formulated within the context of well reasoned cost-
allocation decisions which ensure that each vehicle class, and 
each distinct vehicle type within those classes, fairly 
shoulders its cost responsibilities for infrastructure damage 
and other societal impacts.
    The Committee denies the full amount requested because of 
budgetary limitations and because several organizations, 
including the GAO, TRB, AASHTO, and others, have already 
conducted a variety of truck size and weight studies, primarily 
focusing on infrastructure concerns. Nevertheless, with the 
funds provided, FHWA must conduct thoroughly objective and 
comprehensive studies on truck size and weight and cost 
allocation issues examining not only on infrastructure concerns 
but safety and associated crash cost impacts, congestion and 
capacity effects, and energy and environmental concerns. Also, 
given the wide intermodal implications of cost allocation and 
truck size and weight policy, both studies must involve 
representatives from the Office of the Secretary as well as 
other modal administrations to ensure a balanced interagency 
perspective. The Committee directs that, to the maximum extent 
possible, FHWA shall ensure that the contractors participating 
in these studies are free from conflicts of interest with the 
trucking and rail industries.
    FHWA is expected to complete these analyses with fiscal 
year 1996 funds. FHWA is provided the flexibility to use funds 
for policy research to complete these studies, but the amount 
of fiscal year 1996 section 6005 funds allocated for policy 
studies shall not be more than $1,800,000, the same as that 
planned for allocation during fiscal year 1995.

      GOE BUDGET JUSTIFICATION, RESEARCH PRIORITIES, AND PLANNING

    The Committee has appreciated the level of detail and 
thorough justification that has historically characterized the 
GOE budget request of the FHWA. The Committee found that the 
fiscal year 1996 budget submittal did not provide a 
comprehensive and analytical framework for understanding the 
intended uses of moneys derived from the Federal highway trust 
fund. Simply stated, the fiscal year 1996 budget justification 
did not meet the quality of presentation set by past budgets. 
In addition, FHWA must be certain that its budget submittal 
contains its most current R&D objectives and planned projects. 
The fiscal year 1996 submittal did not meet this standard in 
every research category.
    The Committee has reviewed the Transportation Research 
Board [TRB] report entitled ``Highway Research: Current 
Programs and Future Directions.'' The Committee expects FHWA to 
consider carefully the TRB recommendations dealing with the 
importance of pursuing additional exploratory and high-risk 
research. The Committee wants to be convinced that FHWA has 
properly balanced RD&T activities aimed at attaining longer-
term objectives with shorter-term payoffs. FHWA will be asked 
to estimate next year the amount of funds in each RD&T program 
activity that will be devoted to longer-range research. Also, 
FHWA should provide the Research and Technology Coordinating 
Committee [RTCC] of TRB with the opportunity to comment on the 
RD&T budget request each year before it is submitted to OMB.
    For many years, FHWA prepared a 5-year strategic plan to 
help guide the RD&T program. In view of the prospects for 
reorganization at the Department, FHWA did not produce such a 
plan for the fiscal year 1995-2000 or later periods. In light 
of foreseeable budgetary constraints, such strategic planning 
is even more critical because the Committee must be convinced 
that the wisest choices for RD&T funding have been made by FHWA 
within the context of a strategic plan. Consequently, the 
Committee directs that FHWA immediately reinstitute its 5-year 
strategic planning exercise and expects to receive an updated 
plan each year comparable in quality to previous 5-year 
strategic plans issued by FHWA. The first of these new plans 
should be submitted to both the House and Senate Committees 
concurrently with the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The plan 
should assume several scenarios in its formulation based on 
different budget projections. The Committee supports periodic 
fundamental or zero-base reviews by the Research and Technology 
Executive Board. The results of these analyses should be 
included in forthcoming 5-year strategic plans.
    The Committee seeks a more definitive accounting of all 
administrative expenses associated with the RD&T program, 
including costs associated with research management and 
coordination, and operation of the Turner Fairbanks facility. 
The Committee directs FHWA to prepare a report detailing all 
such expenses (other than P, C, and B) for fiscal years 1994, 
1995, 1996, and planned for fiscal year 1997. These expenses 
will include all costs derived from the administrative takedown 
out of the LGOE program accounts as well any other funds. This 
report will be submitted to both the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations concurrent with the fiscal year 
1997 budget request.
    The Committee is concerned that the management and 
coordination costs of the RD&T budget are excessive--about 
$12,400,000 during fiscal year 1995. These expenses, some of 
which are necessary, reduce the amount of funds available for 
actual technological progress. Consequently, the Committee 
directs that no more than $9,900,000 be derived from the 
administrative takedown of the RD&T programmatic funds to 
support research management and coordination. FHWA should 
explore mechanisms to further reduce these costs and more 
accurately display these costs, for example, registration costs 
for annual meetings should be accounted for in the budget set 
aside for training.

                                 other

    University parkway, Jackson, MS.--The Committee is aware of 
efforts by the city of Jackson and Jackson State University to 
implement plans for a university parkway to connect the 
University to Jackson's central business district and provide 
intermodal transportation linkage with the area's highways, 
light and major rail connections, and airport access. This 
project, which is located within a federally designated 
enterprise community, will provide a means to revitalize the 
area surrounding Jackson State University, one of the Nation's 
historically black colleges and universities. The Committee 
notes that the Mississippi Legislature has committed 
$20,000,000 from the State, Hinds County, and the city for use 
with Federal funds for the university parkway. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the Department of Transportation to review 
this project's eligibility under the Department's programs and 
provide such assistance as may be appropriate.
    South Louisiana hurricane evacuation high-priority 
corridors.--The Committee is aware of the hurricane evacuation 
needs in south Louisiana and expects the Federal Highway 
Administration to identify routes that will expedite future 
emergency evacuations of coastal areas of Louisiana that could 
be considered as high-priority corridors.
    Shiloh interchange.--The Committee understands that an 
additional $3,000,000 may be needed for the Shiloh interchange 
in Billings, MT. The Committee urges the authorizing committee 
to determine if this additional funding is necessary and take 
appropriate actions in authorizing these funds.
                           General Provisions

    Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.--The Committee has retained 
language in the bill continuing the one-way westbound toll 
collection system on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. The 
Committee believes one-way westbound tolls reduce traffic 
congestion and pollution, and encourages the Governors of New 
York and New Jersey to agree upon a mutually acceptable 
solution to the problem of toll collection without increasing 
pollution and congestion. The Committee has repeated the bill 
language on this subject which was contained in Public Law 103-
122.
    Obligation rates.--The Committee has continued language 
which limits Federal-aid highways first quarter obligations and 
changed the amount to 12 percent of the total.
    General operating expenses.--The Committee has included 
bill language which it has in previous bills that clarifies 
those activities, programs, and projects that are to be 
included under the ``Limitation on general operating expenses'' 
account.
    Recycled paving material.--The Committee has included House 
language delaying the administration, implementation, and 
enforcement of section 1038(d) of Public Law 102-240.
    Metric signage.--In 1988, Congress enacted legislation that 
required all Federal agencies to incorporate metric 
measurements in their grant and procurement programs; the 
legislation was subsequently reinforced by a 1991 Executive 
order that required all agencies to develop a conversion plan. 
The FHWA plan was approved by the Secretary of Transportation 
in October 1991. In June 1994, the FHWA published a notice of 
agency decision in the Federal Register that summarized the 
responses to an FHWA notice titled ``Options for Coordinating 
the Metric Conversion of Traffic Control Signs,'' and announced 
the Agency's decision to delay implementation of any national 
metric sign conversion until after 1996, or until further 
indication of the intention of Congress on this subject. The 
Committee has included House language which does not allow 
Federal funds to be used for metric signage.
    Miller Highway.--The Committee has deleted House language 
restricting the use of funds for this project in New York City, 
NY.

                     Highway-Related Safety Grants

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................   ($10,800,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................    (10,000,000)
House allowance.........................................    (10,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                            (13,000,000)

    Section 402 of title 23, United States Code, authorizes 
programs to assist States and localities in implementing 
highway safety programs in accordance with uniform standards 
established by the Secretary. Most of the activities carried 
out under the FHWA standards involve development and 
implementation of systems, procedures, manuals, et cetera, to 
assist highway agencies in the orderly planning and 
implementation of safety construction and operational 
improvements.
    The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for liquidation of 
contract authority for highway-related safety grants.

                       limitation on obligations

    The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for a limitation on 
obligations of contract authority for highway-related safety 
grants, which is $3,000,000 above the President's request. 
These additional funds will enhance the States' efforts to 
refine and implement safety management systems, to allow States 
to pass through moneys to local governments to provide highway 
engineering expertise as part of the Safer Communities Program, 
or to conduct highway outreach campaigns that deal with traffic 
signalization, markings, work-zone safety, and other 
engineering concerns.

                        OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

    The Committee is impressed with the revitalization of the 
Office of Highway Safety. In response to a directive of the 
Committee, this Office has submitted an excellent 5-year 
strategic plan outlining its future course and direction. The 
Office continues to improve its outreach activities, has 
implemented a new training course on hazardous materials 
routing, is working with local communities to help close grade 
crossings pursuant to section 1010 of the ISTEA, has made 
substantial progress in getting the States to remove unsafe 
guard rails, and is beginning to pursue a new pedestrian safety 
initiative with NHTSA. The Committee highly approves of the 
increased flexibility that this Office is providing the States 
in implementing the section 402 program. The Committee looks 
forward to reviewing the accomplishments of this Office as part 
of next year's hearing.
    Within the funds provided for technology assessment and 
deployment, the Committee recommends that not less than 
$1,000,000 shall be allocated to the Office of Highway Safety 
[OHS] to develop and pilot test at least two new outreach 
campaigns that can be used by the States under the section 402 
program. The Committee has reviewed the Red Light Running 
Campaign and has received positive comments on this program 
from various State officials. The Committee expects that the 
OHS will develop other successful highway safety outreach 
activities, such as a project to increase compliance with yield 
right-of-way or grade crossings signs. These campaigns should 
be ready for deployment by the States, if they so chose, as 
part of their fiscal year 1997 section 402 programs.
    The Committee strongly endorses the initial actions taken 
to implement the Department's grade crossing plan. The 
Department should submit a letter to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations before next year's hearing 
detailing steps taken to complete implementation of this plan 
and the resulting progress. The Committee supports and 
encourages the work of FHWA, FRA, and affected States to 
promote the elimination of grade crossings involving principal 
rail lines that cross the proposed National Highway System.
                          Federal-Aid Highways

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995

                                                       ($17,000,000,000)

Budget estimate, 1996 \1\

                                                        (19,200,000,000)

House allowance

                                                        (19,200,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                        (19,200,000,000)

\1\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].

    This activity comprises the majority of all federally aided 
programs through which the States are financially and 
technically aided to continue a national highway system that 
meets the transportation needs of the Nation in terms of 
capacity and safety.
    All programs included within the Federal-aid account are 
financed from the highway trust fund. Authorizations in the 
form of contract authority have been enacted in substantive 
legislation. Except for interstate construction, these 
authorizations are apportioned and/or allocated to the States 
and generally remain available for obligation over a 4-year 
period. Liquidating cash appropriations are subsequently 
requested to fund outlays resulting from obligations incurred 
under contract authority.
    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $19,200,000,000 for the Federal-aid highways program, which 
is the same as the House allowance and the administration's 
request.

                           obligation ceiling

    Funding for Federal-aid highways is proposed in the 
administration's budget to cover only authorized demonstration 
projects continuing in fiscal year 1996 and thereafter with 
spending controlled by an obligation limitation of 
$200,000,000. Under the administration's proposal, the balance 
of programs formerly included in this account are replaced by 
funding through the new UTIIP.
    Under the House's allowance, which includes an obligation 
ceiling of $18,000,000,000 it is estimated that programs exempt 
from the limitation would total approximately $2,311,932,000 
for a total program level of $20,311,932,000.
    The Committee recommends an obligation ceiling of 
$17,000,000,000 for the regular Federal-aid formula program. In 
addition, the programs outside the obligation ceiling are 
estimated at $2,333,591,000 for a total program level of 
$19,333,591,000.


Estimated fiscal year 1996 obligation limitation distributed at 
$17,000,000,000

        State                                                Current law

Alabama.................................................    $255,529,041
Alaska..................................................     205,712,234
Arizona.................................................     188,031,345
Arkansas................................................     156,392,352
California..............................................   1,245,583,528
Colorado................................................     180,808,628
Connecticut.............................................     314,295,517
Delaware................................................      66,310,424
District of Columbia....................................      86,151,135
Florida.................................................     501,381,024
Georgia.................................................     396,532,369
Hawaii..................................................     107,711,205
Idaho...................................................     113,241,109
Illinois................................................     574,896,410
Indiana.................................................     295,647,613
Iowa....................................................     195,416,095
Kansas..................................................     183,721,178
Kentucky................................................     216,621,399
Louisiana...............................................     235,168,149
Maine...................................................      80,370,851
Maryland................................................     317,710,705
Massachusetts...........................................     707,804,315
Michigan................................................     378,105,512
Minnesota...............................................     257,213,296
Mississippi.............................................     166,676,059
Missouri................................................     316,288,041
Montana.................................................     156,140,489
Nebraska................................................     126,060,246
Nevada..................................................      99,837,065
New Hampshire...........................................      76,462,258
New Jersey..............................................     479,429,326
New Mexico..............................................     170,122,763
New York................................................     868,995,994
North Carolina..........................................     365,289,452
North Dakota............................................      99,920,745
Ohio....................................................     555,354,305
Oklahoma................................................     200,248,028
Oregon..................................................     191,723,048
Pennsylvania............................................     798,383,405
Rhode Island............................................      92,747,888
South Carolina..........................................     170,121,901
South Dakota............................................     113,123,344
Tennessee...............................................     304,905,828
Texas...................................................     930,208,190
Utah....................................................     119,811,839
Vermont.................................................      71,079,171
Virginia................................................     340,738,307
Washington..............................................     213,980,548
West Virginia...........................................     152,475,440
Wisconsin...............................................     262,391,771
Wyoming.................................................     103,456,660
Puerto Rico.............................................      73,062,754
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................  14,879,390,299
Administration..........................................     573,704,000
Federal lands...........................................     448,000,000
Allocation reserve......................................   1,098,905,701
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................  17,000,000,000
                      DONOR/DONEE STATE COMPARISON

    There has been considerable debate regarding the donor/
donee State issue as it regards the individual States' 
contributions into the highway trust fund and the amount of 
funding each State receives under the Federal-aid highways 
program. Congress created section 157, the minimum allocation 
program to correct any inequities created between contributions 
versus receipts. This program, however, is not based on a 
dollar-in versus dollar-out calculation. The minimum allocation 
formula is a ratio between a State's percent share contributed 
to the highway trust fund and the percent share the State 
receives from the trust fund in a given year. Under the program 
no State receives less than 85 percent of its percent share of 
the total amount contributed to the trust fund by all States 
versus its percent share received from the fund for the last 
year for which FHWA has data.
    In effect, the minimum allocation makeup funds received by 
a State in fiscal year 1996 are based on fiscal year 1994 
contributions and receipts. The minimum allocation program 
calculation only considers the last year for which FHWA has 
data, and no adjustments are made for contributions and 
receipts over the life of the Federal-aid highway program. This 
has resulted in some States receiving minimum allocation 
funding, which started in fiscal year 1988, even though that 
State has received more funding from the highway trust fund 
than it has contributed to the fund since the start of the 
Federal-aid highway program in 1956.
    The following tables depict:
    Table A.--Funds contributed to and received from the 
highway trust fund since its inception.
    Table B.--Estimated fiscal year 1996 MA Program.
    Table C.--Federal funds reduced pursuant to section 1003(C) 
of ISTEA.

     TABLE A.--COMPARISON OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATES AND FEDERAL-AID     
                     APPORTIONMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS FROM THE FUND--FISCAL YEARS 1957-94 \1\                     
                                             [Dollars in thousands]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Payments into the fund \2\    Apportionments and allocations      Ratio of apportionments   
                 --------------------------------        from the fund \3\          andallocations to payments  
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      State           Fiscal         Cumulated                       Cumulated                       Cumulated  
                     year1994      since July 1,      Fiscal       since July 1,      Fiscal       since July 1,
                                       1956          year1994          1956          year1994          1956     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........        $311,650      $5,356,849        $353,096      $6,338,522            1.13            1.18
Alaska..........          46,919         555,115         231,125       3,918,609            4.93            7.06
Arizona.........         258,719       3,795,797         277,014       4,870,635            1.07            1.28
Arkansas........         203,636       3,583,949         272,735       3,593,994            1.34            1.00
California......       1,514,363      28,686,779       2,474,027      27,730,289            1.63             .97
Colorado........         189,618       3,564,791         285,478       4,967,000            1.51            1.39
Connecticut.....         154,221       3,307,502         351,269       5,886,091            2.28            1.78
Delaware........          41,508         824,835          78,950       1,262,099            1.90            1.53
District of                                                                                                     
 Columbia.......          19,444         513,906          96,149       2,180,348            4.94            4.24
Florida.........         736,201      12,082,558         774,045      11,075,987            1.05             .92
Georgia.........         555,947       8,661,843         581,072       8,458,810            1.05             .98
Hawaii..........          37,200         710,159         289,736       2,920,270            7.79            4.11
Idaho...........          81,211       1,319,095         138,570       2,403,315            1.71            1.82
Illinois........         571,867      11,806,168         769,367      13,347,691            1.35            1.13
Indiana.........         406,411       7,518,396         406,512       6,656,468            1.00             .89
Iowa............         174,034       3,852,564         244,292       4,526,272            1.40            1.17
Kansas..........         169,880       3,544,745         203,033       4,012,817            1.20            1.13
Kentucky........         294,879       4,691,721         274,465       5,289,012             .93            1.13
Louisiana.......         250,979       5,092,115         287,679       6,759,264            1.15            1.33
Maine...........          76,650       1,514,342         125,368       1,726,438            1.64            1.14
Maryland........         252,997       4,864,984         364,846       7,543,367            1.44            1.55
Massachusetts...         259,858       5,661,816       1,063,763       9,538,523            4.09            1.68
Michigan........         519,444      10,363,710         584,226       9,457,588            1.12             .91
Minnesota.......         239,915       5,008,080         276,782       6,501,448            1.15            1.30
Mississippi.....         189,541       3,489,553         216,461       3,626,064            1.14            1.04
Missouri........         378,536       7,184,783         393,724       7,062,549            1.04             .98
Montana.........          68,715       1,342,504         175,992       3,349,148            2.56            2.49
Nebraska........         112,666       2,262,884         159,987       2,712,071            1.42            1.20
Nevada..........          96,073       1,343,785         134,447       2,257,938            1.40            1.68
New Hampshire...          55,986       1,069,824          93,232       1,565,880            1.67            1.46
New Jersey......         352,062       8,164,660         528,651       8,453,836            1.50            1.04
New Mexico......         125,161       2,168,912         199,507       3,099,838            1.59            1.43
New York........         658,624      14,068,070       1,029,612      17,127,375            1.56            1.22
North Carolina..         436,940       7,998,568         501,052       6,963,145            1.15             .87
North Dakota....          51,624       1,021,649         122,145       2,006,162            2.37            1.96
Ohio............         581,829      12,575,649         690,176      11,725,259            1.19             .93
Oklahoma........         239,820       4,786,427         276,662       4,200,994            1.15             .88
Oregon..........         189,879       3,642,633         248,129       4,476,268            1.31            1.23
Pennsylvania....         635,093      12,790,749       1,042,792      14,823,459            1.64            1.16
Rhode Island....          40,051         908,368         122,737       2,059,549            3.06            2.27
South Carolina..         251,662       4,230,696         337,016       3,961,288            1.34             .94
South Dakota....          53,260       1,090,391         131,295       2,165,410            2.47            1.99
Tennessee.......         355,599       6,385,830         384,958       6,629,020            1.08            1.04
Texas...........       1,112,402      21,279,776       1,227,228      18,568,887            1.10             .87
Utah............         109,301       1,904,994         157,066       3,396,851            1.44            1.78
Vermont.........          41,004         672,440          80,102       1,551,831            1.95            2.31
Virginia........         402,678       6,977,994         534,322       8,475,890            1.33            1.21
Washington......         270,454       5,032,061         656,074       8,444,435            2.43            1.68
West Virginia...         117,085       2,269,163         222,147       4,763,969            1.90            2.10
Wisconsin.......         295,085       5,568,256         365,406       4,987,995            1.24             .90
Wyoming.........          71,318       1,132,791         137,245       2,306,434            1.92            2.04
                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....      14,659,999     278,245,229      20,971,737     321,726,400            1.43            1.16
American Samoa..  ..............  ..............           8,061          40,758  ..............  ..............
Guam............  ..............  ..............          18,532         105,950  ..............  ..............
Northern                                                                                                        
 Marianas.......  ..............  ..............           3,998          24,944  ..............  ..............
Puerto Rico.....  ..............  ..............          85,075       1,237,812  ..............  ..............
Virgin Islands..  ..............  ..............          17,486         105,318  ..............  ..............
                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand                                                                                                     
       total....      14,659,999     278,245,229      21,104,889     323,241,184            1.44            1.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Payments into the fund include only the net tax receipts deposited in the highway account of the Federal    
  highway trust fund. Excluded are motor fuel taxes transferred to the ``Mass transit'' account of the highway  
  trust fund (1 cent per gallon from April 1, 1983 through November 30, 1990, 1.5 cents per gallon thereafter); 
  the 0.1 cent per gallon tax dedicated to the leaking underground storage tank trust fund beginning January 1, 
  1987; and the tax designated for deficit reduction (2.5 cents per gallon from December 1, 1990 through        
  September 30, 1993, 6.8 cents thereafter); and the tax from motorboat use of gasoline transferred to the      
  aquatic resources trust fund and the land and water conservation fund. Apportionments include fiscal year 1995
  interstate construction funds apportioned during fiscal year 1994.                                            
\2\ Total Federal highway trust fund receipts are reported by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Payments into
  the highway trust fund attributable to highway users in each State are estimated by the Federal Highway       
  Administration. Includes revenues from highway-user taxes only. Payments into the fund are understated by     
  $1,590,000,000 due to an error by the Treasury Department in reconciling estimated deposits to the actual tax 
  revenue. The $1,590,000,000 was credited to the fund in fiscal year 1995. Had the funds been credited timely, 
  the national ratio of apportionments and allocations to payments would have been 1.30.                        
\3\ Includes all funds apportioned or allocated from the highway trust fund except for the following programs:  
  Indian reservation roads, highway safety information, and local transportation assistance. These programs are 
  either administered by other Federal agencies or are treated as administrative funds and cannot be easily     
  attributed to individual States. Obligations are used to represent allocations for the following programs:    
  Federal lands, rural highway public transportation demonstration, parkways and park roads, and alcohol safety 
  incentive grants.                                                                                             


                                             TABLE B.--ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 1996 MINIMUM ALLOCATION PROGRAM                                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Estimated fiscal year 1996--                              
                                                                                 ------------------------------------------------------                 
                                                                   Unobligated                          Available          Minimum                      
                             State                                balance as of        Minimum           minimum         allocation           Total     
                                                                  June 30, 1995      allocation        allocation         reduction                     
                                                                                                    before reduction   section 1003(c)                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................................       $17,899,158       $30,659,980       $48,559,138        $5,922,174       $42,636,965
Alaska........................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Arizona.......................................................        61,345,150        56,381,095       117,726,245        10,890,374       106,835,871
Arkansas......................................................        39,819,410        42,639,342        82,458,752         8,236,065        74,222,687
California....................................................       392,305,532       321,283,318       713,588,850        62,057,954       651,530,896
Colorado......................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Connecticut...................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Delaware......................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
District of Columbia..........................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Florida.......................................................        49,503,957       205,227,242       254,731,199        39,640,971       215,090,228
Georgia.......................................................       190,080,830        96,065,341       286,146,171        18,555,643       267,590,529
Hawaii........................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Idaho.........................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Illinois......................................................             6,852  ................             6,852  ................             6,852
Indiana.......................................................        25,016,867        75,625,592       100,642,459        14,607,573        86,034,887
Iowa..........................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Kansas........................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Kentucky......................................................        65,648,363        46,545,760       112,194,123         8,990,615       103,203,508
Louisiana.....................................................         2,749,481         2,874,052         5,623,533           555,142         5,068,391
Maine.........................................................            87,462  ................            87,462  ................            87,462
Maryland......................................................        11,172,841  ................        11,172,841  ................        11,172,841
Massachusetts.................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Michigan......................................................        23,972,451        80,892,559       104,865,010        15,624,922        89,240,088
Minnesota.....................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Mississippi...................................................         6,444,159        22,288,208        28,732,367         4,305,112        24,427,255
Missouri......................................................        43,076,567        51,055,638        94,132,205         9,861,727        84,270,478
Montana.......................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Nebraska......................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Nevada........................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
New Hampshire.................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
New Jersey....................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
New Mexico....................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
New York......................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
North Carolina................................................        51,649,782        72,205,409       123,855,191        13,946,942       109,908,249
North Dakota..................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Ohio..........................................................       120,211,860        48,662,045       168,873,905         9,399,389       159,474,516
Oklahoma......................................................        28,183,057        31,909,613        60,092,670         6,163,548        53,929,121
Oregon........................................................        12,668,869  ................        12,668,869  ................        12,668,869
Pennsylvania..................................................         5,257,269  ................         5,257,269  ................         5,257,269
Rhode Island..................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
South Carolina................................................        20,467,942  ................        20,467,942  ................        20,467,942
South Dakota..................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Tennessee.....................................................        48,654,373        36,875,219        85,529,592         7,122,687        78,406,905
Texas.........................................................       153,895,442       144,526,798       298,422,240        27,916,287       270,505,953
Utah..........................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Vermont.......................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Virginia......................................................        73,675,198  ................        73,675,198  ................        73,675,198
Washington....................................................         9,589,941  ................         9,589,941  ................         9,589,941
West Virginia.................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Wisconsin.....................................................        13,332,797        61,105,252        74,438,049        11,802,875        62,635,174
Wyoming.......................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Puerto Rico...................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................................     1,466,715,609     1,426,822,463     2,893,538,072       275,600,000     2,617,938,072
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: With exception to column 1, these amounts are estimates. The amounts will change when the apportionment and allocation are made.                  


                                      TABLE C.--ESTIMATED REDUCED AMOUNTS PER SECTION 1003(C) OF PUBLIC LAW 102-240                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Surface         Congestion   
             States               Interstatereimbursement  Interstatemaintenance  National Highway       Bridge        Transportation    mitigation air/
                                                                                       System                              Program           quality    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................            $1,925,000             $10,685,974         $13,450,665        $8,450,507       $16,824,154          $994,933
Alaska..........................             1,925,000               4,319,187          10,902,745         1,773,523        23,137,409           980,009
Arizona.........................             1,925,000              12,033,931           9,246,632         1,323,485        11,488,734         2,668,600
Arkansas........................             1,925,000               6,192,687           8,056,388         5,822,105         9,590,170           994,933
California......................            20,864,588              53,827,440          58,034,017        34,661,074        68,307,543        29,898,106
Colorado........................             1,925,000              10,293,430          10,833,741         5,139,199        13,735,635           980,009
Connecticut.....................            21,980,959               7,113,123          11,730,802        10,553,419        20,541,373         4,676,092
Delaware........................             2,733,184               2,820,300           3,519,241         1,336,854         5,319,299           980,009
District of Columbia............             1,925,000               2,820,300           3,712,944         2,964,660         4,177,639           994,933
Florida.........................             2,155,751              21,233,239          27,601,886         9,618,880        42,879,715         6,032,742
Georgia.........................             3,233,626              20,162,008          20,246,054         8,949,274        25,040,262         3,124,309
Hawaii..........................             1,925,000               2,820,300           3,588,245         4,051,148        13,035,595           980,009
Idaho...........................             1,925,000               5,198,259           5,382,368         1,412,106         7,854,484           980,009
Illinois........................            33,183,164              19,443,753          26,773,830        19,242,032        33,698,272         9,737,830
Indiana.........................            11,664,152              12,595,137          15,043,028         7,176,980        20,787,848         2,239,459
Iowa............................             1,925,000               7,820,039          10,833,741         8,130,276        13,270,892           980,009
Kansas..........................             7,083,181               8,011,250           9,867,674         8,190,786        10,438,446           980,009
Kentucky........................             2,194,246               9,760,068          11,385,778         6,887,899        14,101,382         1,461,399
Louisiana.......................             1,925,000              10,091,011          11,629,221        12,369,453         8,668,273           994,933
Maine...........................             2,656,193               2,820,300           4,347,297         3,587,175         5,323,625           980,009
Maryland........................            10,740,258               9,300,365          10,998,721         7,762,522        12,422,411         6,263,337
Massachusetts...................            19,786,713               9,529,792          13,110,896        23,252,006         3,126,279         8,184,610
Michigan........................            15,937,158              18,320,933          19,615,554        14,330,275        19,787,367         5,869,854
Minnesota.......................             1,925,000              10,776,149          12,006,821         5,318,188        16,218,789           980,009
Mississippi.....................             1,925,000               6,730,216           8,756,944         7,695,379         9,007,357           994,933
Missouri........................             5,196,899              15,111,180          17,093,554        17,759,248        13,055,178         2,001,756
Montana.........................             1,925,000               8,776,916           7,590,519         2,354,057         9,287,173           980,009
Nebraska........................             1,925,000               4,556,003           7,495,944         5,431,372        10,070,605           994,933
Nevada..........................             1,925,000               4,965,939           5,394,277         1,323,485         8,108,747           994,933
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                TABLE C.--ESTIMATED REDUCED AMOUNTS PER SECTION 1003(C) OF PUBLIC LAW 102-240--Continued                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Donor State      Apportionment                          Minimum        Demonstration                   
                   States                           bonus          adjustment         Subtotal         allocation         projects            Total     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................        $5,026,558          $357,935       $57,715,727        $5,922,174        $5,884,804       $69,522,704
Alaska......................................  ................         5,632,043        48,669,917  ................  ................        48,669,917
Arizona.....................................         1,610,645         3,951,310        44,248,337        10,890,374           454,000        55,592,711
Arkansas....................................         1,967,513         2,964,017        37,512,813         8,236,065        12,672,724        58,421,602
California..................................        10,194,090  ................       275,786,858        62,057,954        13,501,686       351,346,498
Colorado....................................  ................  ................        42,907,014  ................           107,918        43,014,932
Connecticut.................................  ................  ................        76,595,767  ................         2,954,719        79,550,487
Delaware....................................  ................         1,015,451        17,724,338  ................  ................        17,724,338
District of Columbia........................  ................           825,017        17,420,495  ................           822,409        18,242,904
Florida.....................................         5,142,394           408,190       115,072,796        39,640,971         6,681,982       161,395,750
Georgia.....................................         4,146,099         3,672,069        88,573,701        18,555,643         4,130,206       111,259,550
Hawaii......................................  ................  ................        26,400,298  ................           223,279        26,623,577
Idaho.......................................  ................         4,768,594        27,520,820  ................         2,619,801        30,140,622
Illinois....................................  ................        20,666,136       162,745,018  ................         9,334,159       172,079,177
Indiana.....................................         9,292,189  ................        78,798,793        14,607,573         3,531,522        96,937,888
Iowa........................................  ................         3,494,447        46,454,403  ................         4,232,133        50,686,536
Kansas......................................  ................         4,325,617        48,896,963  ................         2,716,556        51,613,519
Kentucky....................................         5,746,363  ................        51,537,135         8,990,615           803,803        61,331,553
Louisiana...................................         2,402,865         7,187,037        55,267,792           555,142         2,603,614        58,426,548
Maine.......................................  ................         1,187,241        20,901,841  ................         6,962,569        27,864,410
Maryland....................................  ................  ................        57,487,614  ................         3,576,178        61,063,792
Massachusetts...............................  ................         4,720,583        81,710,879  ................           219,557        81,930,436
Michigan....................................         7,613,106  ................       101,474,247        15,624,922         4,616,656       121,715,824
Minnesota...................................  ................        12,766,617        59,991,574  ................         7,767,860        67,759,434
Mississippi.................................         1,515,048         3,267,038        39,891,915         4,305,112         1,228,962        45,425,989
Missouri....................................         5,265,110         1,720,647        77,203,571         9,861,727         5,361,401        92,426,699
Montana.....................................  ................         6,363,578        37,277,252  ................           669,836        37,947,088
Nebraska....................................  ................           205,345        30,679,202  ................           931,071        31,610,274
Nevada......................................  ................         1,823,046        24,535,427  ................         3,365,147        27,900,574
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                TABLE C.--ESTIMATED REDUCED AMOUNTS PER SECTION 1003(C) OF PUBLIC LAW 102-240--Continued                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Surface         Congestion   
             States               Interstatereimbursement  Interstatemaintenance  National Highway       Bridge        Transportation    mitigation air/
                                                                                       System                              Program           quality    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire...................             1,925,000               2,820,300           4,209,288         2,708,199         5,839,170           980,009
New Jersey......................            24,675,647               6,130,994          18,284,498        27,577,423        15,656,798        11,638,640
New Mexico......................             1,925,000               9,062,561           7,383,505         1,659,068         9,128,518           980,009
New York........................            64,980,488              20,446,145          38,250,330        52,939,412        29,210,303        21,236,474
North Carolina..................             2,502,211              11,822,875          17,724,054        14,122,965        21,483,921           994,933
North Dakota....................             1,925,000               4,307,369           5,175,354         1,323,485         8,271,863           980,009
Ohio............................            18,015,917              21,393,241          24,979,707        21,044,860        25,222,268         8,123,719
Oklahoma........................             6,390,261               7,664,031          10,557,721         8,301,429        12,520,519           980,009
Oregon..........................             5,466,368               8,536,553           8,616,833         7,692,467         6,814,917         1,183,391
Pennsylvania....................            24,752,638              14,889,909          28,792,831        53,474,153         9,518,467        12,196,973
Rhode Island....................             1,925,000               2,820,300           3,588,245         3,433,439         4,371,953         1,163,707
South Carolina..................             1,925,000               9,635,020          10,212,698         6,012,700        11,875,622           980,009
South Dakota....................             1,925,000               5,195,746           5,727,391         1,984,487         8,220,831           980,009
Tennessee.......................             1,925,000              13,889,750          15,412,221        11,194,761        16,231,619         1,761,349
Texas...........................            14,012,380              42,415,104          47,777,884        21,938,198        63,275,578        20,051,387
Utah............................             1,925,000               9,413,604           6,555,448         2,271,736         5,967,373           980,009
Vermont.........................             1,925,000               2,820,300           3,795,259         2,901,615         4,544,990           980,009
Virginia........................             7,737,605              15,708,156          15,342,165        10,105,866        15,280,005         4,295,925
Washington......................             5,081,413              12,194,969          12,329,777        12,579,675         8,212,777         3,209,678
West Virginia...................             1,925,000               4,535,081           8,616,833        11,099,042         7,581,438           994,933
Wisconsin.......................             1,925,000               7,642,686          11,592,792         6,294,549        17,269,182         2,493,658
Wyoming.........................             1,925,000               6,932,803           5,727,391         1,323,485         7,141,654           980,009
Puerto Rico.....................  .......................            2,538,270           4,098,250         3,027,118         5,728,078           994,933
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................           385,000,000             560,945,000         693,000,000       531,877,500       788,672,500       198,082,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                TABLE C.--ESTIMATED REDUCED AMOUNTS PER SECTION 1003(C) OF PUBLIC LAW 102-240--Continued                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Donor State      Apportionment                          Minimum        Demonstration                   
                   States                           bonus          adjustment         Subtotal         allocation         projects            Total     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire...............................  ................           790,078        19,272,044  ................         1,194,540        20,466,584
New Jersey..................................  ................        10,598,270       114,562,271  ................         7,550,536       122,112,806
New Mexico..................................  ................        10,202,468        40,341,129  ................           401,901        40,743,030
New York....................................  ................        17,429,241       244,492,393  ................        13,278,747       257,771,140
North Carolina..............................         3,236,125         9,880,713        81,767,797        13,946,942         5,440,554       101,155,293
North Dakota................................  ................         2,564,152        24,547,233  ................         2,642,129        27,189,362
Ohio........................................        16,036,592         4,834,103       139,650,407         9,399,389         5,885,622       154,935,419
Oklahoma....................................         1,775,029         3,749,826        51,938,826         6,163,548         3,294,847        61,397,221
Oregon......................................  ................         5,520,917        43,831,446  ................         1,711,802        45,543,248
Pennsylvania................................  ................  ................       143,624,970  ................        32,811,153       176,436,123
Rhode Island................................  ................  ................        17,302,644  ................         2,136,403        19,439,048
South Carolina..............................  ................  ................        40,641,049  ................         1,440,147        42,081,196
South Dakota................................  ................         3,510,683        27,544,148  ................           696,629        28,240,777
Tennessee...................................         4,477,812         3,960,530        68,853,041         7,122,687         1,536,677        77,512,406
Texas.......................................         9,816,983  ................       219,287,515        27,916,287         9,029,950       256,233,751
Utah........................................  ................         1,904,044        29,017,215  ................           405,623        29,422,838
Vermont.....................................  ................         1,067,786        18,034,959  ................           744,262        18,779,221
Virginia....................................  ................  ................        68,469,723  ................         5,191,226        73,660,949
Washington..................................  ................  ................        53,608,288  ................         3,334,293        56,942,581
West Virginia...............................  ................         2,021,404        36,773,730  ................        11,603,041        48,376,771
Wisconsin...................................         3,680,479        10,332,768        61,231,114        11,802,875         2,660,736        75,694,725
Wyoming.....................................  ................         1,343,445        25,373,788  ................           744,262        26,118,050
Puerto Rico.................................  ................  ................        16,386,650  ................  ................        16,386,650
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................        98,945,000       181,032,386     3,437,554,886       275,600,000       221,709,632     3,934,864,518
Administration..............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................       133,455,000
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................  ................  ................  ................  ................       221,709,632     4,068,319,518
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   section 1003(c) reductions in authorizations for budget compliance

    The Committee has included two general provisions to 
alleviate the reduction in budget authority carried out by 
section 1003(c) of Public Law 102-240. That provision has 
effectively reduced the amount of new contract authority that 
each State would receive in fiscal year 1996 by approximately 
20 percent. The Committee feels that States should be allowed 
flexibility on how to administer the cut and has included bill 
language which: (a) permits a State to exchange accrued 
unobligated contract authority balances from prior years for 
additional fiscal year 1996 contract authority; and (b) permits 
a State, for fiscal year 1996, to exchange demonstration 
project unobligated contract authorizations or unobligated 
appropriations on a dollar-for-dollar basis, provided such 
demonstration project is not under construction, and thereby 
allow a State to make greater use of such funding for higher 
priority projects.
    Indian reservation road exemption.--Section 346 of the bill 
exempts the Indian reservation roads program from reduction in 
authorizations otherwise required by section 1003(c) of Public 
Law 102-240.

                     Interstate Substitute Highways

    This program, part of the Federal-aid highways activity, 
provides funding of highways substituted for Interstate System 
segments withdrawn from the system under 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4). 
After the joint request by a State Governor and the local 
governments concerned, the Secretary withdrew (from the 
Interstate System) interstate highway segments which would have 
passed through or connect urbanized areas within the State 
determined not to be essential to a unified Interstate System. 
The value of a withdrawn segment, adjusted for inflation, 
establishes an authorization against which Congress may provide 
funds.
    Under existing law, all of the contract authority provided 
for highway projects substituted for withdrawn interstate 
highway segments has been distributed. As shown in the 
following table, there remains $33,300,000 needed to fully fund 
the substitute highway projects. However, no additional 
contract authority has been provided under existing law to 
distribute to these withdrawal areas.

ESTIMATED FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE SUBSTITUTE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
                        AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1995                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated  
                                                            additional  
                                                          funds required
           State                   Withdrawal area          to complete 
                                                            substitute  
                                                              highway   
                                                           projects \1\ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona....................  Tucson.....................         $11,889
California.................  San Francisco..............       1,204,533
Connecticut................  Bolton to Killingly........      10,042,918
                             Hartford-New Britain.......         321,448
Washington, DC.............  Washington.................          78,607
Georgia....................  Atlanta....................         638,986
Maryland...................  Baltimore..................       1,562,592
                             Bowie-Millersvllle.........         415,757
                             Washington.................          47,050
Massachusetts..............  Boston.....................           1,779
                             Fall River to Providence...          77,459
New Jersey.................  New York City..............         234,755
                             New York City-Trenton......       1,388,601
New York...................  New York City..............      11,875,419
Rhode Island...............  Rhode Island...............       4,003,336
Tennessee..................  Memphis....................       1,409,446
                                                         ---------------
      Totals...............  ...........................      33,314,577
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts are in Federal funds and assume full obligation of the      
  fiscal year 1995 apportionments and prior-year discretionary          
  allocations and formula apportionments.                               

                       bridge discretionary funds

    In the past, the Committee has directed the Secretary of 
Transportation to give priority designation, consistent with 
existing criteria, to several bridges that have extremely low 
rating factors and which serve as major links for both 
intrastate and interstate commerce and which directly impact 
the economic development of an area. The ISTEA legislation 
distributes all but $60,500,000 of the total $2,763,000,000 
available by statutory formula.
    The Committee directs funding for the following bridge 
projects consistent with existing criteria:

    State Routes 1 and 9 (2AG), New Jersey
    Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick, GA
                  discretionary interstate maintenance

    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991, Public Law 102-240, authorized the interstate 
resurfacing, restoring, or rehabilitation of routes at a total 
program level of $2,914,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. The ISTEA 
legislation distributes mostly all of these funds by statutory 
formula. However, $64,000,000 of National Highway System funds 
are set aside for 4-R work.
    The Committee directs funding for the following 
discretionary interstate maintenance consistent with existing 
criteria: I-15 Spring Mountain Interchange in Clark County, NV 
and I-79, between Clendenin and Amma, in Kanawha and Roane 
Counties, WV.

                     federal lands highway programs

    Consistent with section 1032 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that provides funds for 
projects for tourism and recreational travel, the Committee 
directs that priority consideration be given the following 
projects: Olympic National Park, WA, and SR 160, Pahrump Road, 
Pahrump, NV.
    The Committee directs that before distribution of funds, 
$6,000,000 be made available for interstate access, known as 
the Chenoweth Interchange, to facilities identified in section 
16(b)(1) of Public Law 99-663.

                        interstate discretionary

    Under the ISTEA highway authorization, the final set-aside 
of funds for the Interstate Discretionary Program occurred in 
fiscal year 1995. As of March 1995, $58,000,000 of these funds 
were available for distribution which is expected to occur in 
fiscal year 1995.

                       ferry boat and facilities

    Under Public Law 102-240, $17,000,000 is available in 
fiscal year 1996 for ferry boat and facilities construction. 
The Committee directs that out of the available funds, priority 
consideration be given to the following projects: passenger 
ferry deck rehabilitation on the MV Chelan in Washington State; 
docking slip refurbishment in Port Vashon, WA, and prince of 
Wales Island, AK, marine ferry.

                             timber bridge

    Section 1039(e) of Public Law 102-240 provides 
discretionary highway timber research and demonstration program 
funding. Consistent with the criteria established in section 
1039, $1,000,000 is available for research grants and 
information transfer and $7,500,000 is available for 
construction grants.

                        HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS

    Section 1105(h) of Public Law 102-240 provides 
discretionary funds to study high priority corridors for 
possible inclusion in the National Highway System. Consistent 
with the criteria established in section 1105, the Committee 
directs that such projects be given priority consideration to 
receive these study and planning funds.

                             scenic byways

    Consistent with the criteria established in section 1047 of 
Public Law 102-240 for the Scenic Byways Program, the FHWA may 
use previously provided contract authority.

                            emergency relief

    The Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief 
program allows the Secretary of Transportation to provide 
assistance to States when highways and bridges are damaged 
during natural disasters or other emergencies. The Federal 
Highway Administration has found the Hannibal Bridge eligible 
for emergency relief funding as a result of the damage 
sustained during the Midwest floods of 1993. The Committee 
finds that the narrow two-lane bridge, built in 1934, fails to 
ensure motorist safety or serve modern transportation needs 
with ratings of the bridge indicating both safety and 
structural deficiencies. With these conditions, the Committee 
believes it would be a more prudent use of emergency relief 
funds to apply $28,000,000 to the construction of a replacement 
bridge.

                   INTELLIGENT VEHICLE/HIGHWAY SYSTEMS                  
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee    
                                     House allowance  recommendation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paralympiad........................  ...............              1,000 
Northeast corridor (I-95)..........            7,000            ( \2\ ) 
Houston corridor, TX...............            2,400              2,000 
I-10 Mobile, AL....................            4,000                    
VA/MD capitol beltway..............            6,000              4,000 
Santa Teresa border crossing, NM...  ...............                900 
University of North Dakota.........  ...............              1,000 
University of Texas, El Paso.......            1,000  ..................
Texas Transportation Institute.....              600  ..................
Western Transportation Institute,                                       
 Montana...........................  ...............              1,000 
Johnson City, TN...................            3,000  ..................
TRANSCOM, New York/New Jersey......  ...............              1,500 
Syracuse, NY, congestion management            3,000  ..................
New York State Thruway.............  ...............              3,000 
National Transportation Center,                                         
 Oakdale, NY.......................  ...............              1,000 
Advanced railroad/highway crossings  ...............              2,500 
Hazardous materials safety.........            5,000  ..................
Oregon green light CVO project.....            6,000              8,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Committee is recommending funding up to the levels listed and   
  not absolute amounts. It believes FHWA should have maximum ability to 
  maximize State, local, and private funding for these projects.        
\2\ Funding for this project is included in the congested corridor      
  program.                                                              


    The Committee maintains that FHWA should enter into 
additional operational tests that advance technology and 
simultaneously demonstrate new institutional arrangements. The 
Committee expects that FHWA will vigorously seek out such 
qualified projects as part of future solicitations for 
proposals regarding IVHS operational tests.
    In the report accompanying the 1992 act, the Committee 
stated that it was going to base funding decisions on the 
guidance and direction provided by the IVHS strategic plan. By 
following this strategy, the Committee sought to ensure the 
most cost-effective use of public dollars, allow for a 
systematic analysis of proposed operational tests and ensure 
rational and orderly advancement of IVHS. Consistent with this 
approach and the provisions of the IVHS Act of 1991, the 
Committee's allowance seeks to maximize the flexibility 
provided to FHWA in awarding contracts and in entering into 
cooperative agreements for corridor and IVHS operational tests. 
This strategy will allow FHWA to seek the maximum non-Federal 
contributions for joint Federal/State government/industry 
projects and to fund innovative projects that will advance the 
state of IVHS technology. The Committee strongly believes that 
FHWA needs this flexibility in order to continue its effective 
management of the National IVHS Program in concert with the 
IVHS strategic plan.
    The Committee notes recent advancements in information 
technology and its applicability to complex transportation 
systems, such as the system which will run in Atlanta next 
summer during the conduct of the Paralympic Games. The 
Committee has included $1,000,000 for development and 
demonstration of an individualized routing system to maximize 
the ability of people with disabilities to move about 
independently during the Paralympiad.
    The Committee notes the safety and efficiency results that 
are being achieved by the Oakland County, MI, FAST-TRAC 
operational test. The Committee recommends that the joint 
program office continue funding this test subject to the 
availability of funds. Funding of $1,000,000 has been provided 
to both the Western Transportation Institute, Montana, and the 
National Transportation Center, New York. The Committee 
understands that with this funding the Federal commitment to 
each is completed.
    In order to maximize the Federal investment the Committee 
intends that any funding provided be used only in support of or 
research on intelligent transportation systems and not for 
construction of buildings.
                      Right-of-Way Revolving Fund

                      (Limitation on Direct Loans)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................   ($42,500,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 authorized $300,000,000 
for the establishment of the Right-of-Way Revolving Fund. This 
fund is utilized to make 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. 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 highway 
authorizations. 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 that State for right-of-way 
acquisition. Utilizing this method of funding, all 
reimbursements made to the revolving fund may be reallocated to 
other States requiring advances.
    In the administrations budget request, this program was 
proposed for termination in 1996. It will continue to be shown 
for reporting purposes as loan balances remain outstanding. A 
prohibition on further obligations was requested for 1996.
    The continued obligation for returned amounts to this fund 
will occur. The Carson City bypass project in Carson City, NV, 
will be given priority for any funds made available under this 
program.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................   ($73,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................    (68,000,000)
House allowance.........................................    (68,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                            (68,000,000)

    This program was first authorized by the Surface 
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. It provides grants to 
States for improved enforcement of Federal and State motor 
carrier safety rules. It has been shown that added enforcement 
of truck safety rules reduces truck-related accidents and 
fatalities. The major objective of this program is to reduce 
the number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor 
vehicles.
    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $68,000,000 level which is the same as the House allowance 
and the budget request.

                       limitation on obligations

    The administration proposes to fund the program at the 
ISTEA-authorized level of $85,000,000. The Committee is 
recommending an obligation ceiling of $75,000,000 for motor 
carrier safety grants. This is $10,000,000 below the level 
requested by the administration and $4,150,000 below the House 
allowance and expects the funds to be distributed as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year                                 
                                                       1995         1996 budget   Houseallowance     Committee  
                                                   appropriation     estimate                     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic grants to States..........................          55,550          62,812          60,000          55,550
Administrative expenses.........................             825           1,063             875             825
Traffic enforcement.............................           6,375           7,000           6,875           6,925
CDL enforcement.................................           1,000           1,000           1,000           1,000
Hazardous materials training....................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Truck and bus accidents.........................           1,500           2,000           1,750           1,750
Uniformity grants...............................           3,450           5,000           3,800           3,450
Uniformity working groups.......................             450           1,000             450             450
Commercial vehicle information system...........           1,500           2,000           1,500           1,700
Drug interdiction assistance....................             500  ..............  ..............             500
Research and development........................             500             775             500             500
Public education................................             850             850             850             850
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................          74,000          85,000          79,150          75,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Committee recognizes the many positive accomplishments 
of the 5,140 State officers and 120 FHWA personnel who 
contribute at least part time to the MCSAP. The Committee 
applauds the actions taken by FHWA and the States, with support 
from MCSAP, to improve compatibility of the safety regulations 
throughout the Nation.
    The additional funds provided will be used to increase 
traffic enforcement which has been shown to be effective in 
dealing with major causal factors in crashes involving 
commercial vehicles. Before October 1, 1996, FHWA is directed 
to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
a report on the effectiveness, benefits, and costs of traffic 
enforcement as a means of reducing the frequency and severity 
of crashes involving commercial motor vehicles and as a means 
of improving regulatory compliance, including compliance with 
State and local traffic codes. The report should analyze the 
impact of traffic enforcement on crash reduction, assess the 
acceptance of this enforcement strategy as part of the MCSAP in 
the law enforcement community, and evaluate whether traffic 
enforcement targeted at high-risk locations is a useful 
strategy in improving highway safety. Furthermore, the report 
should evaluate the impact that dedicating funds for traffic 
enforcement activities have on the number of law enforcement 
officers concerned with and trained to deal with commercial 
motor vehicle carrier safety. To obtain quantitative as well as 
qualitative data, OMC will use a variety of research 
strategies, including a review and compilation of data 
contained in State enforcement plans, the conduct of a 
diversity of special enforcement projects in different 
geographic locations, and statistical analyses of past 
inspection data on the number of out-of-service violations 
issued as a result of traffic enforcement operations as 
compared to other enforcement strategies.
    The Committee supports FHWA encouraging those States 
without pen-based systems to use a small portion of their basic 
grants to purchase pen-based information systems for use at the 
roadside. These systems have been accepted by the MCSAP 
community, are relatively inexpensive, and save data entry 
expenses. More importantly, these systems will ensure that 
SAFETYNET data is current and timely. The Committee also 
supports FHWA's efforts to work with the States to incorporate 
modern brake testing technology into their inspection 
protocols.
    The Committee denies the full amount of funding requested 
for MCSAP for several reasons: (1) rapid expansion of the 
program--in fiscal year 1995 MCSAP received an increase in 
funding of $9,000,000 over fiscal year 1994, thus continuing 
the substantial growth enjoyed by this program during the last 
5 years; (2) concern that some States have not conducted 
adequate verification programs, including a sufficient number 
of covert operations; and (3) budgetary limitations.
    Within the funds provided for Truck and Bus Accident Data 
Grant Program, $200,000 shall be used to conduct a model 
accident investigation and reconstruction program, including 
the training of MCSAP officers on investigation techniques.
    The Committee's allowance includes $500,000 for the Drug 
Interdiction Assistance Program. As a result of this program 
over 350 drug seizures from commercial motor vehicles have been 
documented, totaling over 259,000 pounds of marijuana, over 
78,000 pounds of cocaine, and $9,300,000 in currency seizures. 
DIAP has facilitated training over 17,000 law enforcement 
officers.
    The Committee's allowance includes $850,000 for activities 
to educate the public on sharing the road with commercial motor 
vehicles. These funds will allow the development of new 
national campaign materials, but will primarily be used to 
provide grants for State activities.
    Out-of-service orders.--Since 1988 the Committee has sought 
to ensure that the MCSAP community pays more attention to the 
problem of drivers failing to comply with out-of-service 
orders. The Committee applauds the actions of many MCSAP 
States, the FHWA, and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
[CVSA] to begin to deal more systematically with this 
challenge. FHWA reports that the State enforcement plans show 
that more States are realizing that they have a verification 
problem. Through a variety of mechanisms, FHWA has been 
encouraging the States to pay more attention to this issue. For 
example, FHWA has completed a best practices manual that was 
developed primarily by a peer review group of MCSAP officers, 
working with CVSA and a university. FHWA also has sponsored two 
ITS projects to test technologies that may eventually help 
address this problem. As part of its fiscal year 1996 ITS/CVO 
request, FHWA has proposed and the Committee has recommended 
the funding of $400,000 to develop a model out-of-service 
prototype system.
    Despite these positive accomplishments, recent data 
compiled by FHWA showed that more than 21 percent of the 
drivers/vehicles that were observed during covert enforcement 
projects and then rechecked for compliance violated an out-of-
service order. State data submitted to FHWA also showed that 
some of the drivers that violated an out-of-service order were 
not even issued a citation. The Committee reminds FHWA that the 
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1990 required FHWA to ensure that 
the States receiving MCSAP have in place ``a system for 
ensuring that appropriate State penalties are assessed for 
failure to correct any such safety violation.'' The Committee 
believes that both FHWA and the MCSAP community should be more 
concerned that too many drivers are not complying with orders 
to get imminently hazardous violations repaired and are 
deliberately trying to subterfuge the intent of MCSAP.
    FHWA reports that some States are not collecting useful 
data on their covert operations even though FHWA requires this 
information as part of the MCSAP, some seven States are 
spending less than 20 hours a year conducting covert 
verification activities, and about one-half of the States are 
actually rechecking more than 20 vehicles a year using a covert 
strategy. FHWA is expected to work with the States to address 
these deficiencies.
    Covert surveillance has a valuable role in the MCSAP, even 
if used sparingly, to periodically suppress the temptation to 
jump out-of-service orders and to quantify and monitor the 
extent of this problem. The Committee realizes that covert 
verification is expensive, but this essential enforcement 
strategy protects the integrity of the entire MCSAP. 
Consequently, the Committee directs that no less than 
$2,000,000 be allocated for the conduct of covert operations. 
FHWA must ensure that these funds are used to support covert 
operations in addition to those originally planned in each 
State's enforcement plan [SEP]. The Committee wants these 
additional funds to be used throughout the year. Because FHWA 
is using a substantial portion of the fiscal year 1995 funds 
allocated for covert operations to characterize the type of 
motor carrier operation that is associated with those drivers 
most likely to violate an out-of-service order, the Committee 
directs that the funds provided in fiscal year 1996 be used 
only for covert enforcement activities, that is, to recheck 
drivers/vehicles that may be attempting to violate an out-of-
service order. FHWA will continue to use a portion of 
reallocated funds to encourage covert verification activities.
    The Committee objects to the House recommendation regarding 
covert verification for several reasons:
    One: Funds for this essential activity should not depend 
upon the uncertain availability of reallocated moneys.
    Two: There is no assurance that a sufficient number of 
covert operations will be conducted throughout the year and 
that baseline monitoring data on the extent of the verification 
problem will be available for review by the Committee. The 
House language allows funds for compliance reviews and other 
enforcement strategies which may be conducted many months after 
a driver has violated an out-of-service order. Not only could 
these strategies pose legal uncertainties making an enforcement 
action less certain, but they may allow a vehicle in an 
imminently hazardous condition to return to our Nation's 
highways.
    Three: The amount recommended is insufficient, given the 
size of the verification challenge.
    Before April 1, 1996, FHWA is directed to submit to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report which 
presents: (1) data on the results of covert operations 
conducted during fiscal years 1995 and 1996 (as of December 31, 
1995); (2) data showing that each State receiving MCSAP dollars 
is conducting an appropriate number of covert operations; (3) 
data showing that each State adjusts the extent and scope of 
its covert verification activities in relationship to the 
extent and nature of its verification challenge; (4) a 
description of changes that each of the States has made to 
their MCSAP in response to the best practices manual issued by 
FHWA; (5) evidence that the States are conducting covert 
verification activities throughout the year; and (6) a 
description of the penalties imposed by each of the States for 
violating an out-of-service order and the means used by each 
State or FHWA to publicize the actions taken against drivers 
that violate out-of-service orders. FHWA should collect similar 
data on fiscal year 1996 MCSAP activities in anticipation of a 
future reporting requirement.
    The Committee appreciates the progress FHWA and various 
MCSAP officers are making to increase the number of States that 
place U.S. DOT numbers on traffic citations issued to 
commercial motor vehicle operators. The Committee believes that 
this information will provide additional input into the 
selective compliance and enforcement [SCE] system which is used 
to select which motor carriers should receive a compliance 
review.
                    Surface Transportation Projects
Appropriations, 1995....................................    $352,055,000
    Rescission (prior-year balances)....................    (12,004,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                                              39,500,000

    The administration's budget did not propose new funding in 
fiscal year 1996 to continue demonstration projects. Rather, 
the budget proposed that appropriated demonstration projects 
that will be continued for fiscal year 1996 and thereafter with 
spending of prior-year balances controlled by obligation 
limitations of $25,000,000 from trust funds and $65,000,000 
from general funds.
    The House has not included any additional general funds for 
surface transportation projects which are authorized in 
existing law or had received prior appropriations.
    The Committee has included funding for several highway 
projects that had received general funds in the past from the 
Committee and that could be completed with a final funding 
installment. All of the funding will be used for final 
construction only and meet prior commitments. None of the funds 
are for new projects or activities that are preliminary to 
construction. The Committee expects that this will be the last 
appropriation of general funds for each of the listed projects.

Lock & dam 4, Arkansas..................................      $4,000,000
State Route 2 (Merritt's Creek Connector), West Virginia       9,050,000
Vermillion-Newcastle, SD................................       2,800,000
Springfield-Niobrara, NE................................       3,400,000
6th/7th St., Brownsville, TX............................         500,000
Brownsville rail relocation, Texas......................       3,000,000
34th Street, Moorhead, MN...............................       5,300,000
Des Moines to Ottumwa, IA...............................       6,450,000
I-10/610 Interchange, Louisiana.........................       5,000,000
             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March 1970, to reduce the 
mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses 
resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. New 
responsibilities were enacted later for improving automotive 
fuel economy and instituting other consumer programs. The 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the 
establishment and enforcement of Federal safety standards for 
motor vehicles and associated equipment and research, including 
the operation of required testing facilities. The Motor Vehicle 
Information and Cost Savings Act initially provided for the 
establishment of low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer 
information activities, diagnostic inspection, and odometer 
regulations and was later amended to incorporate responsibility 
for the administration of Federal automotive fuel economy 
standards. Under section 403 of title 23, United States Code, 
technical assistance is provided to the States in the conduct 
of their highway safety programs, and research and 
demonstration projects are conducted to develop and show the 
effectiveness of new techniques and countermeasures to address 
highway safety problems.
    Grants are provided to the States under title 23, United 
States Code, section 402 to assist in the establishment and 
improvement of highway safety programs designed to reduce 
traffic crashes, deaths, and injuries. Grants are funded as 
contract authority and apportioned by formula to the States. 
Incentive grants are also allocated to the States for driver 
impairment safety programs under title 23, United States Code, 
section 410. In addition, some Federal-aid highway 
apportionments may be transferred, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 153, 
to States that have not put motorcycle helmet and safety belt 
use laws into effect.
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$276,950,000 for the activities and programs of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration for fiscal year 1996. 
This is $63,392,000 less than the budget request and $1,778,000 
less than the House allowance.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year   Fiscal year                                 
                      Program                        1995 program   1996 budget  Houseallowance     Committee   
                                                         level       estimate                    recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research............................      126,553       144,342        125,329          121,605  
    (Trust fund)...................................      (46,997)      (59,744)       (52,012)         (50,344) 
Highway traffic safety grants:                                                                                  
    (Liquidation of contract authority)............     (151,000)     (180,000)      (153,400)        (155,100) 
    Safety formula grants \1\......................      123,000       168,600        126,000          128,000  
    Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures \1\...       25,000        25,000         25,000           25,000  
    National Driver Register \1\...................        3,400         2,400          2,400            2,100  
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................      277,953       340,342        278,729          276,705  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligation ceiling on contract authority.                                                                   

                        Operations and Research

                        (including trust funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              General          Trust           Total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995....     $79,556,000     $46,997,000    $126,553,000
Budget estimate, 1996...      84,598,000      59,744,000     144,342,000
House allowance.........  \1\ 73,316,570      52,011,930  \1\ 125,328,50
                                                                       0
Committee recommendation      71,261,000      50,344,000     121,605,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include $4,547,185 rescission.                             


    The bill includes an appropriation of $121,605,000 for 
operations and research, which is $22,737,000 less than the 
budget request and $3,723,500 less than the House allowance.
    This level of funding provides for 644 full-time permanent 
positions, as requested in the budget. The position and FTE 
levels by program are listed in the table. The amount 
appropriated is to be distributed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year                                                 
                                                       1995         Fiscal year                      Committee  
                     Program                       appropriation    1996 budget   Houseallowance  recommendation
                                                       level         estimate                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking......................................         $11,136         $14,787         $12,420         $12,422
    (Positions).................................            (95)            (95)            (95)            (95)
Enforcement.....................................         $18,028         $19,737         $19,211         $17,670
    (Positions).................................           (103)           (103)           (103)           (103)
Highway safety..................................         $39,039         $50,681         $44,455         $42,169
    (Positions).................................           (203)           (203)           (203)           (203)
Research and analysis...........................         $50,885         $52,437         $42,737         $44,657
    (Positions).................................           (132)           (132)           (132)           (132)
Office of Administrator.........................          $3,683          $3,820          $3,820          $3,820
    (Positions).................................            (41)            (41)            (41)            (41)
General administration..........................          $8,952          $9,038          $8,938          $8,658
    (Positions).................................            (90)            (90)            (90)            (90)
Grant administration reimbursement..............         -$6,043         -$6,158         -$6,043         -$6,158
Accountwide adjustments.........................  ..............  ..............            $209         -$1,633
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................        $125,680        $144,342        $125,329        $122,605
      (Positions)...............................           (664)           (644)           (644)           (644)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Adjustments have been made to the administration's 
requested level in the following accounts:
      

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year                   
                                          1996 budget       Committee   
                                            request      recommendations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking:                                                             
    Vehicle safety standards..........             850             -200 
    Fuel economy program..............           2,285           -2,165 
Enforcement:                                                            
    Auto safety hotline...............           1,667           -1,567 
    Vehicle safety compliance.........           5,353             -500 
Highway safety programs:                                                
    Safe communities injury control...           5,600           -5,225 
    Alcohol, drug and State programs..          10,815           -2,453 
    National occupant protection......           6,400             -534 
    Driver fatigue and inattention....  ...............          +1,000 
    Child safety seat program.........           1,600           -1,200 
    Enforcement and emergency service.           2,728             -300 
    Highway safety research (older                                      
     driver)..........................             390             +200 
Research and analysis:                                                  
    Biomechanics safety and research                                    
     systems..........................           7,450           -1,290 
    Partnership for a new generation                                    
     of vehicles [PNGV]...............           5,000           -5,000 
    National Center for Statistics and                                  
     Analysis.........................          18,815           -1,490 
        Fatal accident reporting                                        
         system.......................          (5,000)           (-300)
        National accident sampling                                      
         system.......................          (9,500)           (-300)
        Data analysis program.........          (2,000)           (-500)
        State data systems............          (2,000)           (-390)
General administration:                                                 
    Program evaluation (Anti-Car Theft                                  
     Act).............................             489             -180 
    Strategic planning................             200             -200 
Accountwide adjustments...............  ...............          -1,633 
    Administrative services...........  ...............           (-623)
    Computer support..................  ...............           (-579)
    Travel............................  ...............            (-50)
    Bonuses...........................  ...............           (-200)
    Overtime..........................  ...............            (-60)
    Training..........................  ...............            (-93)
    Field office expenses/regional                                      
     offices..........................  ...............            (-28)
                                       ---------------------------------
      Net change to budget request....  ...............         -22,737 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               rulemaking

    Anticipated rulemakings.--NHTSA testified that during 
fiscal year 1995 final regulations requiring head injury 
protection, dynamic side impact protection for light trucks and 
vans, upgraded child safety seats, truck underride devices, and 
rear door latch strength are expected. In fiscal year 1996 
NHTSA anticipates regulatory action on rollover stability and 
labeling.
    The Committee notes the delay in issuance of the head 
impact final rule which ISTEA required the Secretary to issue 
by February 1995. NHTSA estimates that head impacts with 
vehicle pillars, roof side rails, windshield headers, and rear 
headers result in nearly 3,000 passenger car occupant 
fatalities and more than 400 occupant fatalities in light 
trucks and vans each year. NHTSA estimates that the proposed 
final rule should decrease the number of these fatalities by 
about one-third.
    Vehicle safety standards.--The Committee recommends 
$650,000 for the vehicle safety standards program, the same as 
the House and an increase of $150,000 over the fiscal year 1995 
enacted level. The budget request was $850,000 for this 
account. The Office of Safety Performance Standards requested 
$300,000 for consumer information. The Committee's allowance 
includes $150,000 to complete this work. A major portion of the 
survey design, collection, and evaluation activity needed to 
obtain this information should be conducted using existing 
headquarters and regional staff. With the increased flexibility 
provided to the States under the section 402 program, NHTSA 
regional personnel will have sufficient time to help collect 
survey data. This will enable regional staff to contribute to 
an agency function which traditionally has not received their 
direct assistance.
    The Committee maintains that NHTSA could develop the 
consumer brochure on alternative-fueled vehicles using its own 
personnel and, therefore, the $50,000 requested for this 
activity is denied. Any funds needed to publish and distribute 
this document should be obtained from NHTSA's printing funds.
    New car assessment program [NCAP].--The Committee 
recommends $2,792,000 for the NCAP Program, the same amount 
requested in the budget but $1,057,000 more than the amount 
provided by the House. The Committee disagrees with the House 
recommendation to reduce funding for promotional activities 
related to NCAP. The NCAP promotional program is designed to 
improve NHTSA's responsiveness to consumer and media requests 
for NCAP vehicle safety test results, and as such, is a vital 
and visible liaison with the driving public.
    The Committee has provided $857,000 for NCAP side impact 
testing. The amount could provide for the testing of up to 27 
vehicles in fiscal year 1996.
    NHTSA has informed the Committee that for model year 1996, 
40 percent of the passenger car fleet must meet the upgraded 
side impact standard. More than 60 different makes and models 
will be certified by the manufacturers as meeting the new 
requirements in model year 1996. The Committee understands that 
manufacturers are scheduling new model introductions that 
incorporate the changes to meet the new standard. Many of these 
models will remain unchanged for several years.
    There may be ways to improve the dissemination of test 
results. Several experts have expressed their concern regarding 
the need to improve the display of NCAP information or to 
better explain its current star rating system. The Committee 
directs NHTSA to revisit the issue of how this information can 
best be presented to consumers.
    Fuel economy program.--The Committee recommends $120,000 
for the fuel economy program, which is $2,165,000 below the 
amount requested. The House provided $285,000 for this account. 
This recommendation will allow continuation of NHTSA's ongoing 
activities at the same amount provided for during fiscal year 
1995. This amount does not allow continuation of one-time 
expenses incurred in fiscal year 1995 for the mandated study on 
the uses of light trucks and vans.
    The Committee also has not provided the funds requested for 
the environmental assessment on CAFE. The agency has the 
flexibility to use its own staff to prepare environmental 
assessments when a rulemaking action would not have a 
significant effect on the environment, for example, when fairly 
minor increases in CAFE such as 0.1 miles to 0.2 miles per year 
are proposed. In addition, the Committee has not been convinced 
of the need for an expansion of studies on new fuel economy 
technologies. The Department of Energy [DOE] conducts similar 
research and budget limitations should encourage NHTSA to work 
more closely with DOE.
    Theft protection program.--The Committee provides $110,000, 
the administration's requested level, and disagrees with the 
House's increase of $890,000 to pilot test an information 
system. The Committee believes funding such a pilot initiative 
would be premature. Investing in a multistate titling system 
first requires establishing titling uniformity among States; 
without uniform definitions of terms such as ``salvage 
vehicle,'' sharing such inconsistent information among States 
would be almost useless. The establishment of titling 
uniformity was a key recommendation of the Motor Vehicle 
Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee, 
established by the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992. The Department 
has indicated it is drafting Federal legislation to establish 
State uniformity. Until such consistency is in place, the 
Committee believes that implementing a titling system is 
unjustified. In addition, current fiscal constraints demand 
that new initiatives are most appropriate for activities 
supporting NHTSA's primary mission of improving highway safety.
    Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The House bill 
includes a prohibition on any rulemaking which would require 
that passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low 
rolling resistance, or fuel economy characteristics. The 
Committee has struck the House provision, and does not include 
any such limitation or prohibition on rulemakings in respect to 
grading standards for tires.

                              enforcement

    Odometer fraud program.--The Committee has provided a total 
of $100,000 for the Odometer fraud program. Odometer fraud is a 
crime that costs consumers over $3,000,000,000 each year by 
falsely inflating the cost of used cars and causing unplanned 
maintenance and repair costs. These funds will help NHTSA's 
efforts to investigate such illegal activities.
    Defect investigations.--The Committee has provided 
$2,460,000 for defects investigation activities. The defects 
investigation program seeks data from consumers on potential 
defects, performs tests and surveys on vehicle equipment, and 
conducts detailed investigations to identify vehicle safety 
risks. When unreasonable safety risks are identified, efforts 
are initiated to obtain a safety recall from the manufacturer. 
The program's auto safety hotline provides requested highway 
safety information to consumers and obtains motor vehicle 
safety defect reports from consumers to assist NHTSA in 
initiating investigations.
    Auto safety hotline.--The Committee recommends $657,000 for 
the auto safety hotline and stipulates that the additional 
$100,000 provided above the fiscal year 1995 appropriations 
will be used to hire additional contractors to improve 
responses leading to possible defect investigations. The 
Committee has reduced the request by $1,567,000 because of 
budget constraints and the need to fund higher priority 
requests.
    One of the stated justifications for the substantial 
increase for the hotline was to establish a single point of 
contact for consumer inquiries to NHTSA. Although customer 
service is important, it does not need to be as expensive as 
proposed. The Committee believes that the agency should train 
its staff to refer calls expeditiously to appropriate offices. 
This would obviate the need for costly improvements in 
communications infrastructure. NHTSA should revisit its 
expensive proposal and find a more cost-effective means of 
improving customer service.
    Vehicle safety compliance.--The Committee has provided 
$4,853,000, which is $500,000 less than the amount requested, 
for vehicle safety compliance activities. The Vehicle Safety 
Compliance Program ensures that all motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment sold in the United States will provide the 
safety benefits associated with all Federal safety standards. 
Given the level of defect investigations and recalls each year, 
as well as the importance of complex safety standards, the 
Committee believes that it is essential to provide adequate 
funding for the Vehicle Safety Compliance Program in fiscal 
year 1996.

                        highway safety programs

    Safe communities injury control.--The Committee provides 
$375,000 for three demonstrations of the community injury 
control partnerships, which is $5,225,000 less than the budget 
request. The ability to cost share will be one of the criteria 
on which potential grantees will be evaluated. NHTSA will 
ensure that these demonstrations compliment and do not 
duplicate injury control projects sponsored by the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention. These funds will allow NHTSA to 
work with three communities in different States to obtain 
quantitative data on benefits and costs and a compilation of 
best practices that will be useful in improving the safe 
communities initiative. These demonstrations are scheduled to 
run for at least 3 years. In view of the time required to 
conduct such evaluations and to publish results, the full 
benefits of these demonstrations are not anticipated until 1999 
at the earliest. The Committee believes that injury control is 
such an important objective that waiting for these results 
before initiating the safe communities program would not be in 
the public interest. Consequently, funds to implement this 
initiative are not recommended under the section 402 program.
    Alcohol, drug, and State programs.--The Committee commends 
NHTSA for implementing the safe and sober campaign, a program 
which primarily addresses alcohol impairment and seat belt use. 
As structured by NHTSA, this well planned initiative provides 
considerable flexibility to the States, and offers innovative 
quarterly campaign documents that have been well received by 
the safety community. Because of budget limitations, the 
Committee is providing $8,362,000, and is unable to provide the 
additional $2,453,000 requested to expand this program and the 
safe and sober campaign. The funds recommended, however, will 
allow for adequate dissemination of the necessary public 
information campaign materials, and will sponsor statewide 
demonstration projects to illustrate how periodic, highly 
publicized law enforcement can achieve significant progress 
toward a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries from 
alcohol impairment and failure to use occupant protection.
    Local technical assistance centers.--The Committee 
maintains that the Local Technical Assistance Program centers 
[LTAP] should play an increased role in highway safety by 
serving as depositories of NHTSA documents and training 
materials. This function is consistent with the legislative 
mandate regarding LTAP centers to enhance programs for the 
movement of passenger and freight. To this end, the Committee 
expects the NHTSA Administrator to work closely with the FHWA 
Administrator to improve NHTSA's use of and assistance to the 
LTAP centers. NHTSA shall provide to each of the LTAP centers 
training materials and various publications designed to benefit 
State and local officials dealing with highway safety, 
including driver behavior challenges and their countermeasures. 
NHTSA shall widely publicize the availability of this technical 
assistance to local governmental entities. This additional 
assistance will be especially timely in assisting local 
governmental entities and States in implementing the Safe 
Communities Program, a new initiative funded under the section 
402 program. Because of additional publication costs, the 
Committee disagrees with the House proposal to reduce funds for 
printing by $72,000. Increased coordination and cooperation 
among the LTAP centers, the Governors' highway safety 
representatives, and the NHTSA regional offices should be 
encouraged.
    Child Safety Seat Program (Patterns for Life).--The 
Committee recommends $400,000, a reduction of $1,200,000 below 
the budget request, for the Patterns for Life Program which is 
designed to increase the safety of children riding in motor 
vehicles, crossing the street as pedestrians, or riding on 
bicycles. The program will focus on the proper use of child 
safety devices such as child safety seats, bicycle helmets, and 
clothing markers. The Committee expects NHTSA to combine 
private sector efforts to distribute safety devices with public 
sector efforts and to teach parents and other caregivers about 
the proper use and effectiveness of these devices. NHTSA's 
activities will focus on development, marketing, and 
distribution of training and educational materials in formats 
which widely diverse population groups may use. NHTSA also will 
work with the enforcement community to promote the use of these 
devices. The availability of a substantially increased amount 
of private sector moneys only underscores the importance of 
establishing a dedicated infrastructure to provide adequate 
training and technical assistance to promote the highway safety 
of America's youngest population group. NHTSA shall design the 
overall program in such a manner that it will be self-
sufficient at the earliest possible date.
    As originally proposed by NHTSA, the Patterns for Life 
Program was intended to focus only on child safety seats. NHTSA 
now supports an expansion of the program to the other areas of 
child traffic safety identified above. This expansion is more 
than justified, especially when one considers that there are 
about 300 traffic-related deaths annually of children less than 
15 years old riding on bicycles.
    Emergency medical services [EMS].--The Committee fully 
supports the amount proposed in the budget of $1,122,000 for 
the EMS program. The House recommended only $870,000 for EMS 
curricula revisions and other technical assistance activities, 
but disapproved funding requested for public information and 
education, communications, and research and evaluation 
initiatives. The results of the 40 EMS statewide technical 
assessments, performed recently by the States with NHTSA's 
technical assistance, show that States need the most assistance 
in these same three areas. Because the need for this assistance 
is extensive.
    The Committee wants to ensure that continued improvements 
are made to the public education campaign entitled ``Make the 
Right Call [MTRC].'' This program is already recognized as a 
cost-effective activity to assist local governments and victims 
of traffic crashes. By educating the public on how to access 
EMS services, this campaign helps get emergency care quickly to 
those who need it and also reduces costs by avoiding 
unnecessary EMS calls. This campaign has been used by other 
Government agencies such as the Maternal and Child Health 
Bureau, DHHS, the U.S. Fire Administration, FEMA, and by health 
care provider organizations such as the American College of 
Emergency Physicians. The Committee agrees with NHTSA that the 
results from the fiscal year 1995 five site evaluation should 
be used to improve the campaign and aid in the development of 
new materials for high-risk populations and cellular phone 
users. In fiscal year 1996 new MTRC materials would be 
developed to educate the public on when and when not to call 
EMS, and what to do before the ambulance arrives. Limiting the 
MTRC campaign, as proposed by the House, would result in wasted 
public resources as evidenced by the high volume of calls that 
divert EMS from real emergencies and increase health care 
costs.
    The Committee also supports NHTSA's work on building 
statewide communications systems for EMS. Rapidly moving 
cellular communication technology has created serious problems 
for EMS providers and users. In particular, 911 EMS calls on 
cellular telephones frequently are routed to answering points 
well outside the local EMS response area. There is no universal 
number to call for an emergency from a cellular phone. Together 
with the cellular industry, NHTSA will develop technology to 
address such challenges and improve the efficient use of EMS 
resources throughout the country.
    With the research and evaluation funds recommended, NHTSA 
will be able to help States determine where resources can most 
effectively be spent in EMS. These results will help build 
partnerships with managed care and other health care 
organizations to improve the Nation's health care system and, 
at the same time, cut costs.
    Police traffic services.--The Committee has provided 
$1,306,000 for this account and has deleted the $300,000 
requested for the large city injury control demonstration 
project. This activity was not specifically recommended in a 
recent TRB report on new directions in research to advance 
police traffic services. NHTSA has been unable to obtain cost 
sharing with other Federal agencies for this cooperative 
project. The feasibility of using traffic enforcement as a 
means of identifying criminal activities has been previously 
demonstrated elsewhere.
    Older driver.--The Committee recommends $590,000 for older 
driver research, which is $200,000 above the request. This 
important safety program, which has begun to yield new 
knowledge to effectively address the older driver challenge, 
was funded at $500,000 in both fiscal years 1994-95. The 
additional funds recommended under the older driver program 
shall be used to improve and initally test referral systems and 
develop performance assessment techniques. This fundamental 
research will lead to a full-scale demonstration during fiscal 
year 1997 of technologies and practices that improve the 
driving performance and licensing of older drivers at risk of 
losing their licenses.
    Younger driver.--The Committee requests the Administrator 
to work with the Office of the Surgeon General to update 
previous research on loopholes in State laws that adversely 
affect enforcement of the minimum drinking age requirement. 
This information is extremely important in helping to deal with 
the younger driver challenge. Updated information should be 
available before May 1, 1996.
    Driver fatigue and inattention.--NHTSA data indicate that 
in recent years there have been about 56,000 crashes annually 
in which driver drowsiness/fatigue was cited by police. An 
annual average of roughly 40,000 nonfatal injuries and 1,550 
fatalities result from these crashes. It is widely recognized 
that these statistics underreport the extent of these types of 
crashes. These statistics also do not deal with crashes caused 
by driver inattention, which is believed to be a larger 
problem. The Committee maintains that NHTSA has not devoted 
sufficient resources to understanding and dealing with the role 
of driver fatigue, sleep disorders, and inattention in highway 
safety. Consequently, the Committee's allowance includes 
$1,000,000 to analyze the role of these problem areas in 
highway crashes; to develop and test appropriate educational 
countermeasures; and to develop a strategy and lay the 
foundation for a public information campaign using a variety of 
media and approaches. These activities will be conducted in 
close cooperation with the National Center for Sleep Disorders 
Research. In planning this initiative, NHTSA should include an 
assessment of public knowledge and behavior before and after 
the implementation of the public information campaign. The 
Committee intends to recommend additional funds for completion 
of the campaign and its evaluation in the future. The funds 
recommended above are in addition to any support for studies 
conducted under the ITS program.
    Share the road campaign.--The Committee has invested 
substantial sums under the MCSAP for the share the road 
campaign and for traffic enforcement. Although no specific 
funds are recommended herein for an increased role of NHTSA in 
promoting commercial motor vehicle safety, the Committee 
requests the agency to work more closely with the Office of 
Motor Carriers, the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police, other law enforcement organizations, and the National 
Association of Governors's Highway Safety Representatives in 
this area. The Committee encourages NHTSA to assist in the 
dissemination of campaign materials and to encourage more 
police officers to enforce regulations dealing with hours of 
service competently.
    Timely termination of ongoing activities.--The Committee 
has supported NHTSA's investment in the DEC, NETS, TEAM, and 
National Traffic Law Center. In response to the guidance 
provided by this Committee, NHTSA has been steadily decreasing 
its financial support of DEC and turning this responsibility 
over to the States. NHTSA had intended to phase out its 
financial support to other traffic safety promoting 
organizations in a timely manner, but recent changes in 
priorities have prolonged NHTSA's involvement. NHTSA needs to 
use its section 403 seed moneys to assist other innovative 
strategies and organizations. Consequently, the Committee 
directs NHTSA to prepare a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by May 1, 1996, specifying its 
exact plans for future financial support of each of these 
activities, as well as any other traffic safety organizations 
which have received support for more than 3 years. This report 
shall specify the fiscal year when financial support will end. 
For any activity requiring support after fiscal year 1997, 
NHTSA shall specify the reasons for continued expenditures and 
present a plan for eliminating its financial assistance to 
these continuing activities at the earliest possible time. This 
will force a rethinking of agency priorities and ensure that 
funds are reserved for new and innovative approaches to traffic 
safety.

                         research and analysis

    Biomechanics.--In recent years, the Committee has supported 
the biomechanics research program. However, budget constraints 
do not allow funding at the requested amount of $7,450,000. 
Instead, the Committee recommends $6,160,000, an increase of 10 
percent above current levels. The Committee supports NHTSA's 
effort to improve the head injury component of its biomechanics 
program. Spending additional funds on countermeasures with 
respect to traumatic brain injury addresses an important 
societal need. Each year 75,000 to 100,000 Americans die as a 
result of a traumatic brain injury, with motor vehicle crashes 
causing one-half of all such injuries. Furthermore, a survivor 
of a severe brain injury typically faces 5 to 10 years of 
intensive rehabilitative services, with an estimated lifetime 
cost of $4,000,000.
    The Committee supports a demonstration of the feasibility 
of the National Transportation Biomechanics Center, and urges 
NHTSA to seek cost-shared funds or demonstrate use of the 
center with other Federal entities as well as non-Federal 
partners. The Committee directs that not less than $1,600,000 
will be used to conduct research on head injury and to build 
the technical expertise and management capabilities of the new 
center. The center will serve the following purposes: expanding 
DOT's expertise and capabilities to provide world leadership in 
the advancement of biomechanics of impact injuries and 
transportation safety; ensuring that biomechanics research is 
complementary and not duplicative; providing biomechanics 
information in all aspects of injury control; promoting injury 
prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation; and improving, 
promoting, and using the science of biomechanics in all 
transportation modes, both within the civilian and military 
sectors. Furthermore, the center will allow NHTSA to achieve 
increased efficiency in the biomechanics program with respect 
to bringing new and improved biomechanical tools (for example, 
test dummies) into use by the Government and the industry, and 
result in more rapid dissemination of useful research findings.
    Before June 1, 1996, NHTSA should submit to both the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations a detailed review of 
the progress made in demonstrating the feasibility of the 
national center, a summary of cost-shared funds received or 
interest expressed in the center, a detailed plan for 
establishing the center, an evaluation of the benefits and 
costs of consolidating the Department's biomechanics research 
programs into the center, and a discussion of new technologies 
that promise substantial breakthroughs in the science of 
biomechanics that would be advanced at the center.
    National advanced driving simulator [NADS].--The Committee 
supports the NADS and recommends $2,000,000, the amount 
requested in the budget, to continue progress leading toward 
operation of a world-class research facility that will underpin 
many future advances in highway safety.
    The Committee opposes the House provision to rescind 
$4,547,185 of unobligated balances for the NADS project. The 
value and potential benefits of NADS needs to be emphasized. 
In-depth studies of accident causation have found that human 
factors, such as inadvertent errors of judgment, cognition, 
recognition, perception or motor function and aggressive or 
risk-taking driving behavior are contributing causes to more 
than 90 percent of all traffic crashes. Research into the 
fundamental nature of these causation factors is impeded 
because of the risk of exposing human subjects to severe 
physical injury. The national advanced driving simulator will 
allow such critical research to be conducted in the safe and 
repeatable confines of the laboratory. It will allow 
researchers to better understand the effects of prescription 
and nonprescription drugs on driving capabilities. In addition, 
the NADS will be of particular benefit in addressing younger 
and older driver issues and will contribute to the ITS program.
    With respect to the younger driver, a major research 
requirement exists for the safe and systematic investigation of 
how various behavioral factors influence the crash frequency of 
young drivers. With this understanding, more effective 
mitigation programs in licensing, behavior modification, and 
warning systems could be devised. The NADS is essential to 
conducting this critical research.
    With respect to the older driver, the NADS will allow 
researchers to determine correlations between specific 
defective driving practices or behaviors and specific accident 
types, so that effective driver aides and scientifically based, 
unbiased driver competency measures can be developed and 
implemented.
    The NADS will allow modeling and testing of designs while 
new ITS technologies are still in the early conceptual stage, 
long before actual hardware prototypes are available. This will 
promote the low cost, low risk, development and fine tuning of 
ITS technologies and greatly shorten the time for their 
introduction into the marketplace. In addition, the NADS will 
allow engineers to ensure that the interface between these 
devices and the human driver is compatible, that is, the driver 
is presented with the type and amount of information that he or 
she can handle without causing distraction and information 
overload problems. This approach is now successfully being 
employed in the European Prometheus ITS Program using the 
Daimler-Benz and Swedish driving simulators.
    The Committee believes it is in the national interest to 
build the NADS to ensure that NHTSA is not forced to continue 
to depend on foreign-based simulators, such as these in Sweden, 
Germany, and France, to conduct critical human factors 
research. The Daimler-Benz simulator in Germany is used to full 
capacity for vehicle product development, and no time is 
available to any researcher outside the parent company. 
According to NHTSA, the Swedish simulator is of limited 
usefulness because of its low fidelity motion and visual 
systems and its restriction to a fixed driving cab. The driving 
simulator being developed in France will have a much more 
limited motion-cuing system than NADS. Since this device is 
being funded by the French Government as well as the French 
auto industry, it is unlikely that testing time will be 
available to United States researchers.
    The Committee would like to address some of the arguments 
made by the House to justify a denial of the funds needed to 
continue NADS. The House report incorrectly states that only 
two of the four conditions stipulated in the fiscal year 1995 
conference report regarding future funding for the NADS have 
been met. In fact, three of the four conditions have now been 
met, and the fourth condition, having to do with a revised cost 
estimate for the NADS, will be met once negotiations have been 
completed with the phase II development contractor. In fact, as 
directed by the fiscal year 1995 conference report and as 
repeated here, no obligation of funds for the construction of 
the NADS will be made until updated cost information has been 
provided to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 
Furthermore, the GAO reports that the total estimated project 
cost for the NADS is now $37,100,000. However, GAO breaks this 
figure down into the following components: (1) $32,000,000 for 
the NADS facility, (2) $4,500,000 for program management, (3) 
$200,000 for extension of the design contracts so that both 
contractors could further evaluate the software being 
contributed by the University of Iowa, (4) $175,000 to support 
the University's interaction with the contractors during the 
extended design contract, and (5) $255,000 for the TRB study on 
NADS utilization mandated by the Congress. The Committee 
believes these cost estimates are reasonable and justified and 
recognizes that any further delays in the program would 
accelerate cost increases.
    In addition to meeting the conditions of raising the 
required amount of non-DOT cost-sharing funds and securing the 
GAO's certification thereof, which the House agrees have been 
met, the third condition, pertaining to the TRB finding on 
utilization of NADS, has also been met. Specifically, the third 
condition as stated in the fiscal year 1995 conference report 
reads as follows: ``The Transportation Research Board [TRB] 
makes a determination that, if the driving simulator is built, 
it is highly likely that NADS will be used to at least 80 
percent of full capacity, as defined by the TRB, after a 
startup period of 2 years; provided that for the purposes of 
the TRB determination, no more than 50 percent of the capacity 
usage is attributable to NHTSA.'' The finding of the TRB, as 
stated on page 1-1 of its report to the Congress is as follows: 
``The Committee, with one exception, believes that after a 
startup period of at least 2 years, it is highly likely that 
the national advanced driving simulator [NADS] will be used to 
at least 80 percent of its design capacity, assuming that no 
more than one-half of this use is attributed to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA].'' Clearly this 
third condition has been met, since 12 of the 13 members of the 
TRB panel concur with this determination. The House did not 
acknowledge the TRB's conclusion, and instead focuses on the 
qualifications TRB placed on its conclusion.
    The Committee strongly supports NHTSA's efforts to augment 
its in-house expertise with technical and managerial support 
from other Government agencies and outside experts that deal 
routinely with the development and acquisition of high fidelity 
simulators. To this end, NHTSA will put together a technical 
management and acquisition team that is comprised of highly 
experienced senior-level simulator experts both from outside of 
NHTSA and outside the DOT. The Committee directs that 
throughout the remaining construction and initial operation 
phases of the NADS that this technical input continue.
    Partnership for a new generation of vehicles [PNGV].--The 
Committee has deleted funds for the PNGV program until vehicle 
design is further defined by the participants in this program.
    ITS strategic plan.--Several years ago, the Committee 
directed NHTSA to prepare a 5-year strategic plan to guide the 
ITS research and development program. Both NHTSA and the 
Committee found this document extremely useful in 
understanding, evaluating, and planning the program. The 
Committee, therefore, directs the ITS Joint Program Office and 
NHTSA to update this plan to deal with the fiscal year 1997 
through fiscal year 2002 period, and also to assess progress 
made regarding the objectives specified in the first plan. The 
revised plan shall be submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations before May 31, 1996.
    National Center for Statistics and Analysis [NCSA].--The 
NCSA continues to provide the analytical foundation for much of 
NHTSA's activities. The Committee has carefully reviewed the 
request for the center and has reduced funding only because of 
budget constraints. The Committee is concerned that during the 
1990-94 period, the NCSA experienced a 19-percent reduction in 
full-time professional staff, while other NHTSA offices 
experienced about a 5-percent reduction in full-time (including 
professional) staff. This imbalance should be addressed as soon 
as possible. The Committee strongly supports NHTSA's efforts to 
use new technology to improve NASS data collection and expects 
NHTSA to allocate no less than $300,000, the amount requested 
by the agency, for this purpose.
    NHTSA proposes to fund an expansion of activities similar 
to the CODES project as part of its State data program. 
Although the Committee supports the CODES activity, further 
expansion beyond the amount provided in the fiscal year 1996 
base is not warranted. Therefore, the Committee recommends a 
decrease of $390,000 in the State data program, which is the 
amount requested for an expansion of the CODES component. 
Section 402 funds also may be used to improve traffic records 
and to conduct CODES activities.
    Each year, NHTSA conducts a variety of surveys to 
accomplish various agency objectives. Often these surveys and 
their design are conducted with contract funds at considerable 
expense. The Committee believes that NHTSA's staff working at 
the NCSA and regional offices could reduce Federal expenditures 
by participating more actively in the design and conduct of 
these surveys. The Committee directs the Administrator to take 
the necessary steps to ensure that this occurs. Furthermore, 
when the next position in the NCSA is filled as part of planned 
personnel actions, the agency should give high priority to any 
individual that can contribute to the mission of the NCSA and 
is an expert in survey research methodology.
    NHTSA and the highway safety community need updated and 
accurate information on the costs to society resulting from 
highway deaths and injuries and property damage. The Committee 
directs that NHTSA update its 1990 cost of injury study as soon 
as possible, but no later than May 1, 1996.
    National Technical Information Service [NTIS].--NHTSA 
submitted information that some of its reports and publications 
were not entered into the National Technical Information 
Service [NTIS]. The Committee believes that, whenever 
practicable, reports and articles resulting from Government-
sponsored research should be entered into NTIS in a timely 
manner and requests the Administrator to review agency policies 
pertaining to this matter.

                         general administration

    Strategic planning.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee denies the request for $200,000 for strategic 
planning, which should be conducted using internal agency 
resources.
    Anti-Car Theft Act evaluation.--The Committee believes that 
NHTSA should conduct the study on the antitheft act using its 
own staff resources and thus denies the request for $180,000 
for contract support for this study. Within the Office of 
Strategic Planning and Evaluation, there are four professionals 
who conduct program evaluations.

                        accountwide adjustments

    The Committee is limiting the growth in computer support 
because this function has grown rapidly in recent years, going 
from $1,610,000 in fiscal year 1992 to $2,552,000 in fiscal 
year 1995. Budget constraints necessitate the need to reduce 
moneys for electronic sharing of information, upgrade linkages 
to regional offices, and computer imaging upgrades.

                           general provisions

    NHTSA rulemaking on CAFE standards.--The Committee has 
deleted bill language added by the House to withhold funds with 
respect to a NHTSA rulemaking regarding corporate average fuel 
economy [CAFE] standards (sec. 330). Funding issues regarding 
CAFE standards are also addressed in previous portions of this 
report.
    National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.--The Committee 
has deleted the House general provision (sec. 313) prohibiting 
funding to implement section 404 of title 23, United States 
Code, the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.
    Exemption to odometer disclosure requirement.--The 
Committee has included a general provision (sec. 356) enabling 
the Secretary of Transportation to administer and implement the 
exemption provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savings Act. These provisions have, for more than 20 years, 
exempted sellers of large trucks from the odometer disclosure 
regulation because these vehicles (weighing over 16,000 pounds) 
often travel more than 15,000 miles a 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)
Appropriations, 1995....................................  ($151,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................   (180,000,000)
House allowance.........................................   (153,400,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                           (155,100,000)

    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
(Public Law 102-240) provides for the continuation of the 
safety formula grant program. Grant allocations are determined 
on the basis of a statutory formula established under 23 U.S.C. 
402. Individual States use this funding in areas which have the 
greatest potential for achieving safety improvements and 
reducing traffic crashes and fatalities. Activities are 
centered predominantly on efforts to control drivers impaired 
by alcohol and drugs; stimulate activities to improve occupant 
protection; improve traffic law enforcement and speed control; 
improve the quality of emergency medical services and trauma 
care systems; improve motorcycle, pedestrian, and bicycle 
safety; improve the collection and analysis of traffic accident 
data; and establish and maintain a computerized traffic 
recordkeeping system.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation 
of contract authorization of $155,100,000 for the payment of 
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of the State 
and Community Highway Safety Program (sec. 402) and the 
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program (sec. 
410).
    The Committee has struck a new House provision prohibiting 
the use of section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation 
or remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for 
State, local, or private buildings or structures.

                       limitation on obligations

                       formula grants (sec. 402)

    The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of 
$128,000,000 for the section 402 State and community highway 
safety grants program, which is $5,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 1995 appropriations for the section 402 program, and 
$40,600,000 less than requested. The Committee directs that the 
States pass through $5,000,000 to local communities to 
implement the safe communities initiative. NHTSA shall ensure 
that these moneys do not supplant assistance to local 
governmental entities previously provided under the base 
section 402 program.
    The Committee maintains that the safe communities 
initiative is an excellent application of the seed money 
concept and thus is consistent with the purposes and intent of 
the section 402 program. The safe communities program would 
build upon the successes of over 400 community traffic safety 
programs [CTSP] by encouraging increased participation by 
businesses and public health organizations, among others, in 
local traffic safety efforts. Although some CTSP's already draw 
upon the business or medical community, there are numerous 
opportunities to maximize the contributions of these groups to 
highway safety.
    These entities will bring new data, ideas, and resources to 
community-level safety programs. The safe communities concept 
also offers an opportunity to generate additional local traffic 
safety activity in the many locations where CTSP's are not 
located. The Committee encourages States, local communities, 
NHTSA, and other participants in the safe communities 
initiative to work toward the self-sufficiency of these 
projects to ensure their continuation after the Federal grants 
have ended.
    The Committee objects to the language in the House bill 
which would disallow the purchase of automobiles and 
motorcycles with section 402 funds. The Committee contends that 
the use of such equipment is consistent with the seed money 
concept. Many States use such equipment to leverage additional 
staff positions from State and local law enforcement agencies. 
The equipment often is given to a law enforcement agency on the 
condition that the agency dedicates additional staff to highway 
safety-related education and enforcement programs. Once the 
Federal grant has ended, the State or local law enforcement 
agency must continue and assume full financial responsibility 
for the staff positions while taking ownership of the 
equipment. The equipment provides the incentive for a law 
enforcement agency to dedicate additional staff to highway 
safety. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the authorizing 
statute did not prohibit the use of section 402 funds for these 
purposes and that there is precedent for equipment purchases 
with Federal funds, namely section 402 funds and MCSAP funds 
are used to purchase equipment which is essential for program 
implementation.
    Section 403 and State and community highway safety program 
administrative set-aside.--As specified under the Section 403 
Highway Safety Program, the Committee recommends funding for 
only 3 of 15 requested demonstration projects because it 
believes that those grants moneys under the section 402 program 
which are passed through to the local communities will be even 
more effective than the proposed grants to academic centers, 
trauma centers, hospitals, and other not-for-profit 
institutions. The Committee expects that many local communities 
will want to incorporate these institutions within their safe 
community programs to be funded under the section 402 program. 
The Committee, however, recognizes the value of additional 
evaluations of safe community projects under the direct control 
of local government. To this end, the Committee recommends that 
$300,000 of the section 402 administrative takedown funds be 
used to provide technical assistance to a wide range of local 
communities and State governments. These funds will be used 
either to develop the capability to evaluate, or to evaluate, 
the benefits and costs of the safe communities program. NHTSA's 
regional offices shall ensure that these funds are used to 
obtain scientifically valid evaluations and that the 
information derived from these evaluations are widely 
disseminated. NHTSA is expected to work cooperatively with the 
National Association of Governors' Highway Safety 
Representatives to ensure that a sufficient number of 
evaluations or reviews are conducted in a variety of local 
communities so that documentation of promising strategies and 
administrative arrangements are made available as soon 
possible. These analyses will provide an opportunity to test a 
diversity of approaches in different communities and to 
determine which approaches work best under various conditions. 
NHTSA will use this information to develop a safe communities 
implementation resource document that can be tailored by any 
community to meet its needs.
    NHTSA has designed new performance-based procedures for the 
section 402 program which provide substantially more 
flexibility to State grantees. The Committee applauds this 
approach which substitutes a process-dominated system 
vigorously overseen by NHTSA to one that is outcome-based 
placing much more responsibility in the hands of the States. 
The Federal role will not be directive as to how results are 
obtained. Instead, performance goals and measurements set by 
the States will be of critical importance. The Committee 
commends NHTSA for taking several steps to improve the Federal/
State partnership needed to promote traffic safety and looks 
forward to continued improvements in this area.
    STEP projects.--Several States, working with NHTSA as part 
of the section 403 program, have demonstrated the effectiveness 
of highly publicized enforcement efforts (also called STEPS) 
that have resulted in significant increases in safety belt 
usage and reductions in alcohol-impaired driving. For example, 
North Carolina demonstrated that the ``Click It or Ticket'' 
campaign resulted in a dramatic 15 percentage point increase in 
safety belt usage in just a few weeks. These gains in highway 
safety were sustained with periodic followup activities. More 
recently, demonstrations conducted in six States (Oregon, 
Washington, New Mexico, South Carolina, Vermont, and Indiana) 
have resulted in increases in safety belt usage that are much 
greater than the average changes in nondemonstration States. 
Similar programs have resulted in reductions in alcohol-
impaired driving. The Committee finds these results compelling 
and urges NHTSA to work with States and local governments to 
encourage the use of section 402 funds (including funds 
provided for the safe communities program) to conduct similar 
STEP projects involving periodic, highly publicized enforcement 
to increase safety belt usage and to decrease alcohol-impaired 
driving. NHTSA regional and headquarters staff should provide 
data to various governmental entities showing the quantitative 
benefits of STEP enforcement and education campaigns and 
provide technical assistance when requested.
    Younger driver set-aside.--NHTSA submitted substantial 
evidence, based on State data, of the benefits of the fiscal 
year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 $8,000,000 set-aside to address 
the younger driver challenge to traffic safety. In addition, 
NHTSA reports that the States planned $21,100,000 of underage 
drinking and driving countermeasures in fiscal year 1994 and 
$21,700,000 in fiscal year 1995, increases of 210 and 220 
percent, respectively, over the base level of funding of 
$10,000,000 of Federal grant funds spent during fiscal year 
1993. In view of the continuing loss of life and numerous 
injuries resulting from the over involvement of younger drivers 
in traffic crashes, the Committee's allowance includes 
$8,000,000 for the States to develop and conduct comprehensive 
youth traffic safety programs, including combating drinking and 
driving, increasing seatbelt use, reducing speeding and other 
risk taking behavior, and furthering graduated licensing 
programs. Especially in those States without graduated 
licensing programs or zero tolerance laws, the Committee 
expects a portion of these funds to be used to work with 
concerned citizens and parents, State legislators, and 
administrators to promote such initiatives; to conduct relevant 
feasibility studies; or to defray startup costs implementing 
one or more of these elements of a State comprehensive younger 
driver program.

                       FORMULA GRANTS (SEC. 410)

    The Committee proposes a total limitation of $25,000,000 
for obligations to be incurred under the section 410 Alcohol-
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Program authorized under the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The 
section 410 program has provided incentives to States to 
implement innovative strategies to reduce drunk and drugged 
driving, and constitutes an essential part in the Secretary's 
goal to reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths. To receive 
grants under the section 410 program, States must satisfy 
certain basic criteria established by Congress, including 
prompt license suspension, legal blood-alcohol content levels, 
sobriety checkpoints, self-sustaining community alcohol 
programs, mandatory sentencing, and control of access to 
alcohol by youth. Supplemental grant funding is available to 
States that meet additional criteria, including .02 BAC laws 
for drivers under age 21, open container laws, strict drugged 
driving prevention programs, and mandatory BAC testing 
programs. Section 410 grants funds may be used only to support 
programs to reduce impaired driving.
    The bill includes language providing that $500,000 of the 
section 410 moneys shall be used for technical assistance. In 
fiscal year 1995 the entire amount of these funds was used as 
direct grants. Because this program continues to be 
oversubscribed, the Committee expects a similar allocation of 
technical assistance funds to be made directly to the States.

                        national driver register

    The National Driver Register [NDR] is a central repository 
of information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor 
vehicle have been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied. As 
authorized by Congress, the NDR has converted to an electronic 
problem driver pointer system to facilitate the decisionmaking 
by State driver licensing officials. NHTSA is preparing for 
transfer of certain NDR activities to a non-Federal entity. The 
NDR also contains information on persons who have been 
convicted of serious traffic-related violations such as driving 
while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. State driver 
licensing officials query the NDR when individuals apply for a 
license, for the purpose of determining whether driving 
privileges have been withdrawn by other States. Other 
organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration and 
the Federal Railroad Administration also use NDR license data 
in hiring and certification decisions in overall U.S. 
transportation operations. The Committee has included a 
provision in the bill, subject to authorization, extending the 
authority to draw funds for the NDR from contract authority 
authorized for the section 402 program.
    The bill includes an obligation limitation of $2,100,000 
for the NDR, which is $300,000 below the administration's 
request. The Committee is most displeased that the 
Administrator has not submitted promised legislation to 
transfer certain NDR-related functions to a non-Federal entity. 
Such a transfer would have saved about $1,200,000 annually of 
funds for other critical traffic safety programs. NHTSA should 
submit this legislation before conference.
                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an 
operating administration within the Department of 
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of 
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the 
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department 
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the 
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry. 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 Federal Railroad Administration.
    The Committee recommends new appropriations and obligation 
limitations totaling $875,899,000 for the activities of the 
Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 1996. This is 
$321,522,000 less than the budget request and $47,958,000 more 
than the House allowance.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year                                 
                     Program                       1995 enacted     1996 budget   Houseallowance     Committee  
                                                        \1\          estimate                     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator.....................         12,869          17,370          14,000          14,018 
    Transfer H.R. 1944..........................           (612)  ..............  ..............  ..............
Local rail freight assistance...................         17,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
    Rescission..................................         -6,563   ..............  ..............  ..............
Railroad safety.................................         47,636          51,104          49,941          49,105 
Railroad research and development...............         20,199          48,947          21,000          25,775 
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program..........        200,000    \2\ (235,000)        100,000         130,000 
Alaska railroad rehabilitation..................  ..............  ..............  ..............         10,000 
Rhode Island rail development...................          5,000     \2\ (10,000)  ..............          2,000 
Grants to Amtrak................................    \3\ 793,500    \2\ (750,000)        628,000         605,000 
Next generation high-speed rail \4\.............         24,999          35,000          15,000          25,000 
Penn Station redevelopment......................         40,000     \2\ (50,000)  ..............         25,000 
    Rescission..................................        (40,000)  ..............  ..............  ..............
Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program.  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................      1,114,640       1,197,421         827,941         885,898 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 323, 330, and 331 of Public Law 103-331 and amounts transferred to 
  OST, salaries and expenses for civil rights activities.                                                       
\2\ Funding included under UTIIP.                                                                               
\3\ Includes mandatory passenger rail service payments and a supplemental appropriation of $21,500,000.         
\4\ Includes obligation limitation on contract authority of $5,000,000 in 1995-96.                              

                      Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $12,869,100
    (Transfer H.R. 1944)................................      (+612,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      17,370,000
House allowance.........................................      14,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              14,018,000

    The Office of the Administrator provides support and 
guidance on issues concerning the railroad industry and the 
day-to-day operations of the Federal Railroad Administration. 
The appropriation includes budget activities related to 
executive direction and administration and policy support aimed 
at resolving problems facing the railroad industry. For the 
Office of the Administrator, the Committee provides 
$14,018,000. The amount provided is $3,352,000 less than the 
administration's request and $18,000 more than the House 
allowance.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee makes the following adjustments to the budget 
request for this appropriation:

                                                                 Changes

Reduce new technical assistance program.................        -$75,000
Reduce nonpay inflationary adjustment...................        -581,000
Reduce unobligated balances.............................      -2,462,000
Training................................................         -56,000
Inflation/vendor increases..............................         -67,000
Other services..........................................         -91,000
Travel and transportation of things.....................         -20,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net adjustment....................................      -3,352,000

    Technical assistance program.--The Committee provides 
$75,000 for this program, $55,000 more than that provided by 
the House, but $75,000 below the administration's request for 
an additional $150,000.
    Nonpay inflationary adjustment.--Due to budget constraints, 
the Committee does not provide an additional $581,000 for 
nonpay inflation adjustments.
    Unobligated balances.--The Committee has reduced the Office 
of the Administrator's request by $2,462,000 due to high 
unobligated balances which are available to fund programs under 
this account. The Committee understands that of these balances, 
$1,892,000 is reserved with respect to Union Station annual 
mortgage payments and $1,089,000 is reserved for possible 
Alaska Railroad liability payments.
    Training.--The Committee reduces by $56,000 the budget 
request of $122,000 for training and restores the account to 
its actual expenditure amount during fiscal year 1994 of 
$66,000.
    Inflation/vendor increases.--The Committee reduces by 
$67,000 the budget request for inflation or outside vendor 
increases associated with contract support.
    Other services (information technology).--The Committee 
reduces the requested level by $91,000 to $600,000. This 
contract support account had been increased from an actual 
expenditure of $297,000 in fiscal year 1994 to $662,000 in 
fiscal year 1995.
    Travel and transportation of persons.--The Committee 
reduces this account by $20,000 below the budget request for 
$258,000.

                     Local Rail Freight Assistance
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $17,000,000
    Rescission..........................................     (6,563,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                             ...........................

    The Local Rail Service Assistance Program was established 
by the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 to provide 
financial support to States for the continuation of rail 
freight service on abandoned light density lines in the 
Northeast. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform 
Act of 1976 expanded the program to all States. In 1978 the 
program was further expanded and amended to allow capital 
assistance for rehabilitation prior to, rather than after, 
abandonment. Amendments in 1981 prohibited the use of these 
funds for operating subsidies.
    The program was again reauthorized in 1989 under Public Law 
101-213 and renamed the ``Local Rail Freight Assistance 
Program'' and then again reauthorized in 1993. The Committee 
has not provided any funds for this program which expired at 
the end of fiscal year 1994. Congress has rescinded 
approximately 39 percent of the fiscal year 1995 appropriation.
    The Committee, however, recognizes the unique needs of 
local freight railroads and the important services they 
provide. Therefore, the Committee has appropriated funds under 
a separate account to support a low interest, federally 
guaranteed loan program to local freight railroads.

                            Railroad Safety
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $47,636,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      51,104,000
House allowance.........................................      49,940,660

Committee recommendation

                                                              49,105,000

    This appropriation finances the development, 
administration, and enforcement of programs designed to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry.
    The Committee recommends a $49,105,000 program level for 
the Railroad Safety Program. This is $1,999,000 less than the 
budget request and $835,660 less than the House allowance.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:

Reduce other services by 2 percent......................       -$105,340
Reduce labor/management project.........................        -350,000
Reduce educational and technical assistance.............         -60,000
Delete nonpay inflationary adjustment...................        -453,000
Reduce salaries and expenses............................        -740,000
Inspector trainee program...............................         -50,000
Automated track inspection program [ATIP]...............        -100,000
Permanent change of station moves.......................        -140,660
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net adjustment....................................      -1,999,000

    Other services.--The Committee recommends $5,161,660 for 
other services, the same as the House, due to budget 
constraints. This is an increase of $130,660 over fiscal year 
1995 and a 2-percent cut from the budget request.
    Labor/management project.--Because of budgetary constraints 
and questions regarding the appropriate balance between 
enforcement-related functions and cooperative initiatives, the 
Committee recommends $50,000 for support of the labor/
management safety project, which is $350,000 below the amount 
requested, but $50,000 more than the House allowance.
    Supplies, materials, and equipment costs.--The Committee 
disagrees with the House reductions to supplies and materials 
and equipment costs, and recommends $800,000 requested by the 
administration for the information technology pilot project.
    Small railroads educational and technical assistance.--The 
fiscal year 1996 budget request includes $80,000 to provide 
educational and technical assistance to small railroads. The 
Committee has reduced this funding to $20,000. FRA inspects 
these railroads annually and explains the regulations to 
company managers and employees. Although these inspections will 
still continue, budgetary limitations necessitate a reduction 
in the amount of funds used for educational materials and 
technical assistance.
    Salaries and expenses.--The Committee notes the growth in 
this account since fiscal year 1994, and reduces it by 
$740,000.
    Other reductions.--Because of budget constraints, the 
Committee has reduced funds for trainees, ATIP, and transfer 
expenses.
    Safety initiatives.--The Committee commends FRA's 
substantial efforts to improve the reporting of accidents, 
casualties, and highway-rail grade crossing accidents. 
Information supplied by industry is of critical importance in 
strengthening the effectiveness and targeting of FRA's 
inspection and enforcement activities. The proposed improvement 
in reporting requirements, the additional flexibility provided 
to industry, and the refinement of reporting thresholds are all 
worthy objectives. The Committee fully supports FRA's effort to 
increase the accuracy and consistency of its accident/incident 
data base and expects FRA to pursue completion of the necessary 
regulatory changes expeditiously. Final regulations should be 
issued before next year's hearing.
    FRA also should expeditiously complete cost-effective 
regulations pertaining to the general revision of the power 
brake rule, safety of roadway workers, general revision of 
track safety standards, and tank car crashworthiness. FRA 
expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on passenger 
equipment standards in fiscal year 1996 and a final rule by 
November 1997. In view of the importance of this action, the 
Committee expects FRA to hold to this schedule. This action 
would be consistent with the Swift Rail Development Act of 
1994, which requires FRA to issue initial passenger equipment 
safety standards by November 1997. In combination these various 
regulatory initiatives will improve railroad safety and 
eliminate millions of dollars of medical and liability claims 
and property damages.
    The Committee acknowledges the substantial increases in the 
number of tank cars inspected, operating practice reviews, and 
signals inspected. The Committee looks forward to reviewing 
similar improvements in other inspection areas, especially when 
such inspections are guided by the national inspection plan and 
other management strategies. The Committee also acknowledges 
the closer and improved relationships of FRA inspectors to the 
hazardous materials response community, improvement in grade 
crossing and trespasser programs, increased attention to hazmat 
shippers, and improvement in the handling of complaints from 
industry.
    Grade crossing safety.--The Committee supports actions 
taken by FRA to improve grade crossing safety and looks forward 
to reviewing other accomplishments of these key FRA staff next 
year. However, FRA inspectors could make additional 
contributions to highway/rail grade crossing safety.
    During the last few years, FRA has been unable to achieve 
its goal of encouraging each of its inspectors to participate 
in at least four Operation Lifesaver [OL]-related activities 
each year. In fact, during fiscal year 1994, FRA inspectors met 
only 45 percent of the agency's goal regarding inspector 
participation in this program. Although FRA is pursuing many 
different approaches to improve grade crossing safety, the 
Committee considers increased inspector participation in OL 
activities essential. At next year's hearing, the Administrator 
should be prepared to report on progress indicating that FRA is 
well on its way toward meeting at least 75 percent of the 
agency's OL goal.
    Multiple safety offices.--The Committee notes that in some 
States FRA has three inspector offices and in one State there 
are four FRA offices. The Committee believes that such 
expenditures are unnecessary. The FRA Administrator is directed 
to take the necessary steps to limit the number of FRA offices 
to no more than two in any State. These closures should occur 
as soon as possible, certainly before October 1, 1996. If FRA 
judges it imperative that a State have more than two offices, 
the Committee expects to receive a letter justifying such a 
decision.
    Enforcement effectiveness and vitality.--FRA data show 
that, by a variety of measures, railroad safety continues to 
improve. This improvement is a tribute to the efforts of 
industry, labor, and FRA. FRA's enforcement program has 
certainly been a contributor to the substantial improvements in 
railroad safety during the last 10 or more years. The Committee 
wants to ensure that the effectiveness and vitality of this 
program increases, while the Agency builds a more cooperative 
relationship with industry and labor.
    The Committee, however, is becoming increasingly concerned 
that FRA may be reducing the effectiveness and vitality of its 
enforcement program. FRA submitted fiscal year 1994 data 
showing that the amount of assessed and collected civil 
penalties declined significantly from fiscal years 1992-93. For 
example, FRA data show that the amount collected in fiscal 
years 1992-94 was roughly $16,700,000, $15,600,000, and 
$8,000,000, respectively.
    During the fiscal year 1994 inspection program, FRA 
collected the least amount of civil penalties since before 
fiscal year 1990. Although this decline is said to be due to a 
reduction in the enforcement case backlog, FRA continues to 
sustain a backlog of some $20,000,000 in potential civil 
penalties.
    While achieving compliance with the safety regulations is a 
primary objective, the number of enforcement cases prosecuted 
each year and the total amount of civil penalties collected 
each year sends a message to industry and labor about the rigor 
of FRA's enforcement program. A strong FRA enforcement program 
catalyzes voluntary compliance.
    Senior FRA staff indicated that a reduction in the number 
of civil penalty cases and collections is likely to continue in 
view of a new FRA program announced in March 1995. This Safety 
Assurance and Compliance Program emphasizes assessment of 
systemwide problems over routine inspections and also 
emphasizes cooperative partnerships over enforcement.
    The Committee supports the intent of the new policy to 
focus on root causes of noncompliance and to focus enforcement 
actions on serious problems. One of the components of the new 
FRA compliance strategy is to hold in abeyance the collection 
of large amounts of potential civil penalties against a company 
that is not in compliance with the safety regulations. FRA 
intends to monitor closely whether such a company comes into 
compliance. If the company does, the enforcement case is 
typically not pursued, provided that no imminently hazardous 
violation occurs. If the company fails to make prompt 
improvement in its compliance with the safety regulations, FRA 
will assess civil penalties both for the original instances of 
violation and the subsequent violation counts documented 
through followup.
    The Committee recognizes the potential value of this 
approach in promoting partnerships while gaining maximum value 
from enforcement powers. However, the Committee expects that 
FRA will closely control use of this approach, employing 
followup inspections to ensure that improvements in compliance 
are prompt and sustained. Further, the Committee is concerned 
that this approach not be viewed by the railroads as an 
entitlement. Holding penalties in abeyance for widespread 
noncompliance, by a railroad that has repeatedly been cited for 
intentional or frequent violations of the same subject matter, 
would be counterproductive and should not be a routine 
compliance strategy.
    Although a cooperative relationship with industry and labor 
will, in some cases, promote compliance with the safety 
regulations, FRA must not forego its strong enforcement role, 
especially when the public's safety is at risk. As FRA admits, 
``Of course, broad acceptance of this partnership principle is 
based on the entire industry's participation.'' FRA knows from 
experience that some railroads are more likely to cooperate and 
comply with the safety regulations than others. FRA's 
commitment to quality customer service should mean more than 
joining in partnerships with rail industry and labor to promote 
compliance.
    The Committee asserts that it will be too late to shift the 
pendulum more toward enforcement after a major railroad 
accident. As it implements its new compliance strategy, FRA 
must effectively use the enforcement authorities provided for 
in the Rail Safety Acts of 1970, 1988, and 1992. These acts 
provided the FRA with definitive enforcement authorities that 
have been time-tested and proven successful.
    To this end, the Committee requests the FRA Administrator 
to prepare a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations before May 1, 1996, that assesses the benefits 
of its new enforcement posture and documents evidence that a 
vigorous enforcement program is still being conducted by FRA, 
while it simultaneously seeks cooperation from regulated 
entities.
    FRA should submit documentation proving that there is an 
appropriate balance between the resources used to promote 
cooperation and educational assistance and those used for 
enforcement. The report should detail improvements, or lack 
thereof, in compliance for each of the railroads for which FRA 
approved a safety action plan.
    The Committee will carefully review this report, changes in 
FRA's enforcement posture, and various measures of enforcement 
productivity as part of next year's hearing process when it 
considers staffing needs and funding requirements.

                   Railroad Research and Development
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $20,199,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      48,947,000
House allowance.........................................      21,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              25,775,000

    The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and 
Development Program provides for research in the development of 
safety and performance standards for high speed rail and the 
evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. The program also provides support for the 
Deputy Associate Administrator for Technology Development and 
the staff of the Office of Research and Development.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,775,000 
for railroad research and development. The amount provided is 
$23,172,000 less than the President's request and $4,775,000 
more than the House allowance.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommended funding levels for the railroad 
research and development subaccounts are displayed below, 
compared to the fiscal year 1996 budget request and the House 
allowance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                           1996 request      allowance    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment, operations,                                                  
 and hazardous materials      $5,010,000      $5,010,000      $6,163,000
Track, structures, and                                                  
 train control..........       8,082,000       8,082,000       7,082,000
High speed ground                                                       
 transportation.........      33,225,000       5,378,000      10,000,000
R&D facilities..........         400,000         400,000         400,000
Administration..........       2,230,000       2,130,000       2,130,000
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total.............      48,947,000      21,000,000      25,775,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Equipment, operations, and hazardous materials.--Consistent 
with the authorization level specified in the 1994 Rail Safety 
Act and the intent of the Department's grade crossing action 
plan, the Committee has increased funding for Operation 
Lifesaver to $500,000, which is $350,000 above the requested 
amount. This increase reflects the Committee's concern that 
more needs to be done to address safety at railroad crossings. 
Railroad crossings are claiming an average of about 600 deaths 
per year, far in excess of the average number of deaths among 
railroad employees and passengers per year. However, the FRA 
concentrates most of its safety budget on efforts to improve 
safety for railroad employees and passengers. While railroad 
work can be difficult and dangerous, additional money spent on 
grade crossing safety certainly will be well spent.
    On June 8, 1995, an Amtrak passenger train traveling at 
about 70 to 79 miles-per-hour hit a pickup truck at a rural 
crossing in Nyssa, OR, killing seven farm workers in the truck. 
This terrible accident occurred at 5:25 a.m., as the victims 
were on their way to work in the fields. This crossing is 
marked only by a stop sign. Although this accident occurred in 
clear weather, it underscores the fact that trains require long 
distances in which to come to a complete stop even when 
obstacles on the track can be seen.
    In addition, the Committee's allowance includes an increase 
of $803,000 above the amount requested to strengthen the human 
factors component of the operating practices research program. 
This research activity seeks to address human error in railroad 
operations, which is judged the cause of roughly one-third of 
all railroad accidents. The additional funds recommended will 
allow for continued work on FRA's 5-year-strategic plan on 
operating practices that was prepared at the request of the 
Committee, and address fundamental problems such as fatigue, 
stress, and various sociological problems affecting rail 
safety.
    Track, structures and train control.--The Committee 
recommends $7,082,000 for track, structures, and train control, 
which is $1,000,000 less than the amount requested. Some of the 
activities funded in this category directly benefit the 
economic productivity of the railroad industry, as well as 
promote safety objectives. Increased cost sharing with the 
private sector would be desirable.
    High speed ground transportation.--The Committee recommends 
$10,000,000 for the high speed rail ground transportation 
program, including $3,800,000 to provide technical support for 
monitoring, assessing, and issuing regulations to ensure the 
safety of high speed rail systems.
  --Magnetic levitation [maglev] systems.--The Committee has 
        deleted $825,000 for maglev safety research and 
        development due to highly uncertain prospects for near-
        term commercialization and budgetary limitations. If 
        and when substantial non-Federal investments in a 
        commercial or prototype maglev systems are made, the 
        Committee will reconsider the need for funding safety 
        R&D related to this technology. FRA should continue its 
        work on developing the regulatory base for a future 
        maglev industry by analyzing the wealth of information 
        previously collected. FRA has sufficient funds and 
        experience to be able to evaluate the safety dynamics 
        of any serious proposal submitted for Federal review.
  --Toll-free grade crossing malfunction emergency notification 
        system.--Section 301 of the 1994 Rail Safety Act 
        requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a 
        pilot program to demonstrate an emergency notification 
        system utilizing a toll-free telephone number that the 
        public can use to convey information about malfunctions 
        or other safety problems at railroad-highway grade 
        crossings. Implementation of the system will involve 
        building and maintaining current data bases which 
        contain information from the AAR/DOT National Highway-
        Rail Crossing Inventory and contact information on 
        railroad and public safety telephone numbers.
      Consistent with FRA's intention to fund this pilot 
        program out of the funds provided for high speed rail 
        R&D, the Committee recommends that $625,000 shall be 
        used for this pilot program, instead of the $725,000 
        that FRA stated would be necessary for initiation and 
        first year funding for the system. Funds have not been 
        provided to contract for the mandated report on the 
        results of this pilot program. This report should be 
        completed by FRA staff. This amount also does not 
        include funds for signage and its deployment. FRA 
        anticipates that expenses for these activities would be 
        paid for by the participating States using highway 
        funds. FRA will design the pilot program to ensure that 
        information on grade crossings located in both high 
        speed and conventional train corridors is included.
  --High-speed positive train separation.--The Committee's 
        recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the State of 
        Oregon to develop high-speed positive train separation 
        with flexible block control capabilities, including an 
        extension into the Union Station area, and for 
        additional track and signal work. No matching funds 
        shall be required for this project. FRA maintains ``it 
        is likely that insufficient capacity will exist on some 
        corridors unless flexible block dispatching can be 
        implemented, rather than relying on fixed signal 
        locations as are presently employed.'' Furthermore, FRA 
        asserts that the Pacific Northwest corridor, with both 
        willing and interested freight railroads and States 
        willing and interested in supporting high-speed 
        passenger operations, is the ideal testbed for such a 
        system. The funds recommended will accomplish the 
        following objective in fiscal year 1996: modeling and 
        analysis, flexible block architecture, braking 
        algorithms, communications development, and track and 
        signal improvements.
    Cost sharing.--By March 1, 1996, FRA shall submit to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a letter 
indicating efforts taken to further increased cost-sharing 
(both cash and in-kind services) needed to sustain a vigorous 
railroad R&D program. Specific efforts taken in each of the 
specific components, for example, truck, structures, and 
hazmat, of the program will be delineated.
    Public input into FRA's R&D agenda.--The Committee suggests 
that FRA consider holding a series of public meetings to 
outline the scope, direction, and results of its research and 
development program and to gain input into the needed direction 
for future activities.
    Oregon Graduate Institute [OGI].--The Committee has 
continued the provision providing the FRA with explicit grant 
authority with the Oregon Graduate Institute. The OGI has been 
identified as a national resource for research in rail 
metallurgy. The administration continues to support its unique 
grant arrangement with the OGI for research on surface and 
subsurface initiated fatigue defects in rail steel.
                 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program
Appropriations, 1995....................................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\1\ (235,000,000)
House allowance.........................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     130,000,000

\1\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].

    Title VII of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1976, as amended, created the Northeast corridor 
improvement project [NECIP] to upgrade and modernize the rail 
corridor between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, the most 
heavily used rail passenger corridor in the Nation. NECIP funds 
are appropriated to the Secretary. Since 1985, however, the 
actual responsibility for carrying out the improvement project 
was transferred to Amtrak.
    NECIP is the primary capital funding source for the 
Northeast corridor. It has made possible the Nation's only 
high-speed rail passenger service, with speeds between New York 
and Washington of 125 miles per hour and regularly scheduled 
travel time in as low as 2 hours and 40 minutes. Work is 
underway to reduce travel time between New York and Boston to 
under 3 hours. The Northeast corridor is used by some 210 
million commuter passengers and 11 million intercity rail 
travelers each year who otherwise would be forced to travel by 
car or air on the region's heavily congested highways and 
airports.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $130,000,000 for the Northeast 
Corridor Improvement Program. The amount provided is 
$105,000,000 less than the administration's request of 
$235,000,000 within UTIIP, $70,000,000 less than the fiscal 
year 1995 comparable appropriation, $30,000,000 more than the 
House allowance, and $105,000,000 less than Amtrak's request.
    Amtrak has requested $235,000,000 for improvements on the 
Northeast corridor related to two areas: high-speed rail 
infrastructure improvements between New York and Boston 
required to achieve 3 hour trip time; and recapitalization of 
the Northeast corridor (particularly between New York and 
Washington), required to bring the railroad and its 
conventional rail passenger equipment to a state of good 
repair. The Committee has not provided any additional funding 
for acquisition of high-speed trainsets.
    The administration requested funding in the amount of 
$235,000,000, primarily directed to New York-Boston high-speed 
rail improvements and the acquisition of high-speed trainsets. 
The House provided a total of $100,000,000. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $130,000,000, of which 
$65,000,000 is for recapitalization of the Northeast corridor, 
and $65,000,000 is to progress the New York-Boston high-speed 
rail program. Last year, following passage of the 
Transportation Appropriations Act, Amtrak advised the Committee 
that it would apply the funds differently than identified in 
its grant request. The Committee expects Amtrak to follow 
congressional direction on the use of funds and to seek the 
approval of the Committee to reprogram funds in the event 
priorities change.
    Northeast corridor recapitalization.--The administration 
requested $35,000,000 for improvements between New York and 
Washington. The House included $79,300,000. The Committee has 
included $65,000,000 for critical near-term recapitalization 
work.
    The Committee is extremely concerned that Amtrak and the 
FRA have not adequately advised Congress of the alarming need 
for capital improvements for the New York-Washington segment of 
the corridor. The Committee directs the FRA to work with Amtrak 
to prepare a joint transportation plan for the New York-
Washington segment of the corridor, similar to the 
transportation plan completed in 1994 for the New York-Boston 
segment of the rail line. The Committee is especially concerned 
about the safety of the New York-New Jersey tunnels, which must 
receive thorough review. Most tunnels are over 80 years old and 
handle some 750 trains daily. By the year 2010, over 900 trains 
will use these tunnels each day. The plan should detail the 
state of the rail line, the investments necessary for its 
recapitalization (including an allocation of costs between 
Amtrak and the commuter authorities using the Northeast 
corridor), and the capacity improvements required to grow the 
railroad to meet the needs of intercity and commuter passenger 
rail service over the next two decades. The plan should 
identify how the costs for upgrading and maintaining the 
railroad will be shared by users of the rail line. Moreover, 
the plan must include the projected timing for when 
expenditures will be needed. A copy of this plan shall be 
submitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations 
by March 1, 1996.
    New York-Boston high-speed rail improvements.--The 
administration requested $120,000,000 to progress the New York-
Boston improvements. The House included $20,700,000. The 
Committee recommends $65,000,000 for electrification, 
environmental mitigation, and infrastructure improvements 
included in the project.
    Congress increased NECIP funding beginning in fiscal year 
1991 to undertake a program of infrastructure improvements 
required to reduce New York-Boston trip time to under 3 hours. 
The program includes electrification of the rail line between 
New Haven and Boston, which is essential for faster speeds and 
increased acceleration, and modernization of the railroad 
infrastructure and signal system to permit speeds of up to 150 
miles per hour. It also includes a number of projects to 
eliminate bottlenecks in heavily traveled commuter territories 
in Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts.
    The project offers significant environmental and economic 
benefits to a region with highways and airports at or beyond 
capacity. It also is expected to play a major role in Amtrak's 
ability to generate an operating surplus from its Northeast 
corridor operations. Faster and more frequent train service is 
expected to more than double current ridership, providing a 
critical alternative to accommodate growth in regional 
transportation. Significant air quality and energy benefits 
also will result with electrification of the tracks, helping 
States in the Northeast meet Clean Air Act requirements and 
reduce the need for imported oil. The Committee has been 
informed that Amtrak will complete a new ridership and demand 
forecast study in September which is expected to verify and 
update previous ridership analyses. According to Amtrak, 
preliminary results indicate that previous ridership 
projections are conservative.
    Congress has already provided nearly $600,000,000 of the 
total $1,000,000,000 required to complete electrification and 
the other infrastructure work and environmental mitigation 
necessary to achieve 3 hour service. Major track, signal, 
bridge, and infrastructure design projects are currently 
underway. The total project costs includes some $200,000,000 in 
additional work recently imposed by the FRA to mitigate 
environmental and rail line capacity issues. Amtrak expects to 
complete the electrification design in October and construction 
work will begin immediately thereafter. Electrified operations 
are planned to begin in 1999.
    High-speed trainsets.--The administration requested 
$80,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 for high-speed trainsets and 
facilities. The House did not include funding for this purpose. 
The Committee has not included additional funding for trainsets 
because it believes that Amtrak is poised to move forward in 
the near future to advance the trainset procurement.
    Amtrak's current Metroliner fleet is now 20 years old and 
is reaching retirement age. The fleet of AEM-7 locomotives are 
experiencing a growing number of mechanical failures and this 
is increasingly undermining reliability, trip time, and on-time 
performance. In addition, Amtrak must procure additional trains 
in order to increase service to Boston following completion of 
electrification. The acquisition of new high-speed trainsets, 
capable of speeds up to 150 miles per hour, will enable Amtrak 
to replace and modernize its Metroliner fleet. New trainsets 
will also permit Amtrak to reduce trip time on the Northeast 
corridor and reduce operating and maintenance costs associated 
with the current antiquated fleet. Amtrak requested proposals 
for 26 trainsets, which include two fossil fuel trains, in 
September 1994 and expects to complete negotiations leading to 
award of a contract in October 1995. Three vendor teams are 
actively competing for the procurement contract.
    The Committee is concerned that Amtrak may opt to defer the 
trainset acquisition in favor of other capital needs. This 
would be a mistake. If Amtrak is to have a future on the 
Northeast corridor, it must reduce trip time and provide its 
passengers modern and reliable trains in which to travel. The 
Committee directs Amtrak to provide a detailed cash flow 
analysis of required funding to complete the trainset 
procurement, and an accompanying report on options for public 
and private financing of the procurement, within 30 days of 
enactment of this act.

        Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Funds

                     (railroad credit enhancement)
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation (loan guarantee auth...........................

    Section 511 of Public Law 94-210, as amended (the 4-R Act) 
authorizes obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term 
needs of the railroads. Railroads utilize this funding 
mechanism to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or 
consolidation of current facilities. The Committee has not 
provided any new appropriations to subsidize new loan guarantee 
commitments under this program.
    The Committee, however, has included a general provision in 
the bill, to create State infrastructure banks [SIB] that will 
be able to provide loans to freight railroads, as well as 
provide them with a wide array of innovative financial 
assistance. Funds have been appropriated in the bill to support 
the establishment of the SIB program, which is strongly 
supported by the administration. SIB's will be structured to 
assist transportation infrastructure projects, including 
freight rail activities, and will provide loans; finance 
various forms of credit enhancement; assist in the acquisition 
or lease of rolling stock for the purpose of lease pooling; 
provide backstop financing for construction loans; pool debt 
issuances; and refinance of outstanding debt; and many other 
financing programs.
    The SIB's will provide a much broader array of modern 
financial tools to freight railroads than the section 511 loan 
guaranty program. Given the Committee's extremely limited 
funds, it cannot fund the 511 program, whose single purpose 
will be covered within the larger, and more innovative SIB 
program.
                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

                        (including trust funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         General          Trust \1\           Total     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations,                                                         
 1995.............       $19,999,000        $5,000,000       $24,999,000
Budget estimate,                                                        
 1996.............        30,000,000         5,000,000        35,000,000
House allowance...        10,000,000         5,000,000        15,000,000
Committee                                                               
 recommendation...        20,000,000         5,000,000        25,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligations.                                          


    The Committee has provided $20,000,000 in general fund 
appropriations for the high-speed ground transportation [HSGT] 
program. This amount, in combination with the $5,000,000 
provided in trust fund appropriations, yields a total Committee 
recommendation of $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. The amount 
provided is $10,000,000 more than the House allowance and 
$10,000,000 less than the administration's request.
    The Committee first provided funding for the Next 
Generation High-Speed Rail Program in fiscal year 1995. The 
program is authorized by the Swift Rail Development Act which 
was enacted in 1994. The Committee commends the progress the 
Department has made in implementing this new program and 
recognizes the promise that the program holds for reducing the 
costs of high-speed rail service, thus expediting its 
implementation in the United States.
    FRA has entered into a variety of projects to advance 
various high-speed rail [HSR] technologies. The Committee 
maintains that it is critical to complete the final 
development, testing, and demonstration of these projects that 
were begun in fiscal year 1995. These include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                           1996 request      allowance    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced train control..     $10,000,000      $9,000,000      $9,000,000
Nonelectric locomotive..      15,500,000  ..............       9,500,000
Grade crossing hazards..       7,000,000       4,500,000       4,500,000
Corridor planning.......       2,000,000       1,000,000       1,545,000
Administrative..........         500,000         500,000         455,000
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total \1\.........      35,000,000      15,000,000      25,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 in limitation on obligation from the highway    
  trust fund.                                                           


    Advanced train control.--FRA awarded a $6,080,000 grant to 
Michigan in March 1995, to initiate a project to demonstrate 
advanced train control on 44 miles of track on the Detroit-
Chicago corridor. This innovative project seeks to demonstrate 
significantly improved grade crossing protection, positive 
train control, and substantially higher speeds on the line. The 
Committee's allowance includes $3,000,000, which is needed to 
complete installation of this system. FRA also will soon award 
a grant, using fiscal year 1995 funds, of $1,000,000 to 
Illinois to begin a demonstration of advanced train control 
system [ATCS] on a segment of the Chicago-St. Louis corridor. 
The Committee's allowance includes $6,000,000 to advance this 
ATCS demonstration of a full central command control system 
using modern radio communications.
    Nonelectric locomotives.--The Committee disagrees with the 
recommendation of the House to eliminate the advancement of 
nonelectric locomotives as part of the Next Generation HSR 
Program. Success in providing commercially available, reliable 
nonelectric locomotives capable of 125 to 150 miles per hour 
would reduce HSR implementation cost by approximately 
$2,000,000 to $3,000,000 per mile by avoiding the need for 
electrification. Both Amtrak and FRA agree that additional 
refinements and testing are necessary to provide a reliable, 
maintenance-efficient, nonelectric locomotive capable of the 
high acceleration necessary for HSR service. As the FRA report 
on the Albany-Schenectady project indicates, the retrofit of 
these turbine engines successfully demonstrate a top speed of 
125 miles per hour. But, the demonstration also indicated that 
additional work is necessary to address the issues of 
acceleration, reliability, and maintainability, which are key 
to successful HSR service in nonelectric powered fleet 
operations. The favorable public reaction to the demonstration 
train in revenue service, leads to the conclusion that 
additional enhanced and upgraded remanufacture of high-speed 
train sets will further nonelectric high-speed rail development 
objectives. Given the uncertainty of the market for high-speed, 
nonelectric locomotives, the Committee maintains that the 
private sector alone is unlikely to address the many remaining 
technical issues confronting the innovation of high-speed 
nonelectric locomotives. Thus, these constraints are 
appropriately addressed through the Next Generation HSR 
Program. Consequently, the Committee has provided $6,000,000 
for continuation of this program of development, testing, and 
demonstration of turbine powered nonelectric locomotives 
including in fleet operation in New York. The Committee directs 
FRA to ensure that these funds be matched on a dollar-for-
dollar basis. FRA should be prepared to report next year on the 
results of the demonstration with particular emphasis on 
maintainability, reliability, fuel consumption, and operating 
and maintenance costs.
    FRA obligated $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 to upgrade the 
high-speed test track at its Transportation Technology Center 
in Pueblo, CO. This work is necessary to expedite final testing 
of new and innovative equipment before it is put into revenue 
service. Otherwise, such tests would need to be done on lines 
in revenue service, thus disrupting service or maintenance 
work. The upgrade will include catenary work and track work to 
enable tests to 150 miles per hour and the capability for 
testing innovative work on grade crossing hazards. The 
Committee's allowance includes $3,500,000 to advance this work 
to enable testing of Northeast corridor high speed transits in 
fiscal year 1997 and other high speed equipment as necessary.
    Grade crossing hazards and other innovative technologies.--
FRA will make grants in fiscal year 1995 totaling $1,300,000 
for grade crossing and other innovative projects in Delaware, 
Virginia, Idaho, and elsewhere across the Nation to enable 
higher speeds without compromising safety. Advanced train 
control systems will monitor and communicate train locations 
and speeds and will stop the train if the crossing is not 
clear. For example, four quadrant gates block all highway lanes 
and provide increased protection with existing technology. 
Movable barriers will protect crossings which cannot be closed. 
The Committee's allowance includes $1,000,000 to complete these 
projects and $3,500,000 to conduct a multifaceted demonstration 
of innovative techniques for eliminating crossing hazards in a 
high-speed corridor. Success in this area is essential for 
effective, safe high-speed rail service.
    Corridor planning.--Section 26101 of the Swift Rail 
Development Act authorizes a corridor planning assistance 
program to advance high-speed rail systems. The Committee 
recommends $1,545,000 to implement this section of the act. 
Eligible activities include feasibility studies, economic 
analyses, assessment of community economic impacts, operational 
planning, route selection analysis, and right-of-way 
acquisition. These funds will provide additional leveraging 
opportunities to advance high-speed rail systems in the United 
States. The resolution of nontechnical as well as technical 
challenges is essential for the implementation of high-speed 
rail systems in the United States.
    Corridor development.--The House Appropriations Committee 
has addressed corridor risk analytical model development under 
the ``Railroad research and development'' account. However, 
this program received $300,000 within the ``Railroad safety'' 
account in fiscal year 1995. With these funds, FRA has begun 
evaluating advanced train control and other system enhancements 
in various proposed high-speed rail corridors, including 
Detroit to Chicago, Chicago to St. Louis, and Seattle to 
Portland. The Committee strongly disagrees with the House 
directive for FRA to submit its corridor risk analysis 
development plan before initiating further corridor development 
work outside the Northeast corridor. Such efforts in corridors 
outside the Northeast should not be delayed while awaiting an 
FRA report.
    NAS study.--The Committee directs FRA to request the 
National Academy of Sciences [NAS] to assemble a panel of 
experts who will guide and help integrate each of the 
components of FRA's high-speed rail program. Unlike the House 
proposal, the Committee believes that this request should be 
for ongoing advice for the entire period of Federal investment 
in high-speed rail technology. This panel will offer periodic 
advice and guidance on the management, coordination, and 
direction of the program. Therefore, the Committee's allowance 
includes sufficient funds for the NAS to improve the structure, 
focus, and nature of: (1) the ongoing high-speed rail safety 
and technology research and development program, (2) the Next 
Generation Technology Program, (3) the integration of the 
research and development program with the demonstration 
activity, and (4) other Federal policies and programs to 
promote high-speed rail corridor planning and implementation, 
including project-level planning, engineering, and operational 
analyses.
    The Committee expects that the strategic guidance provided 
by the NAS panel would promote the likelihood that the advances 
derived from the FRA-sponsored program are deployed in future 
State or private sector high-speed rail projects. The NAS would 
support FRA by selecting recognized experts from various 
stakeholder groups and by coordinating review activities to 
assure optimum program direction and results. The NAS panel 
would be expected to issue progress reports to the Department, 
with copies forwarded to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations.
    The panel also should consider whether a private-sector led 
consortium, similar to that established to plan and conduct a 
prototype test of the advanced highway system, or some other 
management structure should be formed to conduct the various 
components of the high-speed rail initiative on behalf of or in 
association with the FRA starting in fiscal year 1998.
                     Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                                             $10,000,000

    The Committee has included $10,000,000 for capital 
rehabilitation and improvements benefiting passenger operations 
of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 470 miles from 
Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska, to the 
interior town of Fairbanks. It carries both passengers and 
freight, and provides a critical transportation link for 
passengers and cargo traveling through difficult terrain and 
harsh climatic conditions. Subzero temperatures in the region 
result in frost-heaving of the railbed, and require costly 
repairs and reinvestment. The Committee notes that 
rehabilitation work on the Alaska railroad is more expensive 
per mile than for most other railroads due to its location.

               Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project
Appropriations, 1995.................................... \1\ $40,000,000
    Rescission..........................................    (40,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................\2\ (50,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

\1\ $40,000,000 was rescinded in Public Law 104-6, but provided 
$21,500,000 for emergency, life safety needs under Amtrak's capital 
grant.
\2\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].

    The Committee has provided $25,000,000 for redevelopment of 
Pennsylvania Station in New York City in fiscal year 1996. This 
is $25,000,000 less than the administration's request. The 
project was authorized for appropriation in the National 
Highway System Designation Act, Senate bill 440, which passed 
the Senate on June 22, 1995. The House did not provide funds 
for the project.
    The Committee is pleased that the State and the city of New 
York have proven their financial commitments to this project, 
with $75,000,000 and $25,000,000 budgeted respectively. The 
Governor of New York State is chartering a State-subsidiary 
corporation, the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corp., to 
oversee the financing and redevelopment of the station. The 
Committee believes that establishing a separate entity to 
manage this major undertaking is a prudent step that will help 
ensure the project's success, and the careful management of the 
investment being made by all governmental partners. It is 
structured with a board of directors consisting of two State, 
two city, and two Federal representatives. For fiscal year 
1996, State and local cost sharing is already in place, 
demonstrating the importance of the project to the non-Federal 
parties. Total project financing leverages the Federal grant by 
a factor of 3 to 1.
    Tenant leases and audit activities.--The Committee has been 
informed by Amtrak that references in the House report to 
various deficiencies uncovered by inspector general reviews are 
extremely misleading. In fact, the Committee understands that 
these audits were requested by Amtrak's new Commercial 
Development Department in an effort to correct matters of 
longstanding duration and that appropriate remedial actions 
have been taken.
    The Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project will provide 
New York City a gateway station with a modern facility to 
better serve Amtrak ridership.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development
Appropriations, 1995....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................\1\ (10,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................       2,000,000

\1\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].

    For fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated $5,000,000 to 
fund construction of a third track on the Northeast corridor 
between Davisville and Central Falls, RI, with sufficient 
clearance to accommodate double stack freight cars. The 
appropriation act stipulated that the State of Rhode Island or 
its designee provide matching funds on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis, and that the Providence & Worcester [P&W] Railroad, 
which would benefit from the third track, enter into an 
agreement with the Secretary to reimburse Amtrak and/or FRA up 
to $5,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal 
actions brought by the P&W.
    For fiscal year 1996, the administration proposes to 
continue funding this project, with a dollar-for-dollar 
matching requirement of the State of Rhode Island or its 
designee and a requirement that the P&W enter into an agreement 
with the Secretary to reimburse Amtrak and/or FRA up to 
$15,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal 
actions brought by the P&W. The Committee is providing 
$2,000,000 to continue the Rhode Island rail development 
project.

       Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Appropriations, 1995....................................\1\ $772,000,000
    Supplemental........................................      21,500,000
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\2\ (750,000,000)
House allowance.........................................     628,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     605,000,000

\1\ Includes $150,000,000 for mandatory passenger rail payments 
displayed as a separate account in fiscal year 1994.
\2\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].

    The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was 
established in 1971 to preserve and improve the Nation's 
intercity rail passenger system. Federal assistance, in the 
form of operating and capital grants, has been provided since 
Amtrak's inception through the Department of Transportation. 
Over its 23-year existence, Amtrak has succeeded in vastly 
improving the economics of intercity rail passenger operations 
and in expanding the demand for and quality of service.
    The Committee has provided a total funding level of 
$605,000,000 for Amtrak. This is $23,000,000 less than the 
House appropriation and $167,000,000 below the fiscal year 1995 
Amtrak appropriation. The administration's request for Amtrak 
funding was included in the UTIIP proposal at $975,000,000 (it 
rises to $1,035,000,000 if the Farley Building is included). 
Amtrak's budget request was for a total of $1,010,000 (Amtrak's 
request totaled $1,060,000,000 with the Farley Building 
included).
    The Senate and House budget resolutions call for Amtrak 
capital needs to be funded, but would phase out Amtrak's 
operating subsidy over the life of the resolution. Amtrak has 
already undertaken plans for significant restructuring of the 
corporation. Broadening and deepening its revenue streams are 
vital to the railroad's commitment to wean itself from 
dependency on Federal operating aid. The Committee appreciates 
Amtrak's efforts to improve its fiscal health. However, 
Amtrak's future depends, in large measure, on the success of 
its restructuring plans and on Federal legislative action.
    Amtrak's fiscal year 1995 strategic and business plan, 
announced in December 1994, calls for reductions of 5,600 FTE's 
(full time equivalent) on an annual basis. For the period 
October 1994 through May 1995, 1,548 people left Amtrak's 
payroll. The plan would restructure Amtrak's route network and 
improve productivity. Amtrak expects the actions to reduce 
operating expenses by about $200,000,000 in 1995, and 
ultimately cut such expenses by about $430 million annually. 
However, Amtrak estimates that about $21,000,000 of the 
$200,000,000 it plans to save in 1995 is dependent upon 
collective bargaining and/or legislative change. Although 
legislation to reform Amtrak is under consideration in 
congress, to date, no bills have been passed.
    It is clear, however, that Amtrak remains reliant on 
Federal capital investment to help produce greater operating 
efficiencies, reduce maintenance needs, and improve revenues. 
Meeting these capital needs present great challenges to the 
Committee.

                               OPERATIONS                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                           1996 request      allowance    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Routine operating                                                       
 expenses...............    $300,000,000    $216,000,000    $185,000,000
Mandatory passenger rail                                                
 payments...............     120,000,000     120,000,000     120,000,000
Transition and                                                          
 restructuring costs....     100,000,000      62,000,000     100,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Committee has provided $305,000,000 for operations, 
while the House provided $336,000,000 for this account. Amtrak 
has requested $260,000,000 for operations, a reduction of 
$135,000,000 below its fiscal year 1995 appropriation for 
operations. Amtrak indicates that its ability to continue to 
reduce operating expenses depends on Federal capital aid of at 
least $500,000,000 (including both ordinary capital for Amtrak 
and Northeast corridor funds).
    Mandatory passenger rail payments.--This appropriations 
includes $120,000,000 for mandatory passenger rail service 
payments, as requested by the administration. These payments 
are made by Amtrak into the railroad retirement fund and the 
``Railroad unemployment insurance'' account. Amtrak has not 
requested these funds which it believes may total as much as 
$135,000,000 and contends that the responsibility to meet these 
payments lies elsewhere in the Federal budget. The Committee 
appreciates the fiscal relief Amtrak could achieve if these 
payments were deleted from its expenses. However, without new 
legislative direction on this point the Committee must continue 
to make these funds available.
    Transition and restructuring costs.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000,000 in transition costs, the same as the 
administration's request and $38,000,000 above the House 
appropriation. These funds will assist Amtrak in meeting the 
varied costs, many of them personnel costs, associated with 
streamlining and restructuring the corporation.

                            CAPITAL EXPENSES

    The Committee has provided $200,000,000 for capital grants, 
$30,000,000 less than the House allocation and administration's 
request. Amtrak requested a total of $365,000,000 in capital, 
an increase of $135,000,000 above fiscal year 1995. The 
railroad contends that steep reductions in its operating 
request are not feasible without significantly higher capital 
funding.
    It is difficult to quantify the effects of terminating 
Amtrak on transportation, energy, and social issues. However, 
the complete deletion of Federal support likely would 
precipitate the liquidation of Amtrak, and cost millions of 
dollars. Net Federal, State, and local government outlays could 
even increase in the short run because of lower income, 
payroll, and other tax revenues; costs that would appear 
elsewhere in outlays; and labor protection obligations.
    Amtrak's future.--The House has conditioned Amtrak's 
appropriation upon the enactment of authorizing legislation 
containing significant reforms, including labor reforms.
    While the Senate Appropriations Committee has not fenced in 
Amtrak's funding pending action by the authorizing committees, 
Amtrak's long-term viability and continued contribution to our 
national transportation system clearly depend on legislative 
and managerial reforms. Amtrak officials testified that, in 
order to continue to operate in a stronger, more businesslike 
manner, Amtrak needs relief from many externally imposed costs 
that are not directly related to train operations and for which 
its primary competitors are not responsible. For example, 
Amtrak argues for: freedom to collectively bargain labor/
management issues; more favorable apportionment of Northeast 
corridor costs; a dedicated funding source; freedom to bargain 
with States to achieve fuller reimbursement for the costs of 
routes and services; elimination from Amtrak's operating budget 
of the mandatory payment requirement for excess railroad 
retirement and railroad unemployment insurance; freedom to 
issue tax-exempt debt; tort reform; and other items.
    The Committee believes that there are strong arguments in 
favor of continuing Federal support for intercity passenger 
rail service. It is crucial, however, that congressional 
authorizing committees expeditiously provide the policy and 
legal framework needed for such public service to be 
successfully provided. This Committee must refer to current 
laws when allocating transportation dollars, and cannot assume 
that legislative reforms will be approved. Thus, within its 
tight budget allocation, the Committee has sought to provide a 
sufficient sum of grant funds for Amtrak.
    State infrastructure banks.--Provisions included in this 
bill create a program of State infrastructure banks which will 
greatly enhance financing options for transportation projects 
across the modes: aviation, highways, rail freight, transit, 
ports, et cetera. There is a glaring exclusion from this 
program--Amtrak. Amtrak is excluded because the administration 
would have required an untenable amount of the Committee's 
budget allocation to cover the risk of Amtrak's participation: 
OMB would account for a loan to Amtrak in the same way as a 
grant. The Committee's efforts to expand the use of its limited 
Amtrak funds have been diminished because it cannot offer 
Amtrak Federal loan guaranties. The Committee is hugely 
frustrated with the administration's treatment of Amtrak which 
has resulted in the Committee being unable to enhance Amtrak's 
access to tools of modern financial management, and less 
Federal assistance for the railroad.
    The Committee had sought to augment Amtrak's grant with 
loan guaranties. Working with the railroad and the Federal 
Railroad Administration, the Committee believed that it made 
sense to provide Amtrak with an opportunity to secure low-
interest federally guaranteed loans to purchase new 
locomotives, or other assets, that clearly would help produce 
more revenues. Paying back a loan on time is what most 
companies do to demonstrate their credit worthiness. Repayment 
of such loans by Amtrak would have further demonstrated the 
success of restructuring reforms.
    The administration's budget called for Amtrak to be 
included in the Federal portion of the proposed Unified 
Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP] with 
the States portion--the unified grant--to grow over time. This 
plan envisioned the State role regarding Amtrak funding to 
increase. Presumably, States would have had access to SIB's to 
assist Amtrak. This makes the administration's position on 
federally guaranteed loans for Amtrak even more difficult to 
accept. No legislation with respect to UTIIP has passed either 
the Senate or the House.
    Flexible funding for Amtrak.--The Committee also points out 
that under the Senate-passed National Highway System 
Designation Act, Senate bill 440, States would have the 
authority to allocate flexible Federal transportation funds for 
intercity rail passenger service. Billions of dollars per year 
from the congestion mitigation and air quality program and the 
surface transportation program would be newly accessible for 
Amtrak projects, if State officials so choose. This flexible 
and intermodal approach to transportation funding, if enacted 
by Congress, would provide a welcome assist to Amtrak's 
financial program.
                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The Federal Transit Administration was established as a 
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization 
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred 
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit 
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    The missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to 
assist in the development of improved mass transportation 
facilities, equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage 
the planning and establishment of urban mass transportation 
services needed for economical and desirable urban development; 
to provide mobility for transit dependents; to maximize 
productivity of urban transportation systems; and to provide 
assistance to State and local governments and their 
instrumentalities in financing such services and systems.
    Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority is authorized under Public Law 101-551. The Stark-
Harris authorizations have all been expended.
    In fiscal year 1996, the administration proposed to fund 
all but the violent crime reduction programs through a proposed 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program 
[UTIIP]. Neither the House nor Senate authorizing committees 
has moved the necessary legislation for this proposed 
consolidation.
    Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level 
of $4,093,850,000 would be provided for the programs of the 
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 1996. This is 
$851,371,000 less than the budget request and $101,340,000 
above the House allocation.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations compared to fiscal year 1995, the 
administration's request, and the House allowance:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year    Fiscal year                                 
                      Program                       1995 enacted    1996 budget   Houseallowance     Committee  
                                                         \1\         estimate                     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses...........................        42,595    \2\ (44,202)         39,260          42,000 
Formula grants \3\................................     2,499,911      2,865,050       2,000,000       2,105,850 
Discretionary grants \3\..........................     1,724,904      1,724,944       1,665,000       1,665,000 
Transit planning and research.....................        92,079   \2\ (100,027)         82,250          90,000 
University transportation centers.................         6,000     \2\ (6,000)          6,000           6,000 
Interstate transfer grants--transit...............        48,030  ..............  ..............  ..............
Washington Metro..................................       200,000   \2\ (200,000)        200,000         170,000 
Violent crime reduction programs..................  ............          5,000   ..............  ..............
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................................     4,613,519      4,945,223       3,992,510       4,078,850 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 323, 330, and 331 of Public Law 103-331 and amounts transferred to 
  OST, salaries and expenses for civil rights activities.                                                       
\2\ Funding included under UTIIP.                                                                               
\3\ Includes obligation limitation on contract authority in 1995 and 1996.                                      

                        Administrative Expenses
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $42,594,700
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      44,202,000
House allowance.........................................      39,260,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,000,000

    The administration proposes to fund transit administrative 
expenses through the Unified Transportation Infrastructure 
Investment Program. The Committee recommends a total of 
$42,000,000 in general funds for administrative expenses. The 
amount provided is $2,740,000 more than the House allowance and 
$2,202,000 less than the administration's request.

                             Formula Grants

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         General            Trust             Total     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations,                                                         
 1995.............    $1,349,911,000    $1,150,000,000    $2,499,911,000
Budget estimate,                                                        
 1996.............     1,744,200,000     1,120,850,000     2,865,050,000
House allowance...       890,000,000     1,100,000,000     2,000,000,000
Committee                                                               
 recommendation...       985,000,000     1,120,850,000     2,105,850,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Formula Grant Program has funded sections 5307, 
5310(a)2, 5311, and 5336, providing grants on the basis of a 
formula to State and local agencies for mass transportation 
operating and capital expenses.
    The Committee recommends $2,105,850,000 for continuation of 
the Formula Grant Program including $111,328,000 for the 
section 18 Nonurban Formula Program; $52,379,000 for the 
section 16(b) Elderly and Disabled Program, and $1,532,432,643 
for the section 9, Capital Grants Program.
    Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These 
areas would receive $1,448,408,297 (not including the one-half 
percent set-aside). The amount for each area is derived based 
on the bus and rail operating statistics and population factors 
for each area. The bus tier, which contains about 67 percent of 
the total funds allocates most of these funds 50 percent based 
on revenue vehicle miles, 25 percent based on population, and 
25 percent based on population density. In the rail tier, the 
remaining 33 percent, most of the funds are allocated 60 
percent based on revenue vehicle miles and 40 percent based on 
route miles. Within the bus and rail tiers there is also an 
incentive portion, or tier, which is based on passenger miles 
and operating costs.
    Urbanized areas under 200,000 population.--These areas 
would receive $84,024,346 (not including the one-half percent 
set-aside) to be distributed 50 percent based on population and 
50 percent based on population density.
    Nonurbanized areas.--These areas would receive 
$111,328,000. These funds are distributed based on nonurbanized 
area population not including the one-half percent setaside.
    Elderly and disabled.--The section 16(b)(2) program would 
receive $52,379,000.
    Operating assistance.--The Committee has included bill 
language limiting operating subsidies to $400,000,000. This is 
the same as the House allowance and $100,000,000 less than the 
administration's request.
    Distribution of operating assistance among urbanized areas 
[UZA's].--The Committee has included language in the bill to 
hold cuts in operating assistance for those urbanized areas 
[UZA's] under 200,000 in population to 20 percent below fiscal 
year 1995 levels, in recognition of the fact that transit 
operators in such areas generally depend on Federal operating 
assistance to meet a greater percentage of their operating 
budgets than operators in larger UZA's. The Committee 
recognizes, however, that transit operators in larger UZA's 
also rely on Federal operating assistance to meet a significant 
amount of annual operating expenses. It notes that all transit 
operators are struggling with increased operating costs 
associated with meeting Federal requirements under the Clean 
Air Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Federal drug 
and alcohol testing mandates. It also is aware that Federal 
operating aid was reduced by 12 percent in fiscal year 1995 and 
that further reductions may result in some combination of fare 
increase, service cuts, or increase support at the State and 
local government levels.
    In order to offset the additional loss of operating aid for 
larger UZA's that will result from the provision described 
above, the Committee has also included language based on, but 
not identical to, proposals made by the American Public Transit 
Association [APTA], which would trade in operating authority 
for additional capital funding. The Committee's proposal would, 
in essence, provide a benefit similar that recommended by APTA 
for those transit operators in UZA's of more than 200,000 who 
are giving up operating assistance for the benefit of transit 
operators in smaller UZA's.
    Paratransit requirements under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act [ADA].--The Americans with Disabilities Act 
[ADA] requires, that transit operators offer paratransit 
service, as well as accessible fixed route service, to persons 
with disabilities. The requirement to provide paratransit 
services to those passengers unable to use fixed-route transit 
service becomes effective January 26, 1996.
    The Committee notes that many of the individuals who are 
eligible for ADA required paratransit service have in the past 
used Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] 
transportation services. Many of these individuals have, for 
one reason or another, seen a reduction in such HHS 
transportation service and now have to rely on financially 
strained transit operators for such service. The HHS agencies 
that provided transportation services already have expertise in 
providing paratransit service and it is estimated that in 
excess of $1,000,000,000 annually is being spent on HHS 
transportation services.
    The Committee believes that, in order to most effectively 
implement the paratransit requirements of the ADA, the 
Department of Transportation should closely coordinate its 
efforts with those of the Department of Health and Human 
Services, and efforts should be made to determine if it might 
be more appropriate for HHS funded agencies to provide such 
paratransit services, and in cases where paratransit service 
formerly provided by HHS agencies is being provided by transit 
operators, whether HHS transportation funding might be used to 
help support the cost of such paratransit service. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation, working with 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to prepare a 
report, detailing a strategic plan involving DOT coordination 
with HHS to provide paratransit services to individuals with 
disabilities who are unable to use fixed-route transit service. 
This report shall be provided to the Senate and House 
Appropriations Committees by December 1, 1995.

                   University Transportation Centers
Appropriations, 1995....................................      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................       6,000,000
House allowance.........................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,000,000

    Section 5317(b) of title 49 U.S.C. provides for the 
university transportation centers program. The purpose of the 
university transportation centers program is to become a 
national resource and focal point for the support and conduct 
of research and training concerning the transportation of 
passengers and property.

                     Transit Planning and Research
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $92,079,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................     100,027,000
House allowance.........................................      82,250,000
Committee recommendation................................      90,000,000

    The Committee has recommended $90,000,000 for transit 
planning and research. This is $7,750,000 more than the House 
allocation and $10,027,000 less than the administration's 
request. The Committee, unlike the House, has not altered the 
statutory distribution of this account into its subparts. Funds 
for this program can draw up to 3 percent of the total FTA 
funding level excluding WMATA. The separate programs combined 
are: the research, training, and human resources program 
(sections 6, 10, 11, and 20), the planning program (section 8), 
and the rural transit assistance program (section 18(h)). Under 
the national component of the program, the Federal Transit 
Administration is a catalyst in the research, development, and 
deployment of transportation methods and technologies 
addressing such issues as accessibility for the disabled, air 
quality, and traffic congestion. Funds for the State and local 
component of the program will ensure that all localities have 
sufficient funds to improve the State and local planning 
process and to participate in research efforts with regional 
applications.
    Transit planning and research funds are allocated by 
formula as authorized in 49 U.S.C. section 5314. The House 
reduced funding for all research accounts 5 percent below the 
administration's request, except for the national program, 
which is reduced by 17.6 percent. The Committee does not agree 
with this allocation, and has distributed funds among the 
transit planning and research accounts as specified in the 
program's authorization.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year   Fiscal year                                
                                                      1995 program   1996 budget  Houseallowance     Committee  
                                                          level       estimate                    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning...............................   $41,512,000   $41,512,000    $39,436,250     $40,500,000 
Rural transit assistance program....................     4,613,000     4,613,000      4,381,250       4,500,000 
State planning and research program.................     8,475,000     8,475,000      8,051,250       8,250,000 
Transit cooperative research program................     8,475,000     8,475,000      8,051,250       8,250,000 
National Transit Institute..........................     3,000,000     3,000,000      2,850,000       3,000,000 
National planning and research program..............    34,004,000    33,952,000     19,480,000      25,500,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................   100,079,000   100,027,000     82,250,000      90,000,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National program.--The Committee does concur with the House 
report language deleting funding for a number of low-priority, 
nonessential programs, including the transit ambassadors 
program, step-by-step diversity training for FTA grantees, 
outreach activities, grants to universities and colleges to 
create transportation courses, the environmental justice 
program, transit educational materials for children, the Coming 
and Going Education Program, and livable communities 
initiatives. Within the national program, the following funds 
are provided for important, ongoing initiatives:

Project ACTION (accessible community transportation in our 
    Nation)...................................................$2,000,000
Advanced technology transit bus............................... 8,000,000
Fuel cell bus technology...................................... 6,000,000
Research on large circuit breakers and switch gears........... 3,250,000
Intermodal positioning system (inertial navigation technology) 1,000,000
ALABC......................................................... 1,000,000

    Large circuit breakers and switchgear.--The Committee 
concurs with the recommendation of the House and directs the 
FTA to continue to provide funding for research and development 
of large circuit breakers and switchgear. The Committee, 
however, has provided $3,250,000 for this purpose. The 
Committee, therefore, directs that funding continue to be made 
available to a team consisting of SEPTA and a domestic 
manufacturer of large military circuit breakers and switchgear.
    Advanced Transportation Systems Program.--The Committee 
directs the FTA to continue the Advanced Transportation Systems 
and Electric Vehicle Technology Program established under 
section 6071 of title VI of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. The Committee is aware 
of the contributions to lead acid battery research and advanced 
alternative fuel transit development that participating 
advanced transportation technology consortia have made to the 
Advanced Transportation Systems Program.
    Within this program, the Committee directs the FTA to 
allocate $1,000,000 of the funds made available for the 
Advanced Transportation Systems and Electric Vehicle Technology 
Program to the Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium [ALABC]. 
This is the second and final phase of funding for the 
consortium and will enable the ALABC to place prototype, 
advanced valve-regulated lead-acid batteries in electric bus 
facilities for inservice testing and demonstration.
    Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program.--The Committee directs the 
FTA to provide $6,000,000 to continue the Fuel Cell Transit Bus 
Program and allow completion of the phase III test program. 
Funds should also be provided for continuation of the 
commercialization process for the 40-foot fuel cell bus. The 
Committee urges the FTA to work cooperatively with all parties 
involved in this project, to ensure an appropriate and 
consistent level of funding for commercialization of the 40-
foot bus.
    Inertial navigation technology for transit vehicles.--The 
Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue the research 
authorized to be conducted by the traffic safety research 
alliance on the deployment of an inertial navigation system in 
urban and rural areas.
    Project ACTION.--The Committee provides $2,000,000 to 
continue Project ACTION (accessible community transportation in 
our Nation), which is administered by the National Easter Seal 
Society through a cooperative agreement with the FTA.
    Monobeam system.--Recognizing the potential for U.S. 
industry development, the Committee urges the Department to 
support development of a full-scale prototype of a monobeam 
transit system within available funds. Full-scale demonstration 
with substantial private-sector participation will 
significantly advance this environmentally sensitive, low-
capital cost technology toward production.
    House directives.--The Committee does not concur with the 
House Committee directives regarding earmarks for Team Transit 
Program of the Minnesota Metropolitan Commission; Dulles 
corridor studies; or the Hennepin County MN, community works 
program.

                  Trust Fund Share of Transit Programs

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................($1,150,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (1,120,850,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,120,850,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,120,850,000)

    Under ISTEA, Public Law 102-240, four transit accounts can 
be funded from the mass transit account of the highway trust 
fund, the general fund, or a mix of the two. In 1996, as in 
1995, the Federal Transit Administration and the Committee 
propose funding only formula grants with both trust and general 
funds. Administrative expenses, university transportation 
centers, and planning and research will be funded only with 
general funding in order to simplify a complex accounting 
procedure.
                          Discretionary Grants

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................($1,724,904,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (1,724,944,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,665,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,665,000,000)

    Section 5338(b) of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary 
grants or loans to States and local public bodies and agencies 
thereof to be used in financing mass transportation 
investments. Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240, investments may 
include construction of new fixed guideway systems; extensions 
to existing guideway systems; major bus fleet expansions; and 
rail modernization expenditures for existing older rail 
systems. Planning is funded, along with research, within the 
new transit planning and research appropriation.
    The Committee recommends a level of $1,665,000,000. This is 
the same as that recommended by the House and $59,944,000 less 
than the administration's request. It is the full amount 
authorized from the trust fund by Public Law 102-240.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year                                 
                                                     1995 program   1996 budget  Houseallowance     Committee   
                                                         level       estimate                    recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities.............................       353,310       274,992        333,000          333,000 
Existing rail modernization........................       724,960       724,976        666,000          666,000 
New systems and new extensions.....................       646,634       724,976        666,000          666,000 
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................     1,724,904  \1\ 1,724,94                                 
                                                                              4      1,665,000        1,665,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $59,944,000 in general funds.                                                                      

    Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
The Committee has redistributed unallocated discretionary bus 
and new starts funds from projects which were funded in the 
fiscal year 1993 transportation appropriations bill (Public Law 
102-388), making these funds available for reallocation in 
fiscal year 1996. In section 374 of Public Law 102-388, funding 
availability for these discretionary funds is limited to 3 
years from enactment. A total of $22,840,000 has been 
reprogrammed to the new systems account, increasing the 
available funding from $666,000,000 to $688,840,000.
    Interstate compact infrastructure banks.--Provisions in 
this bill create a program of State infrastructure banks which 
will greatly enhance capital financing options for transit 
projects across the Nation. These innovative financing tools, 
including loans, will be available to transit new starts as 
well as other transit capital projects.

                         bus and bus facilities

    In allocating funds under discretionary grants for buses 
and bus facilities, the Committee has deleted funding for many 
meritorious projects which were included in the House version 
of the bill. The Committee has deleted funding for these 
projects without prejudice. Budget constraints have required 
the Committee to use limited funds to identify projects that 
have not already been recognized in the House version of the 
bill. However, the Committee expects to give full consideration 
to all projects in the House and Senate bills during conference 
committee deliberations on the Fiscal Year 1995 Transportation 
Appropriations Act.
    The recommended amount includes the following allocations:

                                            BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee  
                State/city/county                                   Description                   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas:                                                                                                       
    Little Rock..................................  Central Arkansas transit transfer facility...     $1,000,000 
    Fayetteville (University of Arkansas)........  Intermodal transfer facility.................      5,400,000 
California:                                                                                                     
    Long Beach...................................  Bus replacement and parts....................      3,000,000 
    Los Angeles..................................  Gateway Intermodal Transit Center............     15,000,000 
    San Diego....................................  San Ysidro Intermodal Center.................     10,000,000 
    San Francisco................................  BART ADA compliance/paratransit..............      4,460,000 
    San Joaquin..................................  RTD bus replacement..........................     10,560,000 
Florida: Miami (Metro-Dade)......................  Buses for Metro-Dade Transit.................     16,000,000 
Hawaii: Honolulu, Oahu...........................  Kuakini Medical Center parking facility......      8,000,000 
Illinois: Chicago................................  Replacement buses/communication system.......     13,700,000 
Iowa:                                                                                                           
    Cedar Rapids.................................  Hybrid electric bus consortium...............      2,960,000 
    State of Iowa................................  Buses, equipment, and facilities.............      8,000,000 
    Waterloo.....................................  Intermodal bus facility......................      1,340,000 
    Ottumwa......................................  Global positioning system equipment..........        700,000 
Maryland: State of Maryland......................  MTA replacement buses........................     16,000,000 
Michigan:                                                                                                       
    Lansing......................................  Intermodal Transportation Center.............      4,180,000 
    State of Michigan............................  ISTEA set-aside requirement..................     10,000,000 
Missouri:                                                                                                       
    Kansas City..................................  Union Station intermodal.....................     13,000,000 
    St. Louis....................................  MetroLink bus purchase.......................     10,000,000 
    State of Missouri............................  Buses and bus facilities.....................     11,000,000 
Nevada: Clark County.............................  Buses and bus facility.......................     20,000,000 
New Jersey:                                                                                                     
    Garden State Parkway.........................  Park-n-ride at Interchange 165...............      2,300,000 
    Hamilton Township............................  Intermodal facility/bus maintenance..........     25,000,000 
New York:                                                                                                       
    Albany.......................................  Buses........................................     10,000,000 
    Long Island..................................  Buses........................................      3,000,000 
    New York City................................  Natural gas buses/fueling station............     10,000,000 
    Rensselaer...................................  Intermodal station...........................      7,500,000 
    Rochester-Genessee...........................  Buses........................................      1,400,000 
    Utica (and rural counties)...................  Buses........................................      6,000,000 
Ohio: Columbus...................................  Bus transfer center..........................     10,000,000 
Oregon:                                                                                                         
    Wilsonville..................................  Transit vehicles.............................        500,000 
    Eugene lane transit district [LTD]...........  Radio system.................................      1,300,000 
Pennsylvania:                                                                                                   
    Beaver County................................  Bus facility.................................      3,300,000 
    Erie.........................................  Intermodal complex...........................      8,000,000 
    Philadelphia.................................  Chestnut Street/alternative fuel vehicles....      2,000,000 
    Pittsburgh...................................  Busway system................................     10,000,000 
Texas:                                                                                                          
    Corpus Christi...............................  ADART dispatching system.....................      1,600,000 
    Robstown/Corpus Christi......................  Bus shelters/curb cuts/transit center........        800,000 
Vermont:                                                                                                        
    State of Vermont.............................  Buses and bus facilities.....................      6,000,000 
    Marble Valley................................  Bus upgrades.................................      2,000,000 
Virginia: Richmond...............................  Downtown multimodal station..................     10,000,000 
Washington:                                                                                                     
    Everett......................................  Everett multimodal center....................      7,000,000 
    Seattle......................................  Seattle Metro/King County multimodal.........      4,000,000 
    Seattle/King County..........................  Seattle Metro bus purchase...................     10,000,000 
    Tacoma.......................................  Tacoma dome arena multimodal.................      5,000,000 
    Wenatchee....................................  Chelan-Douglas multimodal....................      2,000,000 
                                                                                                 ---------------
      Total......................................  .............................................    333,000,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The bill includes $333,000,000 under this heading for the 
purchase of buses, bus related equipment and paratransit 
vehicles and for the construction of bus-related facilities. 
These funds will assist in the replacement of many over-age 
buses in cities of all sizes, permit the expansion of bus 
service to accommodate community transit needs, help finance 
appropriate bus maintenance facility modernization or 
construction, assist in bus rehabilitation, and assist in the 
purchase of support equipment. In addition, these funds will be 
to defray costs to grantees associated with implementing 
requirements associated with the Americans With Disabilities 
Act and the Clean Air Act.

                      fixed guideway modernization

    The Committee recommends a total of $666,000,000 for the 
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under ISTEA all 
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table 
itemizes by city the fiscal year 1996 rail modernization 
allocations:

                                                        Fiscal year 1996
        Areas                                              apportionment

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
Hartford................................................         376,909
Madison.................................................         176,241
San Juan................................................         891,176
Detroit.................................................         165,760
Dallas..................................................         266,485
Sacramento..............................................         841,768
Houston.................................................       1,413,969
Buffalo.................................................         378,659
Portland................................................         743,813
Miami...................................................       2,752,667
Phoenix.................................................         997,690
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     661,005,000
Three-fourths of 1 percent takedown.....................       4,995,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total appropriation...............................     666,000,000
                              NEW SYSTEMS

    The bill includes $666,000,000, the fully authorized level, 
and $22,840,000 of reprogrammed funds, for a total of 
$688,840,000. These funds are available for preliminary 
engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management, 
oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions. 
According to specific project needs, these funds shall also be 
available for preliminary stages of projects named for funding. 
The funds are to be distributed as follows:

Atlanta-MARTA North Springs extension...................     $42,410,000
Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway, MOS-2.............      22,620,000
Burlington-Charlotte, Vermont commuter rail.............      11,300,000
Chicago central area circulator.........................       5,000,000
Dallas-DART:
    South Oak Cliff LRT.................................      16,941,000
    North central extension.............................       3,500,000
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN..............................       7,000,000
Florida Tri-County commuter rail........................      10,000,000
Houston-METRO regional bus plan.........................      22,630,000
Los Angeles Metro Rail MOS-3............................      45,000,000
Maryland commuter rail [MARC]...........................      15,000,000
Maryland--Baltimore central corridor LRT................      22,630,000
Miami Metrorail North 27th Avenue extension.............       2,000,000
New Jersey urban core...................................      85,500,000
New York Queens connector...............................     160,000,000
Pittsburgh Airport busway projects......................      22,630,000
Portland Westside LRT...................................     130,140,000
Salt Lake City light rail project.......................      14,519,000
San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions............      22,620,000
St. Louis Metrolink.....................................      13,000,000
Wisconsin Central commuter [Metra]......................      14,400,000
                          PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

    Atlanta-MARTA North Line extension.--The Committee 
recommends $42,410,000 for the Atlanta-MARTA North Line 
extension project. This 9-mile, five-station extension will 
allow Atlanta's heavy rail rapid transit system to serve the 
rapidly growing area north of Atlanta, and will connect this 
area with the rest of the region by providing better transit 
service for both commuters and inner-city residents. The 
extension to Dunwoody is presently under construction; the 
extension to North Springs is in final design. The local share 
commitment for the federally funded portion of this extension 
is 21 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $5 per new 
passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the 
financial capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA 
for the Dunwoody to North Springs segment was issued in 
December 1994 which fulfilled the requirements of section 
3035(tt) of ISTEA. All of the $29,460,000 in funds provided to 
this segment since the enactment of ISTEA have been obligated, 
as has the $10,000,000 provided in pre-ISTEA funds. No funds 
were appropriated for this project in the fiscal year 1994 or 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations. The FFGA funding schedule 
provides for $42,410,000 in fiscal year 1996 new starts funds, 
with the remaining $223,140,000 provided over fiscal year 1997-
2000. To date, $132,000,000 has been obligated to the project 
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. The 
3.1-mile federally funded segment of the North Line extension 
(Medical Center to North Springs) received an ISTEA earmark of 
$329,000,000.
    Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway MOS-2.--The Committee 
recommends $22,620,000 for the South Boston Piers Transitway 
project. This project consists of a 1-mile bus tunnel 
connecting South Station to the World Trade Center and Fan 
Pier. The tunnel will be used by electric trolleybuses, its 
construction is timed to link the central artery/tunnel highway 
project now underway. The project is in the final design stage. 
The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent. The 
cost-effectiveness index ranges from $9 to $16 per new 
passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the 
financial capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA 
was issued in November 1994 in the amount of $330,730,000; this 
includes the $92,460,000 provided in fiscal year 1995 and prior 
years. The FFGA funding schedule provides for $22,620,000 in 
fiscal year 1996. The remaining $215,650,000 would be provided 
over the course of fiscal years 1997-2000. To date, $92,500,000 
has been obligated to the project with no prior-year 
appropriations remaining unobligated. This project received an 
ISTEA earmark of $278,000,000.
    Burlington-Charlotte, VT, commuter rail.--The Committee 
recommends $11,300,000 to complete the Federal share of capital 
improvements for the Burlington-Charlotte commuter rail 
project. These funds will be used for the purchase of rail cars 
and improvements to existing tracks currently used by Amtrak 
and Vermont Railway to provide commuter rail service between 
the cities of Burlington and Charlotte. The State of Vermont is 
willing to utilize flex funding [STP] for this project, with an 
initial grant of $750,000 projected for approval in the first 
quarter of fiscal year 1996, after all issues, including 
environmental questions, have been addressed. The balance of 
funding (also from flex funds) would be provided in outyears. 
The State of Vermont has also committed to financing all 
required operating costs associated with this commuter rail 
project. The Vermont Agency on Transportation estimates the 
cost of the commuter rail alternative to be $7,700,000. The 
project is in the planning stage with a major investment study 
[MIS] nearing completion. A public hearing on the preferred 
alternative will be held after the study is completed. The MIS 
identifies a preliminary cost-effectiveness index of $7 per new 
passenger trip. Discretionary funds have not yet been 
authorized or appropriated for this corridor.
    Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for the northeast Ohio corridor project. 
The House provided $6,500,000 for this project. The Northeast 
Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency [NOACA] has initiated work on 
a feasibility study to select potential commuter rail corridors 
for serving urban and suburban areas in northeastern Ohio. This 
phase is scheduled to be completed in mid-1996. A follow-on 
phase will assess economic ad environmental implications of a 
commuter rail system as well as analyze other transportation 
modes available to meet anticipated travel demand. This project 
was earmarked in ISTEA for $1,600,000,000. Through fiscal year 
1995, $1,790,000,000 has been appropriated to this project and 
$990,000 has been obligated.
    Chicago central area circulator.--The Committee recommends 
$5,000,000 for the Chicago central area circulator project. The 
House provided no funding for this project. This project had 
completed the preliminary engineering stage, and was poised to 
seek $42,410,000 for final design (the amount requested by the 
administration for fiscal year 1996). The project was to be 
funded in shares of one-third by its Federal, State, and local 
participants. The Illinois Legislature has now deleted its 
cost-share of the circulator, and the project sponsors are in 
process of reducing the project's scope and increasing the 
Federal share (not to exceed 50 percent). Delays can be 
expected as the project plan is reconsidered, its financing 
commitments redone, and the new phased-in project enters the 
required environmental review stage. The project's full funding 
grant agreement [FFGA] provides a total of $258,370,000 
including $116,230,000 provided through fiscal year 1995. This 
FFGA must be renegotiated with the Federal Transit 
Administration to reflect the phased-in project when the 
details of the rescoped project are settled. The Committee has 
provided a small amount of funding to enable this project to 
move forward in fiscal year 1996.
    Cincinnati Northeast/northern Kentucky rail.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for the Cincinnati Northeast/northern 
Kentucky corridor. The House provided $2,000,000 for this 
project. The administration did not request any funding. This 
corridor extends from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky 
International Airport through downtown Cincinnati to 
Paramount's Kings Island Amusement Park in Warren County, OH. 
This 33-mile corridor paralleling I-71 generally runs in a 
northeasterly direction, and so is referred to as the Northeast 
corridor. The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of 
Governments [OKI] is conducting a planning study of 
transportation alternatives in this corridor. The study is 
expected to be completed in 1997. Pending completion of the 
study, there is no information on the nature of the project, 
its costs and benefits, and the local share commitment to the 
project; therefore, additional funding is not yet required. 
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $2,530,000. 
To date, $2,530,000 has been obligated with no prior-year 
appropriations remaining unobligated. This project is not 
authorized in ISTEA.
    Dallas-DART South Oak Cliff Line.--The Committee recommends 
$16,941,000 for the Dallas-DART South Oak Cliff Line. This 
amount is the same as that provided by the House and will 
complete this project. This line is part of a 20-mile, 
$835,000,000 light rail starter system which is being 
constructed by Dallas Area Rapid Transit [DART]. The 9.6-mile, 
13 station South Oak Cliff Line extends from downtown Dallas to 
Ledbetter Drive in the South Oak Cliff area of Dallas. The 
project is under construction. The local share commitment to 
this project is 43 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $9 
per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has 
the financial capacity to build and operate this project. An 
FFGA in the amount of $160,000,000 has been issued for this 
project, fulfilling the requirements of section 3035(i) of 
ISTEA. Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated a 
total of $143,100,000. To date, $143,100,000 has been obligated 
to the project with no prior-year appropriations remaining 
unobligated. The FFGA funding schedule calls for $16,940,000 in 
new starts funding in fiscal year 1996.
    Dallas-DART north central light rail extension.--The 
Committee recommends $3,500,000 for the Dallas-DART north 
central light rail extension project. The House provided 
$2,500,000 for this project. This project is a 12.3-mile, six-
station, $268,000,000 LRT extension to Plano. The northern 
portion of the line would be single track initially and an 
additional special events station would be provided in Plano. 
DART has completed a major investment study [MIS] and the 
preferred alternative was selected in September 1994. The 
project has been approved for preliminary engineering. The 
local share commitment to this project is 50 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $11 per new passenger trip. FTA has 
assigned a financial rating of low/medium to this project. 
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $2,500,000 
for this project. To date, no funds have been obligated with 
the $2,500,000 appropriation remaining unobligated. The project 
is not authorized in ISTEA.
    Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN.--The Committee recommends 
$7,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project. The 
House provided $5,000,000 for this project. This project, 
scheduled to open in 1998, consists of commuter rail service 
over 25 miles of track from South Irving to Fort Worth. The 
project includes service to the Fort Worth Intermodal 
Transportation Center. The project is in the preliminary 
engineering stage. The cost-effectiveness index is $8 per new 
passenger trip. FTA has assigned a financial rating of medium/
low to the project. The capital costs of phases one and two are 
$68,200,000 and $101,000,000 respectively. Phase one of the 
project is fully funded with local (60 percent), section 5307 
(25 percent) and CMAQ funds (15 percent), and no section 5309 
funds. The capital funding plan for phase two assumes funding 
from section 5309 (44 percent), CMAQ funds (20 percent), 
highway demonstration funds (13 percent), and local funds (23 
percent). Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated 
$5,460,000 for this project. To date, $2,480,000 has been 
obligated with $2,980,000 of prior-year appropriations 
remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of 
$5,680,000.
    Dulles corridor rail project.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for the Dulles corridor study. The House also did not 
provide funding for the project. A major investment study [MIS] 
is expected to be completed in 1996 that will generate 
information on the mobility improvements, cost effectiveness, 
environmental benefits, and operating efficiencies associated 
with rail and bus alternatives. The corridor links west Falls 
Church, VA, and Washington Dulles International Airport. The 
estimated cost of the rail alternatives are $1,000,000,000 or 
more. Pending completion of the study, there is no information 
on the cost-effectiveness index and local financial plan. 
Section 3035(aaa) of ISTEA directs FTA to negotiate and sign a 
multiyear grant agreement in the amount of $6,000,000 with the 
Commonwealth of Virginia for the completion of the MIS and 
preliminary engineering. No money has been appropriated to 
date.
    Florida (Miami) Tri-County commuter rail.--The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 for the Tri-County commuter rail 
project, the same as the House allowance. The Tri-County 
Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 67-mile commuter 
rail system connecting Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. 
Tri-Rail's short-range program includes the addition of a 
second track and rehabilitation of the signal system. These 
improvements will reduce conflicts with Amtrak and CSX freight 
trains. The project is in the final design stage. Through 
fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated $24,500,000 in section 
5309 new starts funds for Tri-Rail improvements. To date, 
$24,500,000 has been obligated to the project, with no prior-
year appropriations remaining unobligated. Information 
concerning the total cost of the program, local share 
commitment, cost-effectiveness index, and financial plan is not 
available. The project was not authorized in ISTEA.
    Houston-METRO regional bus plan.--The Committee recommends 
$22,630,000 for the Houston-METRO regional bus plan. This 
$625,000,000 plan, developed by Houston METRO, consists of a 
package of major improvements to its existing bus system. It 
includes major service expansions in most of the region, new 
and extended HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) facilities and ramps, 
several transit centers and park-and-ride lots, and supporting 
facilities. The individual elements of the plan are in various 
stages of development, from preliminary engineering to 
construction. The local share commitment to this project is 20 
percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $3 per new passenger 
trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the financial 
capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA was issued 
for this project on December 30, 1994, which fulfilled the 
requirements of section 3035(uu) of ISTEA. A total of 
$29,780,000 was provided to this project in the fiscal year 
1995 budget. An additional $88,200,000 in ISTEA funds was 
earmarked in fiscal year 1994 and prior years, and $146,070,000 
was provided in pre-ISTEA budgets; all of these funds have been 
obligated. The FFGA funding schedule for this project provides 
for $22,630,000 in fiscal year 1996 new starts funds, with the 
remaining $212,730,000 needed to complete the project provided 
in fiscal years 1997-2000. To date, $264,660,000 has been 
obligated to the project with no prior-year appropriations 
remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of 
$500,000,000.
    Jacksonville automated skyway express.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for the Jacksonville, FL, automated 
skyway express [ASE]. This 0.7-mile extension south of downtown 
Jacksonville consists of an elevated, double track guideway 
running from the San Marcos Station, now under construction, 
through the South Bank business district to St. John's place. 
This final segment will enlarge the ASE system to 2.5 miles. 
The project is in the final design stage. The local share 
commitment to the project is 20 percent. FTA has assigned a 
financial rating of medium to this project. Information 
concerning the cost-effectiveness index is not available. The 
Jacksonville project received an ISTEA earmark of $71,200,000. 
An FFGA in the amount of $44,000,000 was issued in fiscal year 
1991 and amended in fiscal year 1994. To date, $49,640,000 has 
been appropriated and obligated, completing the FFGA. The 9.7-
mile south extension is not covered under the FFGA and 
estimated to cost $32,000,000.
    In 1989, the skyway opened a 0.7-mile starter line that now 
averages 1,600 riders per day. The FTA's report pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 5309(m)(3) states that Jacksonville does not have an 
ongoing dedicated funding source to support its transit capital 
program and rates as low its capital financing commitment. 
Project sponsors estimate that by the year 2005, daily 
ridership will increase to 38,000 riders.
    The Committee has not provided any additional funds for 
this project, while the House has earmarked $12,500,000 
conditioned on the State's planned $25,000,000 contribution to 
the Fuller Warren Bridge project. Project sponsors have argued 
that since the State of Florida has agreed to provide funding 
for this bridge as well as for the I-4 Interchange, that this 
effort should justify providing $25,000,000 in Federal transit 
funds to complete the final 0.35 miles of the skyway. 
Evidently, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority is not 
permitted to spend transit funds derived from sales taxes on 
the skyway project. Regardless of this local problem, the 
Committee's decision on transit funding rests on the merits of 
individual transit projects under consideration. Given the 
overwhelming demands on this account, the Committee cannot 
provide funding this year.
    Kansas City, MO, light rail.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for the Kansas City light rail project. The House also 
did not provide any funds for the project. The Kansas City Area 
Transportation Authority [KCATA] has completed a major 
investment study [MIS] in the Southtown corridor. The corridor 
extends from the riverfront and downtown Kansas City south to 
I-435. The locally preferred alternative [LPA] consists of a 
15.1-mile light rail line connecting the downtown Rivermarket 
area with the Country Club Plaza south of the city. From the 
plaza, the light rail project splits into two branches; the 
east branch serving the Watkins Drive corridor to 75th Street; 
and the west branch serving the Country Club corridor to 85th 
Street. The cost-effectiveness index is $16 per new passenger 
trip. The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent. 
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $1,500,000 
for the project. To date, $570,000 has been obligated with 
$930,000 in prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. 
This project received an ISTEA earmark of $5,900,000.
    Los Angeles.--The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the 
Federal share of the Metro Rail minimum operable segment 3 
[MOS-3]. The House provided $125,000,000 for the project, while 
the administration requested $158,860,000. This is the third 
minimum operable segment [MOS] of the Metro Rail Red Line 
project in Los Angeles. The first segment, MOS-1, opened for 
revenue service in January 1993. MOS-2 is currently under 
construction, and the FFGA has been fulfilled. In May 1993, an 
FFGA was issued to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority [LACMTA] for MOS-3. ISTEA defined MOS-
3 to include three smaller segments: the north Hollywood 
segment presently under construction, and the MidCity and East 
Side extensions which are undergoing final design. Total costs 
for the MidCity, north Hollywood, and East Side phase 1 
segments are estimated to be $1,400,000,000. The local share 
commitment to this project is 54 percent. ISTEA authorized 
$695,000,000, plus $535,000,000 in advanced construction 
authority. In fiscal year 1995 and prior years, $356,700,000 
was appropriated for MOS-3. Funding in the amount of 
$158,860,000 is recommended in fiscal year 1996 under the FFGA 
funding schedule, with the remaining $900,890,000 to be 
provided over the course of fiscal years 1997-2002. Through 
fiscal year 1995, $356,700,000 has been obligated for MOS-3 
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated.
    Last year, the FTA suspended funding for this project as a 
result of construction problems that led to portions of the 
subway tunnel sinking. After final action on the fiscal year 
1995 appropriation for this project, the Committee was 
belatedly made aware of outstanding construction problems that 
led the FTA to temporarily suspend all funding for the project. 
FTA reinstated the project's funding upon receiving assurances 
that LACMTA would exercise proper stewardship of Federal funds. 
The Committee is very concerned that commitments made by the 
LACMTA to implement safety and quality assurance program 
staffing shifts from contractors to LACMTA employees have not 
been met. While steps were taken to place the rail construction 
program under the direct supervision of the LACMTA rather than 
have it remain vested within a subsidiary entity, the Committee 
is not confident that appropriate construction supervision is 
in place. The project has been beset with construction problems 
such as tunnel liners integrity, misalignments of tunnel, a 70-
foot by 70-foot sinkhole in Hollywood Boulevard, improper use 
of wooden support wedges rather than more costly steel 
supports, investigations into awards of bids and insurance 
contracts, and other improper activities. These problems now 
have culminated in the removal of the prime contractor; 
replacement of the prime contractor will necessarily bring 
about delays as work is transferred over to new parties. Thus, 
the Committee believes that it is time for this project to get 
its safety program in order, and back it up with strong 
oversight. The Committee instructs the Federal Transit 
Administration to assure that the commitments in staffing that 
were to be made by February 1995 actually be made before these 
or any other Federal funds are obligated to the LACMTA red line 
project.
    The Committee is confident that its fiscal year 1996 
appropriation, coupled with State and local funding, shall be 
sufficient to enable this project to continue with better 
attention given to safety oversight and quality assurance. 
These steps will strengthen and improve this project, and 
protect the billions of Federal dollars already invested in the 
Los Angeles metro.
    Maryland central corridor LRT.--The Committee recommends 
$22,630,000 for the central corridor LRT extensions. The House 
provided $3,000,000 for this project. The Mass Transportation 
Administration of Maryland has constructed, using State and 
local funds, a 22.5-mile light rail transit line along existing 
railroad right-of-way from Glen Burnie through Baltimore to 
Timonium. The Federal project consists of a 5-mile extension of 
the light rail system from Timonium to Hunt Valley, a 2-mile 
branch off the main line to Baltimore-Washington International 
Airport, and a 0.25-mile spur from the main line to Penn 
Station. The grantee has signed a design-build contract to 
complete the LRT extensions. The local share commitment to this 
project is 20 percent. However, if this investment is viewed in 
the context of the complete system, the overall local share 
commitment is 82 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $8 
per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has 
the financial capacity to build and operate this project. The 
total cost of the three extensions of the project is estimated 
to be $106,000,000. Section 3035(nn) of ISTEA directs FTA to 
sign a multiyear grant agreement with the MTA to provide not 
less than $60,000,000 in new starts funds. An FFGA in the 
amount of $84,900,000 has been signed for the three extensions. 
Through fiscal year 1995, $47,300,000 has been appropriated. 
The FFGA funding schedule for this project provides for 
$22,630,000 in fiscal year 1996 new starts funds, with the 
remaining $15,020,000 required to complete the Federal portion 
of this project provided in fiscal year 1997. To date, FTA has 
obligated $47,300,000 to the project with no prior-year 
appropriations remaining unobligated.
    Maryland commuter rail [MARC] extensions.--The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000 for the MARC extensions. The House 
provided $10,000,000 for this project. This system would 
provide service to Washington, DC, from both Waldorf and 
Frederick, MD. FTA has provided planning funds to the Tri-
County Council for Southern Maryland for a planning study to 
evaluate transit alternatives in the Waldorf area, the study is 
expected to be completed in late 1995. The extension of MARC 
service to Frederick consists of a 13.5-mile line and will 
operate on existing CSX transportation rail right-of-way. The 
Frederick extension is in final design. The MARC program also 
includes new equipment and station improvements. The local 
share commitment to this project is 20 percent. FTA has 
determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build 
and operate the Frederick project and the new equipment and 
station improvements. An FFGA was issued for the projects in 
June 1995 for $105,300,000, which includes $13,900,000 
previously approved under the first increment of funding for 
the project. Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has 
appropriated $47,150,000 for this project. The FFGA funding 
schedule calls for $91,300,000 in new starts funding in fiscal 
years 1997-98. To date, $47,150,000 has been obligated to the 
project with no prior-year appropriations remaining 
unobligated. This project received an ISTEA earmark of 
$160,000,000.
    Memphis Medical Center rail extension/Memphis regional rail 
plan.--The Committee recommends no funding for the Memphis 
Medical Center study. The House provided $2,500,000 for this 
project. The Memphis Area Transit Authority [MATA] currently 
operates the 2.5-mile Main Street trolley, a vintage rail 
trolley line in downtown Memphis. MATA is studying 
alternatives, including a light rail line, connecting downtown 
and the medical center--the two largest employment centers in 
the Memphis area. The medical center extension is likely to be 
exempt from the section 3(i) criteria since the section 3 share 
would be less than $25,000,000. Information concerning project 
costs and benefits, the local share commitment, cost-
effectiveness index, and financial plan is not yet available. 
MATA is also looking at another extension of the Main Street 
trolley via the Riverfront loop and examining an additional 
corridor to gauge potential for transit-oriented solutions. 
Congress appropriated $500,000 for the Memphis regional rail 
plan in fiscal year 1994. These funds were obligated this 
fiscal year (fiscal year 1995) and were applied to the above 
study activities.
    Miami Metrorail North 27th Avenue.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for the Miami Metrorail North 27th Avenue 
corridor study. The House provided $2,000,000 for this project. 
The Metro-Dade Transit Agency [MDTA] is conducting a major 
investment study of transit alternatives in a 9.5-mile corridor 
centered on 27th Avenue. The corridor extends from northwest 
62d Street on the south to the Dade/Broward County line on the 
north. The alternatives include an expansion of the Metrorail 
heavy rail system along various alignments, a busway, bus 
service improvements, and a no-build option. The potential for 
expanding the corridor into Broward County is also being 
considered in the study. The study is expected to be completed 
in September 1995. Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has 
appropriated $992,500 for this corridor. To date, $992,500 has 
been obligated with no prior-year appropriations remaining 
unobligated. Pending completion of the study, information 
concerning the nature of the project, its costs and benefits, 
local share commitment, cost-effectiveness index, and financial 
plan is not available. The project was not mentioned in ISTEA.
    New Jersey urban core.--The Committee recommends 
$85,500,000 for the New Jersey urban core project. The House 
provided $75,000,000 for this project. This project consists of 
a number of rail improvements designed to improve mobility in 
the region. The urban core project consists of the following 
segments: Secaucus transfer; Kearney connection, Hudson-Bergen 
line; Newark Airport-Elizabeth transit link; Northeast corridor 
signal system; a rail connection between Penn Station, Newark, 
and Broad Street Station, Newark; and improvements to New York 
Penn Station.
    Section 3031(c) specifically exempts these projects from 
the project justification requirements of section 5309(e)(2)-
(7) and from FTA's major capital investment policy. Section 
3031 of ISTEA directs FTA to sign an FFGA for those elements of 
the New Jersey urban core program of projects which can be 
fully funded in fiscal years 1992-97. The local financial 
commitment is accounted for through the ISTEA toll revenue 
credit provision. ISTEA earmarked $634,400,000 for the entire 
urban core program of projects. An FFGA was issued for the 
Secaucus transfer project in December 1994 to provide a total 
of $444,300,000 through fiscal year 1998, including funds 
already provided in prior years.
    The $448,000,000 Secaucus transfer station, a three-level 
transfer station allowing 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, is 
currently under construction. The Secaucus FFGA funding 
schedule calls for $85,540,000 in new starts funding in fiscal 
year 1996 with $125,500,000 scheduled in fiscal years 1997-98. 
The $530,000,000 Hudson-Bergen light rail project, a 15.3-mile, 
24-station at-grade LRT line from the Vince Lombardi park-and-
ride lot through Hoboken and Jersey City to Route 440 in 
southwest Jersey City, is in preliminary engineering. The cost-
effectiveness index is $5 per new passenger trip.
    The $640,000,000 Newark Elizabeth light rail project, an 8-
mile, 12-station light rail transit line linking the cities of 
Newark and Elizabeth and Newark International Airport, is in 
preliminary engineering. The cost-effectiveness index is $11 
per new passenger trip.
    Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated a total 
of $356,000,000 to New Jersey urban core projects. To date, 
$233,180,000 has been obligated to the Secaucus transfer 
project with no prior-year earmarks remaining unobligated; 
$58,500,000 has been obligated to the Hudson-Bergen project 
with $50,500,000 in prior-year earmarks remaining unobligated; 
$1,800,000 has been obligated to the Penn Station, NY, project 
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated; and 
$11,900,000 has been obligated to the Newark-Elizabeth project 
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated.
    In testimony before the Committee, the Federal Transit 
Administrator stated his willingness to enter into negotiations 
with the New Jersey Transit regarding a contingent commitment 
on the Hudson Waterfront portion of New Jersey's urban core. 
The Committee encourages FTA to begin those negotiations and to 
sign a contingent commitment at the earliest possible date. The 
Hudson Waterfront project is authorized to receive funding as 
part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991. Once constructed the Hudson Waterfront project will carry 
some 100,000 passengers per day. This transit project is of 
critical importance to the economic vitality of one of the most 
densely populated States in the country.
    New Orleans Canal Street corridor.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for the New Orleans Canal Street corridor 
project. The House provided $10,000,000 for this project. The 
Regional Transit Authority [RTA] has initiated a major 
investment study to evaluate transit alternatives on the 4.9-
mile Canal Street corridor. The light rail alternatives would 
follow the current Canal Cemeteries bus route from the 
Mississippi River to City Park Avenue. An additional leg of the 
route would connect Canal Street with the Union Passenger 
Terminal and possibly a parking area for proposed riverboat 
casinos. Alternatives analysis was initiated in September 1992. 
RTA is in the process of completing the MIS/DEIS and selecting 
the locally preferred alternative. Since fiscal year 1994, 
Congress has appropriated $13,500,000 for this project. To 
date, $2,000,000 has been obligated with $11,500,000 in prior-
year appropriations remaining unobligated. This project 
received an ISTEA earmark of $4,800,000.
    New York 63d Street/Queens connector.--The Committee 
recommends $160,000,000 for the Queens Boulevard/63d Street 
connection project. The House provided $114,989,000 for this 
project. This one-third mile tunnel would relieve overcrowding 
on the Queens Boulevard subway lines by diverting service to 
the 63d Street Tunnel from the 53d Street Tunnel bottleneck. 
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $645,000,000. 
The extension is currently under construction. The local share 
commitment to this project is 53 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $5 per hour of travel time savings. FTA 
has determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to 
build and operate this project. Section 3033 of ISTEA directs 
FTA to sign a multiyear grant agreement with the New York City 
Transit Authority in the amount of $306,100,000 for the 
elements that can be fully funded in fiscal years 1992-96. A 
FFGA has been issued for the Queens Boulevard project. Through 
fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $145,900,000 for 
this project. To date, $145,900,000 has been obligated to the 
project with no prior-year appropriations remaining 
unobligated. The FFGA calls for $152,270,000 in new starts 
funding in fiscal year 1996, with an additional $20,000,000 
needed in fiscal year 1998 to complete the Federal commitment. 
The Committee has added funds to the administration's requested 
amount to assist this project, which is actively under 
construction, in catching up on funding shortfalls from 
previous years' allocations.
    Orange County, CA.--The Committee recommends no funding for 
the Orange County transitway project. The House provided 
$5,000,000 for this project. The $337,000,000 Transitway 
project consists of exclusive HOV connections between existing 
HOV lanes on I-405 and SR-55, transit/access drop ramps between 
the HOV lanes and adjacent activity centers, park and ride 
lots, and an expanded level of express bus service. The local 
share commitment to this project is 30 percent. The transitway 
is currently in preliminary engineering. The cost-effectiveness 
index is $4 per new passenger trip. FTA has rated the financial 
plan low. FTA issued a finding of no significant impact [FONSI] 
in July 1994 and a Letter of no prejudice [LONP] in September 
1994 allowing OCTA to proceed to incur costs for design and 
right-of-way activities. Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has 
appropriated $20,300,000 for the project. To date, $20,300,000 
in prior-year appropriations remain unobligated. The project 
was not authorized in ISTEA.
    Pittsburgh Airport busway.--The Committee recommends 
$22,630,000 for the airport busway project, the same as the 
House allowance. The Port Authority (PATransit) is constructing 
a 20-mile busway in the airport corridor between downtown 
Pittsburgh and the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport. 
The project is estimated to cost $326,800,000. The busway 
project is presently under construction. The local share 
commitment to the project is 21 percent. The cost-effectiveness 
index is $4 per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the 
grantee has the financial capacity to build and operate this 
project. An FFGA was issued for this project in October 1994. 
The FFGA envisions $121,000,000 in section 5309 new start 
funds, $10,000,000 in section 5309 bus funds, $76,500,000 in 
CMAQ funds, and $49,300,000 from highway funding sources. 
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $75,900,000 
in new start funds for the project. To date, $75,900,000 has 
been obligated to the project with no prior-year appropriations 
remaining unobligated. The FFGA funding schedule calls for 
$22,630,000 in new starts funding in fiscal year 1996, and 
$22,500,000 in fiscal year 1997.
    Portland Westside LRT project.--The Committee recommends 
$130,140,000 for the Portland Westside LRT project. The House 
provided $85,500,000 for this project. The Tri-County 
Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon [Tri-Met] is 
building a $910,000,000 light rail transit extension from 
downtown Portland, west through Beaverton, to a terminus in 
downtown Hillsboro. The Federal Transit Administration views 
the Portland project as a good example of innovative land use 
initiatives that integrate transportation planning and land 
use. One initiative is the use of urban growth boundaries that 
prevent urban sprawl and encourage development along 
transportation corridors, especially high-capacity transit 
corridors. This serves to promote transit ridership and 
economic activity. Another initiative is the cap on downtown 
parking spaces that encourages transit use. In downtown 
Portland, the 18-mile extension will connect to the existing 
Banfield LRT line (MAX) that operates between Portland and 
Gresham. The project is under construction. The local share 
commitment to this project is 27 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $16 per new passenger trip. In September 
1992, FTA and Tri-Met entered into a full funding grant 
agreement [FFGA] for the 12-mile segment from downtown Portland 
to 185th Avenue. The section 5309 new starts share for this 
segment is $516,000,000. The FFGA was amended in 1994 to add 
the 6.2-mile Hillsboro extension, bringing the total section 
5309 share to $590,000,000. FTA formula and flexible funds 
totaling $74,000,000 are also being used in this project. 
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated 
$264,700,000 in new start Funds. To date, $264,700,000 has been 
obligated with no prior-year appropriations remaining 
unobligated. The FFGA funding schedule calls for $108,000,000 
in new starts funding in fiscal year 1996. The Committee 
provided additional funds to enable this project to catch up on 
shortfalls in its prior-years allocations. An additional 
$217,400,000 is needed in fiscal year 1997 and 1998. The 
project received an ISTEA earmark of $515,000,000.
    Sacramento.--The Committee recommends no funding for the 
Sacramento south corridor project. The House provided 
$2,000,000 for this project. The Sacramento Regional Transit 
District [RTD] is proposing an 6-mile, $223,000,000 LRT line on 
the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The local share 
commitment to this project is 20 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $6 per new passenger trip. Through 
fiscal year 1995, $1,980,000 has been appropriated for this 
project. To date, $1,980,000 has been obligated to the project, 
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. FTA 
has not given a financial rating. ISTEA authorized $26,000,000 
for this project.
    Salt Lake City LRT.--The Committee recommends $14,519,000 
for the Salt Lake City south LRT project. The House provided 
only $5,000,000 for this project. The Committee disagrees with 
the House's restriction on the use of these funds and has 
deleted the restriction from the bill.
    The Committee supports local decisionmaking on the use of 
these funds consistent with the projects full funding grant 
agreement. We anticipate receiving future funding requests from 
the administration regarding this project. The project sponsors 
believe that this project will address the increased transit 
demands that accompany current and future economic and 
demographic growth in the Salt Lake metropolitan area.
    The Utah Transit Authority [UTA] plans to construct a 15-
mile light rail transit [LRT] line from downtown Salt Lake City 
to suburban areas to the south. The LRT line would operate at-
grade on city streets in the downtown and utilize a railroad 
right-of-way already owned by UTA to the south of downtown. The 
project is currently in the final design stage. The local share 
commitment to this project is 20 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $4 per new passenger trip. The total 
cost of the project is estimated to be $312,500,000 with a 
section 5309 share of $237,400,000. Through fiscal year 1995, 
Congress has appropriated $29,000,000 (including $15,520,000 in 
funds from fiscal years prior to ISTEA) for right-of-way 
acquisition, engineering, and design. To date, $29,000,000 has 
been obligated to this project with no prior-year 
appropriations remaining unobligated. This project received an 
ISTEA earmark of $131,000,000.
    San Juan, Puerto Rico Tren-Urbano.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for the San Juan Tren-Urbano project. The 
House provided $15,000,000 for this project. The Puerto Rico 
Department of Transportation and Public Works [DTPW] plans to 
construct an 11.8-mile, 16-station, $965,000,000 light rail 
line which would connect the major activity centers in the San 
Juan region, including Santurce, Hato Rey, Rio Piedras, and 
Bayamon. A second phase would extend the rail system east to 
Carolina and northwest further into Santurce. DTPW is currently 
preparing an EIS and preliminary engineering for the first 
phase. The finance plan envisions section 5309 funding of 
$322,000,000 (33 percent) with other Federal funding of 
$240,000,000 (25 percent) and a local share commitment of 
$403,000,000 (42 percent). The cost-effectiveness index is $4 
per new passenger trip. FTA has assigned a financial rating of 
high to this project. Through fiscal year 1995, $4,960,000 has 
been appropriated for this project. To date, $4,960,000 has 
been obligated with no prior-year appropriations remaining 
unobligated. The project is not authorized in ISTEA.
    San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions.--The 
Committee recommends $22,620,000 for the San Francisco BART 
Airport/Tasman extensions. The House provided $10,000,000 for 
this project and restricted its use to the BART Airport 
extension. The Committee disagrees with the restriction and has 
deleted it. The BART extension to San Francisco International 
Airport is a 6.4-mile, three-station extension from Colma to 
San Francisco International Airport and Milpitas. The project 
is now in the preliminary engineering stage. Costs for 
constructing the project range from $847,000,000 to $1,269,000, 
depending upon the alternative. The cost-effectiveness index is 
$25 per new passenger trip for the locally preferred 
alternative. FTA has assigned a financial rating of low due to 
apparent shortfalls in the bay area's current overall capital 
financing plan. The Tasman project is a 12.4-mile surface light 
rail transit [LRT] line from northeast San Jose to downtown 
Mountain View, connecting to the existing northern terminus of 
the Guadalupe corridor LRT system near Great America Parkway in 
the city of Santa Clara. The $500,000,000 project would also 
connect with the Caltrain commuter rail system at the downtown 
Mountain View station. Preliminary engineering was completed in 
August 1992, the final EIS was approved in December 1992, and 
final design was started in May 1993. The local share 
commitment to this project would flow from a 0.5-cent sales 
tax. However, the tax has been invalidated by a State court and 
a ruling on an appeal to restore the tax has not yet been 
issued. For this reason, FTA has assigned the project a low 
rating. The cost-effectiveness index for the Tasman project is 
$33 per new passenger trip. Overall, $205,400,000 of the 
$512,750,000 authorized by ISTEA in section 5309 new starts 
funds has been appropriated by Congress for the San Francisco 
Bay region through fiscal year 1995. Consistent with the ISTEA 
legislation, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has 
allocated these funds among the Colma BART extension, BART 
airport project, and Tasman LRT project and obligated 
$172,200,000 to date, including $55,900,000 to Colma, 
$55,500,000 to the airport extension and $60,800,000 to the 
Tasman project. Only a $33,200,000 allocation to Tasman has yet 
to be obligated. The affected agencies are currently working 
with MTC to determine future allocations.
    Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail.--The Committee 
recommends no new funding for the Seattle-Renton-Tacoma 
commuter rail project. The House also provided no funds for 
this project. The three-county Central Puget Sound Regional 
Transit Authority [RTA] Board has adopted a master plan for 
transit which includes commuter rail service between Seattle 
and Tacoma as well as additional commuter rail, LRT, and bus 
service. The Seattle-Tacoma service would operate along the 
approximately 40 miles of track between the two cities. In 
addition to Seattle and Tacoma, service would be provided to 
Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Summer, Puyallup, and Renton. The 
project is at the planning stage. The local share commitment to 
this project is not yet known. Through fiscal year 1995, 
Congress has appropriated $22,640,000 for the project. To date, 
$20,760,000 in prior-year appropriations remains unobligated, 
including $15,190,000 from fiscal year 1993 which has been 
reprogrammed according to existing law. Information concerning 
costs and benefits, cost-effectiveness index, and financial 
commitment is not yet available. This project received an ISTEA 
earmark of $25,000,000.
    St. Louis Metrolink (St. Clair County, IL) corridor.--The 
Committee recommends $13,000,000 for new railcars for St. Louis 
Metrolink, but no funding for the St. Clair County corridor 
LRT. The House provided $8,000,000 for railcars and $2,000,000 
for design of the Illinois extension. The East-West Gateway 
Coordinating Council [EWGCC] has completed a major investment 
study of transit alternatives for the corridor between downtown 
East St. Louis, Illinois, and the vicinity of Scott Air Force 
Base. The selected alternative is a 24.8-mile LRT extension 
with a capital cost of about $400,000,000. The local share 
commitment to this project is 20 percent, and a low/medium 
rating for financial capacity has been assigned by FTA. The 
cost-effectiveness index is $30 per new passenger trip. Through 
fiscal year 1995, $14,440,000 has been appropriated to this 
project. To date, $450,000 has been obligated and $13,990,000 
remains unobligated. This project is not authorized in ISTEA.
    Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for the Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail project. The House 
provided $1,000,000 for this project. The Tampa Commuter Rail 
Authority is considering the establishment of transit service 
in a 32-mile corridor between Lakeland and Tampa, FL. One 
alternative is commuter rail on an existing freight line. The 
Tampa Commuter Rail Authority was established after a number of 
previous studies recommended that a transit system may help 
relieve traffic on I-4 between Lakeland and Tampa, FL. The 
Tampa Commuter Rail Authority will be completing a major 
investment study to develop information on transit alternatives 
in the corridor. The study is expected to be completed in mid-
1996. In fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated $500,000 for 
this corridor. The $500,000 has not yet been obligated. Pending 
completion of the study, there is no information on the nature 
of the project, its costs and benefits, the local share 
commitment, the cost-effectiveness index, or the financial 
plan. This project is not authorized in ISTEA.
    Whitehall Ferry Terminal, New York.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal study. 
The House provided $5,000,000 for this project. The New York 
City Economic Development Corp. and the New York City 
Department of Transportation 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 has been operating out of interim facilities 
since then. In fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated 
$2,480,000 for construction. To date, the $2,480,000 remains 
unobligated. Information on the cost of the project, the local 
share commitment to the project, and the financial plan is not 
yet available. The project is not authorized in ISTEA.
    Wisconsin (Chicago) Central commuter [Metra].--The 
Committee recommends $14,400,000 for the Wisconsin Central 
project, the same as the House. This funding will complete the 
project. This project will extend Metra commuter rail service 
from downtown Chicago to the Wisconsin border (at Antioch, IL) 
via the Wisconsin Central rail line. The project is being 
implemented in two phases. Phase I of the project (already 
fully funded) included land acquisition, track and signal 
upgrades, station platform facilities, and other operations-
related improvements associated with commuter service 
requirements. Phase II, costing $18,000,000, consists of 
measures, such as double-tracking and sidings, to improve 
passenger service on tracks that are heavily used for freight 
service. Phase I is under construction; phase II is in the 
preliminary engineering stage. The local share commitment to 
phase II is 22 percent. This project is exempt from new start 
criteria, since less than $25,000,000 of section 5309 funding 
is required, and thus, a cost-effectiveness index has not been 
calculated. Congress has appropriated $10,420,000 for phase I 
through fiscal year 1995. This $10,400,000 has been fully 
obligated. This project is not authorized in ISTEA.
                       Mass Transit Capital Fund

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................($1,500,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (1,700,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (2,000,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                         (1,700,000,000)

    The bill includes $1,700,000,000 to liquidate obligations 
incurred under contract authority provided in section 21 of the 
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. This is the 
total amount requested by the President's budget submittal.

                  Interstate Transfer Grants--Transit
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $48,030,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                             ...........................

    Funding in 1995 exhausts the Federal commitment to transit 
capital projects substituted for previously withdrawn segments 
of the interstate highway system under the provisions of 23 
U.S.C. 103(e)(4). No funds were requested by the administration 
in 1996 to carry out the provisions of section 1045 of Public 
Law 102-240 given funding provided in 1995.

                            Washington Metro
Appropriations, 1995....................................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\1\ (200,000,000)
House allowance.........................................     200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     170,000,000

\1\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].

    Public Law 96-184 (Stark-Harris legislation) enacted 
January 3, 1980, authorized a total of $1,700,000,000 for 
construction on the Washington Metrorail System. All of the 
funds authorized under Stark-Harris have been appropriated. In 
addition, the National Capital Transportation Amendments of 
1990, Public Law 101-551, authorized another $1,300,000,000 in 
Federal capital assistance. Through fiscal year 1995, 
$649,700,000 has been appropriated, leaving a balance of 
$650,300,000.
    The Committee has reduced the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transportation Authority's budget request by 15 percent from 
$200,000,000 to $170,000,000. This reduction is in keeping with 
the steep reductions that transit authorities all over the 
Nation will experience in Federal transit aid during fiscal 
year 1996. The Committee understands that WMATA would achieve 
savings by completing its fast track construction schedule as 
planned; however, this is equally true for other new start 
transit systems. Other new start systems have had to 
reprioritize their needs, and seek additional sources of 
funding when Federal appropriations fell short. Fairness 
dictates that WMATA not be insulated from the need to readjust 
its funding schedules to meet Federal appropriations targets.
    The House bill also includes a new title, ``National 
Capital Area Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 1995.'' The 
Committee has deleted this authorizing legislation from the 
bill.

                    Violent Crime Reduction Programs

                  (VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      $5,000,000
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                             ...........................

    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 administration requested 
$5,000,000 for these purposes in transit in fiscal year 1996. 
The Committee received no allocation to enable it to fund 
programs under this account.

                           general provisions

    Capital grants availability.--The Committee concurs with 
the House provision (sec. 321) limiting the availability of 
earmarked capital grants to 3 years. If not obligated after 
that period of time, the funds would be available for 
allocation to other transit projects.
    Bus overhauls.--The Committee concurs with the House 
general provision allowing the use of formula capital funds to 
be used for major bus overhauls (sec. 333). This provision will 
help maintain the transit fleet, and preserve assets paid for 
with Federal tax dollars. The provision takes effect the second 
half of fiscal year 1996 (after March 31, 1996).
    The transit industry has sought this provision to better 
allocate scarce operating dollars, and prolong the useful life 
of transit buses. This provision will promote good maintenance 
practices and encourage the use of vehicles to the maximum 
limit of their economic lives. Flexibility in the use of 
capital funds for bus overhauls will discourage premature bus 
replacement that is likely to result from large cuts in 
operating aid.
    The Committee understands that the entire transit industry 
is expected to spend about $151,000,000 in operating aid to 
overhaul buses this year. If capital funds could be used for 
such overhauls, the industry projects $147,000,000, including 
State and local match, to be used for bus overhauls. Some very 
large transit systems would continue to use operating funds for 
overhauls. The amount that could be capitalized in large areas 
over 1,000,000 population is estimated to be $125,000,000, for 
medium-sized areas between 200,000 and 1,000,000 population the 
amount would be $15,000,000, and for small urbanized areas 
below 200,000 population the amount would be $7,000,000.
    WMATA oversight.--The Committee has deleted the House 
provision (sec. 341) requiring that FTA's oversight of the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority be conducted 
from the agency's Washington, DC, offices. FTA has elected to 
transfer management and oversight of WMATA's transit grant 
program to the Philadelphia regional office because regional 
offices are organizationally structured for the primary 
function of serving their respective grantees, whereas FTA 
headquarters organization and staff is focused on policy, 
guidance, and overall management. In anticipation of the 
additional WMATA oversight duties, FTA has increased the 
staffing level in the Philadelphia regional office by two FTE 
positions.
              ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is a wholly 
owned Government corporation established by the act of May 13, 
1954, responsible for the operation, maintenance, and 
development of the United States portion of the seaway between 
Montreal and Lake Erie.

                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $10,229,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      10,243,000
House allowance.........................................      10,190,500

Committee recommendation

                                                              10,150,000

    The Corporation's operations program provides for operation 
of all facilities, for maintenance--including major items which 
are deferred to the nonnavigation season, for planning and 
development activities, and for undertaking various capital 
improvements to upgrade and modernize its facilities.
    Appropriations are made to the Seaway Corporation from the 
harbor maintenance trust fund established by Public Law 99-662. 
These appropriations are the primary source of financing for 
the operations and maintenance activities of the Corporation.
    The Congress authorizes the Corporation to make 
expenditures from available funds and borrowing authority, and 
to enter into contracts without regard to fiscal year 
limitations as are necessary to carry out the programs set 
forth in its budget.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $10,150,000. This is $93,000 less than the 
budget request and $40,500 less than the House allowance. The 
Committee does not direct that this reduction be made from any 
specific line item of the fiscal year 1996 budget request. In 
recent years, however, there are three areas for which costs 
have either grown or remained at the same levels without what 
the Committee considers adequate justification: consulting 
services, travel and transportation of persons, and personnel 
compensation at the Seaway's Washington, DC, office (despite 
the fact that the number of staff at the Washington office is 
decreasing). These areas should be carefully considered when 
making adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget.
    GPS vessel traffic service.--The Committee has included 
bill language prohibiting the use of appropriated harbor 
maintenance trust funds or the Seaway Corporation's financial 
reserve fund in fiscal year 1996 for design, development, or 
procurement of a global positioning system vessel traffic 
service system. This moratorium on the GPS vessel traffic 
service system is intended to provide the Seaway Corporation 
time to prepare a detailed study on possibilities for 
privatization of such service. The Seaway Administrator is 
thereby directed to prepare, with assistance and input from the 
U.S. Coast Guard, a study of possible options for privatizing 
the procurement and operation of vessel traffic services on the 
American portions of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The study should 
be received by the Senate and House Appropriations Committees 
on or before May 1, 1996. This issue was raised by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee in the fiscal year 1996 hearing 
record. Chairman Hatfield asked the Seaway Corporation:

          Question. Has any consideration been given to 
        privatizing the operation of the Seaway vessel traffic 
        service system? Please outline arguments for and 
        against privatization, and give the American Seaway 
        Corporation's view on the matter, as well as the 
        Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Authority's, if known.

    The Seaway Corporation's response follows:

          Answer. No thought has been given to privatizing the 
        VTS program, a Government-controlled function.

    In the current climate of budget austerity, this is an 
inadequate response to the chairman's inquiry.
    Washington, DC, and Massena seaway offices.--In many ways, 
the future path of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation is uncertain. The Seaway Corporation is without an 
Administrator at the present time. The administration has 
proposed authorizing legislation that would make the 
Corporation an independent agency. And there are preliminary 
discussions regarding combining the Canadian Seaway Authority 
and the American Seaway Corporation into a single, binational 
seaway entity.
    The day-to-day operations and maintenance of the seaway are 
performed in Massena, NY. Given this fact, the comparative 
staffing and nonpersonnel costs for the two offices are 
somewhat disproportionate. The seaway projects a 1996 staffing 
level of 164 FTE's: 145 persons in the Massena, NY, office (88 
percent) and 19 persons in the Washington, DC, office (12 
percent). However, the Massena office's personnel costs (salary 
and benefits for the 145 employees) are projected to be 
$6,780,000 (83 percent), and the Washington office's personnel 
costs are projected to be $1,416,000 (17 percent). For 
nonpersonnel costs (travel, transportation, communications, 
utilities, printing and reproduction, Government services, 
supplies, equipment, and structures), the Washington office is 
projected to require $565,000 (18 percent) and the Massena 
office $2,500,000 (82 percent).
    The relative costs associated with maintaining two seaway 
offices have been a concern of the Committee's for some time. 
The seaway is directed to prepare a detailed analysis of the 
respective offices' costs, both under the Corporation's current 
DOT agency status, and projected for independent Government 
agency status. Assume current staffing distribution, and break 
out all types of office costs, with a brief description of each 
cost category. Please also prepare a study of costs associated 
with shifting personnel from the Washington, DC, office to 
Massena, under two different scenarios: (1) Assuming the Seaway 
Corporation remains within the Department of Transportation, 
outline all costs associated with moving the Offices of 
Communications, Development and Logistics, and Marketing from 
Washington, DC, to Massena, leaving a skeleton staff of 8 to 10 
persons in the DOT Nassif Building; and (2) assuming the Seaway 
Corporation becomes an independent Government agency, outline 
the costs associated with moving the same group of offices to 
Massena. This report shall be provided to the Senate and House 
Appropriations Committees on or before January 31, 1996.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

    The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was 
established by the Secretary of Transportation's organizational 
changes dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research, 
analytical, and technical development arm of the Department for 
multimodal research and development, as well as special 
programs. Particular emphasis is given to pipeline 
transportation and the transportation of hazardous cargo by all 
modes. In 1996, resources are requested for the management and 
execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety, Airline 
Statistics, Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, program 
and administrative support, the Transportation Safety Institute 
[TSI], and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 
[VNTSC]. Funds are also requested for the emergency 
preparedness grants program.

                     Research and Special Programs
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $25,995,100
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      29,249,000
House allowance.........................................      26,030,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              24,281,000

    The Committee has provided a total of $24,281,000 for the 
``Research and special programs'' account.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year                      Committee  
                                                    1995enacted    1996estimate   Houseallowance  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety......................     $12,793,000     $12,782,000     $12,600,000     $12,987,000
    (Positions).................................           (113)           (111)           (111)           (113)
Aviation information management \1\.............      $2,449,000  ..............      $2,322,000  ..............
    (Positions).................................            (29)  ..............            (22)  ..............
Emergency transportation........................      $1,312,000      $1,301,000      $1,086,000        $962,000
    (Positions).................................             (7)             (7)             (7)             (7)
Research and technology.........................      $2,515,000      $7,604,000      $3,209,000      $3,451,000
    (Positions).................................            (13)            (14)            (13)            (12)
Program and administrative support..............      $6,926,000      $7,562,000      $7,394,000      $7,292,000
    (Positions).................................            (45)            (46)            (46)            (44)
Accountwide adjustment..........................  ..............  ..............       -$581,000       -$411,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, research and special programs......     $25,995,000     $29,249,000     $26,030,000     $24,281,000
          (Positions)...........................           (207)           (178)           (199)           (176)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The administration requested $2,282,000 for this function.                                                  

                       hazardous materials safety

    Hazardous materials safety [HMS] administers a nationwide 
program of safety regulations to fulfill the Secretary's duty 
to protect the Nation from the risks to life, health, and 
property that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous 
materials by water, air, highway, and railroad.
    HMS plans, implements, and manages the hazardous materials 
transportation program consisting of information systems, 
research and analysis, inspection and enforcement, rulemaking 
support, training and information dissemination, and emergency 
procedures.
    Research and analysis.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $44,000 above the budget request to enhance 
regulatory analysis and research activities to support cost-
effective rulemakings. This adjustment will restore funding to 
the fiscal year 1995 level.
    Inspection and enforcement.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $40,000 above the budget request to restore funding 
for the HM Specialist Internship Program as part of the OHMS 
program. The Committee does not support funding for this 
program in the emergency preparedness grant program, as 
proposed. The intern program provides State and local officials 
with first-hand experience on the Federal enforcement and 
regulatory program, while providing OHMS with a State and local 
perspective needed to improve Federal/State hazmat 
partnerships. The HM Specialist Internship Program is primarily 
geared toward enforcement personnel and is not targeted toward 
emergency response concerns. Funds for the intern program 
should not have to compete for the limited funds available in 
the grant program.
    Rulemaking support.--The Committee notes that a number of 
important safety rulemakings, including intrastate 
transportation, rail tank car safety, and infectious 
substances, have not yet been finalized. The Committee wants to 
ensure that forthcoming OHMS regulations will be cost effective 
and are based on careful scientific and economic analyses. To 
achieve this objective and to help OHMS eliminate or improve 
other regulations, the Committee has provided an additional 
$116,000 for rulemaking support. This adjustment will maintain 
rulemaking activities at the fiscal year 1995 level.
    Hazmat training.--The Committee does not agree with the 
RSPA request to reduce significantly compliance training for 
State and local enforcement officials. Effective enforcement 
requires a sufficient number of adequately trained personnel to 
provide a credible deterrent to noncompliance. The Committee 
has provided an additional $100,000 to restore these essential 
training activities to the fiscal year 1995 level.
    RSPA personnel.--The Committee denies the request to 
eliminate two FTP and three FTE from the Office of Hazardous 
Materials Safety [OHMS]. These positions were originally funded 
to implement the Sanitary Food Transportation Act [SFTA], but 
these experts also have been used to work on the substantial 
regulatory backlog facing the OHMS. The Committee asserts that 
these personnel are still needed to develop cost-effective 
regulations and work on the SFTA. The Committee notes that the 
number of fundable positions allocated to OHMS has been reduced 
during the last few years, while the workload has only 
increased to meet the requirements of several new statutes. In 
contrast, RSPA's Office of Management and Administration [OMA] 
has been minimally affected by downsizing and has not shared 
its proportionate reduction with other RSPA offices. 
Consequently, the Committee recommends a decrease of two FTP 
and three FTE from OMA. This action would be in keeping with 
the Administration's goal to reduce administrative support in 
selected areas by 50 percent by fiscal year 1999.
    Hazardous materials enforcement.--The Committee commends 
the Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement for the increase 
in the vitality and vigor of its compliance program. For 
example, this Office has increased the number of enforcement 
cases initiated, the number of cased closed, and the number of 
penalties collected. In addition, this Office is seeking an 
array of means to improve the timing of its followup visits to 
companies that were judged not to be in compliance with the 
hazardous materials transportation regulations [HMTR]. The 
Committee appreciates the fact that the regional OHMS offices 
are assisting State and local enforcement officials and 
conducting joint inspections when appropriate. Such efforts 
should be expanded whenever possible.
    The Committee has reviewed the civil penalty enforcement 
guidelines for the HMTR that were prepared in response to 
Senate Report 103-150. These guidelines promote consistency in 
the implementation of Federal law and provide industry with 
basic information that the OHMS uses in initiating its penalty 
assessment process. The Committee applauds RSPA's response to 
the Committee's directive and urges the agency to disseminate 
this penalty guideline widely throughout the regulated 
community.
    In summary the Committee recommends the following 
adjustments to the budget request.

Hazardous materials:
    Registration system....................................... -$182,000
    Research and development..................................   -23,000
    International program.....................................   -40,000
    Research and analysis.....................................   +44,000
    Inspection and enforcement................................   +40,000
    Rulemaking support........................................  +116,000
    Information system........................................   -50,000
    Hazardous materials training..............................  +100,000
    Two FTP's/three FTE's.....................................  +200,000
                    Aviation information management

    The Aviation Information Management [AIM] Program provides 
financial and statistical economic data on individual air 
carrier operations and the air transportation industry. The AIM 
provides airline data and special project data services to DOT 
programs and users. It also arranges for access to the data by 
non-DOT parties through its reports reference room, the RSPA's 
center for transportation information at the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center, and private sector information 
firms.
    The AIM Program became part of RSPA in 1985 to provide 
separation of its administration and direction from its users 
in the Office of the Secretary [OST] and the Federal Aviation 
Administration [FAA]. In fiscal year 1991, the airline tariffs 
function was transferred from OST to RSPA. Beginning in fiscal 
year 1995, the Department of Transportation transferred the AIM 
Program to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics consistent 
with BTS' primary role in statistical oversight. In fiscal year 
1996, funding for the AIM Program has been shifted to BTS and 
OST.
    The Airline Tariffs Program is responsible for 
administering the Department's program of air carrier tariff 
filings. Tariffs are filed in accordance with the Federal 
Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, and 14 CFR part 221 of the 
Department's regulations. U.S. and foreign air carriers must 
file the tariffs, setting passenger fares, cargo rates, 
additional charges, and the rules related to the application of 
the fares and rates, where the tariffs are applicable to 
international air transportation.

                        Emergency transportation

    Emergency transportation [ET] programs provide support to 
the Secretary of Transportation for his statutory and 
administrative responsibilities in the area of transportation 
civil emergency preparedness and response. The office develops 
and coordinates the Department's policies, plans, and programs, 
in headquarters and the field to provide for emergency 
preparedness.
    ET is responsible for implementing the Transportation 
Department's National Security Program initiatives, including 
an assessment of the transportation implications of the 
changing global threat. The Office is also charged with the 
development of crisis management plans and the implementation 
of these plans nationally and regionally in an emergency.
    The Committee recommends $962,000 for emergency 
transportation, including a reduction of $339,000 for the 
crisis management center. Last year, the Committee supported a 
one-time increase in funds to modernize the center. Given the 
existence of the Federal Aviation Administration Operations 
Center, U.S. Coast Guard emergency commands, the National 
Response Center, and the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration, the Committee maintains that the funds 
recommended herein will be more than sufficient for the Office 
of Emergency Transportation to conduct its functions.

                        Research and technology

    The Office of Research and Technology [ORT] assists in the 
definition of research policy, maintains oversight over 
research and development programs conducted by the Department, 
and provides coordination of research among the modes. This 
mission is accomplished by providing staff support to the 
Director of Technology Deployment (in OST), as Chairman of the 
DOT Research and Technology Coordinating Council. ORT is also 
charged with assuring that transportation research from around 
the country is made available in useful form to Federal, State, 
and local elected and appointed officials, the transportation 
community, and academia. The program also provides program 
development and research dissemination assistance in the system 
of the University Transportation Centers Program.
    The Committee has not provided the amount requested for R&D 
planning and management. The Committee does not want to create 
what amounts to a separate and new research institution within 
the Department under RSPA's leadership, and furthermore, the 
current budgetary situation does not allow for such an 
increase. Furthermore, because a strong R&D program is needed 
to advance transportation safety and technology, the Committee 
has recommended sufficient R&D funding in each of the modes.
    The Director for Technology Deployment, the Research and 
Technology Coordinating Council, the Research and Development 
Steering Committee, each of the modal administrations, and 
investigators working at the Volpe Center (who collectively 
work on all modes of transportation) should continue to work 
diligently to improve research coordination, to further 
intermodal research activities, and to promote technology 
transfer.
    With the funds provided to RSPA, the Committee maintains 
that the Director for Technology Deployment and the 
Administrator will be able to contribute toward these 
objectives. The highest priority for these funds should be: (1) 
to write and distribute an improved Surface Transportation R&D 
plan; (2) to ensure that transportation issues receive 
sufficient attention in the deliberations of the National 
Science and Technology Council; and (3) to ensure coordination 
of transportation-related research within the DOT and within 
the Federal Government.
    The RSPA Administrator and the Director for Technology 
Deployment should keep the Committee more informed on their 
contributions to the National Science and Technology Council 
and on technology deployment, transfer and coordination 
activities at DOT. To this end, the Committee requests a 
detailed letter outlining the scope and nature of these 
activities and their results to be submitted to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations before March 1, 1996.
    The Committee has carefully reviewed the second edition of 
the Surface Transportation Research and Development Plan that 
was required by section 6009(b) of the ISTEA. Within the funds 
provided for R&D planning and management, the Committee expects 
that the third edition will truly be a strategic plan that 
details in broad terms the future direction of the Department's 
research for the next 5 years. The plan should present evidence 
of careful intermodal coordination, integration, and analysis. 
Furthermore, the plan should reflect substantial guidance 
provided by the Research and Technology Coordinating Council 
and the Research and Technology Steering Committee.
    The Committee believes that the marketing of research 
results and outreach activities should be an inherent part of 
each agency's functions and sees little need for RSPA to 
develop and implement duplicative efforts. Thus, the Committee 
agrees with the House recommendation that no additional funds 
beyond the amount spent during fiscal year 1995 should be used 
for technology promotion.
    The Committee approves the transfer of one position to the 
Office of the Secretary for Radionavigation R&D. The 
Committee's recommendation does not include the two new 
positions requested for research and technology activities. 
This adjustment leaves 12 positions in the Office of Research, 
Technology, and Analysis.
    The Committee proposes to eliminate funding for the 
position of Associate Administrator for Research, Technology 
and Analysis. This position has been vacant for more than 7 
months and is unlikely to be filled until a decision is reached 
on the Department's reorganization proposal. Many of the 
responsibilities of this Office are now being implemented by 
the Director for Technology Deployment in the Office of the 
Secretary.
    In summary the Committee recommends the following 
adjustments to the budget request.


Research and technology

Reductions:
    FTE's -2.................................................. -$106,000
    Planning and development..................................-2,900,000
    Promotion activities......................................  -847,000
    Deployment................................................  -300,000
                   Program and administrative support

    The program support function provides legal, financial, 
management, and administrative support to the operating offices 
within RSPA. These support activities include executive 
direction (Office of the Administrator), program and policy 
support, civil rights and special programs, legal services and 
support, and management and administration.
    The Committee denies funds for the personnel support 
contract for the Office of Management and Administration and 
for the support contract for the Office of Policy and Program 
Support. Secretarial and other staff support is available 
throughout RSPA to help conduct the activities for which 
contract funds were sought.
    Funding for RSPA's information resources management 
activity has been increasing rapidly, going from $150,000 
during fiscal year 1993 to $425,000 in fiscal year 1995. To 
bring this expenditure more in line with fiscal constraints, 
the Committee recommends $400,000, which is $70,000 less than 
the budget request.
    Accountwide adjustments.--The Committee agrees with the 
House decision to reduce funding for training (-$109,000) and 
equipment (-$302,000) and agrees with these reductions. The 
Committee is concerned that some of the training funds 
requested would pay for specialized courses that are beginning 
to detract from the implementation of the basic safety and 
technology functions of RSPA. In order to limit the frequency 
of unnecessary training activities, the Committee recommends 
that a substantial portion of the reductions in operating 
expenses be taken from the training budget, especially funds 
used to support courses that do not strengthen enforcement and 
regulatory capabilities. The RSPA Administrator shall ensure 
that this reduction does not affect the availability of funds 
for hazardous materials inspections or assistance to State 
hazardous materials personnel.

              volpe national transportation systems center

    The Committee has reviewed the work acceptance criteria now 
governing the activities conducted at the Volpe Center. These 
criteria should reduce the abuses that were previously noted by 
the inspector general. The Committee asserts that timely 
approval of proposals submitted to Volpe is essential for 
efficient R&D management. Given the workload of the RSPA 
Administrator, the Committee strongly supports efforts to 
streamline the work acceptance processes by delegating project 
approval authority back to the Director of the Volpe Center.

                            Pipeline Safety

                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $37,340,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      42,418,000
House allowance.........................................      29,941,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              32,973,000

    The Research and Special Programs Administration is also 
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. This 
activity was funded as a separate account for the first time in 
fiscal year 1988 and is entirely financed by user fees assessed 
to the pipeline operators and by fees paid to the oilspill 
liability trust fund [OSLTF].
    Included under this account are the operations activity 
providing for the salaries and expenses and the supervisory and 
management functions for pipeline safety regulatory and 
enforcement programs. Also included is research and development 
to support the Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aid to 
State agencies that conduct a Pipeline Safety Program. The 
budget request included $2,698,000 for activities to be funded 
from the OSLTF which has been included by both the House and 
Senate.
    For pipeline safety activities within RSPA, the Committee 
recommends $32,973,000.
    Pipeline safety personnel.--The Committee disagrees with 
the House allocation, which abrogates an agreement reached in 
the 1995 conference report regarding personnel for the Office 
of Pipeline Safety [OPS]. The conferees agreed to include 
funding to support an additional 33 full-time permanent 
positions and 18 full-time equivalent staff in fiscal year 
1995. The Committee's recommendation includes the funds 
requested to annualize the additional 15 FTE's during fiscal 
year 1996 for a total of 105 FTE's and 105 FTP's. These 
additional inspectors are needed to improve compliance with the 
safety regulations, to work with industry to further the 
purposes of pipeline safety and environmental protection, and 
to ensure effective oversight of the State grant program.
    These additional personnel will address current shortfalls 
in the OPS inspection program. For example, due to the limited 
number of Federal inspectors, only about 10 percent of all 
reported accidents are investigated by Federal inspectors. In 
addition, OPS regional offices have typically been unable to 
meet their inspection goals because of a shortage of 
inspectors. Additional personnel would increase the ability of 
OPS to meet an inspection interval of 2 years for high-risk 
pipelines versus the current 4 year average. Furthermore, 
needed inspection of new pipeline construction and renewal 
could be performed. OPS would be able to inspect additional low 
stress pipelines, a new area of responsibility that has 
substantially increased the number of pipeline miles subject to 
OPS jurisdiction. The proposed risk management demonstration 
projects will only add to the inspection workload of OPS.
    Operating expenses.--The Committee recommends a reduction 
in the operating expenses of OPS of $306,000 and requires that 
the funds necessary to conduct inspections and to work with 
State partners receive the highest priority for allocation.
    Information systems operations.--The OPS will need 
substantial information resources to develop and justify future 
regulatory improvements and to monitor demonstrations of 
regulatory flexibility that are likely to be forthcoming under 
pipeline reauthorization legislation. However, because of 
budgetary limitations, the Committee recommends $1,502,000 for 
information systems, which is $250,000 less than the amount 
requested.
    Risk assessment and technical studies.--The Committee 
recommends $1,750,000 for risk assessment and technical 
studies. This allowance includes the $250,00 requested for 
regulatory analysis as well as an additional $250,000 to 
improve the adequacy of cost benefit analyses and risk 
assessments which the OPS should be conducting.
    Field engineering support.--The Committee recommends 
$300,000 for continuation of this activity in fiscal year 1996. 
The funds provided shall be used to provide technological 
expertise or testing facilities that OPS lacks. Such needs as 
metallurgical testing, fracture mechanics, welding analysis, 
and radiography assistance are areas for which such assistance 
would be warranted. The Committee does not agree that these 
funds should be used for drug testing activities, as proposed 
by the House committee. This function has historically been 
conducted using Federal inspectors and headquarters personnel, 
is closely related to possible enforcement activities, and 
should be conducted only by Federal personnel rather than by 
contractors. The Committee expects any available funds from 
prior year obligations for contracted field engineering support 
to be used in fiscal year 1996 for continued work in these 
areas.
    Training and information dissemination.--The Committee 
recommends $925,000 for training and information dissemination, 
which is $54,000 more than requested, but the same amount that 
was appropriated in fiscal year 1995. Federal and State 
inspectors must receive adequate training to ensure a quality 
compliance program. To be certified to stay in the grant 
program, State inspectors must complete specified training 
requirements. The Committee disagrees with the House 
recommendation that the risk management curriculum should be 
postponed. The development of these courses will require a 
substantial lead time and this information is needed to help 
inspectors make better evaluations consistent with the existing 
OPS waiver authority and forthcoming changes in authorizing 
law.
    Mapping.--The mapping project will provide OPS with 
location information on pipelines so that the agency can more 
efficiently and wisely make the safety and environmental 
protection decisions necessary to execute its mission. Accurate 
maps will assist in response efforts during accidents or 
natural disasters, especially those maps that show the location 
of high density populations or environmentally sensitive areas. 
The mapping project will help OPS to determine the risks 
pipelines pose and where prevention and monitoring will do the 
most good. The project responds to the 1992 statutory 
requirement to better protect environmentally sensitive areas 
through which pipelines run. Pipeline maps prepared by industry 
are not integrated in a comprehensive manner and do not meet 
the needs of the agency.
    Although OPS has been working closely with industry and its 
State partners through the mapping quality action team, OPS has 
not yet chosen the final strategy to procure the necessary 
mapping system. Consequently, the total costs to acquire and 
maintain the system have not yet been determined. Because of 
the value of mapping and the need to maintain close oversight 
over this project, the Committee wants to be kept abreast of 
progress on this activity. To this end, the RSPA Administrator 
should send a detailed letter to both the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations before April 1, 1996, specifying 
the final costs of the project and the approach to be taken to 
meet the needs of the agency at the least cost. Because of 
budgetary limitations, the Committee recommends $800,000 for 
the mapping initiative.
    Public education campaign.--The Committee directs that, 
before funds for the national public information campaign are 
obligated, OPS submit a definitive plan for allocation of these 
funds to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The 
plan shall detail how this campaign will contribute to pipeline 
safety and be coordinated with similar non-Federal activities. 
The Committee requests that this plan also be submitted for 
comment to the appropriate pipeline advisory committees.
    Nondestructive evaluation technology.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for NDE work, which is $1,100,000 less 
than the amount requested. The goal of this research is to 
advance technology that detects dents and flaws and to 
determine the adequacy of repair and remediation strategies 
used to return pipelines to service. These funds are necessary 
to ensure that OPS helps advance this useful technology, 
maintains continuity in its research program, and provides OPS 
increased technical expertise to review technical decisions 
made by pipeline operators and to deal with regulatory 
initiatives. OPS will work cooperatively with the pipeline 
industry to ensure that its NDE research and development 
focuses on unresolved and conflicting technical issues and does 
not duplicate industry work.
    Information systems development.--Because of budgetary 
constraints, the Committee recommends $255,000 for information 
systems development, which is $400,000 less than the amount 
requested.
    Research and development.--The Committee wants OPS to 
strategically plan the future course and direction of its R&D 
program. When asked what technical advances have resulted from 
research sponsored during the last 3 fiscal years by the OPS, 
the agency only cited studies on supervisory control and data 
acquisition methods. OPS indicated that none of the research 
projects planned for fiscal year 1996 support near-term 
rulemaking. The Committee, therefore, directs the Administrator 
to submit before June 1, 1996, to both the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, a 5-year strategic plan for the 
Office of Pipeline Safety R&D program. The Committee has 
requested similar plans of other agencies of the department and 
believes that they serve a useful purpose for both the agency 
and the Committee. This plan will ensure that there is a solid 
foundation on which future cost-effective regulations can be 
based. The Administrator also will ensure that OPS, as well as 
other offices, are placing R&D reports into the National 
Technical Information Service.
    A draft of the 5-year plan should be submitted for review 
and comment by the appropriate pipeline advisory committees. 
The Committee disagrees with RSPA's assertion that it would be 
premature to request comments on any aspect of the budget 
request until OMB formally approves the budget. The Committee 
notes that other DOT agencies discuss their draft R&D 
submittals referencing specific initiatives and proposed 
funding levels at public advisory committee meetings.
    OPS enforcement program.--During the last few years, 
Congress took the initiative to either recommend new pipeline 
inspectors that were not requested in the budget or to approve 
those that were requested. The Committee expected that the 
addition of new inspectors would have resulted in substantial 
improvements in the vitality and effectiveness of the OPS 
enforcement program. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. 
For example, during the last 2 years, OPS data indicate that 
the number of pipeline incidents, number of pipeline fatalities 
and injuries, and amount of associated property damage has been 
increasing. During this same period, the number of warning 
letters issued, the amount of civil penalties assessed and 
collected, the number of enforcement cases closed, and the 
number of accident investigations decreased. The Committee 
directs that RSPA Administrator to review the targeting, 
vitality and vigor of the inspection and civil penalty process 
and to respond with a detailed letter to be submitted before 
December 1, 1995, to the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees as to what steps will be taken to improve the 
enforcement program and to improve compliance.
    Although the amount of civil penalties proposed and 
collected is only one means to promote compliance, it is 
usually an effective one. The Committee understands that OPS is 
working on other measures of the effectiveness of its 
compliance program. The Committee strongly encourages these 
efforts and looks forward to receiving data on other measures 
besides the ones cited above.

                     OILSPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND

    The Committee recommends $2,698,000 to be derived from the 
oilspill liability trust fund for implementation of the OPS 
responsibilities under the OPA. RSPA has concluded that as a 
result of industry improving its facility response plans and 
participating in spill drills, the pipeline industry has 
greatly improved its overall preparedness. The funds provided 
will allow exercising of these plans, publication of a lessons 
learned document, review of response plans with significant 
changes, and a determination of a baseline assessing the 
ability of industry to respond to specific pipeline releases.
    OPS has completed its initial review and approval of more 
than 1,100 spill response plans. The Committee is aware that 
some State agencies and industry groups pay for drills 
independent of RSPA support. OPS personnel should make 
continued use of such exercises to reduce Federal expenditures 
on similar drills. The Committee supports OPS efforts to work 
closely with other Federal agencies in crafting a single 
response plan that a company can use to meet all Federal 
requirements for oilspill prevention and response.
    Pipeline grant program.--The Committee recommends 
$13,500,000 for the natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline 
safety grants, which is $1,200,000 less than the amount 
requested, but the same as the fiscal year 1995 appropriation. 
The Committee has not provided any funds for separate risk 
assessment grants because legislation allowing these grants to 
go to other entities besides State pipeline agencies has not 
yet been authorized.
    In addition to conducting conventional pipeline safety 
audits, the funds provided may be used to conduct risk 
assessments or to build the capability needed for such 
assessments, provided that the grant goes directly to the State 
pipeline agency as required under current law. OPS informed the 
Committee that there are at least 10 States that could use 
these funds to conduct risk assessments.
    The Committee directs that RSPA submit a letter to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before April l, 
1996, indicating on a State-by-State basis, the extent to which 
States are using existing information resources and expertise 
to allocate inspection resources primarily on a risk basis. The 
Committee expects that RSPA will encourage the States to focus 
on specific areas where the consequences of a pipeline spill 
would have the most adverse impact on the either the 
environment, drinking water, or densely populated centers.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the 
establishment and development of one-call notification systems. 
These funds will be used for a diversity of purposes including 
enacting, enhancing, or implementing one call legislation or 
regulations, encouraging damage prevention programs and 
associated mapping and enforcement activities. These funds are 
provided because one call systems are the best means of 
reducing third party damage to pipelines. Pipeline release 
reports submitted to DOT from operators indicate that third 
party damage or damage caused by outside forces is the number 
one cause of all pipeline releases. The Committee has increased 
the amount set aside for one call systems because these systems 
offer tremendous promise to prevent pipeline incidents and 
because the demand for this set aside in fiscal year 1995 was 
substantially over the amount made available.
    OPS indicates that there are substantial opportunities to 
improve State one call systems. OPS asserts that only five 
States have a timely one-call enforcement program, about 17 
States still do not have mandatory membership by all 
underground facility operators, and only 23 States have 
emergency service available on a 24-hour basis. The funds 
provided herein will be used to address these concerns. RSPA 
stated that the funds previously spent on one call damage 
prevention programs have resulted in a lowering of excavation-
related failures in some pipelines.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (Emergency Preparedness Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................        $400,000
    (Limitation)........................................      10,800,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................         400,000
    (Limitation)........................................      11,338,000
House allowance.........................................         400,000
    (Limitation)........................................       8,890,000
Committee recommendation................................         400,000
    (Limitation)........................................       9,200,000
                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                       Limitation on Obligations

    The Committee recommends a total of $9,200,000 to be 
appropriated from the hazardous materials shipper and carrier 
registration fee fund. In addition to the amount provided, 
$400,000 is directly appropriated for the training curriculum 
activities authorized under existing law. The remaining funds 
are allocated under a fiscal year 1996 funding limitation to be 
distributed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year       Budget           House         Committee  
                                                   1995 enacted      estimate        allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants..........................................      $9,650,000      $9,738,000      $7,350,000      $7,650,000
Technical assistance............................         400,000         400,000         400,000         400,000
Administrative costs............................         500,000         500,000         440,000         450,000
Emergency response guidebook....................  ..............         700,000         700,000         700,000
Supplemental training grants....................         250,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................      10,800,000      11,338,000       8,890,000       9,200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $39,891,200
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      40,238,000
House allowance.........................................      40,238,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              39,891,200

    The Office of Inspector General [OIG] was created by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452). It is 
intended to be an independent and objective organization with 
the explicit mission of: (1) Promoting organizational 
efficiency and effectiveness; (2) preventing and detecting 
fraud and abuse; and (3) providing a means of keeping the 
Secretary of Transportation and Congress fully and currently 
informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of 
departmental programs and operations.
    The headquarters audit operation is composed of the Office 
of Transportation Program Audits and the Office of Information 
Technology, Secretarial, and Financial Audits. Field offices 
are located in Baltimore and 7 of 10 standard Federal regions. 
There are also six regional investigative offices which are 
responsible for all investigations within their designated 
areas and two regional inspections and evaluations offices. 
Funds are included to implement the provisions of the Chief 
Financial Officers Act of 1990.
    The Committee recommends $39,891,200 which is $346,800 
below the budget request. The Committee has reduced the budget 
request by holding funding to the fiscal year 1995 level.

                  BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      $2,322,000
    (By transfer).......................................    (20,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................       2,200,000

    (By transfer)

                                                            (20,000,000)

    The Aviation Statistics Program is proposed for transfer 
from the Research and Special Programs Administration to this 
new account. The rationale for this transfer is to put the 
responsibility for the compilation and analysis of airline 
economic data with the office that has broad authority to 
collect and analyze transportation statistics across a wide 
spectrum. Airline data is a significant component in DOT's 
intermodal data banks because most interstate and international 
commercial passengers travel by air. This program includes a 
small field office located in Anchorage, AK, which provides 
consumers with reliable and timely airline data related to 
essential air service and intra-Alaskan mail rate programs. 
Twenty FTE's and $2,322,000 are requested in support of this 
program. For fiscal year 1995, the program resources will be 
transferred by a memorandum of agreement [MOU] signed by RSPA 
and BTS.
    The Committee has included a general fund appropriation of 
$2,200,000 for the Aviation Statistics Office transfer.
                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995....................................      $3,350,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................       3,656,000
House allowance.........................................       3,656,000

Committee recommendation

                                                               3,500,000

    The Committee recommends $3,500,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
a decrease of $156,000 below the budget estimate and the House 
allowance.
    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting 
accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was 
reauthorized through fiscal year 1997 in the Rehabilitation Act 
Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102-569. Under this 
authorization, the Access Board's functions are to ensure 
compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to 
develop guidelines for and technical assistance to individuals 
and entities with rights or duties under titles II and III of 
the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Access Board 
establishes minimum accessibility guidelines and requirements 
for public accommodations and commercial facilities, transit 
facilities and vehicles, State and local government facilities, 
children's environments, and recreational facilities. The 
Access Board also provides technical assistance to Government 
agencies, public and private organizations, individuals, and 
businesses on the removal of accessibility barriers.
    The Committee recommended level, $3,500,000, is sufficient 
to fully fund all the Access Board's statutory responsibilities 
and to implement planned fiscal year 1996 activities, including 
accessibility guideline development and publication, research, 
public communications outreach, and training programs.
    The decrease below the requested amount reflects the 
Committee's determination that the projected cost savings 
associated with the purchase, installation, and operation of 
the Department of Treasury's Glows financial accounting system 
do not justify the approximately $150,000 one-time expenditure. 
The Access Board estimates that the fiscal year 1996 costs for 
the Glows system are $80,000 for installation of the system and 
a 6-month staff training period, $70,000 for purchase of the 
system's software, and an unspecified amount to purchase two 
computers to run the Glows system. In response to Committee 
questioning, the Access Board testified that, if it purchases 
the Glows system, it will no longer use the financial, 
accounting, and budget services provided by the General 
Services Administration, saving the Access Board about $20,000 
a year. However, the Access Board will pay $10,000 a year to 
the Department of Treasury for service and support to the Glows 
system, and if additional services are required, reimbursement 
to Treasury will be necessary on an ad hoc basis. Thus, the 
anticipated savings to the Access Board are insufficient to 
justify this level of investment at the present time.
                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $37,392,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      38,774,000
House allowance.........................................      38,774,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              37,500,000

    The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the 
National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent 
Federal agency to promote transportation safety by conducting 
independent accident investigations. In addition, the Act 
authorizes the Board to make safety recommendations, conduct 
safety studies, and oversee safety activities of other 
Government agencies involved in transportation. The Board also 
reviews appeals of adverse actions by the Department of 
Transportation with respect to airmen and seamen certificates 
and licenses.
    The Board has no regulatory authority over the 
transportation industry. Thus, its effectiveness depends on its 
reputation for impartial and accurate accident reports, 
realistic and feasible safety recommendations, and on public 
confidence in its commitment to improving transportation 
safety.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $37,500,000, which is 
$108,000 above the fiscal year 1995 level. Due to fiscal 
constraints, this funding is $1,274,000 below the 
administration's budget request. The amount recommended 
provides for a full-time equivalent [FTE] employment level of 
350. The following table incorporates the NTSB's internal 
realignment of administrative functions and provides for 
salaries and expenses to be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Staff (FTE)   Budgetauthority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction...................              45      $5,459,000 
Aviation safety........................             122      12,895,000 
Surface transportation safety..........              94      10,139,000 
Research and engineering...............              48       5,126,000 
Administration.........................              31       2,596,000 
Administrative law judges..............              10       1,285,000 
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................             350      37,500,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Committee agrees with the House expectation that it be 
advised in cases where the Board plans to deviate in any way 
from its total FTE allocations or by more than 10 percent from 
the funding allocations listed above.

                             Emergency Fund
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................        $360,802
House allocation........................................         160,802

Committee recommendation

                                                                 360,802

    The Committee recommendation of $360,802 for the emergency 
fund is $200,000 more than the House allowance and the same as 
the budget request. This brings the total available in the 
National Transportation Safety Board's emergency fund to 
$1,000,000, the amount specified when the fund was created in 
Public Law 97-267. This fund is used for extraordinary accident 
investigation expenses, when those investigations would 
otherwise be impeded by lack of funds.

                     INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995....................................     $30,302,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................      28,884,000
House allowance.........................................      13,379,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,379,000

\1\ The appropriation for the Office of the Secretary includes 
$4,705,000 for the ICC sunset.

    The Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC] is an independent 
agency created by Congress in 1887 to regulate interstate 
transportation.
    The Committee intends to implement the fiscal year 1996 
budget resolution assumption which would terminate the 
Interstate Commerce Commission. Deleting this agency will 
eliminate counterproductive and outdated economic regulation of 
the railroad industry. The motor carrier industry has already 
been relieved of unnecessary Government economic regulation 
under the Trucking Interstate Regulatory Reform Act of 1994. 
The Committee notes with approval that the administration 
finally has echoed congressional leadership regarding the 
sunset of the ICC, the oldest independent Federal regulatory 
agency.
    The House has appropriated $13,379,000 for the ICC and 
included another $8,421,000 in a general provision (sec. 342), 
for a total of $21,800,000. The House would provide $8,395,000 
for first-quarter ICC salaries and expenses; $4,984,000 in 
severance and closedown costs; and $8,421,000 in user fees to 
cover other ICC expenses. The Committee notes that the Senate 
authorizing committee has not yet reported any ICC termination 
legislation to address which ICC functions will sunset and 
which will continue at DOT, as well as how they will be 
organized. In view of the fact that Congress appropriated 
$30,302,000 in fiscal year 1995 to operate a fully functioning 
ICC; this Committee firmly believes that $21,800,000 is an 
excessive sum to close down this agency.
    The bill as reported by the Committee has been scored by 
the Congressional Budget Office with $13,379,000 in costs 
associated with the termination of this agency.
    The Committee has separately appropriated $4,705,000, as 
requested by the administration, for the Department of 
Transportation to assume any necessary functions of the ICC. 
These funds are included within the Office of the Secretary, 
under the head ``ICC Sunset.''

                   Payments for Directed Rail Service

                      (limitation on obligations)
Limitation, 1995........................................      ($475,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................       (475,000)
House allowance.........................................       (475,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                               (475,000)

    Under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 11125, when a rail 
carrier is in such financial trouble that it becomes impossible 
to continue its operations, the Commission is empowered to 
direct and pay another carrier to move that carrier's traffic 
for a period of up to 60 days, which can be extended for an 
additional 180 days if cause exists. In certain cases, the 
Commission's use of this authority has not resulted in any cost 
to the Federal Government. However, there have been several 
instances where the use of this authority has resulted in a 
liability for payment to an operating carrier by the Federal 
Government.
    The Committee provides an obligation limitation of $475,000 
for fiscal year 1996, even though no additional directed rail 
service is anticipated. In the event that such authority needs 
to be exercised by the Commission, proper and timely 
notification to Congress is required. The limitation is the 
same as the House allowance.
                        PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

    The Panama Canal Commission is an agency of the executive 
branch of the U.S. Government established by the Panama Canal 
Act of 1979 (93 Stat. 452; 22 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), to carry 
out the responsibilities of the United States under the Panama 
Canal Treaty of 1977. The authority of the President of the 
United States with respect to the Commission is exercised 
through the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. 
The Commission is supervised by a nine-member Board; five 
members are nationals of the United States and four are 
Panamanians. Board members who are U.S. nationals are appointed 
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
    Under the terms of the treaty, the Commission manages, 
operates, and maintains the Canal, its complementary works, 
installations, and equipment, and provides for the orderly 
transit of vessels through the Canal. The Commission will 
perform these functions until the treaty terminates on December 
31, 1999, when the Republic of Panama will assume full 
responsibility for the Canal.

                      Panama Canal Revolving Fund

   (Administrative Expenses and Limitation on Operating and Capital 
                               Expenses)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on 
                                       Administrative      operating/   
                                          expenses           capital    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995................     ($50,030,000)    ($540,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...............      (50,741,000)  ................
House allowance.....................      (50,741,000)  ................
Committee recommendation............      (50,741,000)  ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $50,741,000, the same as the budget request 
and the House allowance. This account encompasses the following 
activities: executive direction, operations, financial 
management, personnel administration, and employment costs of a 
general nature which are not identifiable with other specific 
activities. Included in the latter activity are such items as 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for education and 
hospital services and the Commission's share of employee health 
insurance premiums.
    Operating and capital expenses.--The Panama Canal 
Commission is a business enterprise which, by law, must operate 
at no cost to the U.S. taxpayers. Toll revenues collected from 
vessels transiting the Panama Canal and revenues from other 
services are deposited into the Panama Canal revolving fund, 
from which the Commission obtains its operating and capital 
funds. The Committee concurs with the House action deleting 
language limiting obligations for nonadministrative operating 
expenses and capital projects. This is consistent with the 
administration's budget request, and will obviate the future 
need for the Commission to use emergency authority to access 
internally generated operating expense funds or to request 
supplemental funds above an artificial limitation on 
obligations.
    As outlined in the bill, a limitation of $46,000 is 
provided for official reception and representation expenses, of 
which (1) not more than $11,000 may be available to the 
Supervisory Board of the Commission; (2) not more than $5,000 
may be available for such expenses of the Secretary of the 
Commission; and (3) not more than $30,000 may be available to 
the Administrator of the Commission.
             WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

                           Interest Payments
Appropriations, 1995....................................    $664,666,667
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                             ...........................

    Early repayment of Federal share of interest payments.--
Through 1994, this account provided the annual Federal share 
(two-thirds) of interest payments on outstanding WMATA bonds 
sold in support of the rail construction program. The WMATA 
bonds, which totaled $997,000,000, were guaranteed by the 
Federal Government and were to become due beginning in the year 
2012. In December 1993, the WMATA bonds were refinanced in 
order to take advantage of lower interest rates. As part of 
this refinancing, the Department of Transportation borrowed 
$665,000,000 from the Federal Financing Bank [FFB] to pay off 
the Federal two-thirds share of the original bonds.
    In 1995, $665,000,000 was appropriated to repay the 
principal owed by the Department of Transportation to the FFB. 
No funds are, therefore, necessary for this payment.
                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee concurs with the general provisions that 
apply to the Department and agencies funded through this 
legislation in fiscal year 1996 as approved by the House in 
H.R. 2002, with the following deletions or changes. Other 
changes are explained under the account or agency affected by 
the general provision.

             changes, deletions/replacements, new sections

    Sec. 303. Technical change to include a reference to more 
recently enacted legislation.
    Sec. 311. Limits political appointees to 100 rather than 
the 110 cited in the House bill.
    Sec. 313. Deletes the House provision which prohibits the 
use of funds for a safety advisory committee.
    Sec. 327. Reduces the Department's working capital fund by 
$5,000,000 rather than the $10,000,000 proposed by the House.
    Sec. 330. Deletes the House provision which prohibits the 
use of funds to prepare, propose, or promulgate any rule under 
title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 
which prescribes corporate average fuel economy standards for 
motor vehicles.
    Sec. 335. Deletes the prohibition against including the 
Maritime Administration when the $25,000,000 reduction for 
personnel compensation and benefits associated with 
streamlining and consolidation is applied. In addition, the 
Committee directs the President to submit a DOT reorganization 
plan to Congress when transmitting the budget request for 
fiscal year 1997.
    Sec. 336. Broadens the authority of the Secretary to 
transfer funds to meet shortfalls in the ``Rental payments'' 
account.
    Sec. 337. Deletes the House prohibition against certain 
types of training. The Committee substitute allows only 
training that is consistent with existing law (5 U.S.C. 4014).
    Sec. 338. Deletes the House provision which allows the Hot 
Springs, AR, airport to operate without regard to rent 
diversion and rent maximization laws.
    Sec. 339. Adds new subsection (c) which defines that time 
spent on workers' compensation rolls should be counted as 
regular employment time.
    Sec. 340. Deletes House provision which prohibits the use 
of funds to train citizens of the People's Republic of China.
    Sec. 341. Deletes House provision which requires FTA 
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
to be based in Washington, DC.
    Sec. 342. Deletes House provision which provides funding 
for the successor of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The 
Committee has provided these funds under the Office of the 
Secretary.
    Sec. 343. Adds a new provision that allows the State of 
Louisiana to transfer previously provided contract authority 
from one project to another project within the State.
    Sec. 344. Adds a provision clarifying the status of an 
interstate maintenance project and a Federal lands project 
funded with discretionary funds.
    Sec. 345. Directs the Secretary of DOT, in concert with the 
Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of EPA, to prepare a 
report on telecommuting.
    Sec. 346. Exempts the Indian Reservation roads program from 
reduction in authorizations otherwise required by section 
1003(c) of Public Law 102-240.
    Sec. 347. Allows a State, at its option, to trade in 
unobligated highway contract authority for new fiscal year 1996 
contract authority that would otherwise be rescinded due to 
section 1003(c) of Public Law 102-240.
    Sec. 348. Allows a State, at its option, to trade in 
unobligated highway demonstration project funds, either 
contract authority or appropriations, to receive new authority 
for fiscal year 1996.
    Sec. 349. Adds a new section to chapter 3 of title 49 of 
the United States Code which establishes interstate compact 
infrastructure banks.
    Sec. 350. Directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
develop and implement a new personnel management system for the 
Federal Aviation Administration.
    Sec. 351. Directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
develop and implement a new acquisition management system for 
the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Sec. 352. Technical amendment that clarifies the Secretary 
of DOT's authority to cancel any part of a PFC except that 
portion necessary to make payments for due debt service.
    Sec. 353. Reduces the amount of funding allowed for bonuses 
and cash awards to $25,875,075.
    Sec. 354. Limits the amount of funding for expenses of 
advisory committees to $850,000.
    Sec. 355. Enables the Secretary of Transportation to 
enforce and continue in effect the exemption provisions of the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
    Sec. 356. Names the FAA Technical Center at the Atlantic 
City International Airport the William J. Hughes Technical 
Center.
    Sec. 357. Prohibits outright closure of Coast Guard small 
boat stations, but does allow the Secretary to implement 
management efficiencies.
    Sec. 358. Allows the State of Louisiana to transfer highway 
funds from one project to another within the State.
    Sec. 359. Amends Public Law 97-268 to transfer a small 
parcel of Federal property to the city of Hoboken, NJ. This 
public law, as enacted in 1982, provided for the transfer of a 
much larger section of property to the city of Hoboken but 
exempted this smaller parcel from transfer because of an 
existing Federal need. This Federal need has terminated.

                                title iv

    Secs. 401-405. Deletes all of title IV, known as the 
National Capital Area Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 
1995. This section provides for the adoption of mandatory 
standards and procedures governing arbitrators and arbitration 
of labor disputes in the National Capital area (Washington, 
DC).

                                title v

    Sec. 501. Deletes House provision restricting the use of 
funds for the Miller Highway in New York City, NY.
  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''

Office of the Secretary:
    ICC Sunset..........................................      $4,705,000
    State infrastructure banks..........................     250,000,000
Coast Guard:
Operating expenses......................................   2,286,000,000
    Acquisition, construction and improvements..........     366,800,000
    Environmental compliance and restoration............      21,000,000
    Port safety development.............................      15,000,000
    Research, development, testing and evaluation.......      20,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration: Office of commercial 
    space...............................................       5,770,000
Federal Highway Administration:
    State Route 2, West Virginia........................       9,050,000
    6th/7th St., Brownsville, TX........................         500,000
    Des Moines to Ottumwa, IA...........................       6,450,000
    I-70/610 Interchange, Louisiana.....................       5,000,000
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Motor 
    vehicle safety......................................     121,605,000
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Alaska Railroad.....................................      10,000,000
    Rhode Island Railroad...............................       2,000,000
    Grants to the National Railroad Passenger 
      Corporation.......................................     605,000,000
    Northeast corridor improvement project..............     130,000,000
Research and Special Programs Administration:
    Gas pipeline safety program and hazardous liquid 
      pipeline safety program...........................      18,275,000
    Pipeline safety grants..............................      12,000,000

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the accompanying 
bill was ordered reported from the Committee, subject to 
amendment and subject to the subcommittee allocation, by 
recorded vote of 28-0, a quorum being present.
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Hatfield
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Gramm
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Mack
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Jeffords
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Johnston
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kerrey
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray

 COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports 
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute 
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or 
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the 
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by 
the committee.''
    In compliance with this rule, the following changes in 
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as 
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

    Section 201 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 181) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

        ``As used in this title, the term `foreign commerce' 
        includes flight operations (excluding ground operations 
        performed by persons other than flight crew members) 
        conducted in whole or in part outside the United States 
        (as defined by section 40102(a)(41) of title 49, United 
        States Code) by an air carrier (as defined by section 
        40102(a)(2) of such title).''.
                                employee
            Section 202 of such Act (45 U.S.C. 182) is amended 
        by adding at the end the following: ``As used in this 
        title, the term `employee' also includes flight crew 
        members employed by an air carrier (as defined by 
        section 40102(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code) 
        while such flight crew members perform work in whole or 
        in part outside the United States (as defined by section 
        40102(a)(41) of such title).''.

    Chapter 3 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
the addition of the following new section:

            ``Sec. 334. Interstate Compact Infrastructure 
        Banks.--(a) Consent to Interstate Compacts.--In order to 
        increase public investment, attract needed private 
        investment, and promote an intermodal transportation 
        network, Congress grants consent to the States to enter 
        into interstate compacts establishing transportation 
        infrastructure banks to promote regional or multi-State 
        investment in transportation infrastructure and thereby 
        improve economic productivity.
            ``(b) Assistance for Transportation Projects, 
        Programs, and Activities.--An Interstate Compact 
        Transportation Infrastructure Bank (Infrastructure Bank) 
        established under this section may make loans, issue 
        debt under the authority of the Infrastructure Bank's 
        State jurisdictions either jointly or separately as the 
        Infrastructure Bank and its jurisdictions determine, and 
        provide other assistance to public or private entities 
        constructing, or proposing to construct or initiate, 
        transportation projects, programs, or activities that 
        are eligible to receive financial assistance under--
                  ``(1) title 23, United States Code, and the 
                Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
                of 1991; and
                  ``(2) chapters 53 and 221 and subtitle VII, 
                part B, of this title.
            ``(c) Forms of Assistance.--An Infrastructure Bank 
        may loan or provide other assistance to a public or 
        private entity in an amount equal to all or part of the 
        cost of construction or capital cost of a qualifying 
        project. The amount of any loan or other assistance 
        received for a qualifying project under this section may 
        be subordinated to any other debt financing for the 
        project. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
        `other assistance' includes any use of funds for the 
        purpose of credit enhancements, use as a capital reserve 
        for bond or debt instrument financing, bond or debt 
        instrument financing issuance costs, bond or debt 
        issuance financing insurance, subsidizing of interest 
        rates, letters of credit, credit instruments, bond or 
        debt financing instrument security, other forms of debt 
        financing that relate to the qualifying project, and 
        other leveraging tools approved by the Secretary.
            ``(d) Interstate Compact Transportation 
        Infrastructure Bank Requirements.--In order to qualify 
        an Interstate Compact Transportation Infrastructure Bank 
        for capitalization grants under this section, each 
        participating State shall--
                  ``(1) deposit into the Infrastructure Bank, 
                from non-Federal or Federal sources other than 
                this title or title 23, United States Code, an 
                amount equal to 25 percent of each 
                capitalization grant or, if lower because of the 
                proportion of Federal lands in the State, the 
                proportional non-Federal share that a State 
                would otherwise pay on the basis of section 
                120(b) of title 23;
                  ``(2) ensure that the Infrastructure Bank 
                maintains on a continuing basis an investment 
                grade rating on its debt issuances or has a 
                sufficient level of bond or debt financing 
                instrument insurance to maintain the viability 
                of the fund;
                  ``(3) ensure that investment income generated 
                by the funds deposited into an Infrastructure 
                Bank shall be--
                          ``(A) credited to the Infrastructure 
                        Bank;
                          ``(B) available for use in providing 
                        loans and other assistance to qualifying 
                        projects, programs, or activities from 
                        the Infrastructure Bank; and
                          ``(C) invested in U.S. Treasury 
                        securities, bank deposits, or such other 
                        financing instruments as the Secretary 
                        may provide to earn interest to enhance 
                        the leveraging of qualifying 
                        transportation activities;
                  ``(4) provide that the repayment of a loan or 
                other assistance to a State from any loan under 
                this section may be credited to the 
                Infrastructure Bank or obligated for any purpose 
                for which the loaned funds were available under 
                this title or title 23;
                  ``(5) ensure that any loan from an 
                Infrastructure Bank shall bear any positive 
                interest the Bank determines appropriate to make 
                the qualifying project feasible;
                  ``(6) ensure that repayment of any loan from 
                an Infrastructure Bank shall commence not later 
                than five years after the facility has opened to 
                traffic or the project, activity or facility has 
                been completed;
                  ``(7) ensure that the term for repaying any 
                loan shall not exceed 30 years from the date of 
                obligation of the loan;
                  ``(8) limit any assignment, transfer, or loan 
                to an Infrastructure Bank to not more than the 
                amount which a State is entitled to under 
                subsection (f) of this section; and
                  ``(9) require the Infrastructure Bank to make 
                an annual report to the Secretary on its status 
                no later than September 30 of each year.
            ``(e) Secretarial Requirements.--In administering 
        this section, the Secretary shall--
                  ``(1) ensure that federal disbursements for 
                capital reserves shall be at a rate consistent 
                with historic rates for the Federal-aid highway 
                program; and
                  ``(2) specify procedures and guidelines for 
                establishing, operating, and making loans from 
                an Infrastructure Bank.
            ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations; Contributions 
        From Title 23 Apportionments.--(1) There are authorized 
        to be appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust 
        Fund established under section 9502 of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502) to carry out this 
        section not more than $250,000,000 in Fiscal Year 1996.
            ``(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of title 23, 
        United States Code, and Public Law 102-240 (Intermodal 
        Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991), a State 
        may contribute to an Infrastructure Bank up to ---- 
        percent of federal funds apportioned under section 104--
        ------ of title 23 that are subject to the annual 
        Federal-aid Highways obligation limitation.
            ``(3) A state may disburse funds appropriated under 
        paragraph (f)(1) of this subsection or contributed under 
        (f)(2) of this subsection to an Infrastructure Bank at a 
        rate that does not exceed the traditional rate of 
        disbursement for the Airport Improvement Program or the 
        Federal-aid Highway program, respectively.
            ``(g) State Allocation.--The Secretary shall 
        apportion to the chief executive of each State choosing 
        to participate in an Infrastructure Bank the percentage 
        allocation of the amount available under paragraph 
        (e)(1) of this section on the first day of the fiscal 
        year, as follows:

``State                                                       Percentage
    ``Alabama.....................................................  1.26
    ``Alaska......................................................  5.64
    ``Arizona.....................................................  2.20
    ``Arkansas....................................................  0.74
    ``California..................................................  8.57
    ``Colorado....................................................  2.31
    ``Connecticut.................................................  0.74
    ``Delaware....................................................  0.04
    ``District of Columbia........................................  0.01
    ``Florida.....................................................  6.49
    ``Georgia.....................................................  3.08
    ``Hawaii......................................................  2.54
    ``Idaho.......................................................  0.75
    ``Illinois....................................................  3.92
    ``Indiana.....................................................  1.46
    ``Iowa........................................................  0.95
    ``Kansas......................................................  0.68
    ``Kentucky....................................................  1.80
    ``Louisiana...................................................  1.34
    ``Maine.......................................................  0.66
    ``Maryland....................................................  0.84
    ``Massachusetts...............................................  1.72
    ``Michigan....................................................  2.68
    ``Minnesota...................................................  1.59
    ``Mississippi.................................................  0.76
    ``Missouri....................................................  1.92
    ``Montana.....................................................  1.10
    ``Nebraska....................................................  0.87
    ``Nevada......................................................  1.46
    ``New Hampshire...............................................  0.28
    ``New Jersey..................................................  1.16
    ``New Mexico..................................................  0.98
    ``New York....................................................  5.82
    ``North Carolina..............................................  2.92
    ``North Dakota................................................  0.61
    ``Ohio........................................................  2.32
    ``Oklahoma....................................................  0.97
    ``Oregon......................................................  1.15
    ``Pennsylvania................................................  3.29
    ``Rhode Island................................................  0.39
    ``South Carolina..............................................  1.05
    ``South Dakota................................................  0.55
    ``Tennessee...................................................  2.13
    ``Texas.......................................................  7.64
    ``Utah........................................................  1.04
    ``Vermont.....................................................  0.22
    ``Virginia....................................................  2.91
    ``Washington..................................................  1.78
    ``West Virginia...............................................  0.58
    ``Wisconsin...................................................  1.41
    ``Wyoming.....................................................  0.74
    ``Puerto Rico.................................................  0.99

            ``(g)  United States Not Obligated.--The deposit of 
        Federal apportionments into an Infrastructure Bank shall 
        not be construed as a commitment, guarantee, or 
        obligation on the part of the United States to any third 
        party, nor shall any third party have any right against 
        the United States for payment solely by virtue of the 
        deposit. Furthermore, any security or debt financing 
        instrument issued by an Infrastructure Bank shall 
        expressly state that the security or instrument does not 
        constitute a commitment, guarantee, or obligation of the 
        United States.
            ``(h) Management of Federal Funds.--Sections 3335 
        and 6503 of title 31, United States Code, shall not 
        apply to funds used as a capital reserve under this 
        section.
            ``(i) Program Administration.--For each fiscal year, 
        a State may contribute to an Infrastructure Bank an 
        amount not to exceed two percent of the Federal funds 
        deposited into that Infrastructure Bank by the State to 
        provide for the reasonable costs of administering the 
        fund.''.
            (b) Rescission of Contract Authorization.--Of the 
        available contract authority balances under the account 
        entitled ``Grants-In-Aid for Airports'' in this Act, 
        $250,000,000 are rescinded.

    Section 40117(c) of title 49, United States Code is amended 
by adding a new paragraph that allows for an increase of 
airport passenger facility charges.

            Sec. 352. Passenger Facility Fees.--(a) Section 
        40117(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
        by striking ``(2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``(3)'';
            (b) Section 40117(b)(3) of title 49, United States 
        Code, is amended by striking ``(3)'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``(4)'';
            (c) Section 40117(b) of title 49, United States 
        Code, is amended by adding a new paragraph (2) as 
        follows:
                  ``(2) Provided that an eligible agency with 
                authority to impose a passenger facility fee 
                submits to the Secretary and all relevant air 
                carriers a written notice of its intention to 
                adjust its passenger facility fee in accordance 
                with paragraphs (A) and (B) below no less than 
                120 days before the effective date of such an 
                increase, the eligible agency may, subject to 
                regulations the Secretary shall prescribe:
                          ``(A) increase the passenger facility 
                        fee it has the authority to impose 
                        pursuant to its approved application by 
                        no more than $2.00 for the purpose of 
                        financing an eligible airport-related 
                        project covered under this section, 
                        including any such project identified in 
                        the agency's approved application; and/
                        or
                          ``(B) adjust, on an annual basis, the 
                        amount of the passenger facility fee 
                        indicated in the agency's approved 
                        application and any adjustment to the 
                        fee made in accordance with paragraph 
                        (A) above by the Consumer Price Index 
                        for each respective year to finance any 
                        increase in the costs of constructing an 
                        eligible airport-related project covered 
                        under this section, including any 
                        increase in the costs of constructing 
                        any such project identified in the 
                        agency's approved application;
                          ``(C) if the Secretary determines, 
                        before the effective date of a passenger 
                        facility fee adjustment pursuant to 
                        paragraphs (A) or (B) above, that the 
                        passenger facility revenues derived from 
                        such an adjustment are to finance a 
                        project not covered within the meaning 
                        of this section, the Secretary shall 
                        notify the agency that it is prohibited 
                        from effectuating, either in whole or 
                        part, any such adjustment.''

    Federal aviation law regarding passenger facility charges, 
section 40117 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking the second sentence in paragraph (2) and inserting new 
text.

          (2) The Secretary periodically shall audit and review 
        the use by an eligible agency of passenger facility 
        revenue. [After review and a public hearing, the 
        Secretary may end any part of the authority of the 
        agency to impose a passenger facility fee to the extent 
        the Secretary decides that the revenue is not being 
        used as provided in this section.] After review and a 
        public hearing, the Secretary may end any part of the 
        authority of the agency to impose a passenger facility 
        fee, except for that portion necessary to make payments 
        for debt service due by the agency on indebtedness 
        incurred to carry out an eligible airport-related 
        project.

    Public Law 97-268 is amended to transfer a small parcel of 
Federal property to the city of Hoboken, NJ. This public law, 
as enacted in 1982, provided for the transfer of a much larger 
section of property to the city of Hoboken but exempted this 
smaller parcel from transfer because of an existing Federal 
need. This Federal need has terminated.

    (a) the property transferred to the Department of the 
Treasury by the Second Deficiency Act, fiscal year 1929, and
    (b) the property excluded by the second paragraph of 
section 1 of the Act of April 19, 1930 (46 [Stat. 220), and
    (c) the property beginning at a point in the easterly line 
of River Street, distant 10 feet southerly from the 
intersection formed by the northerly line of Second Street, 
extended with the easterly line of River Street, running 
thence; north 13 degrees 04 minutes east and along the easterly 
line of River Street, a distance of 250.20 feet to a point, 
thence south 76 degrees 56 minutes east a distance of 108 feet 
to a point, thence south 13 degrees 04 minutes west and 
parallel to River Street a distance of 154.62 feet to a point 
of curvature, thence on a curve to the right having a radius of 
256 feet and an arc distance of 97.95 feet to a point, then 
north 76 degrees 56 minutes west and parallel to the second 
course a distance of 89.49 feet to a point in the easterly line 
of River Street, said point being the point or place of 
beginning. Said parcel lying in a city block 231 and being a 
part of lot 3 as shown on the official assessment map of the 
city of Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey, concurrent with] 
Stat. 220); concurrent with a transfer of title to said real 
property, the city of Hoboken, New Jersey shall agree to assume 
sole responsibility with respect to said property and to 
indemnify and hold harmless the United States against any 
obligation, past, present, or future, with respect to said 
property.

                        BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL                        
 PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT 
              TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS AMENDED             
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Budget authority               Outlays        
                     ---------------------------------------------------
                       Committee    Amount of    Committee    Amount of 
                       allocation      bill      allocation      bill   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of                                                           
 amounts in the bill                                                    
 with Committee                                                         
 allocations to its                                                     
 subcommittees of                                                       
 amounts in the                                                         
 First Concurrent                                                       
 Resolution for                                                         
 1996: Subcommittee                                                     
 on Transportation                                                      
 and Related                                                            
 Agencies:                                                              
    Defense                                                             
     discretionary..  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Nondefense                                                          
     discretionary..       12,400       12,399       36,561   \1\ 36,561
    Violent crime                                                       
     reduction fund.  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory.......          584          582          581      \1\ 581
Projections of                                                          
 outlays associated                                                     
 with the                                                               
 recommendation:                                                        
    1996............  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 11,706
    1997............  ...........  ...........  ...........       13,606
    1998............  ...........  ...........  ...........        5,312
    1999............  ...........  ...........  ...........        2,211
    2000 and future                                                     
     year...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        2,100
Financial assistance                                                    
 to State and local                                                     
 governments for                                                        
 1996 in bill.......           NA        1,299           NA        3,536
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.                  
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.                  
                                                                        
NA: Not applicable.                                                     


                 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996                
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or -)  
                      Item                        1995appropriation    Budget estimate     House allowance   Committeerecommendation -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                       1995appropriation    Budget estimate     House allowance 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                
     TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                
            Office of the Secretary                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses..........................        $58,094,000         $57,459,000         $55,011,500            $56,500,000           -$1,594,000           -$959,000         +$1,488,500 
    Immediate Office of the Secretary..........         (1,220,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-1,220,000)  ..................  ..................
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary...           (583,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................          (-583,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of the General Counsel..............         (7,876,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-7,876,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for                                                                                                                                                       
     Transportation Policy.....................         (2,309,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-2,309,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for                                                                                                                                                       
     Aviation and International Affairs........         (7,887,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-7,887,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for                                                                                                                                                       
     Budget and Programs.......................         (4,400,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-4,400,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for                                                                                                                                                       
     Governmental Affairs......................         (2,250,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-2,250,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for                                                                                                                                                       
     Administration............................        (22,425,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................       (-22,425,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of Public Affairs...................         (1,380,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-1,380,000)  ..................  ..................
    Executive Secretariat......................           (932,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................          (-932,000)  ..................  ..................
    Contract Appeals Board.....................           (630,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................          (-630,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of Civil Rights.....................         (1,779,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-1,779,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business                                                                                                                                                  
     Utilization...............................           (936,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................          (-936,000)  ..................  ..................
    Minority Business Resource Center..........         (4,000,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-4,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of Intelligence and Security........           (800,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................          (-800,000)  ..................  ..................
    Office of Intermodalism....................         (1,000,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (-1,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    Undistributed..............................        (-2,313,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (+2,313,000)  ..................  ..................
Office of Civil Rights.........................  ..................         12,793,000           6,554,000             12,083,000           +12,083,000            -710,000          +5,529,000 
Transportation planning, research, and                                                                                                                                                          
 development...................................          8,293,000          15,710,000           3,309,000              9,710,000            +1,417,000          -6,000,000          +6,401,000 
Office of Commercial Space Transportation:                                                                                                                                                      
 Operations and Research.......................          6,060,000   ..................  ..................  .......................         -6,060,000   ..................  ..................
Working capital fund...........................        (93,000,000)       (104,364,000)       (102,231,000)          (104,364,000)         (+11,364,000)  ..................        (+2,133,000)
Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway                                                                                                                                                    
 Trust Fund):                                                                                                                                                                                   
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)....        (33,423,000)  ..................        (15,000,000)           (26,738,536)          (-6,684,464)       (+26,738,536)       (+11,738,536)
    (Limitation on obligations)................        (33,423,000)  ..................        (15,000,000)           (26,738,536)          (-6,684,464)       (+26,738,536)       (+11,738,536)
    Rescission of contract authority...........        (-4,000,000)       (-38,600,000)       (-23,600,000)          (-11,861,464)          (-7,861,464)       (+26,738,536)       (+11,738,536)
    Rescission.................................  ..................        (-6,786,971)        (-6,786,971)           (-6,786,971)          (-6,786,971)  ..................  ..................
Rental payments................................        144,419,000         143,436,000         130,803,000            139,689,000            -4,730,000          -3,747,000          +8,886,000 
Headquarters facilities........................  ..................        331,000,000   ..................  .......................  ..................       -331,000,000   ..................
Minority business resource center program......          1,900,000           1,900,000           1,900,000              1,900,000     ..................  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)...............        (15,000,000)        (15,000,000)        (15,000,000)           (15,000,000)    ..................  ..................  ..................
Minority business outreach.....................  ..................          2,900,000           2,900,000              2,100,000            +2,100,000            -800,000            -800,000 
ICC Sunset.....................................  ..................          4,705,000   ..................             4,705,000            +4,705,000   ..................         +4,705,000 
State Infrastructure Banks.....................  ..................  ..................  ..................           250,000,000          +250,000,000        +250,000,000        +250,000,000 
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary...........        218,766,000         569,903,000         200,477,500            476,687,000          +257,921,000         -93,216,000        +276,209,500 
          (Limitations on obligations).........        (33,423,000)  ..................        (15,000,000)           (26,738,536)          (-6,684,464)       (+26,738,536)       (+11,738,536)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources..........       (252,189,000)       (569,903,000)       (215,477,500)          (503,425,536)        (+251,236,536)       (-66,477,464)      (+287,948,036)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
                  Coast Guard                                                                                                                                                                   
Operating expenses.............................      2,598,000,000       2,618,316,000       2,565,607,000          2,286,000,000          -312,000,000        -332,316,000        -279,607,000 
Acquisition, construction, and improvements:                                                                                                                                                    
    Vessels....................................        187,900,000         203,700,000         191,200,000            178,000,000            -9,900,000         -25,700,000         -13,200,000 
    Aircraft...................................         11,800,000          19,500,000          16,500,000             14,500,000            +2,700,000          -5,000,000          -2,000,000 
    Other equipment............................         29,700,000          56,300,000          42,200,000             47,600,000           +17,900,000          -8,700,000          +5,400,000 
    Shore facilities and aids to navigation....         89,350,000          99,800,000          82,275,000             80,200,000            -9,150,000         -19,600,000          -2,075,000 
    Personnel and related support..............         44,200,000          48,900,000          43,000,000             46,500,000            +2,300,000          -2,400,000          +3,500,000 
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, AC&I...........................        362,950,000         428,200,000         375,175,000            366,800,000            +3,850,000         -61,400,000          -8,375,000 
Environmental compliance and restoration.......         23,500,000          25,000,000          21,000,000             21,000,000            -2,500,000          -4,000,000   ..................
Port Safety Development........................  ..................  ..................  ..................            15,000,000           +15,000,000         +15,000,000         +15,000,000 
Alteration of bridges..........................  ..................          2,000,000          16,000,000              2,000,000            +2,000,000   ..................        -14,000,000 
Retired pay....................................        562,585,000         582,022,000         582,022,000            582,022,000           +19,437,000   ..................  ..................
Reserve training...............................         64,981,000          64,859,000          61,859,000             62,000,000            -2,981,000          -2,859,000            +141,000 
Research, development, test, and evaluation....         20,310,000          22,500,000          18,500,000             20,000,000              -310,000          -2,500,000          +1,500,000 
Boat safety (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund).....         25,000,000   ..................         20,000,000   .......................        -25,000,000   ..................        -20,000,000 
Emergency Fund (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)                                                                                                                                                 
 (limitation of permanent appropriation).......  ..................  ..................         (3,000,000)  .......................  ..................  ..................        (-3,000,000)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Coast Guard.......................      3,657,326,000       3,742,897,000       3,660,163,000          3,354,822,000          -302,504,000        -388,075,000        -305,341,000 
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
        Federal Aviation Administration                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Operations.....................................      4,595,394,000       4,704,000,000       4,600,000,000          4,550,000,000           -45,394,000        -154,000,000         -50,000,000 
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway                                                                                                                                                    
 Trust Fund)...................................      2,087,489,000       1,917,847,000       2,000,000,000          1,890,377,000          -197,112,000         -27,470,000        -109,623,000 
    Rescission.................................       (-35,000,000)  ..................       (-60,000,000)          (-70,000,000)         (-35,000,000)       (-70,000,000)       (-10,000,000)
Research, engineering, and development (Airport                                                                                                                                                 
 and Airway Trust Fund)........................        259,192,000         267,661,000         143,000,000            215,886,000           -43,306,000         -51,775,000         +72,886,000 
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway                                                                                                                                                  
 Trust Fund):                                                                                                                                                                                   
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)....     (1,500,000,000)     (1,500,000,000)     (1,500,000,000)        (1,500,000,000)    ..................  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations)................     (1,450,000,000)     (1,500,000,000)     (1,600,000,000)        (1,250,000,000)        (-200,000,000)      (-250,000,000)      (-350,000,000)
    Rescission of contract authority...........  ..................  ..................  ..................          -255,000,000          -255,000,000        -255,000,000        -255,000,000 
Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program.......            148,000              50,000              50,000                 50,000               -98,000   ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on borrowing authority)........         (9,970,000)         (1,600,000)         (1,600,000)            (1,600,000)          (-8,370,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration...      6,942,223,000       6,889,558,000       6,743,050,000          6,656,313,000          -285,910,000        -233,245,000         -86,737,000 
          (Limitations on obligations).........     (1,450,000,000)     (1,500,000,000)     (1,600,000,000)        (1,250,000,000)        (-200,000,000)      (-250,000,000)      (-350,000,000)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources..........     (8,392,223,000)     (8,389,558,000)     (8,343,050,000)        (7,906,313,000)        (-485,910,000)      (-483,245,000)      (-436,737,000)
Unified transportation infrastructure                                                                                                                                                           
 investment program (limitation on obligations)  ..................    (-1,500,000,000)  ..................  .......................  ..................    (+1,500,000,000)  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources................     (8,392,223,000)     (6,889,558,000)     (8,343,050,000)        (7,906,313,000)        (-485,910,000)    (+1,016,755,000)      (-436,737,000)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
         Federal Highway Administration                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Limitation on general operating expenses.......       (525,341,000)       (689,486,000)       (495,381,000)          (548,434,000)         (+23,093,000)      (-141,052,000)       (+53,053,000)
Highway-related safety grants (Highway Trust                                                                                                                                                    
 Fund):                                                                                                                                                                                         
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)....        (10,800,000)        (10,000,000)        (10,000,000)           (13,000,000)          (+2,200,000)        (+3,000,000)        (+3,000,000)
    (Limitation on obligations)................        (10,800,000)        (10,000,000)        (10,000,000)           (13,000,000)          (+2,200,000)        (+3,000,000)        (+3,000,000)
    Rescission of contract authority...........       (-20,000,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................       (+20,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                                                                      
    (Limitation on obligations)................    (17,160,000,000)    (20,254,255,000)    (18,000,000,000)       (17,000,000,000)        (-160,000,000)    (-3,254,255,000)    (-1,000,000,000)
    (Exempt obligations).......................     (2,267,701,000)        (80,000,000)     (2,311,932,000)        (2,331,507,000)         (+63,806,000)    (+2,251,507,000)       (+19,575,000)
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)....    (17,000,000,000)    (19,200,000,000)    (19,200,000,000)       (19,200,000,000)      (+2,200,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Right-of-way revolving fund (Highway Trust                                                                                                                                                      
 Fund) (limitation on direct loans)............        (42,500,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................       (-42,500,000)  ..................  ..................
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust                                                                                                                                                      
 Fund):                                                                                                                                                                                         
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)....        (73,000,000)        (68,000,000)        (68,000,000)           (68,000,000)          (-5,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations)................        (74,000,000)        (85,000,000)        (79,150,000)           (75,000,000)          (+1,000,000)       (-10,000,000)        (-4,150,000)
Surface transportation projects................        352,055,000   ..................  ..................            39,500,000          -312,555,000         +39,500,000         +39,500,000 
    Rescission.................................       (-12,004,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................       (+12,004,000)  ..................  ..................
High priority corridor (sec. 314A).............          6,000,000   ..................  ..................  .......................         -6,000,000   ..................  ..................
Orange County, CA toll road project (sec. 336a)          8,000,000   ..................  ..................  .......................         -8,000,000   ..................  ..................
    Rescission of contract authority...........  ..................  ..................  ..................  .......................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Highway Administration....        366,055,000   ..................  ..................            39,500,000          -326,555,000         +39,500,000         +39,500,000 
          (Limitations on obligations).........    (17,244,800,000)    (20,349,255,000)    (18,089,150,000)       (17,088,000,000)        (-156,800,000)    (-3,261,255,000)    (-1,001,150,000)
          (Exempt obligations).................     (2,267,701,000)        (80,000,000)     (2,311,932,000)        (2,331,507,000)         (+63,806,000)    (+2,251,507,000)       (+19,575,000)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources..........    (19,878,556,000)    (20,429,255,000)    (20,401,082,000)       (19,459,007,000)        (-419,549,000)      (-970,248,000)      (-942,075,000)
Unified transportation infrastructure                                                                                                                                                           
 investment program (limitation on obligations)  ..................   (-20,134,255,000)  ..................  .......................  ..................   (+20,134,255,000)  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources................    (19,878,556,000)       (295,000,000)    (20,401,082,000)       (19,459,007,000)        (-419,549,000)   (+19,164,007,000)      (-942,075,000)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Operations and research........................         79,556,000          84,598,000          73,316,570             71,261,000            -8,295,000         -13,337,000          -2,055,570 
    Rescissions................................  ..................  ..................        (-4,547,185)  .......................  ..................  ..................        (+4,547,185)
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund)...         46,997,000          59,744,000          52,011,930             50,344,000            +3,347,000          -9,400,000          -1,667,930 
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and research........        126,553,000         144,342,000         125,328,500            121,605,000            -4,948,000         -22,737,000          -3,723,500 
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust                                                                                                                                                    
 Fund):                                                                                                                                                                                         
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)....       (151,000,000)       (180,000,000)       (153,400,000)          (155,100,000)          (+4,100,000)       (-24,900,000)        (+1,700,000)
    State and community highway safety grants                                                                                                                                                   
     (Sec. 402) (limitation on obligations)....       (123,000,000)       (168,600,000)       (126,000,000)          (128,000,000)          (+5,000,000)       (-40,600,000)        (+2,000,000)
    National Driver Register (Sec. 402)                                                                                                                                                         
     (limitation on obligations)...............         (3,400,000)         (2,400,000)         (2,400,000)            (2,100,000)          (-1,300,000)          (-300,000)          (-300,000)
    Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures                                                                                                                                                    
     programs (Sec. 410) (limitation on                                                                                                                                                         
     obligations)..............................        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)           (25,000,000)    ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, National Highway Traffic Safety                                                                                                                                                  
         Administration........................        126,553,000         144,342,000         125,328,500            121,605,000            -4,948,000         -22,737,000          -3,723,500 
            (Limitations on obligations).......       (151,400,000)       (196,000,000)       (153,400,000)          (155,100,000)          (+3,700,000)       (-40,900,000)        (+1,700,000)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total budgetary resources........       (277,953,000)       (340,342,000)       (278,728,500)          (276,705,000)          (-1,248,000)       (-63,637,000)        (-2,023,500)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
        Federal Railroad Administration                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Office of the Administrator....................         13,090,000          17,370,000          14,000,000             14,018,000              +928,000          -3,352,000             +18,000 
Local rail freight assistance..................         17,000,000   ..................  ..................  .......................        -17,000,000   ..................  ..................
    Rescission.................................        (-6,563,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................        (+6,563,000)  ..................  ..................
Railroad safety................................         47,729,000          51,104,000          49,940,660             49,105,000            +1,376,000          -1,999,000            -835,660 
Railroad research and development..............         20,500,000          48,947,000          21,000,000             25,775,000            +5,275,000         -23,172,000          +4,775,000 
Northeast corridor improvement program.........        200,000,000         235,000,000         100,000,000            130,000,000           -70,000,000        -105,000,000         +30,000,000 
Next generation high speed rail................         20,000,000          30,000,000          10,000,000             20,000,000     ..................        -10,000,000         +10,000,000 
Trust fund share of next generation high speed                                                                                                                                                  
 rail (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                                                                                     
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)....         (3,400,000)         (7,118,000)         (5,000,000)            (5,000,000)          (+1,600,000)        (-2,118,000)  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations)................         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)            (5,000,000)    ..................  ..................  ..................
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation.................  ..................  ..................  ..................            10,000,000           +10,000,000         +10,000,000         +10,000,000 
Pennsylvania station redevelopment project.....         40,000,000          50,000,000   ..................            25,000,000           -15,000,000         -25,000,000         +25,000,000 
    Rescission.................................       (-40,000,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................       (+40,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Rhode Island Rail Development..................          5,000,000          10,000,000   ..................             2,000,000            -3,000,000          -8,000,000          +2,000,000 
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger                                                                                                                                                       
 Corporation:                                                                                                                                                                                   
    Operations.................................        542,000,000         420,000,000         336,000,000            305,000,000          -237,000,000        -115,000,000         -31,000,000 
        Transition costs.......................  ..................  ..................         62,000,000            100,000,000          +100,000,000        +100,000,000         +38,000,000 
    Capital....................................        230,000,000         230,000,000         230,000,000            200,000,000           -30,000,000         -30,000,000         -30,000,000 
        Supplemental...........................         21,500,000   ..................  ..................  .......................        -21,500,000   ..................  ..................
    Long-term restructuring transition.........  ..................        100,000,000   ..................  .......................  ..................       -100,000,000   ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Grants to the National Railroad                                                                                                                                                    
       Passenger Corporation...................        793,500,000         750,000,000         628,000,000            605,000,000          -188,500,000        -145,000,000         -23,000,000 
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration...      1,156,819,000       1,192,421,000         822,940,660            880,898,000          -275,921,000        -311,523,000         +57,957,340 
          (Limitations on obligations).........         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)         (5,000,000)            (5,000,000)    ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources..........     (1,161,819,000)     (1,197,421,000)       (827,940,660)          (885,898,000)        (-275,921,000)      (-311,523,000)       (+57,957,340)
Unified transportation infrastructure invest                                                                                                                                                    
 program.......................................  ..................     -1,045,000,000   ..................  .......................  ..................     +1,045,000,000   ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources................     (1,161,819,000)       (152,421,000)       (827,940,660)          (885,898,000)        (-275,921,000)      (+733,477,000)       (+57,957,340)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
         Federal Transit Administration                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Administrative expenses........................         43,060,000          44,202,000          39,260,000             42,000,000            -1,060,000          -2,202,000          +2,740,000 
Formula grants.................................        640,000,000       1,244,200,000         490,000,000            585,000,000           -55,000,000        -659,200,000         +95,000,000 
    Operating assistance grants................        710,000,000         500,000,000         400,000,000            400,000,000          -310,000,000        -100,000,000   ..................
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund) (limitation                                                                                                                                                 
 on obligations)...............................     (1,150,000,000)     (1,120,850,000)     (1,110,000,000)        (1,120,850,000)         (-29,150,000)  ..................       (+10,850,000)
University transportation centers..............          6,000,000           6,000,000           6,000,000              6,000,000     ..................  ..................  ..................
Transit planning and research..................         92,250,000         100,027,000          82,250,000             90,000,000            -2,250,000         -10,027,000          +7,750,000 
    Metropolitan planning program..............  ..................        (41,512,500)        (39,436,250)           (40,500,000)         (+40,500,000)        (-1,012,500)        (+1,063,750)
    Rural transit assistance program...........  ..................         (4,612,500)         (4,381,250)            (4,500,000)          (+4,500,000)          (-112,500)          (+118,750)
    Transit cooperative research program.......  ..................         (8,475,000)         (8,051,250)            (8,250,000)          (+8,250,000)          (-225,000)          (+198,750)
    National TPR program.......................  ..................        (33,952,000)        (19,480,000)           (25,500,000)         (+25,500,000)        (-8,452,000)        (+6,020,000)
    State TPR program..........................  ..................         (8,475,000)         (8,051,250)            (8,250,000)          (+8,250,000)          (-225,000)          (+198,750)
    National transit institute.................  ..................         (3,000,000)         (2,850,000)            (3,000,000)          (+3,000,000)  ..................          (+150,000)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Transit planning and research..        (92,250,000)       (100,027,000)        (82,250,000)           (90,000,000)          (-2,250,000)       (-10,027,000)        (+7,750,000)
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust                                                                                                                                                     
 Fund) (liquidation of contract authorization).     (1,150,000,000)     (1,120,850,000)     (1,120,850,000)        (1,120,850,000)         (-29,150,000)  ..................  ..................
Discretionary grants...........................  ..................         59,944,000   ..................  .......................  ..................        -59,944,000   ..................
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund)                                                                                                                                                       
 (limitation on obligations):                                                                                                                                                                   
    Fixed guideway modernization...............       (725,000,000)       (724,976,000)       (666,000,000)          (666,000,000)         (-59,000,000)       (-58,976,000)  ..................
    Bus and bus-related facilities.............       (353,330,000)       (274,992,000)       (333,000,000)          (333,000,000)         (-20,330,000)       (+58,008,000)  ..................
    New starts.................................       (646,670,000)       (724,976,000)       (666,000,000)          (666,000,000)         (+19,330,000)       (-58,976,000)  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Discretionary grants...........     (1,725,000,000)     (1,724,944,000)     (1,665,000,000)        (1,665,000,000)         (-60,000,000)       (-59,944,000)  ..................
Mass transit capital fund (Highway Trust Fund)                                                                                                                                                  
 (liquidation of contract authorization).......     (1,500,000,000)     (1,700,000,000)     (2,000,000,000)        (1,700,000,000)        (+200,000,000)  ..................      (-300,000,000)
Interstate transfer grants--transit............         48,030,000   ..................  ..................  .......................        -48,030,000   ..................  ..................
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.        200,000,000         200,000,000         200,000,000            170,000,000           -30,000,000         -30,000,000         -30,000,000 
Violent crime reduction program (Violent Crime                                                                                                                                                  
 Trust Fund)...................................  ..................          5,000,000   ..................  .......................  ..................         -5,000,000   ..................
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
      Total, Federal Transit Administration....      1,739,340,000       2,159,373,000       1,217,510,000          1,293,000,000          -446,340,000        -866,373,000         +75,490,000 
          (Limitations on obligations).........     (2,875,000,000)     (2,845,794,000)     (2,775,000,000)        (2,785,850,000)         (-89,150,000)       (-59,944,000)       (+10,850,000)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources..........     (4,614,340,000)     (5,005,167,000)     (3,992,510,000)        (4,078,850,000)        (-535,490,000)      (-926,317,000)       (+86,340,000)
Unified transportation infrastructure invest                                                                                                                                                    
 program.......................................  ..................     -2,154,373,000   ..................  .......................  ..................     +2,154,373,000   ..................
    (Limitation on obligations)................  ..................    (-2,785,850,000)  ..................  .......................  ..................    (+2,785,850,000)  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources................     (4,614,340,000)        (64,944,000)     (3,992,510,000)        (4,078,850,000)        (-535,490,000)    (+4,013,906,000)       (+86,340,000)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
 Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance                                                                                                                                                  
 Trust Fund)...................................         10,251,000          10,243,000          10,190,500             10,150,000              -101,000             -93,000             -40,500 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
  Research and Special Programs Administration                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Research and special programs..................         26,238,000          31,662,000          26,030,000             24,281,000            -1,957,000          -7,381,000          -1,749,000 
    Hazardous materials safety.................        (12,897,000)        (12,782,000)        (12,600,000)           (12,987,000)             (+90,000)          (+205,000)          (+387,000)
    Aviation information management............         (2,453,000)         (2,282,000)         (2,322,000)  .......................        (-2,453,000)        (-2,282,000)        (-2,322,000)
    Emergency transportation...................         (1,326,000)         (1,301,000)         (1,086,000)              (962,000)            (-364,000)          (-339,000)          (-124,000)
    Research and technology....................         (2,530,000)         (7,604,000)         (3,209,000)            (3,451,000)            (+921,000)        (-4,153,000)          (+242,000)
    Program and administrative support.........         (7,032,000)         (7,693,000)         (7,394,000)            (7,292,000)            (+260,000)          (-401,000)          (-102,000)
    Accountwide adjustment.....................  ..................  ..................          (-581,000)             (-411,000)            (-411,000)          (-411,000)          (+170,000)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, research and special programs..        (26,238,000)        (31,662,000)        (26,030,000)           (24,281,000)          (-1,957,000)        (-7,381,000)        (-1,749,000)
Pipeline safety (Pipeline Safety Fund).........         34,991,500          39,720,000          27,243,000             30,275,000            -4,716,500          -9,445,000          +3,032,000 
Pipeline safety (Oil Spill Liability Trust                                                                                                                                                      
 Fund).........................................          2,432,500           2,698,000           2,698,000              2,698,000              +265,500   ..................  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pipeline safety................         37,424,000          42,418,000          29,941,000             32,973,000            -4,451,000          -9,445,000          +3,032,000 
Alaska Pipeline task Force (Oil Spill Liability                                                                                                                                                 
 Trust Fund) (rescission)......................          (-544,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................          (+544,000)  ..................  ..................
Emergency preparedness grants:                                                                                                                                                                  
    (Emergency preparedness fund)..............            400,000             400,000             400,000                400,000     ..................  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations)................        (10,800,000)        (11,338,000)         (8,890,000)            (9,200,000)          (-1,600,000)        (-2,138,000)          (+310,000)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Special Programs                                                                                                                                                      
       Admin...................................         64,062,000          74,480,000          56,371,000             57,654,000            -6,408,000         -16,826,000          +1,283,000 
          (Limitations on obligations).........        (10,800,000)        (11,338,000)         (8,890,000)            (9,200,000)          (-1,600,000)        (-2,138,000)          (+310,000)
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources..........        (74,862,000)        (85,818,000)        (65,261,000)           (66,854,000)          (-8,008,000)       (-18,964,000)        (+1,593,000)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
          Office of Inspector General                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses..........................         40,000,000          40,238,000          40,238,000             39,891,200              -108,800            -346,800            -346,800 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
      Bureau of Transportation Statistics                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses..........................  ..................  ..................  ..................             2,200,000            +2,200,000          +2,200,000          +2,200,000 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
               General Provisions                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Administrative provision: Procurement (sec.                                                                                                                                                     
 323a).........................................        -65,120,000   ..................  ..................  .......................        +65,120,000   ..................  ..................
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (transfer                                                                                                                                                   
 from Federal-aid Highways)....................        (15,000,000)        (20,000,000)        (20,000,000)           (20,000,000)          (+5,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Federal railroad transfer (sec. 341)...........          3,000,000   ..................  ..................  .......................         -3,000,000   ..................  ..................
Federal-aid highways (sec. 310 (e))............  ..................       -574,341,000   ..................  .......................  ..................       +574,341,000   ..................
Working capital fund reduction (sec. 327)......         -7,000,000   ..................        -10,000,000             -5,000,000            +2,000,000          -5,000,000          +5,000,000 
DOT field office consolidation (sec. 335)......  ..................  ..................        -25,000,000            -25,000,000           -25,000,000         -25,000,000   ..................
ICC transition (sec. 344)......................  ..................  ..................          8,421,000   .......................  ..................  ..................         -8,421,000 
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
      Total, title I, Dept of Transportation                                                                                                                                                    
       (net)...................................     14,134,164,000      14,203,727,029      12,754,756,004         12,559,071,765        -1,575,092,235      -1,644,655,264        -195,684,239 
          Appropriations.......................    (14,252,275,000)    (14,249,114,000)    (12,849,690,160)       (12,902,720,200)      (-1,349,554,800)    (-1,346,393,800)       (+53,030,040)
          Rescissions..........................      (-118,111,000)       (-45,386,971)       (-94,934,156)         (-343,648,435)        (-225,537,435)      (-298,261,464)      (-248,714,279)
          (Limitations on obligations).........    (21,770,423,000)    (24,907,387,000)    (22,646,440,000)       (21,319,888,536)        (-450,534,464)    (-3,587,498,464)    (-1,326,551,464)
          (Exempt obligations).................     (2,267,701,000)        (80,000,000)     (2,311,932,000)        (2,331,507,000)         (+63,806,000)    (+2,251,507,000)       (+19,575,000)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
            Total budgetary resources including                                                                                                                                                 
             (limitations on obligations) and                                                                                                                                                   
             (exempt obligations)..............    (38,172,288,000)    (39,191,114,029)    (37,713,128,004)       (36,210,467,301)      (-1,961,820,699)    (-2,980,646,728)    (-1,502,660,703)
Adjustments made for unified program...........  ..................     -3,199,373,000   ..................  .......................  ..................     +3,199,373,000   ..................
    (Limitation on obligations)................  ..................   (-24,420,105,000)  ..................  .......................  ..................   (+24,420,105,000)  ..................
Unified transportation infrastructure invest                                                                                                                                                    
 program.......................................  ..................     24,392,976,000   ..................  .......................  ..................    -24,392,976,000   ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources................    (38,172,288,000)    (39,163,985,029)    (37,713,128,004)       (36,210,467,301)      (-1,961,820,699)    (-2,953,517,728)    (-1,502,660,703)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
           TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                
   Architectural and Transportation Barriers                                                                                                                                                    
                Compliance Board                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses..........................          3,350,000           3,656,000           3,656,000              3,500,000              +150,000            -156,000            -156,000 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
      National Transportation Safety Board                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses..........................         37,392,000          38,774,000          38,774,000             37,500,000              +108,000          -1,274,000          -1,274,000 
Emergency fund.................................  ..................            360,802             160,802                360,802              +360,802   ..................           +200,000 
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Transportation Safety                                                                                                                                                     
       Board...................................         37,392,000          39,134,802          38,934,802             37,860,802              +468,802          -1,274,000          -1,074,000 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
         Interstate Commerce Commission                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses..........................         30,302,000          28,844,000          13,379,000             13,379,000           -16,923,000         -15,465,000   ..................
Payments for directed rail service (limitation                                                                                                                                                  
 on obligations)...............................           (475,000)           (475,000)           (475,000)              (475,000)    ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Interstate Commerce Commission....        (30,777,000)        (29,319,000)        (13,854,000)           (13,854,000)         (-16,923,000)       (-15,465,000)  ..................
                                                                                                                                                                                                
            Panama Canal Commission                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Panama Canal Revolving Fund:                                                                                                                                                                    
    (Administrative expenses)..................        (50,030,000)        (50,741,000)        (50,741,000)           (50,741,000)            (+711,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on operating and capital                                                                                                                                                        
     expenses).................................       (540,000,000)  ..................  ..................  .......................      (-540,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                                                                                                                                                                
 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Interest payments and repayments of principal..          9,193,000   ..................  ..................  .......................         -9,193,000   ..................  ..................
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Related Agencies........         80,237,000          71,634,802          55,969,802             54,739,802           -25,497,198         -16,895,000          -1,230,000 
          (Limitation on obligations)..........           (475,000)           (475,000)           (475,000)              (475,000)    ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources..........        (80,712,000)        (72,109,802)        (56,444,802)           (55,214,802)         (-25,497,198)       (-16,895,000)        (-1,230,000)
                                                ================================================================================================================================================
            Total appropriations (net).........     14,214,401,000      35,468,964,831      12,810,725,806         12,613,811,567        -1,600,589,433     -22,855,153,264        -196,914,239 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------