[Senate Report 104-325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 504
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

   2d Session                                                   104-325
_______________________________________________________________________


 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  1997

                                _______
                                

                  July 19, 1996--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3675]

    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 3675) making appropriations for the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1997, 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 1997

Amount of bill passed by the House...................... $12,551,311,000
Amount of bill as reported to Senate....................  12,560,535,000
Amount of budget estimates, 1997........................  12,633,915,627
Fiscal year 1996 enacted................................  11,918,532,831


                            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...........................................     6
Transportation planning, research, and development...............     6
Transportation Administrative Service Center.....................     7
Payments to air carriers.........................................     8
Rental payments..................................................    12
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................    15
Minority business outreach.......................................    15

                            U.S. Coast Guard

Operating expenses...............................................    21
Acquisition, construction, and improvements......................    29
Environmental compliance and restoration.........................    36
Port safety development..........................................    37
Alteration of bridges............................................    37
Retired pay......................................................    38
Reserve training.................................................    38
Research, development, test, and evaluation......................    39
Boat safety......................................................    40

                    Federal Aviation Administration

Operations.......................................................    41
Facilities and equipment.........................................    54
Research, engineering, and development...........................    74
Grants-in-aid for airports.......................................    80
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program.........................    84

                     Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on general operating expenses.........................    85
Administrative expenses..........................................    86
Motor carrier safety operations..................................    87
Highway-related safety grants....................................   100
Federal-aid highways.............................................   101
Interstate substitute highways...................................   107
Right-of-way revolving fund......................................   110
Motor carrier safety grants......................................   110
Alameda corridor project loan program............................   112
State infrastructure banks.......................................   112

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research..........................................   114
Highway traffic safety grants....................................   122

                    Federal Railroad Administration

Office of the Administrator......................................   125
Railroad safety..................................................   126
Railroad research and development................................   128
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program...........................   130
High-speed rail trainsets and facilities.........................   132
Next generation high-speed rail..................................   134
Alaska railroad rehabilitation...................................   135
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project.......................   135
Rhode Island rail development....................................   135
Direct loan financing program....................................   136
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).......   136

                     Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses..........................................   139
Formula grants...................................................   139
University transportation centers................................   141
Transit planning and research....................................   141
Trust fund share of transit programs.............................   143
Discretionary grants.............................................   143
Mass transit capital fund........................................   161
Violent crime reduction programs.................................   161

              St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance.......................................   162

              Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs....................................   164
Pipeline safety..................................................   167
Emergency preparedness grants....................................   170

                      Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses............................................   171

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Airport and airway trust fund....................................   171

                      Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses............................................   173

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: 
  Salaries and expenses..........................................   175
National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses......   175
Panama Canal Commission: Panama Canal Revolving Fund.............   176

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions...............................................   178
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   180
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   180
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   181
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   183
  Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds

    In addition to the appropriation of $12,560,535,000 in new 
budget authority for fiscal year 1997, 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 1997, estimated obligation 
limitations total $23,214,850,000.

                     program, project, and activity

    During fiscal year 1997, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in 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, 1996....................................     $56,189,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      55,376,000
House allowance.........................................      53,816,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              53,376,000

    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 Committee recommends a total of $53,376,000 for the 
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation including $40,000 for reception and 
representation expenses. This appropriation will support a 
personnel level of 486 full-time equivalents.
    Reductions in staff.--The Committee recommendation reduces 
the administration's request by $1,000,000. This reduction 
concurs with the House's observation regarding the Office of 
Acquisition and Grants Management. However, the Committee has 
reduced 5 positions from this activity instead of a reduction 
of 10 positions as recommended by the House. While this 
activity has previously been supported by both the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees, it does not appear as though 
this office has been well utilized, and little value has been 
added by OST's acquisition oversight. Agencies with large 
procurement budgets, notably the Coast Guard and the Federal 
Aviation Administration, have major in-house efforts for 
acquisition oversight. It does not appear to the Committee as 
though this additional layer has added to the quality of the 
decisions made by those agencies, nor is the Committee aware of 
any formal oversight reviews which have resulted in cost 
savings or procurement efficiencies.
    Other costs.--The Committee is reducing funding for other 
costs by $1,000,000. The administration had requested a 34-
percent increase in this line item (from $10,226,000 in fiscal 
year 1996 to $13,745,000 in 1997). The Committee's reduction is 
associated with a cut for information technology and support. 
It appears to the Committee that the Office of the Secretary 
has spent considerable sums in both hardware and personnel for 
developing a localized area network for the office, but has 
still not decided on the configuration of the best possible 
system, and is currently running four different types of 
operations, some of which have very recently experienced 
significant down time. Given the funding that has been provided 
in the past, it does not appear to the Committee that the 
computerization of the Office of the Secretary, which serves a 
generally administrative function, should have these 
difficulties in the information technology area. The Committee 
has made the reduction in the hope that greater focus will be 
put on this area, and that better decisions will be made about 
the final design and configuration of the localized area 
network system.

                             Bill Language

    Electronic tariff filing.--The Committee has included bill 
language which was also included by the House which permits the 
Office of the Secretary to credit to this account $1,000,000 in 
user fees to support the electronic tariff filing system.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriations, 1996....................................      $6,554,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................       5,574,000
House allowance.........................................       5,574,000

Committee recommendation

                                                               5,574,000

    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 funded all internal civil 
rights activities in the Department.
    The Committee has provided a total of $5,574,000 for the 
Office of Civil Rights, which will support a personnel level of 
76 full-time equivalents.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriations, 1996....................................      $8,220,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................       7,919,000
House allowance.........................................       3,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                               4,158,000

    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 reduced the administration's request by 
$3,761,000. This recommended level would reduce the 
administration's request in the following areas: -$250,000 for 
funding related to planned trade promotion related to the 
continuation of expanding and supporting the sale of U.S. goods 
abroad; -$1,000,000, as recommended by the House, which deletes 
funding for the development of GPS augmentation; and 
-$2,511,000 associated with the further development of the 
transportation automated procurement system [TAPS]. As observed 
by the House, the pilot test program for TAPS has yet to be 
completed, and it appears as though the funding requested may 
be premature at this time.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, 1996........................................  ($103,149,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................   (124,812,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                           (124,812,000)

    The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC] 
will provide a business operation fund for DOT to provide a 
wide range of administrative services to the Department and 
other customers. TASC will function as an entrepreneurial and 
self-sufficient entity and providing competitive quality 
services responsive to customer needs. The TASC will be 
governed by a Board of Directors composed of customer agencies, 
operating in a competitive business like environment. The TASC 
will present proposed operating and financial plans to the 
Board at the beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board has 
approved those plans the TASC will provide cost-effective 
products and services to its full customer base. The Director 
of TASC will provide quarterly performance and financial 
reports to the Board, will make recommendations for changes to 
the approved plans and will be responsible for the day-to-day 
management of the TASC. DOT administrations must procure 
consolidated administrative services from the TASC unless a 
financial analysis of the services demonstrates that it is more 
cost beneficial to the Department as a whole--not to an 
individual operating entity alone--to change the nature of the 
service delivery (to consolidate a service or to decentralize a 
service). TASC services are being marketed to customers outside 
DOT to provide greater economies of scale, thus reducing costs 
to individual customers. TASC services include:
  --Functions currently in DOT's working capital fund [WCF];
  --Office of the Secretary (OST] personnel, procurement and 
        information technology support operations, currently 
        financed in the OST Salaries and Expenses [S&E] 
        appropriation;
  --Systems development staff, as well as central design 
        functions for transportation automated procurement 
        system [TAPS] and the dockets management system [DMS], 
        currently financed in the Transportation Planning, 
        Research and Development [TPR&D] appropriation;
  --Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets 
        facilities; and
  --Certain departmental services and administrative operations 
        such as, human resources management programs, transit 
        fare subsidy payments, employee wellness including 
        substance awareness and testing, and the Office of 
        Hearings, currently financed by reimbursable agreements 
        between OST and the operating administrations [OA].
    All of the services of the TASC will be financed through 
customer reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for-
service basis. The Committee concurs with the House's direction 
regarding the hiring of transportation administrative service 
center staff in fiscal year 1997. Full-time equivalent 
personnel for similar activities in fiscal year 1995 was 287; 
in 1996, 299. The Department requested a total of 330 FTE's for 
fiscal year 1997, which the Committee deems excessive at this 
time.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................   ($22,600,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................    (21,922,000)
House allowance.........................................    (10,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                            (25,900,000)

    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 eliminating all 
communities within 70 miles of an FAA-designated small, medium, 
or large hub airport.
    Many points are located in remote rural areas: 57 of 69 
communities served by the Essential Air Service Program are 
more than 100 highway miles from the nearest small, medium, or 
large hub airport. Twenty-six more communities are located in 
Alaska, where, in all but two cases, year-round road access 
does not exist. Recognizing the critical importance of EAS 
service to these communities, the Committee intends that 
service in Alaska not be reduced. 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 $25,900,000 for fiscal year 1997 payments to 
air carriers which is the same as the limitation on 
obligations.

                       limitation on obligations

    The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of 
$25,900,000, which is $3,978,000 above the administration's 
request.
    Under the Committee's recommended level, funding would be 
provided for all those points currently receiving service.
    The amount recommended by the Committee would include the 
following points:

                                   FISCAL YEAR 1997 EAS BUDGET PROJECTIONS \1\                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Estimated     Average daily                                
                                                    mileage to     enplanements                                 
                                                    nearest hub    at EAS point   Current annual    Subsidy per 
               States/communities                     (small,      (year ending    subsidy rates     passenger  
                                                    medium, or       March 31,     (May 1, 1996)                
                                                      large)           1995)                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:                                                                                                        
    Kingman.....................................             103            10.5         $94,663          $14.40
    Page........................................             274            23.3         129,560            8.87
    Prescott....................................             103            37.8          94,663            4.00
Arkansas:                                                                                                       
    El Dorado/Camden............................             108            11.1         474,453           68.15
    Harrison....................................             139            10.0         775,862          124.10
    Jonesboro...................................              71            10.5         474,453           71.98
California:                                                                                                     
    Crescent City...............................             233            15.2         151,450           15.91
    Merced......................................             118            22.1         182,121           13.14
    Visalia.....................................             202            17.0         182,121           17.16
Colorado:                                                                                                       
    Cortez......................................             253            27.0          92,976            5.49
    Lamar.......................................             162             4.4         190,987           69.93
Hawaii: Kamuela.................................              39             5.6         215,361           61.30
Iowa: Ottumwa...................................              92             5.9         268,410           72.64
Kansas:                                                                                                         
    Dodge City..................................             156            14.9         113,693           12.19
    Garden City.................................             209            25.4         190,987           12.01
    Goodland....................................             190             3.0         190,987          102.79
    Great Bend..................................             116             6.0         113,693           30.24
    Hays........................................             175            16.6         113,693           10.92
    Liberal/Guymon..............................             162            10.5         190,987           28.95
    Topeka......................................              76            22.9         102,362            7.13
Maine:                                                                                                          
    Augusta/Waterville \2\......................              71            21.5         288,516           42.92
    Bar Harbor..................................             164            16.9         259,243           24.57
    Rockland....................................              79            14.8         259,243           28.02
Minnesota:                                                                                                      
    Fairmont....................................             153             3.9         247,771          100.39
    Fergus Falls................................             185            13.5         146,508           17.38
    Mankato.....................................              75             5.1         247,771           77.04
Missouri:                                                                                                       
    Cape Girardeau..............................             133            20.4         164,027           12.85
    Fort Leonard Wood...........................             130            14.5         196,606           21.69
    Kirksville..................................             158             8.5         224,382           42.24
Montana:                                                                                                        
    Glasgow.....................................             279             6.4         303,956           76.07
    Glendive....................................             223             2.7         511,909          308.19
    Havre.......................................             251             4.9         439,972          143.41
    Lewiston....................................             129             3.7         439,972          189.32
    Miles City..................................             145             3.2         511,909          257.76
    Sidney......................................             273             7.2         511,909          113.86
    Wolf Point..................................             295             4.7         303,956          103.70
Nebraska:                                                                                                       
    Alliance....................................             242             2.7         346,863          203.68
    Chadron.....................................             301             2.7         346,863          207.33
    Hastings....................................             160             2.8         317,496          183.95
    Kearney.....................................             186            10.1         317,496           50.04
    McCook......................................             259             3.3         657,724          322.73
Nevada: Ely.....................................             236             7.4         508,759          109.74
New Mexico:                                                                                                     
    Alamogordo/Holloman AFB.....................              92            12.7         166,705           20.91
    Clovis......................................             106            15.0         200,332           21.31
    Silver City/Hurley/Deming...................             163            11.2         263,458           37.62
New York:                                                                                                       
    Massena.....................................             149            20.5         198,810           15.51
    Ogdensburg..................................             127            10.0         198,810           31.72
North Dakota:                                                                                                   
    Devils Lake.................................             403            12.4         208,119           26.81
    Dickinson...................................             313            11.9         141,502           18.95
    Jamestown...................................             304            10.3         208,119           32.20
Oklahoma:                                                                                                       
    Enid........................................              91            12.0         301,400           40.28
    Ponca City..................................              88            13.7         301,400           35.24
Pennsylvania: Oil City/Franklin.................              91            27.0          89,916            5.32
South Dakota:                                                                                                   
    Brookings...................................             211             5.6         247,771           70.61
    Mitchell....................................             245             3.6         247,771          110.32
    Yankton.....................................             159             9.0         268,875           47.78
Texas: Brownwood................................             153             7.1         372,426           83.58
Utah:                                                                                                           
    Cedar City..................................             257            19.1         292,882           24.55
    Moab........................................             241             6.0         367,713           98.69
    Vernal......................................             171            19.2         194,466           16.18
Virginia: Staunton..............................             108            31.4         188,050            9.58
Washington: Ephrata/Moses Lake..................             122            26.3         177,628           10.80
West Virginia:                                                                                                  
    Beckley.....................................             186            12.0         137,229           18.25
    Princeton/Bluefield.........................             145            15.6         137,229           14.09
Wyoming: Worland................................             164             8.3         145,239           27.86
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal of long-term non-Alaska rates....  ..............  ..............      16,952,183  ..............
Long-term Alaska rates..........................  ..............  ..............       2,058,412  ..............
Six Mesa communities............................  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  ..............
Fort Leonard Wood...............................  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............
Kamuela.........................................  ..............  ..............          80,000  ..............
Staunton........................................  ..............  ..............          40,000  ..............
Moab............................................  ..............  ..............         125,000  ..............
Commuter safety rule............................  ..............  ..............         144,405  ..............
Rate increases and hold-ins.....................  ..............  ..............       3,645,140  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................  ..............  ..............      24,145,140  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The above list of communities is based on currently available data, and is subject to change for a number of
  reasons. Subsidy rates change as their 2-year rate terms expire throughout the year. In addition, air carriers
  submit passenger traffic data on a quarterly basis. Changes in both subsidy rates and traffic levels will, of 
  course, change subsidy-per-passenger calculations. Further, some communities currently receiving subsidy-free 
  service may require subsidy in the future while some currently subsidized communities may attain profitability
  and no longer require subsidy. Finally, hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in
  the Airport Activities Statistics.                                                                            
\2\ Enplanements based on less than 1 full year's passenger data annualized.                                    


    Under the administration's proposal the following points 
would no longer be eligible for subsidy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Enplanements                 
                                                     Estimated                    per day at EAS                
               States/communities                   mileage to     Small hub or     point (year   Current annual
                                                    nearest hub         jet        ending March    subsidy rate 
                                                                                     31, 1995)                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas: Hot Springs...........................              54               S            14.9        $374,739
New Hampshire: Keene............................              56               S             7.2         312,202
Alabama:                                                                                                        
    Anniston....................................              61               S             8.5         494,816
    Tuscaloosa..................................              61               S            32.1         128,361
Vermont: Rutland................................              67               S            10.4         312,202
New York: Watertown.............................              69               S            15.8         132,540
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total subsidy.............................  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,754,860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends a funding level to accommodate the 
points listed above.
    Slot access.--Under 49 U.S.C. 41714(a)(2), the Secretary is 
given authority to provide for additional essential air service 
at slot-controlled airports by exemption, ``unless such an 
exemption would significantly increase operational delays.'' 
The recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in Mesa Air Group v. Department of 
Transportation (No. 98-1017) has limited the power of the 
Secretary to compel commuter airlines to provide essential air 
service at reduced levels without revising their subsidy 
contracts.
    In some cases, however, it may be possible to maintain and 
improve essential air services without significantly increasing 
funding requirements by providing for additional exemptions 
under the Secretary's existing powers and to improve service to 
nonhub cities as well. Where that is the case, the Secretary is 
directed to make the fullest possible use of those powers. In 
order to minimize the risk that such exemptions would increase 
operational delays, the Secretary should consider various 
options, including allowing changes in slot timing which do not 
increase the total number of slots. Such a step could be 
facilitated, for example, by combining essential air service 
slots with the pool of slots reserved at O'Hare Airport for 
military operations in a way that would increase the 
Department's flexibility with regard to the time of day 
assigned to essential air service slots. Changes in the time of 
day essential air service flights are operated can 
significantly affect subsidy costs. The Secretary is also 
directed to use exemption authority to improve service to 
nonhub airports where significant improvements can be achieved. 
This directive is limited to O'Hare International Airport and 
aircraft carrying less than 60 passengers.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                 (rescission on contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

Rescission, 1996........................................    -$16,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997 \1\...............................     -16,678,000
House allowance.........................................     -28,600,000
Committee recommendation................................     -12,700,000

\1\ Consistent with the budget proposal, contract authority previously 
enacted is proposed to be rescinded.

    The House has included bill language which would rescind 
$28,600,000 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 $10,000,000 limitation on obligations. 
Under the Senate proposal only $12,700,000 of the contract 
authority would be unused and is, therefore, recommended for 
rescission.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                              (Rescission)

Rescission, 1996........................................     -$6,786,971
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      -1,133,373
House allowance.........................................      -1,133,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              -1,133,000

    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, 1996....................................    $135,200,000
Budget estimate, 1997 \1\...............................     137,581,000
House allowance.........................................     127,447,000
Committee recommendation................................     132,500,000

\1\ Rental payments for the FHWA are separately budgeted but reimbursed 
to this account.

    Rental payments to the General Services Administration 
[GSA] are included as a separate line-item appropriation in the 
bill. Overall, the administration has requested a 1.8-percent 
increase in the general fund appropriation for rental payments.
    The Committee has provided an appropriation of $132,500,000 
for rental payments in fiscal year 1997, a 2-percent reduction 
from the 1996 level, plus $17,192,000 to be paid by 
reimbursement from the highway trust fund for a total of 
$149,692,000.
    Funding for rental payments has been held to the fiscal 
year 1996 level. The Committee generally concurs with the 
House's observation that, given the downsizing in the 
Department of Transportation (for which the Department should 
be commended), increased rental payments should not be 
necessary if the consolidation of space is properly managed. As 
observed by the House, the recent renovations necessary at the 
Nassif Building present an opportunity for the Department to 
reorganize its office space to better achieve savings in fiscal 
year 1997. The Committee expects that the Department will be 
able to reduce its space utilization rates, and thereby release 
excess space to the General Services Administration.

                                                                 GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS \1\                                                                
                                                         [Dollars and square feet in thousands]                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year 1995 enacted                   Fiscal year 1996      Fiscal year 1997 request
                                                                          \2\            Fiscal year        projected \3\      -------------------------
                        Administration                        --------------------------   1995 GSA  --------------------------                         
                                                                 Funding    Square feet    billings     Funding    Square feet    Funding    Square feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration...............................   [$18,044]        [987]    [$16,388]    [$17,192]      [1,060]    [$18,225]      [1,063] 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............       4,716          155        4,278        4,393          219        4,438          207 
Federal Railroad Administration..............................       3,363          135        2,979        3,094          160        3,192          160 
Federal Transit Administration...............................       3,332          109        3,078        3,237          151        3,350          144 
Federal Aviation Administration..............................      75,820        4,374       68,653       69,743        4,223       69,550        4,189 
U.S. Coast Guard.............................................      42,281        2,347       39,710       40,644        2,564       38,595        2,486 
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation..................         181            6          163          195            9          193            9 
Research and Special Programs Administration.................       2,378           77        2,217        2,039          102        2,270          102 
Office of the Inspector General..............................       2,579           94        2,207        2,267          113        2,479          111 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation....................       9,679        1,440       12,627       12,942          614       13,013          597 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics..........................          90            3          161          314           16          501           18 
OST--rental payments to GSA..................................   [144,419]   ...........   [136,074]    [138,868]      [8,171]    [137,581]   ...........
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................     144,419        8,740      136,074      138,868        8,171      137,581        8,023 
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rescissions..............................................      (7,445)  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Federal Highway Administration...............................      18,044          987       16,389       17,192        1,060       18,225        1,063 
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Department of Transportation (excludes MarAd)...     155,018        9,727      152,463      156,060        9,231      155,806        9,086 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Enacted as a single account under the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The budgets proposes appropriations language which directs the     
  reimbursement of FHWA GSA rent from FHWA LGOE account to the consolidated account.                                                                    
\2\ Fiscal year 1995 Office of the Secretary of Transportation funding of $9,679,000 reflects a $3,000,000 credit for rate reductions for all           
  administrations headquarters space as reported to Congress by GSA. However, each administration received their share of the credit on the actual      
  bills.                                                                                                                                                
\3\ Fiscal year 1996 requirements are best represented by the projected billings. There is no distribution by mode of the enacted amounts of            
  $152,885,000 and 8.58 million square feet because they are less than our existing inventory. An increase in square footage for most modes over the    
  fiscal year 1995 enacted level is due to the redistribution of each mode's share of headquarters parking from OST to the mode. In total there is an   
  overall reduction in square feet.                                                                                                                     

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

Appropriations, 1996....................................      $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................       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 1997, 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 1996 and 1997. 
The program provides a valuable source of working capital for 
minority businesses to manage their transportation-related 
contracts. Of the funds appropriated $1,500,000 covers the 
direct subsidy costs for loans not to exceed $15,000,000; and, 
$400,000 is for administrative expenses to carry out the Direct 
Loan Program.

                       Minority Business Outreach

Appropriations, 1996....................................      $2,900,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................       2,900,000
House allowance.........................................       2,900,000

Committee recommendation

                                                               2,900,000

    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.

                           General Provisions

    Political and Presidential appointees.--The Committee has 
included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), which is similar 
to general provisions that have been included in previous 
appropriations acts, which limits the number of political and 
Presidential appointees within the Department of 
Transportation. The Committee is recommending that the ceiling 
for fiscal year 1997 be 107 personnel, which is the same as the 
House recommendation.
    Advisory committees.--The Committee has included a general 
provision (sec. 331) similar to that recommended by the House 
which would limit the amount of funds that could be used for 
the expenses of advisory committees utilized by the Department 
of Transportation. The limitation specified is $1,050,000, 
which is $200,000 above that enacted in fiscal year 1996.
    Transportation administrative service center.--The 
Committee is recommending a general provision (sec. 321) which 
was recommended by the House to limit the amounts for the 
transportation administrative service center to $114,812,000. 
This limitation will be imposed on a pro rata basis across all 
of the agencies within the Department of Transportation, but 
does not pertain to nondepartment entities.
    Rental payments.--The Committee has included a new general 
provision (sec. 326) which provides the Secretary the authority 
to transfer funds out of the salaries and expenses accounts of 
the various agencies into the ``Rental payments'' account. Such 
transfers are only to be used to cover space, utility, and 
ancillary charges imposed by the General Services 
Administration, and are to cover only those expenses which are 
in excess of the specific rental payment ($149,692,000) 
provided in the bill.
    Employee buyouts.--The Committee has included a general 
provision which allows the Department of Transportation to 
provide employees with buyouts. The Department has made good 
progress in meeting the fiscal year 1999 ``National Performance 
Review'' [NPR] targets regarding employment. On May 31, 1996, 
the Department had achieved a 25-percent reduction in the NPR 
targeted positions, the halfway point under the NPR plan. Most 
of this can be attributed to the Department's ability to offer 
buyouts. The Department's nonbuyout attrition rate is slightly 
more than 3 percent. Therefore, achieving the remaining 25 
percent of the target is going to be more difficult unless the 
Department has the authority and the option to offer employee 
buyouts. Without such an option, it is likely that the 
Department would have to revert to involuntary separations in 
order to achieve its targeted goals. Given the employee time in 
service, many employees in the targeted areas of the Department 
of Transportation will be reaching retirement eligibility, and 
the buyout option may be a good incentive for employees to 
retire earlier and assist the Department in meeting the NPR 
targets.
  --U.S. Coast Guard.--The additional buyout authority will 
        allow the agency to accommodate planned reorganization 
        such as the relocation of the Electronics Engineering 
        Center in Wildwood, NJ; phase II of the Governors 
        Island shutdown; completion of the reorganization of 
        the Office of Marine Safety; and the security and 
        environmental office reorganization.
  --Federal Railroad Administration.--Due to the numerous 
        issues surrounding railroad safety, the Committee feels 
        that additional buyouts in this area will also be of 
        great assistance. For example, the FRA has not hired up 
        to its allocated ceiling in the safety inspector 
        occupation work force. Since, as attrition occurs, 
        these positions will only be filled on a 1-for-1 basis, 
        reductions would have to be taken elsewhere within FRA 
        if more than the attrited positions were to be filled. 
        Consequently, buyouts are a necessary tool to reach 
        overall FRA reductions, as well as hiring up to its 
        allocated ceiling in the specific area of safety 
        inspector work force.
  --Office of the Secretary.--With few exceptions, the majority 
        of the Office of the Secretary's employees are 
        considered headquarters personnel. Additionally, 
        departmental budget, accounting, personnel, and 
        acquisition areas are administered in the office, so 
        that it has a disproportionately high concentration of 
        targeted occupations. In an effort to streamline and 
        restructure this office while still offering necessary 
        services to the public and its operating agencies, the 
        Office of the Secretary needs the added flexibility of 
        buyouts to meet the NPR targets assigned to them.
    Bonus and award payments.--The Department of Transportation 
has budgeted $25,961,904 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.
    The total amount recommended for each agency versus the 
1997 budget request is depicted below. The Committee has 
included a general provision in the bill which limits funds for 
employee bonuses and awards to $25,448,300.

                                               PERFORMANCE AWARDS                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year                   
                            Agency                               Fiscal year      1997 budget       Committee   
                                                               1996 limitation      estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary......................................         $500,037     \1\ $407,000         $407,000
Coast Guard..................................................        1,713,461        1,716,500        1,713,500
Federal Aviation Administration..............................       20,897,137       20,976,888       20,800,000
Federal Highway Administration...............................        1,298,544        1,341,652        1,200,000
Bureau of Transportation Statistics..........................           22,913           66,950           30,090
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............          303,738          335,000          303,000
Federal Railroad Administration..............................          306,729          317,000          302,000
Federal Transit Administration...............................          238,945          220,714          220,710
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation..................           48,814           50,000           48,000
Research and Special Programs Administration \2\.............          139,468          144,200          139,000
Office of Inspector General..................................          185,289          186,000          185,000
Revenue for Presidential rank awards.........................          220,000  ...............  ...............
Surface Transportation Board.................................  ...............          200,000          100,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       25,875,075       25,961,904       25,448,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $120,000 for the Transportation Administrative Service Center.                                     
\2\ Excludes Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.                                                      

                                 Other

    Reductions in fiscal year 1996 appropriations.--In fiscal 
year 1996, reductions were made to a number of accounts due to 
limitations or reductions imposed in various areas, such as the 
working capital fund, performance awards, administrative and 
consolidation savings, and rescissions required by the Omnibus 
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-134). In the Senate Committee report, each account head 
shows the amount originally appropriated in Public Law 104-50, 
before the various and sundry reductions were made. The table 
below depicts the amount of funds originally appropriated for 
each of the accounts, and the reductions required.

                                       REDUCTIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1996 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Awards GP 349    Administrative                    Section 31002          Net      
             Account                  Enacted       WCF GP 327 \1\        \1\           GP 335 \1\     Rescission \1\   rescission \2\    appropriation 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:                                                                                                                                
    Salaries and expenses.......      $56,189,000        $593,389           $9,963       $1,762,000   ...............         $78,000       $53,745,648 
    Transportation planning,                                                                                                                            
     research, and development..        8,220,000  ...............           1,000          300,000   ...............          13,000         7,906,000 
    Office of Civil Rights......        6,554,000  ...............           2,000          925,000   ...............           9,000         5,618,000 
    Minority business outreach..        2,900,000  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............           4,000         2,896,000 
    Working capital fund........      103,149,000      (7,500,000)          (6,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............       95,643,000 
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................  ...............         593,389           12,963        2,987,000   ...............         104,000   ................
                                 =======================================================================================================================
U.S. Coast Guard:                                                                                                                                       
    Operating expenses                                                                                                                                  
     (excluding $300,000,000                                                                                                                            
     transferred from DOD)......    2,278,991,000       1,733,000   ...............         195,000   ...............       1,133,000     2,275,930,000 
    Acquisition, construction,                                                                                                                          
     and improvements...........      362,375,000  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............    \3\ (500,000)      362,375,000 
    Retired pay.................      582,022,000  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............       2,500,000       579,522,000 
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................  ...............       1,733,000   ...............         195,000   ...............       3,633,000   ................
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration:                                                                                                                        
    Operations (general and                                                                                                                             
     trust) \4\.................    4,645,712,000       2,271,888          720,112   ...............  ...............  ...............    4,642,720,000 
    Facilities and equipment....    1,934,883,000  ...............  ...............  ...............  \5\ $13,590,000   \6\ 3,100,000     1,918,193,000 
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ................
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration:                                                                                                                         
    Motor carrier safety grants                                                                                                                         
     (obligation limitation)....       77,225,000  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............           1,000        77,224,000 
    Limitation on general                                                                                                                               
     operating expenses.........      509,660,000      (1,658,000)  ...............     (14,003,000)  ...............        (756,000)      509,660,000 
    Federal-aid Highways                                                                                                                                
     (obligation limitation) \7\   17,550,000,000       1,692,073            4,427       14,192,000   ...............       1,146,000    17,532,965,500 
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................  ...............       1,692,073            4,427       14,192,000   ...............       1,147,000   ................
                                 =======================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety                                                                                                                         
 Administration:                                                                                                                                        
    Operations and research                                                                                                                             
     (general)..................       73,316,570         232,947              103        1,442,550   ...............         140,000        71,500,970 
    Operations and research                                                                                                                             
     (trust)....................       51,884,430         161,950   ...............       1,002,450   ...............          66,000        50,654,030 
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................  ...............         394,897              103        2,445,000   ...............         206,000   ................
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration:                                                                                                                        
    Office of the Administrator.       14,018,000          78,000            2,000          274,000   ...............     \3\ (28,000)       13,664,000 
    Railroad Safety.............       49,919,000          46,900            4,100          240,000   ...............          70,000        49,558,000 
    Railroad research and                                                                                                                               
     development................       24,550,000           9,000   ...............         426,000   ...............      \8\ 34,000        24,081,000 
    Northeast corridor program..      115,000,000  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............           6,000       114,994,000 
    Next generation high-speed                                                                                                                          
     rail.......................       19,205,000           1,000   ...............          53,000   ...............      \9\ 24,000        19,127,000 
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................  ...............         134,900            6,100          993,000   ...............         134,000   ................
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration:                                                                                                                         
    Administrative expenses.....       42,000,000         377,857              143          900,000   ...............  ...............       40,722,000 
    Formula grants (general and                                                                                                                         
     trust) \4\.................    2,052,925,000  ...............  ...............         950,000   ...............         147,000     2,051,828,000 
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................  ...............         377,857              143        1,850,000   ...............         147,000   ................
                                 =======================================================================================================================
St. Lawrence Seaway Development                                                                                                                         
 Corporation: Operations and                                                                                                                            
 maintenance....................       10,150,000          16,000   ...............         570,000   ...............          15,000         9,549,000 
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Research and Special Programs                                                                                                                           
 Administration:                                                                                                                                        
    Research and special                                                                                                                                
     Programs...................       23,937,000         143,000            2,000          242,000   ...............  ...............       23,550,000 
    Pipeline Safety.............       31,448,000          81,000            1,000          131,000   ...............          65,000        31,170,000 
    Emergency Preparedness                                                                                                                              
     Grants (limitation)........        8,890,000  ...............  ...............           9,000   ...............  ...............  ................
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................  ...............         224,000            3,000          382,000   ...............          65,000   ................
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General:                                                                                                                            
 Salaries and expenses..........       40,238,000          67,996                4        1,386,000   ...............          57,000        38,727,000 
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Bureau of Transportation                                                                                                                                
 Statistics \7\.................        2,200,000         (34,073)          (4,427)        (189,000)  ...............           3,000         2,197,000 
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board:                                                                                                                           
 Salaries and expen-  ses.......        8,421,000  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............           7,000         8,414,000 
                                 =======================================================================================================================
      Total reductions,                                                                                                                                 
       Department of                                                                                                                                    
       Transportation...........  ...............       7,506,000          746,852       25,000,000       13,590,000   \10\ 8,618,000   ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reductions due to Public Law 104-50.                                                                                                                
\2\ Reductions due to Public Law 104-134.                                                                                                               
\3\ From unobligated balance.                                                                                                                           
\4\ Reductions taken from general fund appropriation.                                                                                                   
\5\ An additional $46,410,000 rescission from unobligated balances for a total of $60,000,000.                                                          
\6\ An additional $5,711,000 rescisssion from unobligated balances for a total of $8,811,000.                                                           
\7\ BTS reductions in parentheses included under Federal-aid highways.                                                                                  
\8\ An additional $5,000 rescission from unobligated balances for a total of $39,000.                                                                   
\9\ An additional $2,000 rescission from unobligated balances for a total of $26,000.                                                                   
\10\ An additional $6,426,000 unobligated balances (footnotes 3, 6, 8, and 9 above) and $162,000 from MARAD ocean freight differential for a Department 
  of Transportation total of $15,026,000.                                                                                                               

    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 1997 
budget includes asset sales in the Coast Guard to be credited 
as an offsetting collection. 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.

                            U.S. COAST GUARD

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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 
$3,762,934,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal 
year 1997. The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year                                                  
                    Program                       1996 enacted     Fiscal year        House         Committee   
                                                       \1\        1997 estimate     allowance    recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses.............................   \2\ 2,578,991   \3\ 2,637,850       2,609,100    \4\ 2,631,350
Acquisition, construction, and improvements....         362,375     \5\ 411,600     \5\ 354,245      \6\ 395,060
Environmental compliance and restoration.......          21,000          25,000          21,000           23,000
Port safety development........................          15,000  ..............  ..............  ...............
Alteration of bridges..........................          16,000           2,000          16,000           10,000
Retired pay....................................         582,022         608,084         608,084          608,084
Reserve training...............................          62,000          65,890          65,890           65,890
Research, development, test, and evaluation....          18,000          20,300          19,000           19,550
Boat safety....................................          20,000  ..............          35,000           10,000
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................       3,675,388       3,770,724       3,728,319        3,762,934
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions pursuant to sections 327 and 335 of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law   
  104-134.                                                                                                      
\2\ Includes $300,000,000 in Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996.                                    
\3\ Includes $118,500,000 from defense discretionary funds.                                                     
\4\ Includes $300,000,000 in Department of Defense appropriations.                                              
\5\ This amount would be reduced $20,000,000 under proposed asset sales.                                        
\6\ Includes $1,960,000 in reprogramming of prior-year funding.                                                 

                           Operating Expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 General            Trust             Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996 \1\..................................    $2,533,991,000       $45,000,000    $2,578,991,000
Budget estimate, 1997 \2\.................................     2,612,850,000        25,000,000     2,637,850,000
House allowance...........................................     2,584,100,000        25,000,000     2,609,100,000
Committee recommendation \1\..............................     2,606,350,000        25,000,000     2,631,350,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 by transfer from the Department of Defense.                                           
\2\ Includes $118,500,000 from defense discretionary funds.                                                     


    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.

                    committee funding recommendation

    The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating 
expenses is $2,631,350,000, including $25,000,000 from the 
oilspill liability trust fund and $300,000,000 from the Defense 
appropriations bill for national security missions.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal year                                          
                                                               1996        Budget       House        Committee  
                                                             enacted      request     allowance   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and allowances:                                                                                             
    Military pay and benefits............................    1,206,924    1,225,850    1,225,850      1,225,850 
    Civilian pay and benefits............................      176,833      180,221      180,221        180,221 
    Permanent change of station..........................       58,513       57,871       57,871         57,871 
    Medical care and equipment...........................      119,966      117,938      117,938        117,938 
    Leased housing.......................................       14,900       15,976       15,976         15,976 
    Activitywide adjustments.............................  ...........  ...........  ...........             -3 
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total, pay and allowances..........................    1,577,136    1,597,856    1,597,856      1,597,853 
                                                          ======================================================
Depot level maintenance:                                                                                        
    Aircraft.............................................      139,456      144,890      144,890        144,890 
    Electronics..........................................       31,746       35,276       35,276         35,276 
    Shore facilities.....................................       93,671       96,163       96,163         96,163 
    Vessels..............................................       97,416       99,915       99,915         99,915 
    Program reestimate...................................  ...........  ...........      -14,307  ..............
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total, depot level maintenance.....................      362,289      376,244      361,937        376,244 
                                                          ======================================================
Operations and support:                                                                                         
    Area operations and support:                                                                                
        Cutters:                                                                                                
            Medium endurance (WMEC)......................       16,922       17,999       17,999         17,999 
            High endurance (WHEC)........................       10,917       11,839       11,839         11,839 
            Polar WAGB's.................................        2,047        2,065        2,065          2,065 
        Area offices.....................................       11,416       12,307       12,307         12,307 
        Maintenance and logistics com-  mands............      123,885      123,413      121,663        123,413 
        Communication stations...........................        3,306        3,586        3,586          3,586 
    District operations and support:                                                                            
        District offices.................................       53,237       57,726       54,037         55,880 
        Groups/bases.....................................       67,307       75,170       75,170         75,170 
        Combined group/air station.......................        9,370       10,010       10,010         10,010 
        Air stations.....................................       44,553       45,726       45,726         45,726 
        Marine safety offices............................        8,563        9,992        9,992          9,992 
        Long-range electronic navaids  (Loran)...........        6,189        6,337        6,337          6,337 
        Cutters-WLB's and smaller; Mack-  inaw...........       29,247       31,995       31,995         31,995 
        Vessel traffic service [VTS] systems.............          245          243          243            243 
    Ammunition and small arms............................        4,667        4,667        2,667          3,500 
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total, operations and support......................      391,871      413,075      405,636        410,062 
                                                          ======================================================
Recruiting and training support:                                                                                
    Recruiting...........................................        5,651        5,717        5,717          5,717 
    Training centers.....................................       26,243       26,531       26,531         26,531 
    Coast Guard Academy..................................       12,579       12,685       12,685         12,685 
    Professional training and education..................       24,162       23,496       21,496         22,496 
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total, recruiting and training support.............       68,635       68,429       66,429         67,429 
                                                          ======================================================
Coast Guard-wide centralized services and support:                                                              
    Headquarters-managed units:                                                                                 
        Engineering Logistics Center.....................        7,868        7,931        7,931          7,931 
        Finance center...................................        4,764        4,840        4,840          4,840 
        Military pay and personnel center................        1,202        1,221        1,221          1,221 
        Coast Guard yard.................................        1,902        1,929        1,929          1,929 
        National Strike Force............................        2,744        2,870        2,870          2,870 
        National Pollution Funds Center..................        1,190        1,209        1,209          1,209 
        COMDAC support facility..........................        1,971        2,407        2,407          2,407 
        Air station Washington, DC.......................          917          932          932            932 
        Operations Systems Center........................        6,894        7,005        7,005          7,005 
        Telecommunications/information systems command...        3,344        3,397        3,397          3,397 
        Navigation Center................................          772          784          784            784 
        Intelligence Coordination Center.................          231          235          235            235 
        Electronics Engineering Center...................        4,225        6,630        6,630          5,325 
        Coast Guard Institute............................          757          769          769            769 
        Research and Development Center..................          433          440          440            440 
        Coast Guard Personnel Center.....................          808          821          821            821 
        National Maritime Center.........................        3,128        3,108        3,108          3,108 
    Headquarters.........................................      105,359      106,268      106,268        106,268 
    Centralized bill paying:                                                                                    
        Postal...........................................        6,674        6,181        6,181          6,181 
        FTS..............................................       11,160       11,339       11,339         11,160 
        Federal employment compensation..................        6,243        6,652        6,652          6,652 
        Unemployment compensation........................        4,546        5,278        5,278          5,278 
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Coast Guard-wide centralized services                                                          
           and support...................................      177,132      182,246      182,246        180,762 
                                                          ======================================================
          Total, accountwide adjustments.................       -3,061  ...........       -5,004         -1,000 
                                                          ======================================================
          Total appropriation............................    2,578,991    2,637,850    2,609,100      2,631,350 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Fiscal year 1996 enacted and fiscal year 1997 Committee recommendation includes $300,000,000 provided by 
  transfer from the Department of Defense.                                                                      


                           PAY AND ALLOWANCES

    Medical care and equipment.--The Committee has provided the 
full amount requested for medical care and equipment, which is 
the same as 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 1996.
    Activitywide adjustments.--The Committee has provided the 
requested amounts for each of the individual subactivities 
under the pay and allowances activity. However, to the overall 
account, the Committee is recommending a $3,000 activitywide 
cut which reflects a reduction from the bonuses and awards line 
item, which affects the Coast Guard accountwide.

                        DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE

    The Coast Guard request for $14,307,000 for nonrecurring 
maintenance funding is required to restore one-time 
streamlining costs for the Coast Guard's aeronautical, 
electronic, and civil engineering programs. In order to achieve 
the savings the Coast Guard needed in fiscal year 1997, much of 
the costs to execute the major streamlining initiatives had to 
be funded in fiscal year 1996, in large part by nonrecurring 
deferrals from depot-level maintenance accounts. These costs 
include civilian severance expenses, extraordinary personnel, 
and equipment reallocations, as well as the immediate facility 
modification and upgrades essential to accommodate streamlining 
relocation initiatives.
    The one-time funding request for fiscal year 1997 will 
allow for a timely completion of priority projects which affect 
the readiness availability of ships, aircraft, and other 
operational assets. Examples of deferred projects are the HH-60 
helicopter main rotor blade tip cap retrofit project, small 
boat electronic equipment standardization, and Group North Bend 
underground storage tank replacement. Loss of these funds would 
force the beginning of a multiyear cycle of deferral to the 
detriment of efficient operational service deliveries.

                         OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

Area operations and support

    Maintenance and logistics commands.--The Committee has 
provided the full amount requested for the maintenance and 
logistics commands, which is a $1,750,000 increase over the 
House allowance. Even at the fiscal year 1997 requested level, 
the funding provided by the Committee is slightly less than the 
fiscal year 1996 enacted level. A cut to the maintenance and 
logistics command category, which essentially manages and funds 
support activities for all Coast Guard units performing 
operational missions, would constitute an across-the-board cut 
to operational field units.

District operations and support/district offices

    District offices.--The Committee has provided a total of 
$55,880,000 for district offices, which is $1,843,000 above the 
House's recommendation. The Committee believes that, even 
though the Coast Guard is in the process of eliminating two 
district offices as part of its overall streamlining plan, 
sufficient funding is necessary because the immediate savings 
will not be realized to the extent estimated under the House's 
funding level. The funding level provided is 5 percent above 
the fiscal year 1996 level, which is slightly below the 8-
percent increase that was requested in the administration's 
budget.

Ammunition and small arms

    The Committee has provided $3,500,000 for the ammunition 
and small arms subaccount, which is $833,000 more than that 
recommended by the House. The Committee understands that there 
has been some downsizing in the ammunition and small arms needs 
because of changes in the Coast Guard's military readiness 
plans. However, proper levels of ammunition and small arms 
maintenance are critical for accomplishing the Coast Guard's 
law enforcement mission and keeping Coast Guard personnel 
trained and qualified in safe operation of small arms.

                    RECRUITING AND TRAINING SUPPORT

    The recruiting and training support category has several 
subsets, including recruiting, training centers (Yorktown, VA; 
Petaluma, CA; and Cape May, NJ), the Coast Guard Academy, and 
professional training and education. The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 less than the amount requested. The Committee has, 
however, restored $1,000,000 back to the professional training 
and education activity which was reduced $2,000,000 in the 
House's recommendation. The Committee believes that the Coast 
Guard has done a good job in trying to hold costs down, and 
though its budget for professional training and education is 
sizable, at the $22,496,000 recommended by the Committee, 
further cuts are 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 
$180,762,000 overall for centralized services and support, a 
reduction of $1,484,000 from the requested level (less than 1 
percent). The reductions in this activity include a reduction 
of $179,000 from the FTS 2000 telecommunications request; and a 
$1,305,000 reduction from the electronics engineering center, 
but still provides a 26-percent increase over the fiscal year 
1996 level for this subactivity.

                        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 
recommendation of the House, which includes a nonoperational 
travel reduction of $1,000,000.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Employment reductions.--The Committee has included bill 
language, which is carried over from prior appropriations acts, 
which specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both military 
and civilian employment for the purpose of complying with 
Executive Order 12839. This language was also included by the 
House.
    National security.--The Committee's recommendation includes 
$300,000,000 transferred from the Department of Defense for 
Coast Guard support of national security activities. 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 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.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San 
Francisco.--The Committee has included a general provision 
(sec. 313) that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or 
implement regulations establishing a vessel traffic safety 
fairway which is less than 5 miles wide between the Santa 
Barbara vessel traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco 
vessel traffic separation scheme. This language has been 
included in previous appropriations bills, and was also 
included in the House's general provisions (sec. 313) bill 
language.
    Conveyance of lighthouse, Montauk Point, NY.--The Committee 
has struck the House's general provision (sec. 339) which would 
require the Secretary of Transportation to convey to the 
Montauk Historical Association the U.S. Government's interests 
in the light station Montauk Point, which is located in 
Montauk, NY. The House has incorporated by reference a 
provision of the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996 which passed the House of Representatives on May 9, 1995. 
The Committee believes that, since this legislation is in 
conference with the Senate's version of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act, there is no need for inclusion of this 
general provision in the appropriations bill, and, therefore, 
has deleted the provision, which was not requested by the 
administration.

                                 OTHER

    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 and directs 
the Secretary to provide $297,000 to continue efforts by the 
Maritime Fire and Safety Administration to provide specialized 
communications, fire fighting training and equipment, and to 
implement the oilspill response contingency plan for the 
Columbia River.
    Abandoned barges, Houston, TX.--The House has included 
$2,000,000 for the Coast Guard's removal of abandoned barges in 
the Houston ship channel and the San Jacinto River, and further 
directs that this funding is to be used only for that purpose. 
It does not appear to the Committee that an additional 
$2,000,000 has been included by the House for this activity and 
assumes that this money would need to come out of the regular 
operating expenses of the Coast Guard. The Committee takes 
exception to the earmarking of a specific amount of funds to be 
used exclusively for this purpose, and expects that the Coast 
Guard will, at its discretion, remove what abandoned barges in 
this area and in other areas of the country that it deems 
obstructions to navigation and as causing unsafe conditions. 
The Committee objects to earmarking a specific amount of 
funding for this purpose for one specific site over all others. 
The Committee directs the Coast Guard to identify alternatives 
for removal in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers 
which is the Agency usually responsible for keeping harbors and 
ports navigable.
    Defense readiness.--Within the overall funding provided for 
drug interdiction activities ($328,000,000), the House has 
specifically earmarked funding of $34,000,000, based on a House 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee report. While the 
Committee may agree that the identified activities are of a 
high priority, it believes that the Commandant may take the 
House's recommendation under advisement, since it appears that 
several of the activities are outdated missions. However, it 
should be left to the Commandant's discretion how the drug 
interdiction funding is to be distributed, and, therefore, the 
Committee objects to the House's earmarking within this 
activity.
    Coast Guard auxiliary.--The House encouraged the Coast 
Guard to continue to provide adequate funding for auxiliary 
support, and was concerned about the adequacy of the 
President's $10,000,000 request. However, the Committee 
understands that the reduction of $1,500,000 from the fiscal 
year 1996 level in management funds associated with the 
auxiliary program is the result of business decisions resulting 
in reorganizations, reductions in overhead, and leveraging 
technology. Further, the Committee understands that the reduced 
request for fiscal year 1997 funding in no way results from a 
devaluation of, or reduction in the services provided by the 
Coast Guard auxiliary. The auxiliary's 35,000 volunteers 
provide a tremendous service to the recreational boating public 
nationwide. In 1995, the auxiliary saved about 400 lives, 
assisted another 20,000 people, and educated 330,000 people 
through boating education courses. In the Pacific Northwest 
region alone, they saved 15 lives, assisted another 800 people, 
and educated 22,000 people--including over 11,000 children. The 
Coast Guard auxiliary is an effective force multiplier for 
their parent services.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996............................................    $329,875,000     $32,500,000   $362,375,000 
Budget estimate, 1997...........................................     391,600,000      20,000,000  \1\411,600,000
House allowance.................................................     338,000,000      20,000,000  \2\ 358,000,00
                                                                                                              0 
    Rescission..................................................  ..............  ..............     (3,755,000)
Committee recommendation \3\....................................     375,060,000      20,000,000    395,060,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes estimated receipts of $20,000,000 from sale of Coast Guard property in Wildwood, NJ.               
\2\ Excludes $29,600,000 in proposed asset sales.                                                               
\3\ Includes $1,960,000 of reprogrammed prior year funds.                                                       

    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:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year      Fiscal year     House program      Committee   
                                                1996 enacted    1997 estimate   level allowance   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels.....................................          167,600          237,000          205,600          227,960
Aircraft....................................           12,000           21,400           18,300       \1\ 19,400
Other equipment.............................           49,200           46,700           39,900           46,200
Shore facilities and aids to navigation.....           88,875           59,500           47,950       \2\ 54,500
Personnel and related support...............           44,700           47,000           46,250           47,000
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................          362,375          411,600          358,000          395,060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of this amount, $360,000 is from reprogramming prior-year funds.                                            
\2\ Of this amount, $1,600,000 is from reprogramming prior-year funds.                                          

                                vessels

    The Committee recommends $227,960,000 for vessel 
acquisition and improvement. The projected allocation of these 
funds is shown in the table below:

                                                     VESSELS                                                    
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                                                                   1997 estimate     allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquire vessels and equipment:                                                                                  
    Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] replacement......................          59,500          50,000          59,000
    Coastal buoy tender [WLM] replacement.......................          80,000          74,000          76,860
    47-foot motor lifeboat [MLB] replacement project............          26,000          26,000          26,000
    82-foot WPB capability replacement..........................          37,800          35,000          33,100
    Follow-on for polar icebreaker replacement..................           4,000           4,000           4,000
    Buoy boat replacement project...............................           8,500  ..............           7,800
    Survey and design--cutters and boats........................             500             500             500
    Configuration management....................................           3,500           3,500           3,500
    Surface search radar replacement project....................           8,600           4,000           8,600
    Motor surfboard [MSB] replacement...........................           1,100           1,100           1,100
Repair, renovate, or improve existing vessels and small boats:                                                  
    210-foot medium-endurance cutter [WMEC], major maintenance                                                  
     availability [MMA].........................................           2,500           2,500           2,500
    Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement project [RIP]           5,000           5,000           5,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total (new program level)...............................         237,000         205,600         227,960
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] replacement.--The Coast Guard 
plans to replace its 50-year-old fleet of seagoing buoy tenders 
with up to 16 new tenders. The request of $59,500,000 for 
fiscal year 1997 is to pay for the award of the first 
production ship, and to cover additional costs such as the cost 
of change orders and product escalation for the third, fourth, 
and fifth option ships. According to recent estimates, the 
contract for the first production ship will be awarded late in 
fiscal year 1997. The House recommended $50,000,000 for this 
project. According to recent estimates, however, this amount by 
itself will not be enough for the Coast Guard to award the 
production contract in fiscal year 1997, even if the bids are 
received at the low end of the Government's cost estimates. 
Based on the estimate that this project will have some 
carryover at the end of fiscal year 1996, the Committee has 
reduced the fiscal year 1997 level by $500,000, which is 
$9,000,000 above the House's allowance.
    Coastal buoy tender [WLM] replacement.--The Committee has 
provided $76,860,000 for the coastal buoy tender replacement 
program. This program replaces the Coast Guard's existing 133-
foot and 157-foot coastal buoy tenders with 14 new ships. The 
Coast Guard's request of $80,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 was 
to procure four new buoy tenders. Based on recent information 
on the 1997 spending plans, it appears that the Coast Guard 
should have $3,140,000 in unobligated carryovers that could be 
used in fiscal year 1997 against this request. Therefore, the 
Committee has reduced the funding level by that amount. The 
House had made a similar type of reduction to $74,000,000 based 
on a large unobligated balance in the account.
    Coastal patrol boat/82-foot WPB replacement.--The Committee 
has provided $33,100,000 for the coastal patrol boat 
replacement program, which is a $700,000 reduction from the 
amount requested for fiscal year 1997. This program would 
replace the 82-foot coastal patrol boats which are over 30 
years old with 31 new boats. The request for fiscal year 1997 
was to procure six new boats. However, in a review of the 
fiscal year 1997 spending plans, it appears as though the Coast 
Guard can only obligate $33,100,000 of its original fiscal year 
1997 request. This is because the contractor's bid came in 
lower than originally estimated by the Coast Guard. Therefore, 
the Committee's reduction should not impair or slow this 
program.
    Buoy boat replacement project.--The Coast Guard had 
originally requested $8,500,000 in fiscal year 1997 to procure 
five new buoy boats. Based on review of the 1997 spending 
plans, it appears that the Coast Guard will have available in 
1997 approximately $700,000 in unobligated carryovers that 
could be used for the five new boat procurements. Therefore, 
the Committee has reduced the request by that amount, and 
recommends a level of $7,800,000. The House allowance included 
no funding for this program, citing slippages in the program 
due to termination of a boat building contract last year, and 
believes that unobligated funds should be sufficient to 
maintain the program during fiscal year 1997. However, in order 
to stabilize the Coast Guard yard's work force so there will be 
no break in production, the Committee has provided funding at 
$7,800,000.

                                aircraft

    For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends 
$19,400,000. Of this amount, $360,000 is made available through 
reprogrammed resources. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are 
distributed as follows:

                                                    AIRCRAFT                                                    
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year        House           Committee    
                                                               1997 estimate     allowance    recommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic alert and collision avoidance system [TCAS]--phase                                                      
 IV.........................................................           5,700           5,700             5,700  
Global positioning system installation--phase VII...........           2,900           1,900             1,900  
HC-130 engine conversion....................................           8,800           6,800             7,800  
HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring...........................           2,000           3,500             2,000  
HH-65A helicopter mission computer unit replacement.........           2,000           2,000             2,000  
Asset sales \2\.............................................  ..............          -1,600  ..................
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................          21,400          18,300            19,400  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of this amount, $360,000 is from reprogramming of HH-65 gearbox funding originally provided in fiscal year  
  1995.                                                                                                         
\2\ Offsets from VC-11A sale ($600,000) and HU-25 sale ($1,000,000).                                            

    Global positioning system installation, phase VII.--The 
Committee has provided $1,900,000 for the global positioning 
system [GPS] installation, which is the same amount recommended 
by the House. This is the same level of funding that was 
provided for GPS installation in fiscal year 1996.
    HC-130 engine conversion.--The Committee has provided 
$7,800,000 for the HC-130 engine conversion program, which is 
$1,000,000 less than that requested, but $1,000,000 more than 
provided by the House. This program seeks to improve the 
reliability of the C-130's and T-56 engines through an upgrade 
to a new series 3 engine version. The fiscal year 1997 request 
was to cover the production and installation of 22 conversion 
kits. This funding level would slow that program down only 
slightly, in that the program will be phased in over 3 years.
    HH-65 helicopter kapton rewiring.--The Committee has 
provided the full amount requested for the HH-65 helicopter 
kapton rewiring program, which is $1,500,000 less than that 
recommended by the House, which directed the Coast Guard to 
implement a faster replacement schedule.
    Asset sales.--The Committee has not reduced the overall 
funding level for aircraft procurement by assuming offsets from 
the VC-11A sale ($600,000), and the HU-25 sale ($1,000,000), as 
assumed by the House.
    Reprogrammings.--Of the amount provided for the aircraft 
procurement, $360,000 is from reprogramming of funds originally 
provided in fiscal year 1995 for the HH-65 transmission gearbox 
upgrade. It appears as though, after the conclusion of this 
program, there will remain available at least $360,000 from 
prior-year funds that could be used to offset the aircraft 
funding level in fiscal year 1997.

                            other equipment

    The Committee recommends $46,200,000. The following table 
displays the project allocation:

                                                 OTHER EQUIPMENT                                                
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                                                                   1997 estimate     allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system [FLS]....................................           9,300           9,300           9,300
Marine information for safety and law enforcement [MISLE].......           5,000           5,000           5,000
Global maritime distress/safety system--phase V.................             700             700             700
Vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000..............................           6,000  ..............           5,500
Conversion of software applications.............................           6,000           6,000           6,000
Finance Center information system replacement...................           2,100           2,100           2,100
Communication system [COMMSYS] 2000.............................           4,000           4,000           4,000
Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] and coastal buoy tender [WLM] support                                                
 facility.......................................................           1,800           1,800           1,800
Personnel management information system/joint uniform military                                                  
 pay system II..................................................           1,600             800           1,600
Aviation logistics management information system [ALMIS]........           4,800           4,800           4,800
National distress system modernization..........................           1,000           1,000           1,000
VHF-FM high level site upgrade--phase III.......................           4,400           4,400           4,400
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          46,700          39,900          46,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000.--The Committee has 
reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Marine Board 
report and directs the Coast Guard to examine options for the 
first operational vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000 system 
that minimizes the complexity necessary to prove the VTS 2000 
concept. The Committee has long held the view that the scope of 
the VTS 2000 project is too broad. The Coast Guard's plan for a 
national VTS system should be reflective of the Marine Board's 
proposal for a baseline system and phased implementation, which 
will reduce acquisition cost and risk. This plan should include 
outreach efforts with the maritime community and other 
appropriate stakeholders. The Coast Guard shall also ensure 
that VTS 2000 will be based on an open system architecture 
maximizing use of commercial off-the-shelf equipment. The 
unobligated balances of all funds appropriated to the VTS 2000 
project in prior years shall remain available for project 
expenditures.
    Personnel management information system.--The Committee has 
provided the full amount requested.

                shore facilities and aids to navigation

    The program level recommended is $54,500,000. Within this 
amount, $1,600,000 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        House           Committee    
                                                               1997 estimate     allowance    recommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore--General:                                                                                                 
    Survey and design shore projects........................           6,000           6,000             6,000  
    Minor AC&I shore construction projects..................           4,000           4,000             4,000  
Shore--Air stations: Mid-Atlantic Air Station consolidation                                                     
 projects--phase II.........................................           1,300           1,300             1,300  
Shore--Supply centers/support centers/yard: Baltimore, MD--                                                     
 Coast Guard yard land-based ship handling facility.........           4,950           3,950             4,950  
Support center Portsmouth--upgrade painting/sandblast                                                           
 facility...................................................           2,550           2,000             2,550  
Support center San Pedro--construct medical facility........           3,700           3,700             3,700  
Shore--Personnel support facilities: Public family quarters.          12,000          12,000            12,000  
Shore--Groups/bases/stations/MSO's:                                                                             
    Station Juneau--renovate/expand station facili-  ties...           2,000           2,000             2,000  
    Station Sabine--reconstruct/expand waterfront facilities           4,000           4,000             4,000  
    Coast Guard cutter Chippewa and Coast Guard cutter                                                          
     Obion--relocate Owensboro moorings.....................           2,000           2,000             2,000  
    Base, San Juan, PR--reconstruction phase II.............          12,000          10,000             7,000  
Aids to navigation facilities: Waterways aids-to-navigation                                                     
 projects...................................................           5,000           5,000             5,000  
Asset sales \2\.............................................  ..............          -8,000  ..................
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................          59,500          47,950            54,500  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1,600,000 reprogramming of prior year's funding.                                                  
\2\ Sale of Upolu Point, HI, loran station site.                                                                

    Cove Point Lighthouse, Maryland.--Within the account for 
minor AC&I construction projects, $90,000 is made available for 
repairs to the Cove Point Lighthouse, Maryland.
    Coast Guard yard land-based ship handling facility.--The 
Committee has provided the full amount for the Coast Guard ship 
handling facility in Baltimore, MD, which is $4,950,000. 
Providing the full amount requested for this facility results 
in an appropriation that is $1,000,000 above the House 
recommendation. The Coast Guard, in consultation with the 
Appropriations Committees, has phased this project over a 
period of time, which is of critical importance to the Coast 
Guard and its ability to maintain, renovate, and modernize 
their existing ships. Funding for this activity will be used 
for the purchase of lift equipment and associated waterfront 
work. Funding in fiscal year 1997 will be used for land-based 
work associated with this project, and the Committee believes 
it is necessary to provide the full amount requested for the 
project to proceed in an orderly manner.
    Base San Juan, PR--reconstruction phase II.--The Committee 
has provided $7,000,000 for the San Juan, PR, base 
reconstruction phase II, which is $5,000,000 below the request. 
The Committee has made this reduction based on information that 
the project has been rescoped, and that activities originally 
planned for fiscal year 1997 would not be proceeding. 
Therefore, the new funding that is necessary to keep the 
project on schedule is $5,000,000, which has been provided by 
the Committee.
    Reprogrammings.--Of the total amount provided, $54,500,000 
for shore facilities and aids to navigation, $1,600,000 is to 
be derived from funds originally provided in fiscal year 1995 
for the support center in Seattle, WA. Based on the latest 
information, it appears that this project, when completed in 
August 1996, will have an unobligated carryover of $1,600,000. 
In 1995, Congress appropriated $10,300,000 to renovate the pier 
for support center Seattle. In fiscal year 1996, Congress 
reduced the funds available to approximately $9,900,000, and 
the contract price was finally established at a little over 
$7,200,000. Therefore, these funds can be reprogrammed without 
harm.

                     PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

    The program level recommended is $47,000,000. Within the 
amount provided, $850,000 shall be for core acquisition costs.
    The Committee has provided the full amount requested for 
personnel and related support, and has not reduced the direct 
personnel cost by the $750,000 which was recommended by the 
House. The House's reduction was premised on no funding being 
provided for the VTS 2000 program, which had been terminated in 
the House bill. Since the Committee has provided funding for 
VTS 2000 to proceed, the restoration of the 20 staff-years 
associated with the project was necessary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                  Personnel and related support                    1997 estimate     allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct personnel costs..........................................     $46,150,000     $45,400,000     $46,150,000
Core acquisition costs..........................................         850,000         850,000         850,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      47,000,000      46,250,000      47,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             bill language

    Wildwood, NJ, asset sale.--The Committee has not included 
bill language which was in the House bill and was requested by 
the administration that will allow the proceeds from the sale 
of property in Wildwood, NJ, to be credited to this 
appropriations account as an offsetting receipt, and stipulates 
that such proceeds shall be included in the budget baseline, as 
required by the Budget Enforcement Act. Inclusion of this bill 
language saves $20,000,000 in budget authority and outlays.
    One element of the Coast Guard's streamlining plan, the 
Electronic Engineering Center in Wildwood, NJ, is scheduled to 
be closed with an expected $20,000,000 in proceeds from sale of 
the property to be credited as offsetting collections to the 
``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' account. The 
Committee understands that the Coast Guard will follow 
procedures consistent with the General Services Administration 
property disposal process that permits screening and transfer 
to other Federal agencies. Based on new information, it appears 
that there will be interest from other Federal agencies for a 
transfer of the property vice a sale. In absence of sufficient 
collections, the Coast Guard appropriation should not be 
decreased should disposal generate less than the expected 
$20,000,000 in offsetting receipts.
    Asset sales.--The bill includes language which was first 
enacted in fiscal year 1996 which credits the ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' appropriation the proceeds 
derived from the sale or lease of the Coast Guard's surplus 
real property. This provision was requested by the 
administration in their fiscal year 1997 budget request.
    The Senate does not agree with the House proposal to use 
proceeds presumed from uncertain asset sales as offsetting 
collections to fund the ``Acquisition, construction, and 
improvements'' account in place of appropriated budget 
authority. Specifically, the loran station Upolo Point 
property, for which the House presumes proceeds of $8,000,000, 
is subject to the Hawaiian Home Land Recovery Act which 
requires that the land be conveyed back to the State of Hawaii 
without sale. The Coast Guard needs funding it can depend upon 
to carry out necessary projects. The Senate supports the 
authority vested in the Commandant which allows the sale of 
real property and specified operational assets, with proceeds 
to be credited to the ``Acquisition, construction, and 
improvements'' appropriation.
    Rescissions.--The House has included bill language, not 
requested by the administration, to rescind funds previously 
appropriated for the vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000 
program. The House recommends rescinding $355,000 of fiscal 
year 1995 funding and $3,400,000 of fiscal year 1996 funding 
that remain unobligated and are associated with this program. 
The House recommended no additional funding for this activity 
in fiscal year 1997.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $21,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      25,000,000
House allowance.........................................      21,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              23,000,000

    The Committee recommends funding of $23,000,000 to continue 
the environmental restoration and compliance-related actions 
throughout the Coast Guard.
    These fiscal year 1997 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 and actions necessary 
to bring Coast Guard shore facilities and vessels into 
compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
    The Senate has recommended a funding level of $23,000,000, 
which is $2,000,000 above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. 
The House has fully funded the requested levels for site-
specific cleanup and restoration, $15,500,000. But, it has 
reduced environmental compliance from the requested $3,834,000 
to $2,500,000, and has reduced the personnel funding from the 
requested $5,666,000 to $3,000,000. The Committee has restored 
the personnel funding level to $5,666,000, the environmental 
compliance activity to $2,834,000, and has reduced site-
specific funding to $14,500,000.
    ISC Kodiak remediation funding.--The investigation and 
potential cleanup of 34 sites on ISC Kodiak, as per the 1990 
Resources Conservation Recovery Act consent order, goes well. 
Eight of these sites have been closed and eight other sites 
have been approved for no further action status. Due to reduced 
levels of contamination anticipated, lower than expected costs 
to meet consent order milestones, and successful ongoing 
milestone negotiations with the regulatory bodies, annual 
requirements for this project have been reduced from past 
levels of $4,400,000 to $5,400,000 to about $3,000,000 to 
$3,500,000. Given overall budget constraints and other demands 
placed on the ``Environmental compliance and restoration'' 
appropriation, $2,600,000 will be adequate to continue this 
remediation effort in fiscal year 1997.

                        Port Safety Development

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                                               5,000,000

    The Committee has included $5,000,000 in additional 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 jeopardized 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.

                         Alteration of Bridges

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................       2,000,000
House allowance.........................................      16,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              10,000,000

    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 would 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 the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], under 
the continuing program oversight of the Coast Guard.
    Funding of $2,000,000 is requested by the administration 
for fiscal year 1997 to continue work on the Burlington 
Northern Railroad bridge over the Mississippi River at 
Burlington, IA.
    The House provides funding for the Burlington, IA, bridge 
as requested, and additional funds for:

New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue, railroad/highway bridge......$7,000,000

Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge

                                                               7,000,000

    The Committee has provided $10,000,000 which includes 
$2,000,000 for the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge at 
Burlington, IA, and $8,000,000 for the Sidney Lanier Bridge at 
Brunswick, GA.

                              Retired Pay

Appropriations, 1996....................................    $582,022,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     608,084,000
House allowance.........................................     608,084,000

Committee recommendation

                                                             608,084,000

    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 
30,161 in fiscal year 1997, as compared with an estimated 
29,549 in fiscal year 1996 and 28,662 in fiscal year 1995.
    The bill includes $608,084,000 for retired pay, which is 
the same as the House allowance and the budget request.

                            Reserve Training

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $62,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      65,890,000
House allowance.........................................      65,890,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              65,890,000

    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 $65,890,000 for Reserve 
training. The amount provided is the same as the House 
allowance and the President's request. The amount provided will 
support a Selected Reserve Force of 8,000 members, the same 
level as fiscal year 1996.
    The Coast Guard is provided Reserve training funding as 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    President's      Committee  
                   Functional program element                       Fiscal year    request (8000  recommendation
                                                                    1996 levels       SELRES)      (8000 SELRES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drill pay and benefits..........................................     $24,600,000     $26,097,000     $26,097,000
Full-time support personnel.....................................      19,400,000      20,134,000      20,134,000
Annual training program.........................................       9,700,000      10,646,000      10,646,000
District administration/training................................       4,050,000       4,299,000       4,299,000
Recruiting......................................................       1,500,000       1,783,000       1,783,000
O/M support to training facilities..............................       1,575,000       1,690,000       1,690,000
Headquarters administration.....................................       1,175,000       1,241,000       1,241,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      62,000,000      65,890,000      65,890,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996............................................     $14,850,000      $3,150,000     $18,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...........................................      15,280,000       5,020,000      20,300,000
House allowance.................................................      13,980,000       5,020,000      19,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      14,530,000       5,020,000      19,550,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 $19,550,000 for research, development, 
test, and evaluation, which is $750,000 below the budget 
request and $550,000 above the House allowance.
    The Committee recommendation for funding distribution is as 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year                              
                                                         Fiscal year      1997          House        Committee  
                                                            1996        estimate      allowance   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program areas:                                                                                                  
    Search and rescue.................................      $932,000    $1,872,000    $1,872,000     $1,872,000 
    Waterways safety..................................     2,189,000     1,385,000     1,385,000      1,385,000 
    Marine safety.....................................     2,700,000     3,825,000     3,825,000      3,825,000 
    Ship structure committee..........................  ............       437,000       223,000        223,000 
    Marine environmental protection...................     1,354,000     1,791,000     2,291,000      1,791,000 
    Maritime law enforcement..........................     1,229,000       791,000       791,000        791,000 
    Safety and environmental compli-  ance............     2,318,000     2,652,000     2,452,000      2,452,000 
    Human resource management.........................       100,000       147,000       147,000        147,000 
    Command, control, computers, and intelligence.....       928,000     1,014,000       928,000        928,000 
    Technology base...................................       500,000     1,600,000       550,000      1,350,000 
    Multimission/administrative support...............     5,750,000     4,786,000     4,536,000      4,786,000 
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
        Total.........................................    18,000,000    20,300,000    19,000,000     19,550,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has made slight reductions only to the fiscal 
year 1997 request for research and development. The first 
reduction is in the ship structure committee, where the 
Committee has reduced the support for the ship structure 
committee from the requested level of $400,000 to $186,000, 
which is the same level as that recommended by the House. In 
the marine environmental protection area, the Committee has 
provided the amount requested for the aquatic nuisance species 
program, which is $200,000. The Committee has not provided the 
additional unrequested funding of $500,000 recommended by the 
House. In the environmental compliance area, the Committee 
agrees with the House's recommendation and has reduced the 
pollution prevention line item from the $700,000 requested to 
$500,000. For command and control computers and intelligence, 
the Committee agrees with the House's recommendation for the 
advanced communication system line item, which reduces that 
program from $350,000 to $264,000. In the technology base line 
item, the Committee has reduced the program by $250,000. The 
subactivity future technology assessments has been reduced from 
$400,000 to $200,000, and the selected projects line item has 
been reduced from $800,000 to $755,000. In the multimission 
administrative support line item, the Committee has provided 
the full amount requested, which includes $2,571,000 for 
administration and personnel.

                              Boat Safety

                     (aquatic resources trust fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................    $20,000,000 
Budget estimate, 1997 \1\...............................    (45,000,000)
House allowance \2\.....................................     35,000,000 
Committee recommendation \2\............................     10,000,000 

\1\ The President's budget proposed, contingent on enactment of 
legislation, that $45,000,000 be available as a direct (mandatory) 
program and no discretionary funds.
\2\ In addition to the appropriation of general funds, the House and 
Senate assume $10,000,000 in mandatory trust 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 general fund discretionary funding in 1997.
    The President's request proposed to provide all funding for 
the State boating safety grant program by increasing from 
$10,000,000 to $45,000,000 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).
    The Senate-passed Coast Guard authorization bill supports 
the administration's proposal for funding this activity through 
direct, mandatory spending.
    The House provides $35,000,000 in general funds and assumes 
an additional $10,000,000 in permanent indefinite 
appropriations from the Clean Vessel Act of 1992, Public Law 
102-587, for a total program level of $45,000,000. Under 
current law, all boating safety grant funds are distributed by 
formula.
    The Committee has provided $10,000,000 in new 
appropriations and assumes an additional $10,000,000 in funding 
from the Clean Vessel Act of 1992, for a total program level of 
$20,000,000. In addition, another $35,000,000 may be realized 
from the ``Sport fish restoration'' account upon passage of the 
Coast Guard authorization act.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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 1997 amounts to $8,200,657,000 including $75,000,000 in 
user fees credited to the ``Operations'' appropriation and a 
$1,400,000,000 obligation limitation on the use of contract 
authority for the Airport Grants Program. The following table 
summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year                                  
                    Program                        Fiscal year     1997 budget         House         Committee  
                                                  1996 enacted       estimate        allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.....................................   \1\ 4,645,712       4,918,269        4,900,000       4,899,957
User fees......................................  ..............        -150,000          -30,000         -75,000
Facilities and equipment.......................   \2\ 1,934,883       1,788,700        1,800,000       1,788,700
Research, engineering, and development.........         185,698         195,700          185,000         187,000
Grants-in-aid for airports \3\.................       1,450,000       1,350,000        1,300,000       1,400,000
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................       8,216,343       8,102,669        8,155,000       8,200,657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions pursuant to sections 327 and 349 of Public Law 104-50.                                  
\2\ Excludes $68,811,000 rescission pursuant to Public Law 104-50; and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134.     
\3\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  

                               Operations

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  General           Trust          User fees          Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996........................   $2,422,852,900   $2,222,859,100  ...............   $4,645,712,000
Budget estimate, 1997.......................    2,025,667,000    2,742,602,000     $150,000,000    4,918,269,000
House allowance.............................    2,127,398,000    2,742,602,000       30,000,000    4,900,000,000
Committee recommendation....................    2,082,355,000    2,742,602,000       75,000,000    4,899,957,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, commercial space, medical and 
engineering, and development programs.
    The bill includes a total of $4,899,957,000 for the 
operations activities of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
of which $2,742,602,000 shall be derived from the airport and 
airway trust fund and $75,000,000 offsetting collections 
derived from user fees. The account total is $254,245,000 more 
than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996.
    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 eight 
main areas consistent with FAA's reorganization to bring 
together functions and activities that support the provision of 
a single, major service and to establish a single executive 
responsible for that service.
    Air traffic services.--The operations and maintenance of 
the national air traffic control and navigation system and the 
installation of air traffic and navigation equipment. Air 
traffic services consists of five subactivities: air traffic, 
NAS logistics, systems maintenance, leased telecommunications, 
and flight inspections.
    Aviation regulation and certifications.--Promotes aviation 
safety and ensures compliance with safety and certification 
standards for air carriers, commercial operators, air agencies, 
airmen, and civil aircraft, including aircraft registration; 
develops and administers safety standards for airworthiness of 
aircraft and components. Includes accident investigation, 
aviation medicine, aviation rulemaking, and the suspected 
unapproved parts office.
    Civil 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.
    Research and acquisition.--Responsible for all research, 
prototyping, system development, and acquisition activities. 
Includes the William J. Hughes Technical Center.
    Administration of airports.--Provides for the 
administration of airport grants and the safety inspection and 
certification of the Nation's airports.
    Commercial space transportation.--Facilitates and promotes 
commercial space launches by the U.S. private sector and 
licenses and regulates commercial launches, launch site 
operations, and certain payloads.
    Administration.--Funds the administrative functions that 
establish policy and direct and develop programs in the areas 
of FAA aircraft use and management, building space management, 
budget and accounting, business information and consultation, 
human resource management, and technical and management 
training; includes the regional administrators and the 
Aeronautical Center Director.
    Staff offices.--Funds the Office of the Administrator and 
the Deputy Administrator, and offices that report directly to 
the Administrator and provide executive direction; operations 
and communications control; civil rights; government and 
industry affairs; policy, planning, and international aviation; 
legal counsel; and public affairs.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and House 
allowance:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year     Fiscal year                                  
                                                  1996 program     1997 budget        House         Committee   
                                                    level \1\       estimate        allowance    recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services...........................       3,623,132       3,827,137       3,816,471        3,802,419
Aviation regulation and certification..........         437,848         487,911         487,289          487,605
Aviation security..............................          67,453          71,921          71,921           71,921
Research and acquisition.......................          75,781          78,034          78,034           78,034
Administration of airports.....................          41,328          45,367          43,367           43,250
Commercial space transportation................           5,757           6,169           6,049            6,049
Administration.................................         324,809         332,499         329,865          332,499
Staff offices..................................          67,624          69,230          66,430           68,230
Accountwide adjustments........................  ..............  ..............             574            9,950
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................       4,643,732       4,918,269       4,900,000        4,899,957
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1,012,000 carryover from prior years.                                                             

                          air traffic services

    The Committee recommends a total of $3,802,419,000 for the 
operation and maintenance of the national air traffic control 
and flight service system. This is $24,718,000 less than the 
budget estimate, but $179,287,000 above the fiscal year 1996 
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 include:
    Air traffic.--The Committee recommends $2,265,790,000 and 
24,183 FTE's. The Committee's recommendation provides a net 
increase of 250 additional air traffic controllers, and has 
provided the full amount requested for overall employment 
levels.
  --Air traffic detailees.--The Committee's recommendation 
        under air traffic concurs in the House's reduction of 
        $3,500,000 associated with air traffic detailees. 
        Approximately 450 air traffic controllers work outside 
        of the controller work force, and, therefore, are not 
        available for controlling air traffic. Estimated costs 
        of the detailee program are $34,000,000 a year. The 
        Committee recognizes that it is important that FAA 
        retain the ability to detail controllers to other 
        positions, including having their input available for 
        work groups, special project teams, and in some cases, 
        headquarters staff. However, the Committee concurs in 
        the House's observation which reduces the detail 
        positions by approximately 10 percent, which results in 
        a savings of $3,500,000.
  --Department of Labor wage determinations.--The Committee 
        does not concur with the House's reduction of $500,000 
        for Department of Labor wage determinations. The 
        Committee understands that in September 1995, FAA 
        requested a waiver from the Service Contract Act for 
        contract tower locations. However, there has been no 
        formal response from the Department of Labor, nor have 
        dates been set for meetings to discuss options to the 
        Service Contract Act. Since there is no agreement on an 
        exemption for contracted towers, the Committee believes 
        it is premature to assume savings at this time.
  --Aviation safety reporting system.--The Committee has not 
        included the additional funding of $1,000,000 which was 
        recommended by the House for the aviation safety 
        reporting system. Additional funding for the safety 
        reporting system is contained in the ``Research'' 
        account.
  --Herndon, VA, lease.--The Committee has not followed the 
        House's recommendation which would transfer $3,300,000 
        to the ``Operations'' account from the ``Facilities and 
        equipment'' account. The House believed that this would 
        more accurately reflect the nature of the costs being 
        incurred at the Herndon, VA, facility.
  --New York/New Jersey area controllers.--The Committee is 
        aware of the severe staffing and equipment problems 
        within the air traffic control system in the New York/
        New Jersey metropolitan region, which results in 
        increased delays and inefficiencies. The Committee has 
        provided requested funding for 250 additional 
        controllers and directs that adequate staffing with the 
        level of expertise needed be provided to the FAA. The 
        Committee encourages the Administrator to recruit 
        controllers from lower level towers in the region to 
        serve higher level towers in the region. The Committee 
        also directs the Administrator to report to the 
        Committee by April 1, 1997, on the initiation of a 
        local recruiting effort in the New York/New Jersey 
        region.
  --Juneau, AK.--The Committee has included $200,000 for 
        weather/wind information at the Juneau International 
        Airport, AK.
    National airspace system logistics support.--The Committee 
recommends $182,580,000 for this subactivity including 1,195 
FTE's.
    The funding provided for the national airspace system 
logistics support activity is the full amount requested by the 
administration for fiscal year 1997, and is the amount provided 
in the House allowance. Within the funds provided, the 
Committee expects that site surveys and monumenting at rural 
airports in Alaska will be conducted to help facilitate GPS 
implementation.
    Maintenance of air traffic control system.--The Committee 
recommends $960,246,000 and 9,616 FTE's for this budget 
subactivity.
    The Committee has reduced the amount requested for 
maintenance by $4,376,000. These cuts are associated primarily 
in contractor support and maintenance activities that were 
double counted in the submission of the fiscal year 1997 budget 
request. The systems maintenance reductions are associated with 
the following subactivities:

Gemini project, software maintenance....................     -$1,000,000
Remote maintenance monitoring/contractor support........        -300,000
Multivoice recorders contractor technicians.............        -200,000
Aeronautical data link..................................        -231,000
ASR-9 software maintenance..............................        -650,000
Radio control equipment contractor maintenance..........        -200,000
Maintenance processor/software..........................        -597,000
Precision runway monitors/contractor support............      -1,198,000

    Leased telecommunication services.--The Committee 
recommends $333,935,000 for this budget subactivity.
    FAA's leased telecommunications request for fiscal year 
1997 ($350,777,000) represents a $32,589,000 increase over the 
fiscal year 1996 level. While the Committee understands the 
importance of having a growing telecommunications capability 
available to meet new national airspace system [NAS] 
requirements, the Committee believes that it may not be the 
best use of limited taxpayer dollars to increase investments in 
leased telecommunications when FAA-owned telecommunication 
resources sit idle.
    The radio communications link [RCL], which is owned by FAA, 
is one of the largest microwave networks in the country. RCL is 
supposed to reduce the need for leased telecommunications 
services and is supposed to be a primary backup for air traffic 
control. However, RCL is greatly underutilized. Designed to 
carry telecommunications traffic over 15,000 circuits, as of 
April 1996, FAA is only using a little over 2,000 circuits--a 
13-percent utilization rate.
    Because 87 percent of FAA's own RCL telecommunications 
resources sit idle, the Committee directs FAA to report to the 
Congress by March 30, 1997, on its plans to transition some 
leased telecommunication services to RCL. The plans should 
identify all essential, backup, and administrative services 
presently leased that can be transitioned to RCL and the leased 
cost savings that could be eliminated from FAA's future 
budgets. Since FAA expects a need for additional 
telecommunications to meet new NAS requirements, the plan 
should also identify the new requirements that will be 
accommodated by RCL.
    Overall, the Committee has reduced the request for leased 
telecommunication services by $16,842,000. Of this reduction, 
$5,000,000 is associated with the Committee's direction that 
FAA transfer to the radio communications link as much of the 
existing workload as possible to better fully utilize that 
resource. Also, the Committee concurs with the House's transfer 
of $8,600,000 from the telecommunications support line within 
operations to the facilities and equipment line. Since this 
system is still under development and has recently experienced 
program slippages due to the awarding of the WAAS contract to 
new parties, it is more appropriate that costs associated with 
this program be shown in the ``Facilities and equipment'' 
appropriation. The Committee has reduced the request by another 
$500,000 for costs that were originally projected for the 
consolidation of FAA's Chicago terminal radar approach control 
program. It appears that these costs will come in under the 
original budget projection. Funding is also reduced for the 
aeronautical data link program by $2,742,000. According to 
recent reports, the requirements in the aeronautical data 
program can be reduced because FAA will be using more efficient 
FAA switching networks to provide the communications channel 
between tower and aircraft.
    Flight inspection.--The Committee recommends $59,868,000 
and 580 FTE's for this activity which is the full amount 
requested.

                 aviation regulation and certification

    The Committee recommends $487,605,000 and 5,301 full-time 
permanent positions for this activity.
    Funding provided for aviation regulation and certification 
is an increase of $49,757,000 over fiscal year 1996. The 
Committee fully funds the requested employment increases for 
administrative support (+152), airworthiness inspectors (+54), 
airline operations inspectors (+100), certification engineers 
and pilots (+75), and manufacturing certification inspectors 
(+29). The Committee, however, has reduced the Office of 
Rulemaking by $306,000 as opposed to the reduction of $622,000 
in the House allowance.

                        civil aviation security

    The Committee recommends $71,921,000 and 777 FTE's for this 
budget activity.
    The Committee has fully funded the civil aviation security 
program, which is also the amount provided under the House 
allowance. This recommendation allows for a 6.6-percent 
increase over the fiscal year 1996 level.

                        research and acquisition

    The Committee recommends $78,034,000 and 697 FTE's for this 
budget activity, which is a 3-percent increase over the fiscal 
year 1996 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 $43,250,000 and 467 FTE's for this activity.
    Under the Committee's recommendation, the administration of 
airports program would be reduced $2,117,000 from the requested 
level for fiscal year 1997. The Committee has not included 
funding for the requested 26-person increase in staff-years. 
The Committee, due to budget constraints, cannot fund the 
request at this particular time and sees no immediate need to 
do so. The Committee agrees with the House observation that, 
since there are no new programmatic initiatives proposed by the 
FAA, additional staffing for this office is not justified at 
this time.

                    COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

    The Committee recommends $6,049,000 and 30 FTE's for this 
activity.
    The Committee's recommendation for the Commercial Space 
Transportation Office is the same as the House allowance. The 
Committee has not funded the additional three positions 
requested in the fiscal year 1997 request, and holds staffing 
levels to the fiscal year 1996 level.

                             administration

    The Committee recommends $332,499,000 and 2,016 FTE's for 
this budget activity. The Committee has fully funded the 
administration's request for fiscal year 1997 in the 
administration activity level. The Committee does not concur 
with a number of House recommendations in this activity. 
Funding for the air traffic systems maintenance training was 
provided in the air traffic services activity and has not been 
transferred to the administration activity.
    Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium.--The Committee 
does not concur with the House's earmark of $1,700,000 for the 
Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium. In order to fund the 
facility in Minnesota, the House has transferred funds out of 
the air traffic controller training program, which was to be 
conducted at the FAA's own in-house facility. The Committee 
does not agree with this redirection of work, and refers to the 
conference report that accompanied the fiscal year 1996 bill 
(H. Rept. 104-286). In that report, under FAA operations, it 
was stated, ``The conferees agree to provide $250,000 for 
continued support of the Mid-America Aviation Resource 
Consortium as proposed by the House, but intend that this be 
the final year of Federal support for this facility unless 
requested in the President's budget.'' Funding for this 
facility was not specifically requested in the administration's 
budget, and given that Congress has supported this facility for 
a number of years by funding above that requested in any of the 
administrations' budgets, the Committee believes that as a 
successful program, it should competitively bid for training 
contracts with the FAA and no longer needs nor warrants a 
special earmark.
    Personnel systems streamlining.--The Committee does not 
agree with the House's action which would reduce funding for 
the personnel system by 10 percent. The Committee has, 
therefore, provided the full amount requested.

                             staff offices

    The Committee recommends $68,230,000 and 584 FTE's for this 
budget activity, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the requested 
amount.
    The Committee has reduced the request for staff offices by 
$1,000,000 and concurs with the House's observation that this 
decrease should come from the foreign affairs administrative 
support area. Since the submission of the fiscal year 1997 
budget, FAA's estimate of requirements in this area have been 
reduced after consultation with the Department of State.
    The Committee has not provided the additional $200,000 
recommended by the House in additional funding for monitoring 
the workers' compensation program, nor has it reduced 
headquarters staffing by the $2,000,000 which was recommended 
by the House.

                        ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

    Dangerous goods cargo security program.--The Committee has 
provided $9,950,000 above that requested by the administration 
for a dangerous goods and cargo security program. Global air 
transportation of hazardous materials has been growing at a 
steady rate of approximately 7 percent per year. The majority 
of these goods (60 percent) are being transported on passenger 
carrying equipment, and according to the FAA, the report of 
incidents in air transportation associated with this type of 
cargo has increased by 122 percent since 1991. The recent 
ValuJet accident and dangerous trends prompted a critical 
review by the FAA of the adequacy of its current procedures and 
policies for reducing the risks created by the transportation 
of hazardous materials in the air. Although FAA, with its given 
resources, monitors the compliance of air carriers to existing 
hazardous materials rules and regulations, it is estimated that 
almost 80 percent of the problems associated with this type of 
cargo originate with shippers. The Committee believes that the 
traveling public needs an acceptable level of safety that can 
only be achieved not only with air carrier inspections, but 
also targeted inspections at freight forwarders, repair 
stations, and commercial shippers. Therefore, the Committee has 
included the $9,950,000 above the fiscal year 1997 request to 
address these problems. It is expected that under this funding 
level FAA will hire approximately 130 people to expand the 
current inspector, security, and legal work force, to target 
key areas of activity to control hazardous materials shipments. 
The Committee has not assigned this funding nor the positions 
to a particular activity within FAA, and expects FAA to report 
back to the Committee as soon as possible as to how it intends 
to use the additional funding provided, including the number of 
new persons hired, for what activities they will be hired, and 
a summarized work plan of how the new personnel will be put to 
work beginning in fiscal year 1997.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Offsetting collections.--The Committee has included bill 
language within the FAA ``Operations'' account to allow the 
agency to collect up to $75,000,000 in offsetting collections. 
This provision is consistent with the Senate authorization bill 
which authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to charge 
overflight fees to carriers who use U.S. territorial airspace 
and air traffic services, but do not actually land or take off 
from U.S. territory. The offsetting collections would be 
deposited into the FAA ``Operations'' account for use by the 
agency without further appropriation. In addition, the 
Committee assumes additional fees for obstruction evaluation. 
The House's bill language would allow up to $30,000,000 in user 
fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting 
collections. The House directs that the only additional user 
fees which are authorized are those attributable to services 
provided to aircraft that neither take off from nor land in the 
United States.
    Second career training program.--The Committee has included 
bill language which was included in the President's budget 
request and was also contained in the House bill which 
prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the second career 
training program. This prohibition has been carried in annual 
appropriations acts for many years.
    Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision, first 
included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which 
prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those 
cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This 
provision is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal 
years 1995 and 1996. It has been included in the House bill, 
and was requested by the administration for fiscal year 1997.
    Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee 
has included bill language which was requested by the 
administration to prohibit the use of funds for operating a 
manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous 
United States. There is no funding provided in the 
``Operations'' account for such stations in fiscal year 1997. 
The House also included this language, as requested by the 
administration.
    Commercial space transportation.--The Committee has 
included language which prohibits the use of any funds from the 
airport and airway trust fund for the support of the operations 
and activities of the Associate Administrator for Commercial 
Space Transportation. This prohibition is included in the House 
bill, and was requested by the administration.

                           general provisions

    Passenger manifest.--The bill contains a limitation (sec. 
316) which has been contained in previous appropriations acts 
prohibiting the Department of Transportation from issuing a 
final rule on an international passenger manifest program that 
applies to only U.S. carriers. The general provision is the 
same as that contained in the House bill, section 316.
    O'Hare Airport slots.--The bill contains a general 
provision (sec. 319) first included in the fiscal year 1995 
appropriations bill, which prohibits funding that would 
implement or enforce regulations that would result in slot 
allocations for international carrier operations for O'Hare 
Airport access which are in excess of the number of slots 
allocated to and scheduled by that carrier on the first day of 
the calendar year 1993 winter season.
    Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.--The bill 
contains a general provision (sec. 320) which has been carried 
in previous years and is recommended by the House. This 
provision would prohibit the use of any funds in this act to 
compensate for more than 335 technical staff-years at the 
federally funded research and development center which is 
contracted between the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.
    Denver International Airport.--The Committee has included a 
general provision (sec. 324), recommended by the House, which 
prohibits the use of any funds for the planning, engineering, 
design, or construction of a sixth runway at the Denver 
International Airport. This provision, however, shall not apply 
when the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
determines and certifies in writing that safety conditions 
warrant the obligation and use of such funds.

                                 other

    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 the current 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. Despite report 
language last year, the Committee understands that FAA and the 
Labor Department still have not met to resolve the wage 
determination situation at contract towers. 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.
    Ogden-Hinckley Municipal Airport.--Ogden-Hinckley serves as 
the primary reliever and weather divert for Salt Lake City 
International Airport. The Committee, in the Senate report 
accompanying the fiscal year 1996 Transportation appropriations 
bill, directed the FAA to give priority consideration to the 
grant request for the upgrade of terminal facilities at Ogden-
Hinckley Municipal Airport to meet the security needs of 
passengers in fulfilling its role as a weather divert 
destination and to begin to prepare the facility for the 
transportation needs associated with the 2002 Winter Olympics. 
The Committee acknowledges FAA's responsiveness to its 
directive in facilitating the approval of Ogden-Hinckley's 
grant request for phase 1 of the existing terminal upgrade.
    To further address security needs, operations capabilities, 
and passenger handling in its role as a weather divert and to 
prepare to handle the system demands that will be associated 
with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the Committee directs FAA 
to give priority consideration to the grant requests for 
security fencing, for construction of a helipad, and completion 
of phase 2 of the existing terminal upgrade at Ogden-Hinckley 
Municipal Airport.
    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.
    Colorado Springs, CO.--The limitations on obligations for 
airport development and planning grants are intended to 
continue the important tasks of enhancing airport safety, 
ensuring that airport standards are met, maintaining existing 
airport capacity, and developing additional capacity. The 
Committee notes that the Colorado Springs Airport, in Colorado 
Springs, CO, is one of the fast growing major airports in the 
country. Therefore, the Committee urges that priority be given 
to grant applications involving the construction and/or 
rehabilitation of taxiways for the Colorado Springs Airport.
    Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport.--In fiscal years 1995 
and 1996, the Committee endorsed expeditious consideration of a 
multiyear letter of intent for the Northwest Arkansas Regional 
Airport. The Committee still encourages the Federal Aviation 
Administration to consider a letter of intent, or any other 
advanced funding mechanism that allows for future reimbursement 
of all allowable costs related to the approved project. The 
region's existing airport will not be able to adequately meet 
projected future demands because of the area's profound growth 
in population and economic activity. The Committee feels that 
this project will enhance the systemwide airport capacity.
    Salisbury/Wicomico County Regional Airport.--The Committee 
urges the FAA to expedite consideration of the Salisbury/
Wicomico County (MD) Regional Airport application to the FAA 
Contract Tower Program.
    Sanford-Lee County, NC.--The Federal Aviation 
Administration is directed to accelerate construction funding 
of the new Sanford-Lee County, NC, airport project, which has 
been designated a reliever airport by the FAA. The Committee 
directs the FAA, other considerations notwithstanding, to 
provide funding so that the project will be completed by 1999. 
Further, the Committee understands that this acceleration of 
funding will help this project stay within the projected costs.
    New Orleans International Airport.--The Committee 
understands that New Orleans International Airport [NOIA] has 
filed an application for a letter of intent for multiyear 
funding for the construction of a new north-south parallel 
runway for NOIA, which is needed to accommodate present and 
future traffic demands in the Louisiana/Mississippi region and 
the anticipated increase to traffic due to cargo traffic 
related to international trade. The airport intends to 
demonstrate that the local share of this project will be made 
through the continuation of the State transportation tax and 
passenger facility charges and has projected substantial 
investment savings over the anticipated 30-year life of the 
runway. The Committee recognizes the large operational savings 
that would be derived by the construction of the new parallel 
runway and the future importance of NOIA as an intermodal 
center for commerce, and, therefore, recommends that the FAA 
consider a letter of intent with NOIA.
    Airport Improvement Program [AIP] distribution.--In a time 
of diminished financial resources, the Committee appreciates 
the FAA's efforts to create a practical method of distributing 
limited AIP dollars to numerous airports for noise mitigation 
programs by restricting the maximum funding level for noise 
programs at each airport to $5,000,000 per year. The Committee 
is concerned, however, that this new rule does not take into 
account the FAA's previous commitments to existing programs or 
the actual needs of each airport. Therefore, the FAA is 
encouraged to take into account specific needs of airports, and 
especially to honor prior commitments made by airports to 
communities in reliance on the Federal noise program.
    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 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 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 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.
    South Jersey Transportation Authority/Atlantic City 
Airport.--The Committee is aware that the FAA's planned 
transfer of ownership of airport certificate 139, runways, 
taxiways, and other properties to the South Jersey 
Transportation Authority will create a hardship on the Atlantic 
City International Airport. The Committee directs the FAA 
Administrator to work with the SJTA to ensure that sufficient 
Federal funds are available for runway repairs and other 
necessary improvements prior to the transfer of the 
certificate.
    Philadelphia International Airport.--The Committee 
understands that an application for multiyear funding 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. Noting the constraints on its 
budget, the Committee commends the FAA for having already 
provided several discretionary grants to ensure that this 
runway project continues to make progress. Given that capacity 
constraints have caused considerable delays at the airport, 
leading to annual costs in the millions of dollars, the 
Committee recommends that the FAA enter into a letter of intent 
with the project sponsor for construction of the runway 
project.
    Lancaster Airport, PA.--The Committee commends to the FAA's 
attention the growing need for a runway extension project at 
the Lancaster, PA, airport. The Lancaster Airport lacks 1,000-
foot extended runway safety areas (overruns) which are required 
by the FAA. As a result, most corporate aircraft are limited to 
60 percent of their useful load. The Committee notes that 
Lancaster County has a rapidly growing population and that in 
conjunction with increasing congestion at surrounding air 
carrier facilities, there is a pressing need to extend runway 
8-26 in order to provide a safer, more efficient environment 
for aircraft operators. This extension project should also 
contribute to economic growth in the Lancaster region. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends the FAA provide the 
necessary funding for the environmental assessment of Lancaster 
Airport's proposed runway extension project.
    Diamond Head FAA combined center radar approach control 
[CERAP] relocation.--The relocation of the Diamond Head 
combined center radar approach control [CERAP] has been pending 
before the Congress since 1992. In 1992, the Congress approved 
the FAA's request to reprogram funds designated for the 
expansion of the Diamond Head facility in exchange for a 
commitment from the FAA to fund the relocation of the facility 
out of Diamond Head. Despite this commitment, the Congress 
found it necessary in fiscal year 1994 to instruct the FAA to 
fund the relocation of its facility out of Diamond Head crater. 
In fiscal year 1995, the Congress instructed the FAA to 
complete the site acquisition for this relocation. In response 
to the FAA's continuing lack of progress toward fulfilling 
these mandates, in fiscal year 1996, the Congress directed the 
FAA to prepare a report on what specific steps it will take to 
acquire a new site for this facility and complete its 
relocation.
    The Committee is concerned that the FAA is now considering 
reducing the operations and personnel of the CERAP rather than 
relocating existing operations and personnel as originally 
contemplated. Accordingly, the Committee directs the FAA to 
continue to pursue the relocation of existing operations and 
personnel to another location on Oahu.
    Southwest Florida International Airport [RSW], Fort Myers, 
FL.--According to the FAA's aviation system capacity plan, RSW 
is the third fastest growing airport in the country. Over the 
last 10 years, enplanements at RSW have grown at 9.2 percent 
annually with a projected future growth rate of 8 percent as 
compared to the national growth rate of 3.2 percent. 
Consequently, RSW has often found itself in the position of 
accommodating up to 27 overnight aircraft with only 14 gates. 
This has required closing portions of the only parallel taxiway 
at the airport, creating safety concerns and airline delays. 
The State of Florida and the Lee County Airport Authority have 
committed long-term State and local resources for enhancing the 
airport capacity. The Committee recognizes the need for RSW's 
expansion project to serve this rapidly growing region. 
Therefore, the Committee directs FAA to give priority 
consideration to RSW's request for airport improvement 
discretionary funds to continue its capital expansion program 
to meet future air service needs
    Computer reservation system [CRS].--The Committee is 
concerned with the Department's continuing inaction on the 
rulemaking petition filed in October 1994 by Alaska Airlines 
requesting that the Department amend its computer reservation 
system [CRS] regulations to prevent the impositions of CRS 
contractual provisions mandating a uniform CRS participation 
level. Although the Department's most recent Federal Register 
publication of its semiannual rulemaking agenda indicates that 
the Department has decided to issue a proposed rule to prohibit 
such mandatory parity clauses, no proposed rule has been 
published. Mandatory parity clauses compel airlines to purchase 
services they do not need and consequently impose unnecessary 
cost on both the airlines and consumers. The Committee, 
therefore, directs the Department to initiate a rulemaking on 
this issue to promptly address and resolve this problem.

                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................  $1,934,883,000
    Rescission \1\......................................     -60,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................   1,788,700,000
House allowance.........................................   1,800,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,788,700,000

\1\ Rescission pursuant to Public Law 104-50, excludes rescission of 
$8,811,000 pursuant to section 31002 of Public Law 104-134.

    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    1996 CIP      plan      1991 CIP    1993 CIP    1995 CIP    1996 CIP 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced automation system [AAS]        1990        1991        1991     ( \1\ )     ( \1\ )        1994        2001        2004     ( \1\ )     ( \1\ )
    Display system replacement                                                                                                                          
     [DSR]......................  ..........  ..........  ..........        1998        1998  ..........  ..........  ..........        2000        2000
    Standard terminal automation                                                                                                                        
     replacement system [STARS].  ..........  ..........  ..........        1998     ( \2\ )  ..........  ..........  ..........        2003     ( \2\ )
    Tower control computer                                                                                                                              
     complex [TCCC].............  ..........  ..........  ..........        1997     ( \3\ )  ..........  ..........  ..........        2000     ( \3\ )
Air route surveillance radar                                                                                                                            
 [ARSR-4].......................        1988        1993        1994        1995        1996        1991        1996        1996        1997        1997
Airport surface detection                                                                                                                               
 equipment [ASDE-3].............        1987        1992        1993        1993        1993        1990        1994        1996        1999        1999
Automated weather observing                                                                                                                             
 system [AWOS]..................        1986        1989        1989        1989        1989        1990        1997        1997        1997        2000
Central weather processor [CWP].        1990        1991        1991        1991        1991        1991        1998    \4\ 1992    \4\ 1993    \4\ 1993
Flight service automation system                                                                                                                        
 [FSAS].........................        1984        1991        1991        1991        1991        1989        1995        1994        1995        1995
Mode S..........................        1988        1993        1994        1994        1994        1993        1996        1996        1996        1998
Radio microwave link [RML]                                                                                                                              
 replacement and expansion......        1985        1986        1986        1986        1986        1989        1994        1993        1993        1993
Terminal doppler weather radar                                                                                                                          
 [TDWR].........................     ( \5\ )        1993        1994        1994        1994     ( \5\ )        1996        1996    \6\ 1996     ( \7\ )
Voice switching and control                                                                                                                             
 system [VSCS]..................        1989        1995        1995        1995        1995        1992        1997        1997        1997        1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En route [DSR], terminal [STARS], and tower [TCCC].                                         
\2\ STARS schedule is currently being rebaselined.                                                                                                      
\3\ TCCC schedule is currently being rebaselined to reflect the incorporation of surface management advisory [SMA].                                     
\4\ 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.                                                                                                       
\5\ The TDWR was not included in the 1983 NAS plan.                                                                                                     
\6\ Schedule under review for last-site implementation.                                                                                                 
\7\ TDWR last site implementation indefinite due to site availability and acquisition problems.                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
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 radar    Problems with the radar's development   
 [ARSR-4].                       and 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. First 
                                 site implementation delay occurred due 
                                 to interface problems.                 
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. Last site implementation delay 
                                 occurred because communications funding
                                 shortfalls and installation delays of  
                                 the communications infrastructure to   
                                 deliver weather information.           
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.      
                                 Program implementation is complete.    
Mode S........................  Problems in developing hardware and     
                                 software during initial phases delayed 
                                 the system, and software problems      
                                 caused a delay in first-site           
                                 implementation. Implementation of the  
                                 last site has been moved to 1998 due to
                                 en route interface problems.           
Radar microwave link [RML]      In the early stages, site acquisition   
 replacement and expansion.      and 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 radar  Site availability and land acquisition  
  [TDWR].                        problems have delayed last-site        
                                 implementation. Last site              
                                 implementation remains indefinite. TDWR
                                 has experienced schedule delay because 
                                 of site availability and land          
                                 acquisition problems.                  
Voice switching and control     Early delays were due to the two        
 system [VSCS].                  prototype 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 $1,788,700,000 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                               1997 budget   House allowance     Committee  
                                                                    estimate                      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering, development, test, and evaluation:                                                                 
    En route programs:                                                                                          
        Aviation weather services improvements.................     $27,997,000     $27,997,000      $19,942,000
        En Route Automation Program............................     106,500,000      89,155,000       96,500,000
        Oceanic automation system..............................      40,600,000      40,600,000       25,600,000
        Next generation UHF air/ground communication system....       2,090,000       2,090,000        2,090,000
        Voice switching and control system [VSCS]--EDT&E.......      13,300,000      13,300,000       13,300,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, en route programs..........................     190,487,000     173,142,000      157,432,000
                                                                ================================================
    Terminal programs:                                                                                          
        Terminal digital radar (ASR-11)........................      23,300,000  ...............      20,000,000
        Terminal Automation Program............................      50,600,000      43,500,000       50,600,000
        NAS infrastructure management system [NIMS]............      11,600,000  ...............       6,000,000
        Weather systems processor [WSP]........................       8,055,000  ...............       8,055,000
        Airport surface target identification system [ATIDS]...       4,000,000       4,000,000        4,000,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, terminal programs........................      97,555,000      47,500,000       88,655,000
                                                                ================================================
    Landing and navigational aids programs:                                                                     
        Local area augmentation system [LAAS] for GPS..........       6,000,000       6,000,000        6,000,000
        Wide area augmentation system [WAAS]...................  ..............     117,100,000       83,100,000
        National satellite test bed............................  ..............      11,500,000        6,004,735
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, landing and navigational aids programs.....       6,000,000     134,600,000       95,104,735
                                                                ================================================
    Research, test, and evaluation equipment and facilities:                                                    
        Independent operational test and evaluation [IOT&E] sup       3,500,000       3,500,000        3,500,000
        FAA Technical Center facility--technical building lease       5,290,000       5,290,000        5,290,000
        Utility plant modifications............................         910,000         910,000          910,000
        NAS improvement of system support laboratory...........       2,000,000       2,000,000        2,000,000
        Technical Center facilities............................       9,000,000       9,000,000        9,000,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, research, test, and evaluation equipment                                                    
           and facilities......................................      20,700,000      20,700,000       20,700,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
          Total, engineering, development, test, and evaluation     314,742,000     375,942,000      361,891,735
                                                                ================================================
Air traffic control facilities and equipment:                                                                   
    En route programs:                                                                                          
        Long Range Radar [LRR] Program-- replace/establish.....      17,702,000      17,702,000       17,702,000
        En Route Automation Program............................     106,100,000     106,100,000      106,100,000
        Air traffic operations management system [ATOMS].......       2,650,000       1,000,000        1,000,000
        Weather and radar processor [WARP].....................      24,650,000      24,650,000       24,650,000
        Aeronautical data link [ADL] applications..............      17,425,000      17,425,000       17,425,000
        ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements.........      71,659,700      62,083,000       64,333,000
        Voice switching and control system  [VSCS].............     103,700,000     103,700,000      103,700,000
        Remote communication facilities [RCF's]--expand/                                                        
         relocate..............................................       2,825,000       2,825,000        2,825,000
        Air traffic management [ATM]...........................      40,360,000      30,960,000       40,300,000
        Data multiplexing network [DMN]........................       3,900,000       3,900,000        3,900,000
        En route communications and control facilities                                                          
         improvement...........................................       3,265,800       3,265,800        3,265,800
        Satellite communications circuit backup................       2,000,000       2,000,000        2,000,000
        DOD base closure--facility transfer....................         500,000         500,000          500,000
        Backup emergency communications [BUUEC]--interim.......       3,000,000       3,000,000        3,000,000
        ATC beacon interrogator [ATCBI] replace-  ment.........       1,000,000       1,000,000        1,000,000
        Volcano monitor........................................  ..............  ...............       2,000,000
        Spectrum auction impact................................  ..............      45,000,000       45,000,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, en route programs........................     400,737,500     425,111,500      438,700,800
                                                                ================================================
    Terminal programs:                                                                                          
        Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]--provide.........       4,655,000       4,655,000        4,655,000
        Mode S--provide........................................       3,980,000       3,980,000        3,980,000
        Terminal Automation Program............................      27,700,000      27,700,000       16,300,000
        Airport movement area safety system [AMASS]............      15,393,000      15,393,000       15,393,000
        Remote maintenance monitoring system [RMMS]--provide...      17,900,000      17,900,000       17,900,000
        Terminal air traffic control facilities--replace.......      74,400,000      74,400,000       79,800,000
        Air traffic control tower [ATCT]/TRACON facilites--                                                     
         improve...............................................      16,354,850      16,354,850       16,354,850
        Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR]/enhanced                                                       
         terminal voice switch.................................      17,900,000      17,900,000       12,300,000
        Terminal radar [ASR]--improve..........................       4,445,390       4,445,390        4,445,390
        Airport surface detection equipment [ASDE]--additional                                                  
         establishment.........................................       4,000,000       4,000,000        4,000,000
        NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards                                                         
         compliance............................................      36,924,000      21,000,000       27,705,000
        Chicago TRACON.........................................       2,900,000       2,900,000        2,900,000
        New Austin Airport at Bergstrom........................      16,900,000      16,900,000       16,900,000
        Potomac TRACON.........................................       1,000,000       4,000,000        1,000,000
        Southern California TRACON.............................       5,700,000       5,700,000        5,700,000
        Denver TRACON..........................................       4,000,000       4,000,000        4,000,000
        Northern California TRACON.............................       8,700,000       2,700,000        8,700,000
        Atlanta TRACON.........................................         500,000       3,500,000          500,000
        Tower Automation Program...............................      10,000,000      10,000,000       10,000,000
        Voice Recorder Replacement Program  [VRRP].............       4,000,000       4,000,000        4,000,000
        Terminal communications improvements...................       3,406,225       3,406,225        3,406,225
        GRR/GRT radio replacement..............................  ..............      20,000,000   ..............
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, terminal programs..........................     280,758,500     284,834,500      259,939,465
                                                                ================================================
    Flight service programs:                                                                                    
        Automated surface observing system  [ASOS].............       1,369,000       1,369,000       11,275,000
        FSAS operational and supportability implementation                                                      
         system [OASIS]........................................         500,000         500,000          500,000
        AWOS/ASOS augmentation.................................  ..............  ...............         550,000
        Automated weather observing system  [AWOS].............  ..............       1,000,000   ..............
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, flight services..........................       1,869,000       2,869,000       12,325,000
                                                                ================================================
    Landing and Navigational Aids Program:                                                                      
        Very high frequency omnidirectional radio range [VOR]                                                   
         with distance measuring equipment.....................       1,900,000       1,900,000        1,900,000
        Instrument landing system [ILS]--establish/upgrade.....       1,500,000       1,500,000        2,900,000
        Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP]...       2,000,000       2,000,000        2,000,000
        Low level windshear alert system [LLWAS]--upgrade......      17,399,000      17,399,000       17,399,000
        Runway visual range [RVR]--establish...................       3,000,000       3,000,000        3,000,000
        Instrument approach procedures automation [IAPA].......       2,400,000       2,400,000        2,400,000
        Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program........................       5,950,000       5,950,000        5,950,000
        Instrument landing system [ILS]--replace GRN 27........       9,000,000       9,000,000        9,000,000
        Wide area augmentation system [WAAS]...................      74,500,000  ...............  ..............
        Navigational and landing aids--improve.................       3,744,000       3,744,000        3,744,000
        Loran-C upgrades.......................................  ..............       5,650,000        3,650,000
        Precision approach path indicators [PAPI]..............  ..............  ...............       3,125,000
        Anemometers............................................  ..............  ...............         375,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, landing and navigational aids..............     121,393,000      52,543,000       55,443,000
                                                                ================================================
    Other ATC facilities programs:                                                                              
        Alaskan NAS interfacility communications system [ANICS]      12,000,000      12,000,000       12,000,000
        Fuel storage tank replacement and monitoring...........      43,700,000      43,700,000       43,700,000
        FAA buildings and equipment--improve/modernize.........      12,600,000      12,600,000       12,600,000
        Electrical power systems--sustain/support..............      15,000,000      15,000,000       15,000,000
        Air navigational aids and air traffic control                                                           
         facilities (local projects)...........................       2,000,000       2,000,000        2,000,000
        Air navigational facilities/air traffic control system                                                  
         support--provide......................................       4,800,000  ...............  ..............
        Aircraft and Related Equipment Program.................       4,900,000       4,900,000        4,900,000
        Computer-aided engineering graphics [CAEG] replacement.       1,500,000       1,500,000        1,500,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, other ATC facility programs..............      96,500,000      91,700,000       91,700,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
            Total, air traffic control facilities and equipment     901,258,000     857,058,000      858,108,265
                                                                ================================================
Nonair traffic control facilities and equipment:                                                                
    Support equipment:                                                                                          
        NAS Management Automation Program [NASMAP].............       1,300,000  ...............       1,300,000
        Hazardous materials management.........................      18,000,000      15,000,000       18,000,000
        National airspace system recovery communications [RCOM]       1,500,000       1,500,000        1,500,000
        Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS].................      19,400,000      19,400,000       19,400,000
        Operational data management system [ODMS]..............       5,100,000       5,100,000        5,100,000
        FAA employee housing--provide..........................       5,000,000       5,000,000        5,000,000
        Logistics support systems and facilities [LSSF]........       1,500,000       1,500,000        1,500,000
        Test equipment--maintenance support for replacement....       1,000,000       1,000,000        1,000,000
        Integrated flight quality assurance....................       2,000,000       2,000,000        2,000,000
        Safety performance analysis system  [SPAS].............       2,600,000       2,600,000        2,600,000
        Performance enhancement system [PENS]..................       1,900,000       1,900,000        1,900,000
        National Aviation Safety Data Center [ASAAP]...........       3,700,000       3,700,000        3,700,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, support equipment........................      63,000,000      58,700,000       63,000,000
                                                                ================================================
    Training, equipment, and facilities:                                                                        
        Distance learning......................................       7,000,000       3,500,000        3,000,000
        National airspace system [NAS] training facilities.....       1,000,000       1,000,000        1,000,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, training, equipment, and facilities......       8,000,000       4,500,000        4,000,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
            Total, nonair traffic control facilities and                                                        
             equipment.........................................      71,000,000      63,200,000       67,000,000
                                                                ================================================
Mission support:                                                                                                
    System support and services:                                                                                
        System engineering and development support.............      33,350,000      33,350,000       33,350,000
        Program support leases.................................      29,600,000      29,600,000       29,600,000
        Logistics support services [LSS].......................       8,800,000       8,800,000        8,800,000
        Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center-- lease..............      15,500,000      15,500,000       15,500,000
        In-plant national airspace system [NAS] contract                                                        
         support services......................................       4,800,000       4,800,000        4,800,000
        Transition engineering support.........................      49,450,000      49,450,000       49,450,000
        Frequency and spectrum engineering.....................       1,200,000       1,200,000        1,200,000
        Permanent change of station [PCS] moves................       8,500,000       5,500,000        8,500,000
        FAA corporate system architecture......................       9,600,000       9,600,000        9,600,000
        Technical services support contract  [TSSC]............      65,900,000      71,000,000       65,900,000
        Resource Tracking Program [RTP]........................       1,000,000       1,000,000        1,000,000
        Center for Advanced System Development.................      57,000,000      57,000,000       57,000,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
          Total, mission support...............................     284,700,000     286,800,000      284,700,000
                                                                ================================================
Personnel and related expenses.................................     217,000,000     217,000,000      217,000,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total, all activities....................................   1,788,700,000   1,800,000,000    1,788,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             engineering, development, test, and evaluation

    The Committee recommends $361,891,735 for various 
engineering, development, test, and evaluation activities.
    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. 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. The former AAS 
program 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].

En route programs

    Aviation weather services improvements.--The Committee has 
decreased the funding request for aviation weather services 
improvements by $8,055,000, due to a favorable contract bid 
received by FAA which was lower than originally budgeted. More 
nondevelopmental software was available for this program than 
was originally anticipated, and the Department has offered up 
this reduction so that more higher priority programs can be 
funded.
    En route automation program.--The Committee has provided 
$96,500,000 for the en route automation program. This is a 
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
concurs in the House's observation that there are program 
savings of $10,000,000 available within this account from the 
advanced automation system termination liability cost savings. 
These funds should be available to FAA for this program. 
However, the Committee has restored the $7,345,000 that the 
House had cut from the advanced en route automation program 
[AERA]. The Committee believes that reducing these funds would 
result in a 1-year slippage of the AERA build one development 
and deployment activity, and that any user preferred routing 
savings based on the AERA program would be lost for a year. The 
Committee has long supported the AERA program, and believes 
that restitution of this funding is necessary.
    Oceanic automation system.--The oceanic automation system 
is a state-of-the-art platform that would provide improved air 
traffic control over the oceans. Of the amount requested, 
$40,600,000 would be used for continued development of the 
project, including $9,900,000 for program management and 
$29,900,000 for phase 2, which is new software development 
replacing flight data processing structure and software. The 
Committee understands that FAA is in the process of reducing 
the scope of the advanced oceanic automation system [AOAS] and 
cannot fully implement phase 2 as originally envisioned. 
Because of uncertainty over FAA's plans regarding this project, 
the Committee believes that one-half of the phase 2 
developmental budget can be reduced, and that it would be 
prudent for FAA to wait for the Hughes-Canadian Government 
testing which is to occur this summer on a system that would be 
similar to, but an alternative to, FAA's current project 
description.

Terminal programs

    Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee has 
restored $20,000,000 for the terminal digital radar (ASR-11) 
program, which is a joint program with the Department of 
Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration. The funding 
requested for fiscal year 1997 by the administration would be 
used to procure a first article system, that is a joint FAA-DOD 
system, and to conduct testing to determine the operational 
suitability of the radar for both agencies. FAA anticipates 
that the system would be brought to production standards upon 
completion of testing. The Committee has restored most of the 
funding because it understands and appreciates that the ASR-7 
radars that are currently in operation need to be replaced, due 
to their aging condition and parts unsupportability. In 
addition, FAA could possibly lose aircraft surveillance 
capability at all STARS locations which are currently connected 
to the ASR-7's. In addition, the Committee understands that FAA 
will need to soon embark on a program to replace or digitize 
the existing ASR-8's.
    Terminal automation program.--The Committee has restored 
the funding requested for the terminal automation program, also 
known as standard terminal automation replacement system 
[STARS]. The fiscal year 1997 request is the first year on the 
STARS production contract. It is currently planned to be 
awarded at the end of fiscal year 1996 and the 1997 funds are 
necessary for the development and testings of those facilities 
that would be required to meet initial operational readiness 
dates. In addition, the Committee does not agree with the 
House's position adding $2,000,000 for the surface movement 
advisor [SMA] to the terminal automation budget. Funding for 
SMA is contained in another budget line item, and additional 
funds above that requested for fiscal year 1997 are not needed.
    NAS infrastructure management.--The Committee has restored 
$6,000,000 for the NAS infrastructure management program, which 
is the management system being used to coordinate the 
consolidation of multiple aging and obsolete control centers 
into fewer, state-of-the-art facilities. Given the emphasis to 
consolidate and develop state-of-the-art TRACON's which are 
underway, the Committee believes that the elimination of this 
funding would be detrimental to FAA's previous plans and the 
Committee's direction to consolidate air traffic facilities 
where and when possible.
    Weather systems processor.--The Committee has restored the 
full amount requested for the weather systems processor 
program. Funds in fiscal year 1997 would be used for initial 
contract award for the procurement of three full-scale 
development prototype weather systems processors. These 
processors would provide terminal weather radar capability at 
those ASR equipped airports that do not have terminal doppler 
weather radars. The Committee has provided this funding 
believing that FAA needs to find a weather radar solution at 
existing airports. The Committee does not take a position as to 
whether the weather systems processor is the answer, or whether 
the terminal area surveillance system, which is a next 
generation phased array radar, could replace both the ASR-9's 
and terminal doppler weather radars at airports. The Committee 
is concerned that there are a number of line items in the FAA's 
facilities and equipment and research, engineering, and 
development budgets which basically are intended to produce the 
same solution. The Committee is concerned that FAA has many 
different approaches that it is following and is not, at this 
date, able to decide on the best way to proceed. The provision 
of this money does not necessarily mean that the Committee, at 
a later date, would support the procurement of the 33 weather 
system processors which are estimated to cost $73,000,000; but 
does support at least the development of prototypes of systems 
processors to see if they are the answer to terminal weather 
problems.

Landing and navigational aids programs

    Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--The Committee has 
not provided the additional funding of $42,600,000 contained in 
the House allowance for the wide area augmentation system. It 
should be pointed out that the House Committee increased the 
funds and has identified that approximately $34,000,000 in 
additional funding might be necessary in order to cover prime 
contract costs that exceeded the original program estimates due 
to the Wilcox contract termination and the subsequent 
renegotiation with Hughes. The Committee understands that 
additional funding might be essential to continue the safety 
critical software development and system engineering for the 
initial WAAS operational implementation. However, FAA should 
have been cognizant of this and understood that slippages in 
software and development were a byproduct of a contract 
termination and, due to budget constraints, the Committee 
cannot provide the additional funding at this particular time. 
The Committee, however, has provided the $8,600,000 which was 
transferred from the ``Operations'' account for leased 
communications.
    National satellite test bed.--The Committee supports the 
House increase for additional funds for the national satellite 
test bed; however, due to budget constraints, has provided 
$6,004,735. This funding would be used to support 
implementation of augmentation systems that would be used to 
improve the accuracy, integrity, and availability of GPS. The 
national satellite test bed should provided FAA with the 
capability to monitor and evaluate in parallel the functions 
and processes developed by the WAAS contractor for each 
component as developed by the contractor.

              AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

En route programs

    Air traffic operations management [ATOMS].--The Committee 
concurs with the House's position regarding the air traffic 
operations management system. The funding provided, $1,000,000, 
is the same funding level as appropriated for fiscal year 1996. 
In light of other, higher-priority programs, the Committee 
concurs with the House's reduction.
    Air route traffic control center [ARTCC] improvement/plant 
modernization/space expansion.--FAA is requesting $71,659,700 
to perform needed modernization and expansion at its ARTCC's to 
accommodate new equipment that will modernize controller 
displays and communications systems. The Committee has provided 
$64,333,000, this includes $250,000 for the relocation of the 
emergency operations facility in Kenai, AK, to the Anchorage 
Air Route Traffic Control Center.
    Air traffic management.--The Committee has provided 
$40,300,000 for the air traffic management function, which is 
the same level as that provided in fiscal year 1996 and has not 
assumed that the $3,300,000 for the Herndon, VA, facility's 
lease payments under the ``Operations'' account.
    Volcano monitor.--The Committee has included additional 
funding for the Alaska Volcano Observatory for equipment and 
data transmission facilities on suspect volcanoes across the 
Alaska peninsula and the Aleutian Islands.
    Spectrum auction impact.--Congress enacted legislation that 
has resulted in the sale of aeronautical radio spectrum used 
for operation of FAA long-range radars and FAA microwave radio 
communications links. As a result of these sales, FAA must 
relinquish operation of some of its communication and radar 
systems effective January 1, 1999. FAA is the largest single 
Government user of radio spectrum, and each frequency 
assignment supports safety, capacity, and efficiency. 
Therefore, the loss of such spectrum required for existing and 
future airspace operations could have serious impacts on the 
aviation traffic services provided. Proceeds from the spectrum 
auction have generated more than $20,000,000,000 to date. 
However, none of these funds have been provided as compensation 
to the Federal Aviation Administration since they were affected 
by the frequency loss. In December 1995, the FAA was told that 
no reimbursement would be made from those sales, and that it 
was up to the FAA to convert the agency's communications and 
radar systems to other frequencies. During the formulation of 
the fiscal year 1997 budget, FAA was not fully aware of the 
impact of these sales, or the decision regarding 
nonreimbursement for frequency loss. Therefore, the Department 
concurs with the increase which has been proposed by the House. 
The understanding is, however, that FAA must relinquish 
operation of only some of these frequencies effective January 
1, 1999, or fiscal year 2000. The Committee understands that, 
in addition to the funding that has been provided this year, 
$45,000,000, that as much as an additional $40,000,000 might be 
required in fiscal year 1998 or 1999. The Committee will work 
with FAA in the development of next year's budget in order to 
identify sources of funding to pay for the necessary 
reengineering.

Terminal programs

    Terminal automation program.--The Committee has reduced the 
terminal automation program by $11,400,000 because it is 
unclear as to how and when FAA will use the standard terminal 
automation replacement system at Dallas-Fort Worth for the 
center TRACON automation system demonstration. There is 
considerable uncertainty surrounding the STARS software 
development, which has the potential to delay system 
implementation. The Committee understands that on October 1, 
1996, FAA plans to award a STARS production contract to one of 
the competing vendors, and that the existing schedule would 
call for system testing to be completed in November 1998 and 
first site implementation in December 1998. However, the 
Committee understands that FAA is currently rebaselining the 
STARS cost and schedule estimates, because the STARS software 
development costs are escalating, and that the original 
estimate for software development was 90,000 lines of new 
modified code, but current estimates place these lines of code 
modifications for TRACON's at nearly 300,000. Because of this, 
FAA has yet to prepare a plan for developing the STARS hardware 
and software needed at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport to 
develop, test, and support the center TRACON automation system. 
The Committee has provided $4,800,000 to sustain DBRITE 
equipment until STARS is deployed, and another $1,500,000 to 
develop and implement new terminal operational software and 
$10,000,000 for STARS software and hardware development.
    Airport movement area safety system [AMASS].--The 
administration has requested $15,393,000 for the procurement 
and installation of 14 production systems of the airport 
movement area safety system [AMASS]. It is the Committee's 
understanding that meetings were held as late as May 1996 for 
the rebaselining of AMASS program dates and costs, and that 
decisions have still not been made since the cost estimates 
made 3 years ago are not consistent with the proposed costs 
being submitted by present contractors. Because of these 
slippages, original schedules have been delayed, the contract 
award for the full-scale development models is currently being 
negotiated, and the initial production contract will most 
likely be awarded in January 1997. Under this schedule, the 
full-scale development systems could not be completed until 
March 1998, and at that time approval would be exercised for 
full-scale production systems. Therefore, the Committee 
believes the full amount requested can be deferred because 
under the new schedule, production models will not be ordered 
until, at the earliest, June 1998, and that unobligated 
balances of approximately $12,000,000 from prior years should 
be sufficient to allow FAA to order three full-scale 
development models and six to seven initial production systems. 
The Committee, however, has provided the amount requested only 
because the program is vitally important for safety reasons but 
it reserves the right to revisit this issue in conference.
    Terminal air traffic control facilities, replace.--The 
Committee has provided funding above that requested for the 
construction of the Merrill Field air traffic control tower. 
These funds would be used to replace the approximately 40-year-
old control tower that is presently located at the field.
    Terminal voice switch replacement/enhancement.--The 
Committee has reduced the requested funding for this program by 
$5,600,000. It is the Committee's understanding that, out of 
the 26 switches in the original fiscal year 1997 budget 
estimate, as many as 15 would not be ordered until late fiscal 
year 1997 or early 1998, and that these 15 switches would not 
be delivered to the field until the first quarter of fiscal 
year 1999 at the earliest. Therefore, the Committee believes 
that the funding associated with these 15 switches can be 
deferred until fiscal year 1998.
    NAS facilities/OSHA and environmental compliance.--The 
Committee has provided a total $27,705,000 for OSHA and 
environmental standards compliance. This restores $6,705,000 of 
the House's cut.
    Potomac TRACON.--The Committee has provided the full amount 
requested for Potomac TRACON, which was $1,000,000. The House 
had included funding above that requested for this particular 
project. The Committee believes that the administration's 
request is sufficient to meet proposed program initiatives for 
the Potomac TRACON. FAA is currently reviewing proposals for 
the location of this TRACON, and additional funding as proposed 
by the House is not necessary at this time.
    Northern California TRACON.--The Committee has provided the 
full amount requested for the northern California TRACON, which 
was $8,700,000. The House's allowance had reduced this project 
by over $6,000,000. The Committee believes the reduction of 
this funding is inappropriate, and that there is a definite 
high operational need for fully funding this request. Existing 
facilities this new TRACON replaces are in poor condition and 
cannot be expanded. Funding requested was based on a schedule 
which would allow for a November 2000 commissioning date. 
Fiscal year 1997 funds were intended for site development, 
power system procurement, program management, and system 
engineering support. Funding at the House's level would limit 
these activities to only site development, and could push this 
project's commissioning back by several years.
    Atlanta TRACON.--The House has included $3,500,000 for an 
Atlanta TRACON, $3,000,000 of this funding was not requested by 
the administration. The Committee has provided the amount 
requested to complete land acquisition, environmental impact 
statements, and preliminary engineering work.
    GRR/GRT radio replacement.--The Committee has not provided 
the funding included in the House allowance ($20,000,000 above 
the administration's request) because the current radio system 
is based on a design that was first formulated in the forties 
and consists of voice-based networks that use an antiquated 
modulation system. Given the increasing difficulties in 
providing new frequencies to air traffic controllers, and 
frequency congestion often experienced in metropolitan areas, 
the Committee supports the new digital radios which are under 
development by the Federal Aviation Administration, which it 
believes will effectively increase frequencies available by a 
factor of 4 to 5.

Flight service programs

    Automated surface observing system [ASOS].--The Committee 
has provided $11,275,000 for ASOS, which is $9,906,000 above 
the House level and the administration's request.
    The Committee notes that the administration did not request 
any funding for procurement of ASOS. However, the FAA has 
identified a need for ASOS implementation funding to satisfy 
more than 200 sites in fiscal year 1997 and beyond, with a hard 
requirement for 55 systems in fiscal year 1997.
    The Committee reiterates its concern for the unfunded 
shortfall and encourages the FAA to close the gap of installed 
versus commissioned sites as expeditiously as possible. The 
Committee provides an additional $10,000,000 to ASOS for the 
procurement of 55 ASOS units to satisfy the identified fiscal 
year 1997 requirement and requests the FAA to submit 
anticipated program requirements for future years. The 
Committee has also included $1,275,000 for the 44 ASOS units in 
Alaska that still neeed to be commissioned.
    AWOS/ASOS augmentation.--The Committee has provided 
additional funding above that requested for the installation of 
10 closed-circuit television systems to supplement the existing 
AWOS/ASOS weather systems in the State of Alaska. Based on 
information provided by regional FAA authorities, the 
approximate cost for each unit is $45,000 to $55,000, based on 
their experience with existing units in the field.
    Automated weather observing system [AWOS].--The Committee 
has not provided any funding for AWOS. The funds provided by 
the House were not requested.

Landing and navigational aids program

    Instrument landing system [ILS] establish/upgrade.--The 
Committee has included $1,400,000 above the request for a CAT I 
with MALSR support for runway 36Right at Huntsville-Madison 
County Airport, AL. The Committee understands that this 
installation has received a benefit-to-cost finding of 2.33.
    Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--Funding for the wide 
area augmentation system has been moved from the air traffic 
control facilities and equipment procurement activity to the 
engineering, development, test, and evaluation activity under 
landing and navigational aids programs.
    Loran-C upgrades.--The House has provided $5,650,000 for 
loran-C upgrades which were not requested by the 
administration. The FAA has appealed this funding, stating that 
the agency will continue to rely on the technology enhancements 
offered by the global positioning system technology, which is 
fundamental to future navigation and landing automation plans. 
The present radio navigation plan which has been adopted by 
several governmental agencies calls for the phaseout of the 
loran-C radio navigation system by the year 2000. In addition, 
the estimated total cost of loran-C between fiscal year 2000 
and 2015 would be approximately $350,000,000, which the agency 
cannot afford. Continuation of the WAAS system will permit the 
orderly removal of ground-based navigation systems, including 
loran-C. FAA believes it cannot financially sustain nor justify 
on a cost-benefit basis maintaining two navigation systems at 
the same time.
    The Committee has provided $3,650,000 above the 
administration's request for the loran-C upgrade program. Of 
this amount, $650,000 is to be used for the automatic blink 
system upgrade. The Committee is concerned that the radio 
navigation plan which called for the phasing out of the loran-C 
program by the year 2000 was based on an optimistic assumption 
regarding the immediate and successful implementation and 
commissioning of the GPS system. In order to maintain and 
upgrade the existing loran-C systems and to reduce maintenance 
costs associated with those systems, the Committee has provided 
$3,000,000 above that requested by the administration for 
upgrade and modernization of existing systems.
    Precision approach path indicators [PAPI].--The Committee 
has provided $3,125,000 for the PAPI navigational aid systems. 
The Committee has included funding with the understanding that 
FAA intends to replace existing visual approach slope 
indicators with PAPI, and funds are needed to prevent existing 
production lines from being closed.
    Anemometers.--The Committee has provided $375,000 for three 
off-airport anemometers for wind direction and speed 
measurement at Juneau International Airport, AK.

Other ATC facilities programs

    Air navigation facilities--provide.--The Committee has 
agreed with the House's reduction for the air navigation 
facilities request, which has been deleted because of budget 
constraints. It is the Committee's understanding that the 
Department can accept this reduction given the need to fund 
other, more high priority programs.

                        major equipment activity

                                         TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   City                               Delivery dates                   Commissioning 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\...................  Dec. 21, 1995.                 
Washington National......................  July 8, 1993 \1\....................  Jan. 4, 1996.                  
Denver...................................  July 6, 1993 \1\....................  Aug. 11, 1995.                 
Chicago O'Hare...........................  Sept. 17, 1993 \1\..................  June 1996.\2\                  
St. Louis................................  Jan. 3, 1994 \1\....................  Feb. 1, 1995.                  
Orlando..................................  Mar. 17, 1994 \1\...................  Apr. 23, 1996.                 
New Orleans..............................  Apr. 2, 1994 \1\....................  Mar. 18, 1996.                 
Tampa....................................  May 16, 1994 \1\....................  Apr. 2, 1996.                  
Miami....................................  June 6, 1994 \1\....................  June 1996.\2\                  
Pittsburgh...............................  July 10, 1994 \1\...................      Do.                        
Andrews..................................  Aug. 13, 1994 \1\...................      Do.                        
Newark...................................  ...do...............................  To be determined.\3\           
Boston...................................  Aug. 29, 1994 \1\...................  Jan. 9, 1996.                  
Kansas City..............................  Oct. 2, 1994 \1\....................  July 18, 1995.                 
Detroit..................................  Oct. 15, 1994 \1\...................  June 1996.\2\                  
Houston Hobby............................  Apr. 8, 1995 \2\....................      Do.                        
Dallas Love..............................  Nov. 1, 1994 \1\....................  Jan. 31, 1996.                 
Oklahoma City--PSF facility..............  Dec. 8, 1994 \1\....................  NA                             
Dallas/Fort Worth........................  Jan. 30, 1995 \1\...................  May 1996.\2\                   
Dayton...................................  Dec. 19, 1994 \1\...................  To be determined.              
Wichita..................................  Feb. 6, 1995 \1\....................  Sept. 5, 1995.                 
Indianapolis.............................  Mar. 5, 1995 \1\....................  June 1996.\2\                  
Cincinnati...............................  Dec. 9, 1995 \1\....................  July 1996.\2\                  
Philadelphia.............................  August 1995 \1\.....................  June 1996.\2\                  
Phoenix..................................  Mar. 29, 1996.......................  September 1996.\2\             
Milwaukee................................  May 12, 1995........................  July 1996.\2\                  
Chicago Midway...........................  To be determined \3\................  To be determined.\3\           
Cleveland................................  September 7, 1995...................  June 1996.\2\                  
Columbus.................................  Nov. 10, 1995.......................  June 1996.\2\                  
San Juan.................................  To be determined \3\................  To be determined.\3\           
West Palm Beach..........................  June 8, 1995 \1\....................  May 1996.\2\                   
Nashville................................  May 1996 \2\........................  October 1996.\2\               
Louisville...............................  August 1996 \2\.....................  December 1996.\2\              
Washington Dulles........................  Jan. 9, 1996........................  August 1996.\2\                
Charlotte................................  July 7, 1995 \1\....................  Dec. 22, 1995.\2\              
Salt Lake City...........................  Nov. 10, 1995.......................  July 1996.\2\                  
Fort Lauderdale..........................  To be determined \3\................  To be determined.\3\           
Baltimore................................  Jan, 5, 1996........................  July 1996.\2\                  
Raleigh/Durham...........................  May 1996 \2\........................  November 1996.\2\              
Minneapolis..............................  ...do...............................  October 1996.\2\               
Oklahoma City............................  Apr. 1, 1996........................  September 1996.\2\             
Tulsa....................................  August 1996 \2\.....................  December 1996.\2\              
New York City (JFK and LGA) \4\..........  To be determined \3\................  To be 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 1996.        
San Francisco.................  November 1991........  October 1995.    
Dallas/Fort Worth.............  February 1992........  March 1995.      
Philadelphia..................  ...do................  March 1996.      
Los Angeles \3\...............  August 1992..........  April 1995.      
Detroit.......................  ...do................  December 1994.   
Cleveland.....................  ...do................      Do.          
Boston........................  ...do................  March 1995.      
Portland......................  ...do................  December 1994.   
Atlanta.......................  September 1992.......  January 1995.    
Seattle.......................  September 1992.......  December 1993.   
Los Angeles \4\...............  February 1993........  February 1995.   
Denver (DIA) \3\ \4\..........  March 1993...........  May 1995.        
St. Louis.....................  December 1993........  February 1995.   
Denver (DIA) \4\..............  ...do................  October 1995.    
New York-Kennedy..............  January 1994.........  February 1995.   
Minneapolis...................  July 1994............  March 1995.      
Anchorage.....................  August 1994..........  October 1995.    
New Orleans...................  October 1994.........  September 1995.  
Baltimore.....................  November 1994........  June 1995.       
Kansas City...................  December 1994........  May 1995.        
Miami.........................  February 1995........  August 1996.     
Houston \3\...................  ...do................  August 1995.     
Memphis.......................  June 1995............  October 1996.    
Chicago.......................  ...do................  April 1996.      
Houston \3\...................  August 1996..........  August 1997.     
Charlotte \5\.................  November 1997........  November 1998.   
Raleigh-Durham \5\............  February 1998........  February 1999.   
Washington National...........  January 1996.........  May 1997.        
Cincinnati \5\................  October 1995.........  July 1996.       
Dulles \5\....................  November 1996........  November 1997.   
San Diego \5\.................  November 1995........  December 1996.   
Orlando \5\...................  May 1998.............  May 1999.        
Andrews AFB...................  November 1998........  November 1999.   
Orange County \5\.............  February 1999........      Do.          
Las Vegas \6\.................  February 1997........  February 1998.   
New York-LaGuardia............  August 1998..........  August 1999.     
Newark........................  August 1997..........  August 1998.     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.                    
\6\ Formerly Tampa.                                                     

                  Instrument landing systems--establish

        Location                                                  Runway
CAT I site:
    Detroit Metro, MI.............................................    22
    Huntsville-Madison, AL........................................   36R

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

               Instrument landing systems--GRN-27--replace

        Location                                                  Runway
Tulsa, OK.........................................................   36R
Dayton (International), OH........................................   06L
Minneapolis, MN...................................................   29L
Omaha, NE.........................................................   14R
San Antonio, TX...................................................   12R
LaGuardia, NY.....................................................    22
Charlotte-Douglas, NC.............................................   36L
Eugene, OR........................................................    16
Memphis, TN.......................................................   36L
Atlanta, GA.......................................................   08R
Jacksonville, FL..................................................    07
Chattanooga, TN...................................................    20
Birmingham, AL....................................................    05
Greer, SC.........................................................    03
Columbia, SC......................................................    11
Shreveport, LA....................................................    14
Tampa, FL.........................................................   36L
San Francisco, CA.................................................   28R
Sacramento, CA....................................................   16R
Omaha, NE.........................................................   14R
Huntsville, AL....................................................   18R
Covington, KY.....................................................   36L
FAA Depot, OK...........................................................
Atlanta, GA.......................................................   08L
    Do............................................................   09R
Raleigh, NC.......................................................   05R
New Orleans, LA...................................................    10
Nashville, TN.....................................................   02L

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

                          Runway visual range

Andrews AFB, MD
Atlantic City, NJ
Baltimore, MD
Cincinnati, OH
Columbus, OH
Detroit (YIP), MI
Hayannis, MA
Martha's Vineyard, MA
Nantucket, MA
Boise, ID
Billings, MT
Casper, WY
Augusta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Shreveport, LA
Alliance, TX
Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX
El Paso, TX
Grand Rapids, MI
Burbank, CA
Boise, ID

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

                Terminal air traffic control facilities

Funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in 1989-93:
  Fort Smith, AR
  Houston (IAH), TX
  Roswell, NM
  Los Angeles, CA
  Moses Lake, WA
  Allentown, PA
  St. Louis (ATCT), MO
  Chicago (O'Hare), IL
  Helena, MT
  Montgomery, AL
  Minneapolis, MN
  Pontiac, MI
  Covington, KY
  San Juan, PR
  Chicago (Midway), KY
  San Diego, CA
  St. Louis (ASDE), MO
  Santa Barbara, CA
  Mobile (Brookley), AL
  Worcester, MA
  St. Paul, MN
  Islip, NY
  Bangor, ME
  Salt Lake City (ATCT), UT
  Everett, WA
Phase III for terminal air traffic control facilities started in fiscal 
year 1995 and before:
  Windsor Locks, CT
  Merrill, AK
  Portland OR
  Salt Lake City (TRACON), UT
Phase II funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in 
fiscal year 1996 and before:
  Champaign, IL
  Bedford, MA
  Albany, NY
  Little Rock, AR
  Dallas (Addison), TX
  Salina, KS
  Syracuse, NY
  Newport News, VA
  Roanoke, VA
  Newburgh, NY
  Houston (Hobby), TX
Phase I funding for terminal air traffic control facilities to be 
started in fiscal year 1997:
  Abilene, TX
  East St. Louis, IL
  Seattle (ATCT), WA
  Riverside, CA
  Richmond, VA
  Savannah, GA
  Boston (TRACON), MA
  Merrill Field, AK

            nonair traffic control facilities and equipment

Support equipment

    NAS management automation program.--The Committee has 
provided $1,300,000, the original amount requested. The House 
provided no funding for this activity. The Committee believes 
that the restored funding is necessary to achieve more cost-
efficient management of the national airspace system 
infrastructure.
    Hazardous materials management.--The Committee has restored 
the $3,000,000 which was cut by the House's action for 
hazardous materials management. FAA has appealed that the 
reductions proposed by the House would not enable them to meet 
all requirements for activities planned at currently known 
contamination sites. The FAA's Technical Center is listed on 
the national priorities list, and has numerous site cleanup 
actions underway. Located within the Technical Center 
boundaries is the Atlantic City reservoir, which is owned and 
operated by the Atlantic City municipal utilities. The 
Technical Center is surrounded by many waterways that 
ultimately drain into the city's reservoir. Any delays in the 
agreed-upon cleanup of known sites at the Technical Center 
could jeopardize the status of the city's water supply and 
cause tremendous liability for the agency and jeopardize the 
drinking water of the city. Therefore, the Committee has 
restored this funding, and places a high priority on response 
to known hazardous materials sites.

Training, equipment and facilities

    Distance learning.--The Committee concurs with the House's 
observation regarding the distance learning project as proposed 
by the FAA. The Committee has heard from a number of the unions 
that support the inspector general's report on the interactive 
video teletraining. The full scale acquisition activities 
should be examined in light of FAA's need to invest in quality 
training for its existing work force. The Committee believes 
that on-the-job training at the FAA Academy would be a better 
investment given the current climate, the need for hazardous 
materials training, and the need to keep the experience levels 
of systems specialists up to date.

                            mission support

    Permanent change of station [PCS].--The Committee is on the 
record for several years questioning the management of the 
permanent change of station program by FAA, and believes that 
FAA has expanded the scope and payment of PCS moves beyond 
necessary levels. The Committee believes, however, that the 
House reduction of $3,000,000 is unwise, The Committee believes 
that with the possible closure of 16 nonautomated flight 
service stations in 1997 these funds are necessary to move the 
employees scheduled to be displaced.
    Technical services support contract [TSSC].--The Committee 
has provided the full amount requested for the technical 
services support contract, which was $65,900,000, and has not 
provided the increase of $5,100,000 as proposed by the House. 
The warehouse equipment issue regarding spare parts, though 
serious, is something that could be more effectively addressed 
through the use of FAA's existing personnel and optimization 
and coordination of facilities and equipment programs. The 
Committee believes that the current FAA request is sufficient 
to accomplish the program requirements.

                     personnel and related expenses

    Personnel and related expenses.--The Committee has provided 
the full amount requested, $217,000,000, which is the same as 
the House allowance.
    Installation of CASA--reductions of delays.--Over the last 
2 years, the Committee has repeatedly voiced concerns regarding 
the implementation timeline for the controller automating 
spacing aid, also known as converging runway display aid 
[CRDA]. This is an important feature of the FAA's automated 
radar tracking system IIIA and a feature which is currently 
being adapted to the ARTS IIIE system which is in use at the 
New York terminal radar approach control facility [TRACON]. The 
CRDA (in combination with the ARTS IIIE) greatly enhances the 
ability to use two runways safely during instrument weather 
conditions and, therefore, increases airport capacity and 
reduces delays. The Committee notes that there has been 
inadequate progress made on final installation/implementation 
of CRDA for Newark International Airport--in fact, the original 
deadline has slipped at least 6 months from September 1996 to 
March 1997. The Committee has recently received verbal 
assurances from the FAA that with the appropriate priority 
placed on this project, CRDA could be fully operational by 
March 1997. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to take 
all steps necessary to make the CRDA fully operational by the 
March 1997 deadline. Recent reports of extraordinary delays at 
Newark International Airport serve as a reminder that there is 
a need for meaningful and timely action at the highest levels 
of FAA to take all steps necessary to further reduce delays at 
Newark.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................    $185,698,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     195,700,000
House allowance.........................................     185,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                             187,000,000

    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 $187,000,000 for research, engineering, 
and development. This level is $8,700,000 below the budget 
request and $2,000,000 above the House allowance. The Committee 
suggests the following allocation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year    Fiscal year                              
                                                            1996       1997 budget      House        Committee  
                                                       appropriation    estimate      allowance   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development and infrastructure:                                                                          
    System planning and resource management..........     $2,000,000    $4,857,000    $1,860,000     $2,000,000 
    Technical laboratory facility....................      8,000,000     6,765,000     6,200,000      6,765,000 
    Center for advanced aviation system development                                                             
     [CAASD].........................................  .............     5,200,000     5,200,000      5,200,000 
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.....................................     10,000,000    16,822,000    13,260,000     13,965,000 
                                                      ==========================================================
Capacity and air traffic management technology:                                                                 
    Air traffic management technology................      3,500,000     6,757,000     4,000,000      4,000,000 
    Oceanic automation program.......................      8,000,000     6,539,000     6,539,000      6,539,000 
    Runway incursion reduction.......................      4,000,000     2,766,000     2,766,000      7,400,000 
    System capacity, planning, and improvements......      9,000,000     8,950,000     8,950,000      8,950,000 
    Cockpit technology...............................      6,700,000     5,584,000     3,000,000      3,000,000 
    General Aviation and Vertical Technology Flight                                                             
     Program.........................................      2,600,000     3,894,000     3,000,000      2,600,000 
    Modeling, analysis, and simulation...............      3,400,000     4,133,000     4,133,000      3,800,000 
    Automation system design.........................  .............     1,947,000  ............      1,000,000 
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.....................................     37,200,000    40,570,000    32,388,000     37,289,000 
                                                      ==========================================================
Communications, navigation, and surveillance:                                                                   
    Communications...................................     10,000,000    10,798,000     6,000,000      6,000,000 
    Navigation.......................................     13,000,000     9,573,000    15,000,000     11,573,000 
    Surveillance.....................................  .............  ............  ............      2,000,000 
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.......................................     23,000,000    20,371,000    21,000,000     19,573,000 
                                                      ==========================================================
Weather..............................................      6,493,000     6,411,000    13,000,000     10,000,000 
Airport technology...................................      6,000,000     6,000,000     5,200,000      6,000,000 
Aircraft safety technology:                                                                                     
    Fire research and safety.........................      5,700,000     6,993,000     6,993,000      6,993,000 
    Advanced materials/structural safety.............      2,000,000     3,065,000     3,065,000      3,065,000 
    Propulsion and fuel systems......................      3,400,000     3,779,000     3,779,000      3,400,000 
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.......      4,713,000     2,063,000     2,063,000      2,063,000 
    Aging aircraft...................................     20,000,000    13,889,000    13,889,000     13,889,000 
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research      2,705,000     3,094,000     2,705,000      3,094,000 
    Aviation safety risk analysis....................  .............     6,116,000     2,500,000      4,000,000 
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.......................................     37,978,000    38,999,000    34,994,000     36,504,000 
                                                      ==========================================================
System security technology:                                                                                     
    Explosives and weapons detection.................     29,000,000    27,397,000    27,397,000     27,397,000 
    Airport security technology integra-  tion.......      1,000,000     2,258,000     2,258,000      2,258,000 
    Aviation security human factors..................      2,549,000     5,039,000     2,542,000      3,549,000 
    Aircraft hardening...............................      3,496,000     1,361,000     1,361,000      1,361,000 
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.......................................     36,045,000    36,045,000    33,558,000     34,565,000 
                                                      ==========================================================
Human factors and aviation medicine:                                                                            
    Flightdeck/maintenance/system integration human                                                             
     factors.........................................     11,182,000    10,898,000    11,500,000     10,898,000 
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human                                                                 
     factors.........................................     10,000,000     8,606,000    10,500,000      8,606,000 
    Aeromedical research.............................      2,500,000     4,178,000     4,000,000      3,800,000 
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.......................................     23,682,000    23,682,000    26,000,000     23,304,000 
                                                      ==========================================================
Environment and energy...............................      3,800,000     3,800,000     3,600,000      3,800,000 
Innovative/cooperative research......................      1,500,000     3,000,000     2,000,000      2,000,000 
                                                      ==========================================================
      Total..........................................    185,698,000   195,700,000   185,000,000    187,000,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    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 fully funded the 
$280,000 estimated for the Radio Technical Commission for 
Aeronautics [RTCA].
    FAA Technical Center--Laboratory.--The House has reduced 
the administration's request by $565,000 for work at the FAA 
Technical Center. The Committee fully funds the administration 
request.
    Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development [CAASD].--
The Committee supports the House position which fully funds 
CAASD, which is 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 $2,757,000. 
The Committee believes that restoration of these funds is not 
necessary and agrees that this long-term research can be 
reduced in order to fund more pressing safety-related research. 
The funding provided, $4,000,000, is a 14-percent increase over 
the 1996 funding level.
    Runway incursion reduction.--The Committee has provided 
$4,634,000 above the administration's request for the runway 
incursion reduction program, with the understanding that these 
funds be used to continue vital research in a number of areas 
with the goal of preventing and reducing the possibilities of 
runway incursions. With the myriad number of movements on 
airport surfaces, including catering trucks, baggage handling 
trucks, fire and police equipment, small general aviation 
aircraft, and large scheduled and unscheduled jets, the 
Committee feels very strongly that the FAA needs to do more in 
the area of runway incursion. A major concern expressed by the 
National Transportation Safety Board is the increased number of 
incidents reported on runway surfaces and surrounding areas. 
Whether these incidents are due to poorly lighted runways, bad 
signage, pilot error, or bad weather, the Committee is 
determined that research in this vital area continue. The 
Committee was disappointed to see that the administration had 
requested less funding for this activity in 1997 than had been 
provided in fiscal year 1996. There are a number of competing 
technologies that could be employed, including improvements to 
the airport movement advisory system [AMASS] and the airport 
surface detection equipment [ASDE]; loop technologies; and stop 
bars, which are widely used in European countries. The 
Committee does not take a position on the advisability of any 
one particular product or solution, but encourages FAA to 
continue research in this area.
    Cockpit technology.--The Committee has reduced the 
administration's request under the cockpit technology by 
$2,584,000 due to higher priorities than the TCAS-IV research.
    General Aviation and Vertical Flight Technology Program.--
The Committee has provided $2,600,000 for the Vertical Flight 
Program, the same as that provided in fiscal year 1996.
    Modeling analysis and simulation.--The Committee has 
provided $3,800,000 for modeling analysis and simulation, which 
is $400,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level.
    Automation system design.--The House has eliminated funding 
for this activity. The Committee believes that this research is 
operationally driven and can safely be reduced to $1,000,000.

              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 $6,000,000. 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 on the airport surface.
    Navigation.--The House has provided $5,427,000 above the 
amount requested by the administration. The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 above the requested amount for the 
navigation line item. The Committee concurs with the House's 
observation that under the administration's request, important 
navigation initiatives such as the local area augmentation 
system, interface with the wide area augmentation system, 
architecture research, and technical standards development 
would be jeopardized, and, therefore, has provided funding 
above the amount requested for this line item.
    Surveillance.--The Committee has included $2,000,000 above 
that requested for the surveillance research effort. The 
Committee in the past has supported research for the terminal 
area surveillance system [TASS], which is to eventually provide 
a single replacement radar for the current mix of multiple 
aircraft and hazardous weather surveillance radars. Key to this 
effort is the development of the next generation active phased 
array radar, which will replace both the ASR-9 and terminal 
doppler weather radar. At major airports today, ASR-9 radar is 
used for air surveillance and TDWR is used to detect hazardous 
weather phenomena. An objective of the program would be to 
eventually replace both of these radars. An additional benefit 
of TASS is that FAA should be able to place the system on 
airport property. Currently, FAA must locate some ASR-9 systems 
and most TDWR systems on land that is near an airport, which 
has created land acquisition and environmental problems at 
several major airports, preventing them from receiving either 
the ASR-9 or TDWR system. Even in a constrained budget 
environment, the Committee supports the continuation of 
research in this area.

                                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 $3,589,000 above that requested 
by the administration, which is $3,000,00 below that provided 
in the House allowance for the Weather Program. Of the funds 
provided, the Committee directs that $400,000 be used for 
research on wind shears and downdrafts on the Juneau, AK, 
approach.

                           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 $6,000,000 to $5,200,000 
stating that the reduction is due to budget constraints. The 
Committee has restored funding to last year's level of 
$6,000,000.

                       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.
    Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee has provided 
the same level, $3,400,000, as the fiscal year 1996 level for 
propulsion and fuel systems. 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.
    Aging aircraft.--The Committee has provided the full amount 
requested for FAA's research in the aging aircraft area, 
$13,889,000. This research supports airborne data monitoring 
systems, corrosion fatigue research, the Center for Aviation 
Systems Reliability, and the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive 
Inspection Validation Center [AANC], 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.
    The Committee commends the FAA for its consideration of a 
center of excellence to support continued airworthiness 
assurance. This center will bring together universities and a 
national laboratory to focus on problems in aircraft 
inspection, aircraft structural repair, and crashworthiness. It 
will provide a mechanism for industry financial support of 
projects mutually beneficial to the FAA and the aircraft 
industry.
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research.--The 
Committee has provided the full amount requested. The Committee 
notes the tragic death of two passengers in Florida, apparently 
from the catastrophic failure of a titanium part in a jet 
engine. This incident demonstrates the continued priority of 
research concerning titanium, nickel, and composite materials.
    Aviation safety risk analysis.--The aviation system risk 
analysis activity is a new program which had previously been 
under the aging aircraft effort. This research should enhance 
and complement the use of FAA's existing operational safety 
systems, which include the aviation safety analysis system 
[ASAS] and the safety performance analysis system [SPAS]. Given 
the recent Valujet crash, the Committee believes that 
fundamental research is needed for complete, thorough and 
timely examination of FAA's existing safety analysis reporting 
systems, and that analysis lead to better targeting of FAA's 
inspection resources. This should not replace existing efforts 
being conducted by FAA, but should augment and further define 
existing activities.

                       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 
provided the full amount requested, $27,397,000, 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 $2,258,000 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 
$1,258,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level.
    Aviation security human factors.--The Committee has 
provided $3,549,000 for the aviation security human factors 
research, which is $1,000,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 1996. Research in this area is used for domestic 
passenger profiling, screener training systems, and explosives 
detection system deployment support. The Committee believes 
that severely reducing 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 $1,361,000 
for the aircraft hardening activity. The Committee believes 
that given the recent Valujet tragedy, continued reseach on 
hardened cargo containers, hardening specifications on 
containers, and aircraft fuselages is absolutely necessary.

                  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 integration human factors.--
The House has added $602,000 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 $8,606,000 for the human factors 
research in air traffic control and airway facilities, which is 
the same as the requested amount.
    Aeromedical research.--The Committee has provided the 
aeromedical research funding $3,800,000, which is $1,300,000 
above the fiscal year 1996 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 
$3,800,000 for the environment and energy line item. Work in 
this area is primarly concerned with environmental assessments 
in the noise area, research and noise reduction technology, and 
research in engine emissions reduction and control. Therefore, 
the Committee has provided $200,000 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.
    Innovative/cooperative research.--The Committee believes 
that funding is necessary in this area so that FAA will be able 
to best leverage scarce resources, and receive 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 
provided $2,000,000 for this activity, which is $500,000 above 
the fiscal year 1996 level.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

            (including rescission of contract authorization)

Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,500,000,000)
    (Rescission)........................................   -664,000,000 
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,500,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,500,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                         (1,500,000,000)

    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 for fiscal 
year 1997 and for the payment of previous years' obligations.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,450,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,350,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,300,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                         (1,460,000,000)

    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 1997 is $1,460,000,000. This is $160,000,000 above the 
House allowance and $110,000,000 above 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 30, 1996, 248 airports have been approved for 
collection of PFC's in the amount of $12,936,932,256. During 
calendar year 1995, airports collected $1,046,234,802 in PFC 
charges and $1,010,000,000 is estimated to be collected in 
calendar year 1996. 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 $934,000,000 in calendar year 1997, 
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 1996 $116,000,000 that would have been 
distributed as grants based on passenger enplanements to PFC-
charging airports is being redistributed to small airports. In 
1997, FAA expects this redistributed amount to increase to 
about $123,000,000 under an obligation ceiling of 
$1,350,000,000. 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 $50,000,000 below last 
year's level, small airports should not be affected because 
they will have access in 1997 to this additional amount. And, 
as noted above, many other airports are supplementing their 
grant funds with PFC's.

                                        AIP FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee   
                                                             Budget estimate   House allowance   recommendation 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation limitation..................................    $1,350,000,000    $1,300,000,000    $1,460,000,000
Entitlements:                                                                                                   
    Primary airports......................................       373,235,433       353,641,246       416,027,122
    Cargo airports (3.5 percent)..........................        31,917,154        29,121,503        38,475,300
    Alaska supplemental...................................        10,528,980        10,528,980        10,528,980
    States (12 percent)...................................       142,486,919       134,701,143       159,813,727
    Carryover entitlements................................       100,000,000       100,000,000       100,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal entitlements...............................       658,168,486       627,992,872       724,645,129
                                                           =====================================================
Discretionary set-asides:                                                                                       
    Noise (12.5 percent)..................................       148,423,874       140,313,690       168,264,298
    Reliever airports (5 percent).........................        59,369,550        56,125,476        66,505,719
    Commercial service (1.5 percent)......................        17,810,865        16,837,643        19,951,716
    System planning (0.75 percent)........................         8,905,432         8,418,821         9,975,858
    Military airport program (2.5 percent)................        29,684,775        28,062,738        33,262,860
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal discretionary set-asides...................       264,194,496       249,758,368       295,950,451
                                                           =====================================================
Returned entitlements: Small airport/hub fund.............       102,637,018        97,248,760       114,404,420
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...................................       658,168,486       627,992,872       724,645,129
      Total discretionary.................................       691,831,514       672,007,128       735,354,871
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Grand total.........................................     1,350,000,000     1,300,000,000     1,460,000,000
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Based on preliminary enplanement data for calendar year 1995.                                             

                           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 1997, 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 1997 grant allocations:

California: Sacramento Metropolitan.....................      $4,780,000
Colorado: Denver International..........................      29,911,000
Florida: Daytona Beach Regional.........................       1,700,000
Georgia: Savannah International.........................       2,000,000
Illinois: Scott AFB (reliever)..........................      14,000,000
Indiana: Indianapolis International.....................      13,573,000
Kentucky:
    Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky........................      12,700,000
    Standiford Field, Louisville........................      16,100,000
Louisiana: New Orleans International....................      11,800,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan..........................      14,061,000
Mississippi: Golden Triangle Regional...................         400,000
Nevada: Reno Cannon International.......................       6,500,000
New York: Greater Buffalo International.................       8,097,000
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State...................       6,500,000
South Carolina:
    Hilton Head.........................................         532,000
    Florence regional...................................         400,000
Tennessee:
    Nashville International.............................       2,180,000
    Memphis International...............................      13,770,000
Texas:
    Austin (new)........................................      11,430,000
    Dallas/Fort Worth International.....................      12,500,000
    Midland.............................................       1,326,732
Virginia:
    Washington Dulles International.....................       4,463,000
    Washington National.................................       9,384,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     198,107,732

    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 $198,107,732 that FAA has committed to 
LOI's during fiscal year 1997, the Committee estimates that 
approximately $152,061,000 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.

                Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

                  (limitation on borrowing authority)

Appropriations, 1996....................................    ($1,600,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

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

    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.
    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 places a zero obligation limitation on borrowings.

                 Administrative Services Franchise Fund

    The Committee has included bill language requested by the 
Federal Aviation Administration which allows the agency to 
establish an administrative services franchise fund. Such a 
fund performs centralized services such as accounting, 
training, payroll, travel, duplicating, multimedia, and other 
services. In addition to providing such services to the FAA, it 
may contract with other agencies, both within and outside the 
Department of Transportation. Such centralized services will be 
performed at rates to cover all expenses of operation, 
including employee benefits and the depreciation of the 
administrative services franchise fund's plant and equipment 
and the amortization of capital equipment such as software and 
hardware.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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 $20,042,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 1997.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program 
levels, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimates, the House 
allowance, and the Committee's recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year     Fiscal year                                  
                    Program                       1996 program     1997 budget        House         Committee   
                                                      level         estimate        allowance    recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on general operating expenses.......       (509,660)       (652,905)       (510,981)        (534,846)
Highway-related safety grants \2\..............         11,000   ..............  ..............  ...............
    (Rescission of contract author-  ity)......        (-9,000)  ..............  ..............  ...............
    (Liquidation of contract author-  ity).....        (11,000)         (2,049)         (2,049)          (2,049)
Federal-aid highways \3\.......................     17,550,000      17,714,000      17,550,000       17,650,000 
Exempt Federal-aid obligations.................      2,331,507       1,314,802       2,055,000        2,055,000 
    Supplemental emergency relief \4\..........        267,000   ..............  ..............  ...............
    (Liquidation of contract author-  ity).....    (19,200,000)    (19,800,000)    (19,800,000)     (19,800,000)
State infrastructure banks.....................  ..............        250,000   ..............         250,000 
Alameda corridor--direct loan..................  ..............         58,680   ..............  ...............
Motor carrier safety grants \2\................         77,225          85,000          77,425           79,000 
    (Rescission of contract authority balances)       (-33,000)  ..............  ..............  ...............
    (Liquidation of contract author-  ity).....        (68,000)        (74,000)        (74,000)         (74,000)
Right-of-way revolving fund....................  ..............  ..............  ..............           8,000 
Motor carrier safety \5\.......................        (46,000)        (49,500)        (49,127)         (48,900)
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................     20,236,732      19,422,482      19,682,425       20,042,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 327, 335, and 349 of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public 
  Law 104-134.                                                                                                  
\2\ Obligation limitation on contract authority.                                                                
\3\ Obligation limitation on contract authority. Also includes estimated additional obligation limitation       
  pursuant to section 1002(f)(1) of Public Law 102-240.                                                         
\4\ Additional $33,000,000 will be available upon request by the President.                                     
\5\ Included within limitation on general operating expenses.                                                   

                Limitation on General Operating Expenses

Appropriations, 1996....................................    $509,660,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     652,905,000
House allowance.........................................     510,981,000

Committee recommendation

                                                             534,846,000

    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 $534,846,000 
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.

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Fiscal year                              
           Program             1997 budget      House        Committee  
                                estimate      allowance   recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses.....       253,360       250,156        251,106 
    Procurement savings.....        -3,000        -3,000  ..............
Motor carrier safety........        49,500        49,127         48,900 
Contract programs:                                                      
    Highway research,                                                   
     development, and                                                   
     technology.............        81,638        65,725         69,510 
    Intelligent vehicle/                                                
     highway systems                                                    
     research...............       223,760       115,000        131,150 
    Technology assessment                                               
     and deployment.........        14,846        13,499         13,999 
    National Highway                                                    
     Institute..............         6,000         4,327          5,000 
    Local Technical                                                     
     Assistance Program.....         4,100         2,866          4,100 
    International                                                       
     transportation.........           500           475            475 
    Technical assistance--                                              
     Russia.................           400  ............            200 
    Minority business.......        10,000         9,506          9,506 
    Transportation                                                      
     investment analysis....         1,906  ............            500 
    Cost allocation study                                               
     (truck size and weight)         1,695           300            400 
    International scanning                                              
     activities.............           800  ............  ..............
    South African Program...           400  ............  ..............
    Federal lands                                                       
     contamination site                                                 
     cleanup................         2,500         2,500          2,500 
    Rehabilitation TFHRC....           500           500            500 
    National advanced driver                                            
     simulator..............         4,000  ............  ..............
Accountwide adjustment......  ............  ............         -3,000 
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total limitation......       652,905       510,981        534,846 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Administrative Expenses

    Management and coordination costs.--The Committee 
appreciates the thorough accounting of the administrative 
expenses associated with FHWA's research and technology 
program, including management and coordination costs and 
expects to receive a similar accounting in future budget 
justifications. The Committee believes that every effort must 
be taken to maximize the amount of funds available for the 
contract research and technology program. Consequently, the 
Committee is setting a limit of $11,000,000 on M&C expenses.
    The Committee is concerned about the practice of using 
appropriated funds for a summer jobs program for youth who 
might be interested in careers in highway research and 
technology. The Committee favors the hiring of qualified 
personnel to assist in research and other FHWA 
responsibilities.
    Budget submission.--The Committee appreciates the increased 
detail that was presented in the fiscal year 1997 GOE budget 
justification. The submittal by the JPO, which clearly 
displayed comparable fiscal year 1996 ITS allocations and 
activities funded with ISTEA contract funds, was especially 
useful. The JPO's comprehensive responses to the Committee's 
questions were also helpful. The ITS budget justification and 
the JPO's information sharing and assistance to the Committee 
should serve as a model for the entire GOE ``Research and 
technology'' account.
    The Committee appreciates the fact that FHWA provided the 
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee [RTCC] the 
opportunity to comment broadly on the development of the FHWA 
fiscal year 1997 budget submittal. Increased consultation with 
the RTCC in planning the fiscal year 1998 and later budgets 
would benefit FHWA. The Committee also greatly appreciates 
receiving the advice and guidance of the RTCC.
    Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee's allowance 
includes the House's recommended reduction of $2,254,000 for 
additional civil rights activities.
    Training.--FHWA regional and field staff must upgrade and 
expand their expertise of ITS technologies that have been 
advanced during the last 5 years. Increased knowledge of the 
institutional experience that has been acquired also will 
facilitate technology transfer. The Committee maintains that a 
sufficient number of FHWA field and regional staff will need to 
be trained to ensure that quality assistance is provided to 
States and MPO's that are planning future ITS projects and 
deploying current projects. To this end, the Committee expects 
that a high priority for the use of training funds provided 
under FHWA's administrative expenses is allocated toward the 
retraining of FHWA staff in the ITS area. FHWA should be 
prepared to document these expenses by next year.
    In addition, the Committee expects FHWA to make substantial 
progress in implementing its professional building capacity 
program for its public sector partners as well as FTA regional 
staff. Achievement of the objectives of this strategic plan 
will facilitate more efficient use of limited transportation 
funds and implementation of ISTEA goals.

                    Motor Carrier Safety Operations

    The Committee recommends $48,900,000 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 recommends the following changes to the 
budget request for this appropriation:

Outreach and educational initiatives.......................... -$400,000
Supplemental funds for NAFTA implementation...................  -400,000
Exemption and waiver monitoring...............................  +400,000
Reduce various administrative expenses........................  -400,000
Address CDL problems..........................................  +200,000

    Outreach and educational initiatives.--A diverse array of 
technical assistance and information resources is available 
from many private sector vendors; and the Committee is 
concerned that additional amounts of Federal funds may become 
duplicative of these activities. The Committee fully supports 
outreach to the more than 4,600 law enforcement personnel 
concerned with motor carrier safety.
    A portion of the funds requested was to be allocated to 
ensure that industry is aware of the changes emanating from the 
zero-base review project. Given the status of this project and 
the fact that few, if any, final substantive regulatory changes 
from this review are likely during fiscal year 1997, the 
Committee recommends a reduction in funds for outreach focus 
groups and other educational materials.
    NAFTA activities.--The Committee recommends $150,000 for 
NAFTA activities. In the past, funds to participate in NAFTA 
activities have not been specified in the budget justification, 
but have been obtained from within the base program. There has 
already occurred a substantial amount of planning and 
negotiations; countless meetings with Canada and Mexico; 
numerous training sessions; and the distribution of thousands 
of information documents on United States safety regulations to 
foreign operators. Several million dollars in MCSAP funds have 
been provided during the last several years for these 
activities; and the Committee believes that the $150,000 
requested is more than sufficient to demonstrate U.S. 
commitment to international border safety.
    Computer equipment.--The Committee objects to the House 
recommendation for a decrease in funds for computer equipment 
for the OMC. New computer technology facilitates improvements 
in the efficiency and effectiveness of OMC safety 
investigators. The Committee notes that there are about 48,000 
commercial motor carriers with an unsatisfactory or conditional 
safety rating that OMC would like to reaudit. Improved computer 
equipment will increase the number of carriers contacted by OMC 
safety specialists.
    Exemption and waiver monitoring.--Sections 343, 344, and 
345 of the National Highway Designation Act of 1995 impose new 
safety monitoring analysis, and enforcement responsibilities on 
the Office of Motor Carriers. For example, the exemption 
programs established by the NHS Designation Act will likely 
necessitate that OMC reviews at a minimum the safety control 
plans of hundreds of carriers. In order for OMC to conduct its 
responsibilities and report back to Congress on the costs and 
benefits of some of these exemptions, the safety performance of 
thousands of drivers will need to be monitored, and additional 
audits of insurance records will be critical to check the 
validity of safety data submitted by exemption holders. The OMC 
already faces a large backlog of at-risk or problem carriers 
that require visits from OMC safety specialists. In view of the 
additional responsibilities authorized under the act, the 
Committee recommends $400,000 to help OMC effectively implement 
its responsibility of ensuring that exemptions do not degrade 
public safety.
    Commercial drivers license issues.--For several years, the 
Committee has expressed its concerns about an array of problems 
and challenges associated with the Commercial Drivers License 
Program. In a report prepared for the Committee, the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators [AAMVA] and the 
FHWA agreed that the problems identified were real and needed 
to be addressed. The Committee notes some of the deficiencies 
warranting improvement: development and implementation of 
timely electronic transmission of timely driver convictions 
from Canada and Mexico; elimination of a CDL holder's ability 
to possess a non-CDL; development of required uniform CDL 
restriction codes; definition of ``designed to transport'' as 
the current design of the CMV; development of required 
verification of social security numbers for CDL issue; and 
reevaluation of the definition of ``serious traffic 
violation''. In addition to these challenges, the Committee is 
aware of many other opportunities to improve the CDL program, 
namely improved judicial and prosecutorial training and 
outreach and improved traffic records. In order to facilitate 
progress in addressing the various challenges associated with 
improving the CDL program, the Committee recommends $200,000 to 
work with the States, the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators, and other concerned groups.
    Safety rating process.--At this time, the Committee objects 
to the House proposal to create a new pilot program for the 
reasons specified below.
  --MCSA of 1990 requirements.--The proposal, if implemented, 
        could be in violation of certain provisions of the 
        Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1990, which requires the 
        Secretary to take an enforcement whenever certain 
        serious safety violations can be documented. The House 
        language could force OMC to violate the MCSA of 1990, 
        by delaying enforcement actions on a carrier with 
        serious safety violations and knowingly allow such 
        carriers to continue to operate without an appropriate 
        and timely enforcement action and thus risk the public 
        safety.
  --CVIS already provides opportunities for improvement before 
        penalties.--The Commercial Vehicle Information System 
        [CVIS] Program already provides carriers with 
        opportunity to improve safety performance prior to 
        imposing progressively stringent penalties. For 
        example, the safety performance of carriers that 
        receive warning letters are given 6 months to improve 
        their performance before recalculating their Safestat 
        score. Likewise, at-risk carriers (those with the worst 
        safety records) are scheduled immediately for a 
        compliance review and lacking any imminent hazard 
        situation are also given 6 months to improve their 
        performance before applying CVIS penalties. During the 
        6-month monitoring period the carrier is provided every 
        opportunity (including hiring a safety consultant) to 
        improve safety performance and remove themselves from 
        the CVIS monitoring program.
  --Need for immediate enforcement action.--Use of a third 
        party safety service should not interfere with or delay 
        the use of out-of-service orders, or other enforcement 
        action in cases where the carrier has demonstrated 
        serious safety violations or whose operations have been 
        found to present an imminent hazard to the public 
        safety. Thus, the proposal could be inconsistent with 
        an ongoing compliance strategy and not consistent with 
        the civil penalty criteria specified in the Motor 
        Carrier Safety Act of 1984.
  --Voluntary system already exists.--The current enforcement 
        system does not prevent carriers from voluntarily 
        hiring safety consultants and, in fact, a large number 
        of carriers already employ their safety consultants on 
        a regular basis.
  --Carriers already have the ability to proactively address 
        safety issues before enforcement action is taken.--
        Carriers are able to obtain copies of their carrier 
        profile from OMC. Carriers can avoid ever being 
        identified by Safestat by regularly requesting and 
        reviewing their carrier safety profiles. In this way, 
        company safety managers can proactively address and 
        correct driver, vehicle, and safety management problems 
        within their operations before they become serious. If 
        fact, most safe trucking companies already have 
        incorporated this technique into their safety programs.
  --OMC certification.--At this time, the concept of requiring 
        OMC to certify safety service companies would require 
        FHWA to develop, validate, and manage a separate 
        certification program. The proposed certification 
        program would impose additional job responsibilities on 
        OMC staff already stretched thin and make them even 
        less able to perform the basic and more important jobs 
        of promoting safety compliance and enforcing the 
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
    Administrative savings.--The Committee recommends a 
reduction of $600,000 in travel (unrelated to compliance 
reviews), printing, and other administrative expenses.

             highway research, development, and technology

    The Committee recommends a total of $69,510,000 to be 
distributed as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Budget                               
                 Activity/program element                    Program     estimate,      House        Committee  
                                                           level, 1996      1997      allowance   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway research and development:                                                                               
    Safety...............................................        8,335        8,768        8,768          8,768 
    Pavements............................................        8,791       23,200       19,000         20,000 
    Structures...........................................       12,558       22,000       13,558         15,558 
    Environment..........................................        5,317        5,593        5,717          5,717 
    Right-of-way.........................................          408          322          322            322 
    Policy...............................................        5,401        5,681        5,401          5,401 
    Planning.............................................        5,769        8,300        5,969          5,969 
    Motor carrier........................................        7,390        7,774        7,390          7,774 
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total, highway research and development............       53,969       81,638       65,725         69,510 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the funds recommended, the Committee has provided 
$100,000 to be used by a major national organization dedicated 
to grade crossing safety to identify and assess those 
strategies, activities, and model programs that most 
effectively help communities and States improve grade crossing 
safety.
    Pavements.--The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for 
pavements research and development. Within the Committee's 
allowance is $10,000,000 which was requested for the long-term 
pavement performance [LTPP] program, including funds for data 
analysis. The LTPP is developing testing and design procedures 
and information and computer software that can be used by the 
States to build better pavements and maintain them longer. This 
program will address key deficiencies in the ability of highway 
engineers to rehabilitate pavements and create and maintain new 
pavements that perform well under modern traffic conditions. 
The Committee agrees with both the House and FHWA that support 
for the LTPP should be the highest priority in the pavements 
R&D program. The LTPP will result in substantial benefits to 
the States. Tremendous cost savings will be realized as a 
result of the new pavement mixtures, information, and test 
procedures resulting from this program. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee recommends $2,515,000 for exploratory 
research, a new initiative that reflects the recommendations of 
the National Science and Technology Council and is consistent 
with the general recommendations of the Transportation Research 
Board.
    The Committee is convinced that a greater research effort 
should be undertaken to develop appropriate uses for waste 
materials in highway construction. The potential benefits from 
such increased uses are significant. The economy benefits from 
converting materials now considered waste into productive 
resources, and the environment benefits by diverting 
significant volumes from existing landfills. At the same time, 
the integrity of our transportation infrastructure requires 
that proposed uses should be based on careful research to avoid 
future environmental or physical performance risks. Therefore, 
the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for development of a 
systemic approach to expanded waste utilization using 
accelerated aging tests to ensure long-term physical and 
environmental performance of applications using such materials. 
With those issues properly resolved, it should be possible to 
identify specific secondary materials and specific applications 
in which significant volumes of waste can be properly used 
while ensuring long-term effectiveness, and without increasing 
overall construction costs.
    Structures.--The Committee recommends $15,558,000 for 
structures research and development, which represents an 
increase of $3,000,000 over the fiscal year 1996 level. An 
increase is justified to advance work in several areas, 
including bridge management disciplines, high performance 
materials, and nondestructive evaluation. These funds will help 
accelerate work on the advancement of cost-effective, longer-
lasting steel and concrete structures. Advanced technologies 
will help reduce total fabricated costs and meet required 
strength, toughness, weldability, and other specified design 
property requirements. Within the funds recommended, FHWA shall 
allocate $2,000,000 for exploratory research, which is the 
amount requested in the budget.
    As the Nation undertakes to rehabilitate its domestic 
infrastructure, it is becoming increasingly apparent that for 
reasons of both environmental protection and longevity, 
traditional construction methods and materials are not cost 
effective when compared to new designs and composite materials. 
In an effort to demonstrate the feasibility of advanced 
composite designs for infrastructure application in a marine 
environment, the Committee directs that $1,000,000 be available 
for the development and installation of composite pilings. It 
is expected that these composite pilings will last 
significantly longer than traditional materials, without the 
threat to the marine environment associated with many of those 
traditional materials.
    The Committee objects to the language in the House report 
concerning calcium magnesium acetate [CMA]. FHWA has already 
conducted a significant amount of research and development 
related to CMA. Previous research has resulted in the following 
studies: environmental evaluation of calcium magnesium acetate; 
process development for the production of calcium magnesium 
acetate [CMA]; effect of calcium magnesium acetate on pavements 
and motor vehicles; corrosion of highway and bridge structural 
metals by CMA; field evaluation of calcium magnesium acetate 
during the winter of 1986-87; and highway deicing, comparing 
salt and calcium magnesium acetate. The Committee, as well as 
the Federal Highway Administration, believes that further 
development, testing evaluation, or marketing of this material 
should be the responsibility of the private sector.
    Environment.--Because of budgetary limitations, the 
Committee is recommending the same level of funding provided in 
fiscal year 1996. The Committee directs the Department of 
Transportation to initiate a research program to support a 
comprehensive noise prediction model applicable to highway 
traffic, aircraft, and railroad noise. The Committee further 
directs that a grant of $250,000 be made available to the 
National Center for Physical Acoustics to identify scientific 
issues which impede accurate noise prediction; to begin 
research into propagation phenomena which are not fully 
understood; and to assist the Department in the preparation of 
a plan to develop an accurate multimodal noise prediction 
model. The Department should provide this plan to the Committee 
by January 1, 1997.
    The Committee further notes its concern about commercial 
trucking on Federal facilities and the study of environmental 
effects of alternative routes, and directs that FHWA apply 
$400,000 to study the environmental impact of alternative 
commercial trucking routes to national sites, such as the 
Hoover Dam/Boulder Bridge.
    Right-of-way.--The Committee is recommending the amount 
requested.
    Policy research.--The Committee recommends $5,401,000, the 
same amount provided last year. Funds for transportation 
investment analysis should be included in the future as part of 
the policy research budget.
    Planning.--The Committee recommends $5,969,000 for planning 
research and directs that at least $2,000,000 of the section 
6005 funds be used to develop the TRANSIMS, which is an 
advanced travel forecasting project. TRANSIMS will assist 
States and metropolitan planning organizations in meeting the 
analytical requirements of the ISTEA and the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, and in analyzing the travel impacts of new 
technologies resulting from the National Intelligent 
Transportation Systems Program. The FHWA is encouraged to 
reduce the costs of TRANSIMS through carefully controlling 
costs and seeking opportunities for cost sharing with other 
agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration and the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    Motor carrier research.--The Committee recommends 
$7,774,000 for motor carrier research, which is the amount 
requested. Within the funds provided, no more than $1,000,000 
will be used for services and partnerships. The Committee has 
carefully reviewed the research findings of the new analysis 
unit of the Office of Motor Carriers and fully expects that the 
entire $2,200,000 requested to support information analysis 
will be allocated during fiscal year 1997.
    The Committee is concerned that the release of the results 
of the phase I fatigue research has taken so long and expects 
the FHWA Administrator to ensure that other components of the 
FHWA-sponsored fatigued research are completed within a more 
timely manner. This research will be critical for the planned 
rulemaking to revise the hours of service regulations. The 
Committee is displeased that the advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking on hours of service was not issued within the 
timeframe required in the Interstate Commerce Commission 
Termination Act. The Committee is also displeased that a draft 
of the OMC 5-year strategic research plan was not made 
available as requested.
    Ongoing research indicates a need to provide a better 
scientific and empirical basis for the out-of-service criteria 
and to ensure that the inspection process is more closely tied 
to effective crash reduction measures. Such research and 
associated risk assessment would strengthen the MCSAP 
inspection process, improve the safety regulations, and more 
closely couple the inspection process to measures successful in 
crash reduction. Consequently, the Committee directs that 
$500,000 of the funds provided will be used to begin the 
process of accomplishing these objectives.

                   intelligent transportation systems

    The administration's request of $223,760,000 for 
intelligent transportation systems [ITS] included $42,935,000 
for research and $28,125,000 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 $131,150,000 to be 
distributed as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Program level,      Budget           House         Committee  
                                                       1996       estimate, 1997     allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent vehicle highway systems:                                                                            
    Research and development \1\................          49,916          42,935          27,000          32,000
    Operational tests...........................          31,052          28,125          53,000          55,900
    Automated highway system....................          14,000          30,700          20,000          27,000
    Architecture and standards..................  ..............           7,050           5,000           6,000
    Evaluation..................................  ..............           4,000           2,000           2,000
    Mainstreaming...............................  ..............             950  ..............             250
    Model deployment............................  ..............         100,000  ..............  ..............
    Program and systems support.................          10,034          10,000           8,000           8,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, ITS................................         105,002         223,760         115,000         131,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes commercial vehicle operations.                                                                     

    Research and development.--The Committee recommends a total 
of $32,000,000 for ITS research and development, which is 
$10,935,000 less than the amount requested. For the commercial 
vehicle operations [CVO] research and development, the 
Committee recommends $7,000,000, including the $5,100,000 
requested for the SAFER/MCSAP sites. The Committee endorses the 
House directive that FHWA ensure that the primary focus of the 
entire CVO program be on safety considerations. The Committee 
is pleased that the initial goals for the SAFER initiative have 
been accomplished and appreciates FHWA's commitment to 
continued timely completion of this initiative. The benefits of 
the investment in this project are numerous. For example, 
inspections targeted by the inspection selection system, an 
integral part of the SAFER system, give a 30-percent higher 
out-of-service rate for drivers and a 75-percent higher out-of-
service rate for vehicles, thus improving the targeting of the 
inspection process on high-risk drivers and vehicles.
    For crash avoidance research, the Committee is recommending 
$11,000,000, which is $4,400,000 below the administration's 
request. These funds together with the moneys recommended under 
the operational test program and ISTEA funds will allow for 
substantial growth in NHTSA's ITS safety program above the 
fiscal year 1996 level.
    Operational tests.--The Committee recommends $55,900,000 
for operational tests to be allocated in the following manner: 
$10,000,000 to advance real-time adaptive traffic control 
technology and incident management, $3,000,000 for advanced 
vehicle control systems, $12,900,000 for completion of the 
CVISN and its prototype testing and substantial progress on the 
pilot projects, and $30,000,000 for the integration of 
Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure [ITI] technologies. 
Each of these projects is of national significance, is 
requested in the budget, and is consistent with the intent of 
title VI(B) of ISTEA. The Director of the JPO and the FHWA 
Administrator shall ensure that the CVISN activity, as well as 
other ITS/CVO initiatives, minimizes the use of both ISTEA and 
GOE funds allocated toward outreach and training activities.
    The CVISN is one of the key research and operational tests 
within the National ITS Program. The Committee complements FHWA 
and the Joint Program Office on the progress made in the 
prototype testing of the CVISN and the initial planning for its 
eventual deployment, starting with the pilot projects. FHWA 
will continue to play a significant role in the development, 
testing and model deployment of standards for communications 
among the States, clearinghouses, safety systems, and other 
integral components of the CVISN. This process will include the 
development of sound cost estimates to operate CVISN and the 
documentation of its costs and benefits for State regulatory 
and enforcement agencies, carriers, and others. The resulting 
information is necessary to lay the foundation for key 
decisionmakers to determine an appropriate course of action to 
implement CVISN throughout the States.
    The Committee directs that FHWA accelerate its work with 
all of the potential users of CVISN to determine how the long-
term operation and financing of CVISN should proceed. The 
Administrator is to submit a detailed plan that lays the 
foundation for a smooth transition before 2001 from a federally 
financed to a user-financed system that will ensure the long-
term operation and improvement of this system. None of the 
funds provided for the CVISN project will be used for 
evaluation purposes. Funds to conduct such activity are 
provided under evaluations.
    Within the funds recommended for CVO, the Committee is 
providing $500,000 to advance the concept and technology of an 
automated compliance review. Before April 1, 1997, the FHWA 
Administrator is requested to submit a letter to both the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations identifying the future 
direction and challenges associated with this effort, together 
with a spending plan on the resources needed to bring this 
project to completion, including an analysis of expected 
deployment costs and benefits.
    Because of budget limitations, the Committee is unable to 
recommend the entire amount requested for the operational 
testing of important crash avoidance technologies. The 
Committee expects that ISTEA funds will be used to support the 
new operational test project not funded under LGOE.
    While much ITS activity is concentrated on the detection of 
incidents and on freeway surveillance, efforts also need to be 
focused on coordinating multiagency responses and clearance of 
incidents. There are both technical and institutional 
opportunities to reduce traffic congestion caused by poor 
incident.
    The Committee expects that FHWA's request for $900,000 in 
ISTEA funding to enhance public and private sector incident 
management activities will be fully funded. Given the extent of 
traffic congestion problems that plague our roadways the 
Committee maintains that the ISTEA funds will not be 
sufficient. Consequently, within the funds provided for traffic 
control, the Committee directs that $500,000 be used for 
support of the work of the coalition, to address the 
institutional issues of incident management, and promote the 
use of technologies, expert systems and communications 
equipment and software to aid responding agencies. The 
Committee encourages FHWA to fully exploit every opportunity to 
advance and use new technologies to improve incident response.
    Automated highway systems.--The AHS Consortium, assisted by 
FHWA, has made significant progress in advancing the AHS 
Program. Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee 
recommends $27,000,000 to continue progress, which is 
$3,700,000 less than requested.
    The Committee agrees with the House that FHWA and the AHS 
Consortium members must ensure that the funds provided are 
spent primarily on advancing new technology and developing and 
selecting concepts needed for the AHS prototype. The Committee 
directs FHWA to reduce the amount of Federal funds allowed for 
the overhead costs of the AHS consortium and to take all 
necessary steps to minimize the costs of the 1997 demonstration 
project. The Committee limits expenses for outreach activities 
related to the AHS to $50,000. FHWA and the AHS consortium will 
conduct the best outreach possible by scaling down the expenses 
and demonstrating the success of its 1997 demonstration. 
Foreseeable budgetary limitations require the participants to 
reexamine rigorously the complexity, scope, and vehicle mix of 
the prototype configuration subject to validation testing; and 
to work toward completion of the initial cooperative agreement 
within the time line originally specified.
    The Committee strongly disagrees with the House language 
prohibiting the use of funds for the incorporation of 
commercial vehicles in the AHS. The testing of new safety 
technology and opportunities to improve the safety and economic 
productivity of the commercial motor vehicle industry are two 
of several benefits to be realized.
    Architecture and standards.--The Committee recommends 
$6,000,000 for architecture and standards support, which is 
$1,050,000 less than requested. The Committee believes it is 
essential to reduce expenses associated with the cooperative 
agreements initiated with the standards developing 
organizations and those entities maintaining the systems 
architecture. The Department's effort to expedite timely and 
integrated ITS standards development is of fundamental 
importance.
    Evaluations.--Because of budgetary limitations, $2,000,000 
is provided for evaluations, of which no less than $300,000 
will be used to analyze the costs and benefits of the CVISN 
prototype/pilot program.
    Mainstreaming.--The Committee generally agrees with the 
House approach to reduce funding for outreach activities, there 
is one area, however, that deserves consideration, namely 
public transit authorities. The Committee recommends $250,000 
for outreach activities directed only at transit authorities.
    Program support.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for 
program management. The Committee agrees with the House 
suggestion that FHWA shall avail itself more of the expertise 
and advice of ITS AMERICA in the formulation of future budget 
requests. Such input would be consistent with title VI(B) of 
the ISTEA and the cooperative agreement governing this advisory 
committee.
    The Committee directs that the JPO will ensure that any 
organization which conducts the information clearinghouse 
function on behalf of the National ITS Program will make 
available all reports and information to the public at no 
charge and without the requirement to become a member of any 
organization. The Committee directs the Director of the Joint 
Program Office to reduce funds to no more than $2,000,000 for 
CVO State, regional, and national forums; to no more than 
$300,000 for mainstreaming-planning; to no more than $500,000 
for ITI technical assistance; to no more than $200,000 for ITI 
outreach; and to no more than $100,000 for CVO outreach. The 
Committee does not approve any funds for the nationwide 
strategy for Hazmat incident response. This strategy should be 
developed by FHWA staff.

                  technology assessment and deployment

    The Committee recommends $13,999,000 which is $1,500,000 
more than the fiscal year 1996 level. The Office of Technology 
Applications and the Office of Highway Safety [OHS] are 
conducting a multifaceted and innovative safety deployment 
program. To further strengthen these initiatives, the Committee 
directs that $3,950,000 be obtained from GOE and $1,725,000 be 
obtained from the section 6005 funds. The Committee agrees with 
the House initiative to provide assistance to States and local 
governments in setting reasonable and enforceable speed limits.
    Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 
$300,000 to be allocated to the OHS to further expand its 
outreach activities, an initiative that is stressed in its 5 
year strategic plan. To this end, the Committee would like to 
see evidence next year of OHS using advanced information 
technology to expand its outreach to the motoring public, 
pedestrians, and bicyclists.
    Consistent with the provisions of section 6005 of ISTEA, 
the FHWA has sought to promote heated bridge technologies 
through two formal solicitations, an active outreach program 
involving contacts with bridge engineers throughout the 
country, and development of a promotional video. Because of the 
complexity of the technologies, limitations on placement, and 
unknown future operating costs, many highway agencies have 
deterred from participating in the program. Despite its 
vigorous efforts to work with the States, FHWA simply has been 
unable to fund a sufficient number of worthwhile projects to 
meet the ISTEA objective of installation of heated bridge 
technologies on a minimum of 10 bridges per fiscal year with a 
funding level of $4,000,000 per fiscal year.
    FHWA informed the Committee that a funding level of 
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 
1997 would allow for the evaluation of the existing heated 
bridge projects and the successful completion of the program. 
Consequently, the Committee allows FHWA to apply the balance of 
the funds originally designated for heated bridge technologies 
and any expected unobligated balances to other technology areas 
within the purpose of section 6005 that are of higher priority 
interest to States and local jurisdictions.

                       national highway institute

    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the National 
Highway Institute, which is an increase of $673,000 above the 
fiscal year 1996 level. Primarily during the last 5 years, the 
Committee has supported an intensive research and technology 
program that has resulted in a substantial number of new 
advances which are now ready to be incorporated into State and 
local highway programs. The Committee has increased funding for 
the NHI to address the backlog of training courses that need to 
be delivered to help realize the benefits of these past 
investments in research and development. The Committee also 
expects to see evidence next year of new ITS courses developed 
and delivered with these moneys.

                   local technical assistance program

    The Committee recommends $4,100,000 for the LTAP and 
objects to FHWA's request to use $500,000 of these funds for 
the National Rural Initiative Program, which was developed to 
focus Federal programs within each State to address the needs 
and concerns of rural communities and is not directly related 
to the purposes of LTAP.
    The funds recommended herein will serve several purposes, 
including enhancing the participation of the LTAP centers in 
the Safe Communities Program in such areas as improved data 
collection, traffic safety audits, improved traffic and sign 
inventory management and other highway safety initiatives such 
as those discussed in last year's report; improving the LTAP 
technology transfer clearinghouse, facilitating the deployment 
of proven SHRP technology at the local level, and addressing 
the gap between the state of the practice of highway technology 
and the state of the art.

                international transportation activities

    The Committees recommends $475,000 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--russia

    The Committee recommends $200,000 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.

                           minority business

    The Committee concurs with the House allowance and fully 
funds the request of $9,506,000 for the minority business 
activity.

                   transportation investment analysis

    The Committee has provided $500,000 for the transportation 
investment analysis activity, and believes that these funds can 
be used to help the Federal Highway Administration study new 
innovative financing mechanisms and to monitor the success and 
experiences of the new State Infrastructure Bank Program.

             COST ALLOCATION STUDY (TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT)

    The Committee recommends $400,000 for the cost allocation 
study to be allocated as follows: $300,000 to develop software, 
data, and procedures for use by the States in conducting their 
own highway cost allocation studies, and $100,000 to analyze a 
variety of complex alternative highway user fee structures 
relevant to reauthorization.
    FHWA was instructed last year to complete truck size and 
weight analyses within the funds provided in the fiscal year 
1996 appropriation. Consequently, no additional funds are 
recommended for this purpose and the Committee prohibits the 
use of section 6005 funds to continue work on truck size and 
weight or related policy research.

                         international scanning

    The Committee has received information detailing an array 
of benefits that have resulted from past international scanning 
activities. Such activities should, however, continue to be 
funded using ISTEA funds.

                          south africa program

    The Committee has not provided the requested funding for 
the South Africa program. It is concerned that there could be a 
proliferation of these types of request for special assistance 
from various countries: witness special requested earmarks for 
Russia and South Africa. The Committee believes that FHWA is 
best served by working in conjunction with the State 
Department, which is in the business of providing assistance to 
foreign governments.

                  federal lands contamination cleanup

    The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the environmental 
cleanup at the materials laboratory site on the Denver Federal 
Center. FHWA has, since 1990, used funds appropriated for other 
purposes to deal with this situation without notifying the 
Committee. FHWA must be more forthcoming in the future when it 
uses appropriated funds for any purposes other than those 
originally in the budget justification and funded by the 
Committee. FHWA managers should note that the Committee has 
reduced the amount of funds recommended for the contract 
program in order to pay for these expenses.
    The Committee agrees with the House assessment of FHWA's 
handling of the environmental cleanup at the materials facility 
in Colorado. The letter to be submitted to both the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committee will specify the exact costs 
that are likely to be encountered to restore this property to a 
State of environmental compliance. In addition, the letter 
should respond to the following questions: Why weren't the 
Appropriations Committees informed several years ago about 
these environmental problems and their associated costs? How 
soon will FHWA fully comply with its responsibilities under 
Federal and State law?

               national advanced driver simulator [nads]

    The Committee has not approved funding for the NADS under 
operations, but recommends that $14,000,000 of ISTEA contract 
funds be used for this purpose. The Department has repeatedly 
stated that the NADS is of critical importance to advancing 
progress on the objectives of the National ITS Program. The 
Committee agrees with the House that the NADS is an innovative, 
high-risk analytical test project that has received limited 
non-Federal cost-sharing.

                         Accountwide Adjustment

    The Committee concurs with the House's reduction of 
$3,000,000 for procurement savings; but has assessed the 
reduction against the whole ``Limitation on general operating 
expenses'' account, and not specifically against FHWA's 
administrative expenses.

                           General Provisions

    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.
    Miller Highway.--The Committee has deleted the House 
general provision (sec. 330) which would have prohibited the 
use of any of the funds in this act for improvements to the 
Miller Highway, which is located in New York City, NY.
    Federal Highway Administration takedown.--The Committee has 
included bill language requested by the administration which 
increases the administrative takedown from the highway program 
from 3\3/4\ percent to 4\3/4\ percent.
    Mineola rail grade crossing project.--Over several years, 
the Committee had appropriated funds for this important rail/
highway grade crossing safety project. The Committee has 
included a general provision to permit the balance of funds 
remaining from previous appropriations for the Mineola, NY, 
railroad grade crossing project to be used for other grade 
crossing improvements in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY.
    Indiana highways.--The Committee has included bill language 
in title IV which allows the State of Indiana to use funds 
previously provided for a study in Whiting, IN, to be used for 
a congestion relief project in Merrillville, IN.

                                 other

    Shiloh, MT, 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 to take 
appropriate actions in authorizing these funds.
    Saddle Road, Hawaii.--The Committee is pleased with the 
manner in which the Saddle Road project on the Island of Hawaii 
has progressed, and hopes that this process will continue. 
Saddle Road improvements will be of great benefit to the 
military as well as island residents. The Committee is aware of 
Saddle Road's hazardous conditions and the large number of 
accidents that occur on the road each year. The Committee 
believes that remedying these hazardous conditions should 
continue to be a priority.

                     Highway-Related Safety Grants

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................   ($11,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     (2,049,000)
House allowance.........................................     (2,049,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                             (2,049,000)

    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. This program was proposed to be merged with a 
similar program in the NHTSA.
    The Committee recommends $2,049,000 for liquidation of 
contract authority for highway-related safety grants. These 
additional funds will allow the Federal Highway Administration 
to meet payments of prior-year unpaid obligations.

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996

                                                       ($19,200,000,000)

Budget estimate, 1997

                                                        (19,800,000,000)

House allowance

                                                        (19,800,000,000)
Committee recommendation
                                                        (19,800,000,000)

    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. 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 $19,800,000,000 for the Federal-aid highways program, which 
is the same as the House allowance and the administration's 
request.

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996

                                                       ($17,550,000,000)

Budget estimate, 1997

                                                        (17,714,000,000)

House allowance

                                                        (17,550,000,000)
Committee recommendation
                                                        (17,650,000,000)

    The administration's proposal of $17,714,000,000 includes 
previously appropriated or authorized accounts other than 
emergency relief and minimum allocation.
    In addition to programs covered by the obligation ceiling, 
there are activities that are exempt from the ceiling. Under 
the administration's proposal, it is assumed that 
$1,314,802,000 is outside the limitation which brings the 
administration's program total to $19,029,000,000.
    Under the House's allowance, which includes an obligation 
ceiling of $17,550,000,000 it is estimated that programs exempt 
from the limitation would total approximately $2,055,000,000 
for a total program level of $19,605,000,000.
    The Committee recommends an obligation ceiling of 
$17,650,000,000 for the regular Federal-aid formula program. In 
addition, the programs outside the obligation ceiling are 
estimated at $2,055,000,000 for a total program level of 
$19,705,000,000.


Estimated fiscal year 1997 obligation limitation distributed at 
$17,650,000,000

        State                                                Current law

Alabama.................................................    $272,547,196
Alaska..................................................     205,452,946
Arizona.................................................     197,839,865
Arkansas................................................     176,614,504
California..............................................   1,416,567,040
Colorado................................................     200,767,393
Connecticut.............................................     356,229,948
Delaware................................................      78,039,747
District of Columbia....................................      79,484,906
Florida.................................................     603,168,336
Georgia.................................................     406,382,518
Hawaii..................................................     122,599,965
Idaho...................................................     106,447,516
Illinois................................................     665,243,369
Indiana.................................................     344,003,816
Iowa....................................................     199,375,572
Kansas..................................................     206,521,727
Kentucky................................................     227,360,713
Louisiana...............................................     237,383,689
Maine...................................................      92,214,321
Maryland................................................     267,491,518
Massachusetts...........................................     695,579,969
Michigan................................................     470,412,809
Minnesota...............................................     254,092,683
Mississippi.............................................     184,792,636
Missouri................................................     359,208,625
Montana.................................................     155,956,631
Nebraska................................................     140,078,573
Nevada..................................................     105,323,760
New Hampshire...........................................      86,166,546
New Jersey..............................................     482,366,090
New Mexico..............................................     170,290,773
New York................................................   1,052,396,004
North Carolina..........................................     402,075,905
North Dakota............................................     102,794,085
Ohio....................................................     598,771,278
Oklahoma................................................     229,428,624
Oregon..................................................     204,235,674
Pennsylvania............................................     665,627,026
Rhode Island............................................      86,464,974
South Carolina..........................................     212,640,951
South Dakota............................................     112,176,469
Tennessee...............................................     327,984,230
Texas...................................................     992,016,359
Utah....................................................     126,583,256
Vermont.................................................      79,072,570
Virginia................................................     343,879,367
Washington..............................................     326,468,695
West Virginia...........................................     159,945,704
Wisconsin...............................................     294,690,116
Wyoming.................................................     112,077,259
Puerto Rico.............................................      76,665,754
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................  16,072,000,000
Administration..........................................     532,000,000
Federal lands...........................................     426,000,000
Reserve.................................................     620,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................  17,650,000,000

                      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 90 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 1997 are based on fiscal year 1995 
contributions. 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 1982, 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 table depicts the amount of funds contributed 
to and received from the fund since its inception.

 COMPARISON OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATES AND FEDERAL-AID APPORTIONMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS FROM THE FUND--FISCAL YEARS
                                                                       1957-95 \1\                                                                      
                                                                 [Dollars in thousands]                                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Payments into the fund \2\    Apportionments and allocations    Ratio of apportionments and 
                                                         --------------------------------        from the fund \3\            allocations to payments   
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                          State                             Fiscal year      Cumulated                       Cumulated                       Cumulated  
                                                               1995        since July 1,    Fiscal year    since July 1,    Fiscal year    since July 1,
                                                                               1956            1995            1956            1995            1956     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................        $453,217      $5,810,236        $357,493      $6,696,015            0.79            1.15
Alaska..................................................          41,215         596,358         238,302       4,156,911            5.78            6.97
Arizona.................................................         360,334       4,156,271         314,005       5,184,640             .87            1.25
Arkansas................................................         296,943       3,881,007         284,629       3,878,623             .96            1.00
California..............................................       2,115,834      30,803,323       2,081,677      29,863,744             .98             .97
Colorado................................................         260,695       3,825,575         238,668       5,205,668             .92            1.36
Connecticut.............................................         209,722       3,517,298         393,038       6,279,129            1.87            1.79
Delaware................................................          59,509         884,363          81,869       1,343,968            1.38            1.52
District of Columbia....................................          26,425         540,339         111,581       2,291,929            4.22            4.24
Florida.................................................       1,035,177      13,118,090         828,598      11,904,585             .80             .91
Georgia.................................................         783,874       9,446,014         582,602       9,041,412             .74             .96
Hawaii..................................................          54,610         764,786         122,350       3,042,620            2.24            3.98
Idaho...................................................         111,130       1,430,270         180,973       2,584,288            1.63            1.81
Illinois................................................         694,896      12,501,341         729,893      14,077,584            1.05            1.13
Indiana.................................................         568,030       8,086,645         443,255       7,099,723             .78             .88
Iowa....................................................         232,938       4,085,589         252,475       4,778,747            1.08            1.17
Kansas..................................................         228,956       3,773,793         222,449       4,235,266             .97            1.12
Kentucky................................................         399,732       5,091,617         299,866       5,588,878             .75            1.10
Louisiana...............................................         350,283       5,442,527         299,354       7,058,618             .85            1.30
Maine...................................................         110,735       1,625,117         132,673       1,859,111            1.20            1.14
Maryland................................................         344,634       5,209,742         453,520       7,996,887            1.32            1.53
Massachusetts...........................................         370,469       6,032,405         787,930      10,326,453            2.13            1.71
Michigan................................................         689,984      11,050,375         636,385      10,093,973             .92             .91
Minnesota...............................................         288,655       5,296,828         347,546       6,848,994            1.20            1.29
Mississippi.............................................         269,181       3,758,837         217,920       3,843,984             .81            1.02
Missouri................................................         531,814       7,716,796         444,719       7,507,268             .84             .97
Montana.................................................         100,678       1,443,221         192,550       3,541,698            1.91            2.45
Nebraska................................................         160,774       2,423,719         149,417       2,861,488             .93            1.18
Nevada..................................................         138,502       1,482,337         134,909       2,392,847             .97            1.61
New Hampshire...........................................          79,721       1,149,572          94,027       1,659,907            1.18            1.44
New Jersey..............................................         570,497       8,735,328         584,365       9,038,201            1.02            1.03
New Mexico..............................................         166,515       2,331,686         200,750       3,300,588            1.21            1.42
New York................................................         904,465      14,972,854       1,097,971      18,225,346            1.21            1.22
North Carolina..........................................         639,323       8,638,113         523,951       7,487,096             .82             .87
North Dakota............................................          74,497       1,096,175         140,621       2,146,783            1.89            1.96
Ohio....................................................         757,533      13,333,457         708,641      12,433,900             .94             .93
Oklahoma................................................         348,204       5,134,760         275,192       4,476,186             .79             .87
Oregon..................................................         270,149       3,912,879         254,296       4,730,564             .94            1.21
Pennsylvania............................................         882,762      13,673,846       1,068,686      15,892,145            1.21            1.16
Rhode Island............................................          55,313         963,699         116,810       2,176,359            2.11            2.26
South Carolina..........................................         383,896       4,614,722         198,150       4,159,438             .52             .90
South Dakota............................................          75,269       1,165,687         139,918       2,305,328            1.86            1.98
Tennessee...............................................         495,851       6,881,871         402,426       7,031,446             .81            1.02
Texas...................................................       1,583,125      22,863,465       1,293,611      19,862,498             .82             .87
Utah....................................................         160,045       2,065,098         153,762       3,550,613             .96            1.72
Vermont.................................................          57,897         730,359          86,531       1,638,362            1.49            2.24
Virginia................................................         571,718       7,549,919         420,158       8,896,048             .73            1.18
Washington..............................................         375,358       5,407,531         291,589       8,736,024             .78            1.62
West Virginia...........................................         162,736       2,431,962         243,195       5,007,164            1.49            2.06
Wisconsin...............................................         422,061       5,990,472         376,713       5,364,708             .89             .90
Wyoming.................................................          93,484       1,226,320         139,494       2,445,928            1.49            1.99
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................................      20,419,365     298,664,594      20,371,503     342,149,683            1.00            1.15
American Samoa..........................................  ..............  ..............           4,256          45,014  ..............  ..............
Guam....................................................  ..............  ..............          14,368         120,318  ..............  ..............
Northern Marianas.......................................  ..............  ..............           4,236          29,180  ..............  ..............
Puerto Rico.............................................  ..............  ..............          87,799       1,325,611  ..............  ..............
Virgin Islands..........................................  ..............  ..............          18,728         124,046  ..............  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total.......................................      20,419,365     298,664,594      20,500,890     343,793,852            1.00            1.15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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; 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
  1996 interstate construction funds apportioned during fiscal year 1995.                                                                               
\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 overstated by $1,590,000,000 due to a fiscal year 1994 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.                                                                             
\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 alcohol safety incentive grants and the 
  Woodrow Wilson Bridge.                                                                                                                                

                     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 $33,314,575 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, 1996                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             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                 77,459
                                     Providence.                        
New Jersey........................  New York City.......         234,755
                                    New York City-             1,388,601
                                     Trenton.                           
New York..........................  New York City.......      11,875,419
Rhode Island......................  Rhode Island........       4,003,336
Tennessee.........................  Memphis.............       1,409,446
                                                         ---------------
      Totals......................  ....................      33,314,575
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts are in Federal funds and assume full obligation of the      
  fiscal year 1996 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 FHWA to give priority consideration 
to the Missisquoi Bay Bridge, VT; the Wickliffe-Cairo Bridge, 
Ballard County, KY; and the Shadle Bridge, Mason County, WV, 
consistent with existing criteria.

                      discretionary interstate 4-r

    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 1997. The ISTEA 
legislation distributes mostly all of these funds by statutory 
formula. However, $65,000,000 of National Highway System funds 
are set aside for 4-R work. The Committee directs FHWA to 
continue the effort on Interstate 5, OR, and give priority 
consideration to the interchange connection of Interstates 15, 
515, and 95 in Las Vegas, NV, and Interstate 15 in Salt Lake 
City, UT.

                     federal lands highway programs

    Consistent with section 1032 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that provides funds for 
projects that promote tourism and recreational travel. The 
Committee directs that priority consideration be given the 
following projects: an interchange on the Natchez Trace Parkway 
near Clinton, MS; upgrading of the Pahrump Highway, NV; and 
$3,700,000 for the Columbia River Gorge Highway, OR.

                        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 May 1996, $71,000,000 of these funds 
were available for distribution which is expected to occur in 
fiscal year 1997.

                        ferryboat and facilities

    Under Public Law 102-240, $18,000,000 is available in 
fiscal year 1997 for ferryboat and facilities construction. 
Within this amount the Committee directs that $3,000,000 be 
available for a ferryboat for the Metlakatla, AK, project, and 
$2,500,000 for a ferry terminal at Clinton, WA.

                             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. The Committee directs that, out of 
construction grants, $2,000,000 be available for the covered 
bridge restoration project in Vermont.

                        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(h), the Committee 
directs that the Hoosier Heartland industrial corridor 
(Indiana), the Heartland Expressway (South Dakota/Nebraska), 
and State Highway 71, Alaska, 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 in fiscal year 1997 
for scenic byways. Out of these funds, the Committee directs 
that $750,000 be available to prevent development on the Blue 
Ridge Parkway in North Carolina and $1,400,000 for Mount Rogers 
National Recreational Area Virginia State Route 600 upgrade.

                   INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee    
                                     House allowance  recommendation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah [ATMS]........................       $3,000,000         $7,000,000 
Inglewood, CA......................        1,000,000          1,000,000 
Houston corridor, TX...............        2,400,000  ..................
I-10 Mobile, AL....................        4,000,000  ..................
VA/MD capital beltway..............        5,000,000  ..................
Operation Respond, Maryland........        1,000,000  ..................
Kansas City, MO (region)...........  ...............          5,000,000 
University of North Dakota.........        1,000,000          1,000,000 
Minnesota guidestar................        5,900,000  ..................
Moorhead, MN.......................          100,000            100,000 
Texas Transportation Institute.....          600,000            600,000 
Nashville, TN......................        1,000,000  ..................
United States/Canada CVO...........  ...............          2,000,000 
TRANSCOM, New York/New Jersey......  ...............          5,500,000 
Rochester, NY, congestion                                               
 management........................  ...............          2,800,000 
Pennsylvania Turnpike..............        4,000,000          3,000,000 
Urban Transportation Safety Systems                                     
 Center (Philadelphia).............  ...............            500,000 
New York State Thruway.............  ...............          5,000,000 
National Transportation Center,                                         
 Oakdale, NY.......................        4,000,000  ..................
Advanced railroad/highway crossings  ...............          2,500,000 
Hazardous materials monitoring                                          
 system............................        3,000,000  ..................
Oregon green light CVO project.....        5,000,000          9,700,000 
National advanced driver simulator                                      
 \2\...............................  ...............         14,000,000 
Rensselaer County, I-90 connector                                       
 \3\...............................  ...............          2,000,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ These funds are expected to be derived from section 6058(b) of      
  Public Law 102-240.                                                   
\3\ These funds are reprogrammed from the Southern State Parkway, New   
  York Inform system.                                                   

    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. Because the national advanced 
driving simulator [NADS] will be used to evaluate numerous ITS 
options, the Committee recommends that NADS become a part of 
the formal ITS program and coordinated through the Joint 
Program Office. The Committee further directs the Joint Program 
Office to coordinate the development of this simulator with 
others being developed under the ITS program, and where 
appropriate to consolidate efforts.

                      Right-of-Way Revolving Fund

                      (Limitation on Direct Loans)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................      $8,000,000

    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.
    The administration requested a prohibition on further 
obligations for 1997. The Committee has included bill language 
to allow for the obligation or net reimbursements, that is, 
when repayments exceed other costs. It is estimated that 
$8,000,000 is necessary to cover the new, net loans.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................   ($68,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................    (74,000,000)
House allowance.........................................    (74,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                            (74,000,000)

    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 $74,000,000 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 $79,000,000 for motor 
carrier safety grants. This is $6,000,000 below the level 
requested by the administration and $1,575,000 above the House 
allowance and expects the funds to be distributed as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year                                 
                                                       1996         1997 budget        House         Committee  
                                                   appropriation     estimate        allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic grants to States..........................          59,000          63,537          59,800          60,075
Administrative expenses.........................             825           1,063             825             825
Traffic enforcement.............................           6,900           9,000           7,200           8,000
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.........................           1,750           2,000           1,750           1,750
Uniformity grants...............................           3,450           3,450           2,500           2,500
Uniformity working groups.......................             450             450             350             350
Commercial vehicle information sys-  tem........           1,500           2,000           1,500           2,000
Drug interdiction assistance....................             500  ..............  ..............  ..............
Research and development........................             500             500             500             500
Public education................................             850             500             500             500
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................          77,225          85,000          77,425          79,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Verification of out-of-service defects.--Since 1989, the 
Committee has expressed its concerns regarding the problem of 
drivers violating out-of-service orders issued by MCSAP 
officers. In response, the FHWA and the States have initiated a 
variety of efforts to begin to reduce this challenge to the 
integrity of the MCSAP inspection process. Implementation of 
the peer review recommendations on enforcement strategies and 
increased State participation in compliance reviews are part of 
the solution. Despite these efforts, recent data from a 
carefully designed field evaluation conducted by the States 
with FHWA's guidance indicate that still roughly 16 percent of 
those vehicles/drivers declared out-of-service and then later 
rechecked during follow-up covert operations continue to 
violate out-of-service orders.
    Although the Committee recognizes that covert operations 
are expensive, this investment serves as a deterrent to those 
that would seek to subterfuge the intent of the MCSAP. An 
emphasis on covert operations should continue during fiscal 
year 1997 for several reasons. It is essential that the 
baseline data started last year be continued, even at a reduced 
sample size, so that comparable data are available to monitor 
progress in addressing this problem. The Committee maintains 
that those States that continue to have a substantial problem 
with violators of out-of-service orders will need additional 
funds to deal with this challenge. Furthermore, most States 
have already adopted provisions that impose a 3-month license 
suspension and a $1,000 minimum penalty on any driver convicted 
of violating an out-of-service order. Because all States will 
soon have these sanctions, the deterrent value of carefully 
designed covert operations will increase. New and innovative 
approaches to covert operations that are not being funded with 
ITS moneys could be fostered to reduce the costs of this 
enforcement strategy. Consequently, the Committee's allowance 
includes a total of $1,000,000 to be allocated among the 
various covert verification strategies specified above. Any 
verification activity funded above will be in addition to those 
originally specified in each State's enforcement plan and are 
in addition to those activities that are required under part 
350 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations.
    The Committee strongly endorses actions taken by several 
States to inform any driver issued an out-of-service order for 
either driver or vehicle violations of the consequences of 
violating such an order. The Committee agrees with the House 
directive regarding warn- ings to drivers of the consequences 
of violating an out-of-service order. Many States have already 
incorporated such a warning into their inspection process form 
and hopefully through the efforts of the Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance and the FHWA more States will implement this 
strategy.
    Administrative takedown and MCSAP travel expenses.--The 
Committee fully supports the House initiative to limit expenses 
associated with the Challenge contest and agrees with efforts 
to reduce travel and meeting expenses in order to maximize the 
amount of funds available for MCSAP inspection and traffic 
enforcement activities.

                 Alameda Corridor Project Loan Program

Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     $58,680,000
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

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

    The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
included the Alameda transportation corridor as a high-priority 
corridor for which direct loans are authorized under ISTEA 
section 1105(I). The corridor is an intermodal project 
connecting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to downtown 
Los Angeles. The project replaces the current 20 miles of at-
grade rail lines with a high-speed, below-grade corridor, 
thereby eliminating over 200 grade crossings. It also widens 
and improves the adjacent major highway on this alignment and 
mitigates the impact of increased international traffic 
transferring through the San Pedro ports. Segments of the 
Alameda transportation corridor are currently under 
construction. The appropriated level requested would be used as 
backing for a $400,000,000 direct Federal loan. The requested 
backing is intended to permit construction to continue without 
interruption through the date of an anticipated revenue bond 
sale.
    The House bill contains funding for the Alameda Corridor 
Loan Program under the Federal Railroad Administration's 
section 505, Redeemable Preference Shares Program.

                       State Infrastructure Banks

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997...................................    $250,000,000
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                                             250,000,000

    State infrastructure banks are a promising way of 
facilitating needed infrastructure investment, especially when 
all levels of government are facing constrained resources. 
State infrastructure banks are a means of increasing and 
improving both public and private investment in transportation.
    The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
authorized up to 10 pilot States to test State infrastructure 
banks [SIB's] which would provide greater flexibility to 
support the financing of projects by using Federal-aid funds 
for revolving loans and other forms of nontraditional financial 
assistance for both public and private entities developing 
eligible transportation projects. States have shown significant 
interest in exploring the infrastructure financing benefits 
offered by this concept.
    The Committee has provided $250,000,000, as requested, for 
the State Infrastructure Bank Program. In addition, the bill 
language would allow the Secretary to distribute State 
infrastructure bank funds to more than 10 States. To date, the 
administration has approved 10 States for participation in this 
financing initiative. Those States are California, Missouri, 
Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Florida, South 
Carolina, and Virginia. The Committee understands that there 
are a number of well-qualified applications submitted by States 
that would likely be approved for participation in the program 
in fiscal year 1997 if the existing cap of a 10-State 
demonstration were lifted. The Committee believes it is 
important to provide this equity capital and to allow 
additional States to participate, so that vital construction 
projects may more quickly move off the drawing boards and into 
development.
    The Committee especially notes the approval on June 21, 
1996, of the Department of Transportation for the State of 
California to use the State Infrastructure Bank Program as a 
means of financing transportation projects that would otherwise 
be delayed or not possible. The Committee believes that the 
Alameda corridor project is an excellent candidate for SIB's 
type financing, and directs that, out of the funds provided, 
$58,680,000 be available, which will be matched by the State of 
California to provide for a loan not to exceed $400,000,000, to 
be used exclusively for the Alameda corridor project.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March 1970, to reduce the 
mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic costs 
resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. 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 and the National 
Driver Register. 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.
    The Highway Safety Act provides for a coordinated highway 
safety grant program to be carried out by the States, together 
with supporting research, development, and demonstration 
programs. 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 including the Safe Communities Injury 
Control Program initiated in 1996.
    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 safety belt use laws into effect.
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$302,295,000 for the activities and programs of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration for fiscal year 1997. 
This is $49,818,000 less than the budget request and $2,923,000 
more than the House allowance.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year                                                 
                     Program                       1996 enacted     Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                                                        \1\        1997 estimate     allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research.........................    $125,201,000    $158,513,000    $132,272,000    $133,195,000
Highway traffic safety grants \2\...............     155,100,000  \3\ 193,600,00                                
                                                                               0  \3\ 167,100,00                
                                                                                               0     169,100,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................     280,301,000     352,113,000     299,372,000     302,295,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the      
  Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.                                              
\2\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  
\3\ Includes highway-related safety grants program previously funded in FHWA.                                   

                        Operations and Research

                     (Including Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996 \1\................................    $125,201,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     158,513,000
House allowance.........................................     132,272,000
Committee recommendation................................     133,195,000

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

    The bill includes an appropriation of $133,195,000 for 
operations and research, which is $25,318,000 less than the 
budget request and $923,000 more than the House allowance.
    This level of funding provides for 664 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:

                                          [Dollar amounts in thousands]                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year                                                 
                                                       1996         Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                     Program                       appropriation    1997 budget      allowance    recommendation
                                                       level         estimate                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety performance..............................         $12,255         $14,364         $12,864         $11,264
    (Positions).................................            (95)            (95)            (95)            (95)
Safety assurance................................         $18,197         $20,244         $19,518         $19,444
    (Positions).................................           (103)           (103)           (103)           (103)
Highway safety..................................         $44,417         $49,153         $43,993         $45,641
    (Positions).................................           (203)           (203)           (203)           (203)
Research and analysis...........................         $44,437         $67,964         $49,699         $51,133
    (Positions).................................           (132)           (132)           (132)           (132)
Office of the Administrator.....................          $3,820          $3,816          $3,876          $3,816
    (Positions).................................            (41)            (41)            (41)            (41)
General administration..........................          $8,838          $9,130          $8,830          $8,805
    (Positions).................................            (90)            (90)            (90)            (90)
Grant administration reimbursement..............         -$6,158         -$6,158         -$6,158         -$6,358
Accountwide adjustments.........................           -$605  ..............           -$350           -$550
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................        $125,201        $158,513        $132,272        $133,195
      (Positions)...............................           (664)           (664)           (664)           (664)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions of $2,840,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative           
  provisions, and $206,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.  

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

Safety performance standards:
    New car assessment program..........................     -$1,600,000
    Fuel economy program................................      -1,500,000
Safety assurance: Auto safety hotline...................        -800,000
Highway safety:
    Safe communities injury control.....................        -900,000
    Alcohol, drugs, and State programs..................        -545,000
    Older driver research...............................        +156,000
    Driver fatigue......................................      +2,000,000
    State and communities program evaluation............      -1,000,000
    State motor vehicle services (evaluation/technical 
      assistance).......................................        -423,000
    Rail-highway demonstration program..................      -3,000,000
Research and analysis:
    Crash avoidance efforts.............................      -2,000,000
    National advanced driving simulator (funded under 
      FHWA ITS).........................................     -10,500,000
    Fatal accident reporting system.....................        -216,000
    Data analysis program...............................        -465,000
    State data systems..................................      -1,150,000
    Partnership for a new generation of vehicles........      -2,500,000
General administration: Strategic planning..............        -325,000
Accountwide adjustments:
    Training............................................         -50,000
    Computer support....................................        -500,000

                      safety performance standards

    New Car Assessment Program.--The Committee recommends 
$1,942,000 for the NCAP, with respect to frontal crashes, 
$1,600,000 less than the administration request. Funds have not 
been provided to expand the NCAP to include either side impact 
crashes or offset crashes. The side impact standard for 
passenger cars is effective for the 1997 model year; however, 
the standard for light trucks (which includes minivans, 
recreational vehicles, pickups, et cetera) will not be 
effective until 1999. The Committee believes that side impact 
NCAP testing should not begin prior to complete implementation 
of this standard. Moreover, no U.S. standard has been 
established regarding offset testing. The Committee supports 
the international harmonization of vehicle safety standards and 
believes that offset NCAP testing would be premature at this 
time.
    Fuel economy.--The Committee recommends $60,000, which is 
$1,500,000 less than the amount requested. The Committee 
provides no funds for the proposed environmental impact 
statement [EIS] for the fuel economy program. Currently, NHTSA 
does not anticipate any substantial changes in the fuel economy 
standards and thus a costly EIS on this program is unnecessary. 
Funds provided will be used to maintain the plants and lines 
data base regarding fuel economy.
    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 included this provision because the need for such 
labels has not been adequately justified and the additional 
costs associated with this proposal would likely be 
prohibitive.
    Safety warning devices.--The Committee is aware that NHTSA 
has filed a notice of proposed rulemaking, No. 96-56, which 
would eliminate the performance standards for triangular 
warning devices for disabled buses and trucks which exceed 
10,000 pounds in weight. The Committee urges NHTSA to proceed 
in this matter with care to avoid any adverse impact on highway 
safety.

                            safety assurance

    Vehicle safety compliance.--The Committee recommendation 
has provided $6,033,000, the amount requested in the budget. 
This appropriation includes $186,000 to test compressed natural 
gas tanks for compliance with NHTSA's new standards. This 
testing is important because of the increasing number of 
vehicles--including many public transit buses--powered by 
compressed natural gas. The funds provided will also support 
the uniform tire quality grading facility.
    Auto safety hotline.--The Committee recommends $986,680 to 
continue present operations of the auto safety hotline. This 
amount includes the base fiscal year 1996 effort and $330,000 
to provide telephonic services. The Committee has not approved 
the additional $800,000 requested and believes that such funds 
would not result in more investigations of serious defects. 
Moreover, the Committee urges NHTSA to maximize the use of the 
internet both to improve access to safety reports and brochures 
and to receive information on possible vehicle defects.
    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 include the requested 
increase of $40,000 above the current program level and will 
enhance NHTSA's efforts to investigate such illegal activities.
    Vehicle domestic content labeling.--The Committee has 
included $500,000, the amount requested in the budget, for 
NHTSA to audit the accuracy of domestic content calculations 
made by manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks. The 
America Automobile Labeling Act requires each manufacturer of 
more than 1,000 vehicles annually to calculate the United 
States-Canadian parts content and display it and other related 
information on its vehicles. The act also requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to establish a procedure to verify 
this label information. Audits of four selected car lines of 
two manufacturers (one foreign and one domestic) will be 
conducted to assess this data and to assist the Commerce 
Department and the United States Trade Representative in 
monitoring the goal of the United States-Japan trade agreement 
to increase domestic content of Japanese automobiles and light 
trucks sold in the United States.
    Although the Committee has funded the budget request for 
this audit, the Committee remains concerned about the manner in 
which domestic content is computed including whether United 
States assembly work is counted, whether parts furnished by 
United States parts suppliers are considered domestic content, 
as well as the treatment of Canadian parts as domestic. These 
are issues that will affect the accuracy of an audit, and the 
Committee believes that NHSTA should be aware of them.

                        highway safety programs

    Safe communities: injury control.--The Committee recommends 
$900,000 to fund two additional demonstrations of the Safe 
Communities Injury Control Program. This program requires 
additional test sites to evaluate more comprehensively the 
effectiveness of this approach to improving highway safety, 
including pedestrian and bicycle safety. Because NHTSA received 
a large number of promising applications to its initial 
solicitation, the Committee supports the expansion of this 
project. The additional funds provided will allow the testing 
of this concept in various geographical locations with the 
participation of different safety, business, medical, and 
allied health groups.
    Alcohol, drugs, and State programs.--The Committee has 
provided $9,882,000, the same amount appropriated for fiscal 
year 1996, but $545,000 less than the administration's request. 
Current funding represents an increase of 14 percent over 
fiscal year 1995 levels. During the last few years, NHTSA has 
targeted a substantial portion of its section 403 alcohol 
countermeasure program to address the challenges posed by 
youth. The Committee encourages NHTSA to maintain a focused 
youth-oriented initiative under its section 403 program and 
recommends continuation of the current funding level of 
$1,772,000 for youth-oriented alcohol public education and 
enforcement activities.
    National Occupant Protection Program.--The Committee has 
provided $6,958,000, the amount requested, in order to enhance 
NHTSA's effort to meet the national goal of 75 percent belt use 
rate throughout the United States.
    Older driver research.--The Committee recommends a total of 
$600,000 to accelerate research beneficial to older drivers. 
The population of older drivers is steadily increasing and 
efforts to improve the driving performance of older drivers 
deserve sustained support. NHTSA's research program is 
developing information that will assist older drivers, their 
families, and State officials in making appropriate driving, 
licensing, and mobility decisions. In order to assist this 
important effort, the Committee is recommending an increase of 
$156,000 above the amount requested. The Committee further 
believes that NHTSA should continue its work on demonstration 
activities for technologies and practices to improve driving 
performance of older drivers at risk of losing their licenses, 
as the Committee recommended last year.
    Driver fatigue, sleep disorders, and inattention.--The 
Committee has been pleased with the initiatives taken by NHTSA 
to begin to address the problems of driver fatigue, sleep 
disorders, and inattention. NHTSA data indicate a significant 
number of nonfatal and fatal crashes are attributed to drivers 
falling asleep behind the wheel and driver inattention. The 
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 in funding for 
accelerated NHTSA activity in this important area. Funding 
should be utilized to collaborate directly with the National 
Center on Sleep Disorders Research to conduct and assess public 
information activities about driver fatigue, sleep disorders, 
and inattention. The Committee strongly urges that NHTSA 
consider the national center an equal partner in this 
collaboration. The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report 
to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, prior to 
markup of the fiscal year 1998 Transportation appropriations 
bill, that specifically describes the collaborative efforts and 
funding activities between NHTSA and the National Center on 
Sleep Disorders Research.
    Speed and unsafe driving.--The Committee recommends 
$556,000 for the speed and unsafe driving activity, the same 
amount as requested in the administration's budget. The 
Committee has deleted a House earmark of $200,000 for a study 
regarding the repeal of the national speed limit. This earmark 
was not included in the budget request.
    State and communities program evaluation.--The Committee 
provides no funds for this initiative. If special evaluations 
are needed, funds should be derived from the base section 403 
program.
    State motor vehicle services (evaluations/technical 
assistance).--The Committee recommends $1,330,000 for records 
and licensing, $423,000 less than the request. The Committee 
provides no funds for a new initiative on evaluations under the 
section 403 program, but has recommended $200,000 for this 
purpose from the administrative takedown under the section 402 
program.
    Rail-Highway Demonstration Program.--The Committee notes 
that Federal support of Operation Lifesaver is included within 
``Federal Highway Administration'' and ``Federal Railroad 
Administration'' accounts. Starting a new initiative would be 
duplicative and would entail unnecessary and costly startup and 
administrative costs. No funds have been provided for this 
initiative.
    Ensuring the intended use of section 403 funds.--The 
Committee maintains that section 403 funds are to be used 
primarily to support new and innovative traffic safety 
programs. NHTSA has indicated that after 1997, several programs 
that have been funded using section 403 funds for many years 
should be able to continue on their own with the assistance and 
continued support of various groups and individuals, primarily 
from the private sector. The Committee encourages NHTSA to work 
with these organizations to ensure a smooth transition away 
from dependence on Federal funding.
    Airbag deployment-child passenger safety education 
outreach.--The Committee directs the NHTSA to provide $137,000 
within the funds provided to conduct education and outreach to 
help inform parents of potential dangers of automobile airbag 
deployment in connection with infant and child car seats. The 
Committee is concerned with the increasing number of fatalities 
and injuries to children and the need for greater public 
awareness of proper safety measures that should be used in 
connection with airbags. The Committee expects this funding to 
be used by NHTSA to promote proper safety techniques to the 
general public.

                         research and analysis

    Biomechanics.--The Committee recommends $7,450,000, the 
amount requested in the budget, and $1,000,000 above the House 
allowance. The biomechanics program studies, develops, and 
improves NHTSA's understanding of the impact injury process and 
provides scientific underpinning for the crashworthiness 
research program. In future budget submissions, the Committee 
encourages the Department to allocate the costs of the National 
Transportation Biomechanics Research Center among the modal 
administrations that are expected to benefit from the research 
to be managed by the center. The Committee also urges NHTSA to 
redouble its efforts to obtain cost-sharing commitments with 
other organizations that would benefit from the center.
    This appropriation continues funding for hospital-based, 
indepth crash injury studies at four trauma centers. Currently 
these centers are located at the William Lehman Injury Research 
Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami; the National Study 
Center for Trauma and EMS, Baltimore; the University of 
Medicine and Dentistry, New Jersey; and the Children's National 
Medical Center, Washington, DC. In fiscal year 1997, NHTSA 
intends to complement this effort by means of cooperation, 
coordination, and computer data linkage with three trauma 
centers that receive private funding to conduct similar 
research. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 above the House 
level to enhance three important NHTSA efforts in the following 
areas:
  --First, NHTSA plans to develop common data elements and 
        investigate protocols and a common and shared 
        computerized data base system, to link all seven 
        centers together and merge their data into a common 
        pool for use by all participants and sponsors, thus 
        avoiding duplication of efforts.
  --Second, NHTSA's university-based impact injury research 
        centers currently located at the Medical College of 
        Wisconsin, University of Virginia, Ohio State 
        University, and Hannemen Medical Center will study and 
        quantify the actual mechanical processes and thresholds 
        that cause significant injury patterns such as those 
        caused by airbag inflation (especially those affecting 
        children), and NHTSA should help ensure that no 
        duplication of efforts occurs by thoroughly reviewing 
        the current literature and safety practices and by 
        promoting close coordination of these research efforts.
  --Third, NHTSA should use its improved biomechanical 
        understanding of various injury processes to enhance 
        crash test dummy component development efforts.
    The Committee directs NHTSA to provide up to $300,000 
within the funds provided to conduct research on child safety 
seats and automobile airbag deployment. The Committee is 
concerned with the alarming number of children who have been 
killed or seriously injured by the forceful deployment of 
passenger airbags when seated in the front seat or buckled into 
infant and child safety seats. Due to the number of fatalities 
and injuries, the Committee directs NHTSA to perform research 
on airbag safety in connection with infant and child car seats. 
Funding should be used to conduct a comprehensive, 
interdisciplinary study involving pediatric trauma experts, 
engineers, and epidemiologists on means to prevent additional 
deaths and injuries.
    Crash avoidance efforts.--The Committee has provided 
$2,597,000 for crash avoidance research, $12,500,000 less than 
the budget request. The Committee concurs with the House report 
in providing funds for the national advanced driving simulator 
[NADS] through the use of contract authority provided to the 
Federal Highway Administration's ITS Joint Program Office. The 
Committee notes that, while FHWA's Joint Program Office will be 
the cognizant coordinating office for the NADS as it relates to 
the entire ITS program, NHTSA retains the primary 
responsibility to ensure the success of the program. NHTSA is 
expected to continue its role regarding cooperative agreements 
and contracts concerning NADS.
    NHTSA should continue its efforts to avoid increases in the 
cost of completing the NADS. The host site has a responsibility 
for operating the facility on a self-sustaining basis as agreed 
to in the cooperative agreement with NHTSA. The Committee is 
concerned that any reduction in the hourly operational rate of 
NADS would jeopardize the ability of the NADS to operate 
without a subsidy. The projected hourly rate for NADS is one-
third the rate of the Daimler-Benz facility, a lower fidelity 
simulator than NADS from which DOT purchased time in the past. 
Any additional reduction in the hourly rate for NADS might 
jeopardize the ability of NADS to be self-sustaining. The 
original hourly rate allowed for the continuous maintenance and 
technology upgrades of the facility over the life of the 
project. The Committee recognizes that advances in this 
technology will take place at a rapid rate which will require 
state-of-the-art improvements. Thus, the hourly rate charged to 
the Government should not cause higher costs to other private 
users and should be sufficient to allow the facility to both 
operate efficiently and take advantage of technology advances. 
The hourly rate should be periodically examined with those 
factors in mind.
    The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to conduct research 
addressing rollover crashes (which account for over 25 percent 
of all light-duty vehicle fatalities); antilock braking systems 
[ABS]; and $597,000 for heavy vehicles/driver performance.
    Fatal accident reporting system [FARS].--The Committee 
provides $5,035,000 for FARS, which is $216,000 below the 
administration's request. The additional $450,000 provided 
above the fiscal year 1996 base will promote participation by 
all States in this essential data system and allow funds for 
the imaging of State source documents including police accident 
reports.
    Data analysis program.--Due to budgetary constraints, the 
Committee recommends $1,635,000 for the data analysis program, 
the same level as provided by the House. This is an increase of 
$220,000 above the enacted fiscal year 1996 level, but $465,000 
below the administration's requested level of $2,100,000.
    State data systems.--Due to budgetary constraints, the 
Committee recommends $2,700,000 for State data systems, which 
is $1,150,000 less than the amount requested.
    Partnership for a new generation of vehicles [PNGV].--The 
Committee concurs with the House and recommends $2,500,000 for 
the partnership for a new generation of vehicles [PNGV], which 
is $2,500,000 below the amount requested. The Committee 
maintains that the crash simulation effort should be initiated 
but believes that the full amount requested is not yet needed 
due to delays in the PNGV program. The Committee has not 
provided funds for infrastructure analysis and economic 
analysis because such efforts would be premature with respect 
to the status of the PNGV program.
    Budget submission.--The Committee requests that NHTSA's 
fiscal year 1998 budget submission for the Research and 
Analysis Program contain the same level of detail and quality 
of presentation as the fiscal years 1995 and 1996 submissions.
    Bicycle safety.--The Committee notes that children ages 5 
to 14 are the most common victims of bicycle injuries, with 
bicycling the fourth leading cause of death for that age group. 
Of the 500,000 bicycling injuries occurring in the United 
States each year, the age group 5 to 14 accounts for more than 
50 percent. The Committee directs NHTSA to fairly consider a 
proposal by Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and Carnegie 
Mellon University that uses the new technology of virtual 
reality, computers, and robotics, combined with medical 
science, to study bicycle injuries and deaths. This research 
venture would test several thousand children of varying age in 
a simulator that will identify factors causing bicycle trauma. 
From this data, it is hoped that bicycle accidents could be 
reduced by designing effective prevention programs.

                         general administration

    Strategic planning.--Due to budget limitations, the 
Committee has not included the $325,000 requested for strategic 
planning. Internal agency resources can be used for this 
purpose.
    Economic analysis.--The Committee recommends funding of 
$175,000, as requested by the administration. The results of 
the economic analysis will provide better guidance on the true 
cost of accidents and thereby assist NHTSA in managing its 
programs and priorities.

                        accountwide adjustments

    Training.--The Committee has deleted the $50,000 requested 
for training related to customer service.
    Computer support.--The Committee notes that NHTSA has 
requested $3,211,000 for computer support, an 18.4-percent 
increase over the fiscal year 1996 level. Funding for computer 
support has increased substantially in the last several years. 
The Committee recommends maintaining funding at the current 
level of $2,711,000.

                           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. 323). Funding issues regarding 
CAFE standards are also addressed in previous portions of this 
report.
    Exemption to odometer disclosure requirement.--The 
Committee has included a general provision (sec. 332) 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, 1996....................................  ($155,100,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................   (191,000,000)
House allowance.........................................   (167,100,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                           (169,100,000)

    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 national priority 
areas established by Congress which have the greatest potential 
for achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes, 
fatalities, and injuries. 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 
administration's request has merged a similar program 
previously funded under FHWA with this account.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation 
of contract authorization of $169,100,000 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 retained a 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

    The bill includes language limiting the obligations to be 
incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants 
programs, as requested in the budget. Separate obligation 
limitations are included in the bill with the following funding 
allocations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year      Fiscal year         House          Committee   
                                                1996 enacted    1997 estimate      allowance      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402.................................     $127,700,000   1 $166,200,000   1 $138,700,000  \1\ $141,700,00
                                                                                                               0
Section 410.................................       25,000,000       25,000,000       26,000,000       25,000,000
National Driver Register....................        2,400,000        2,400,000        2,400,000        2,400,000
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................      155,100,000      193,600,000      167,100,000      169,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Merges FHWA's and NHTSA's section 402 formula grant programs.                                               

    The Committee has included an obligation limitation of 
$141,700,000 in the bill, which is $24,500,000 less than the 
budget request. This limitation includes $129,700,000 for 
NHTSA's section 402 grant program and $12,000,000 for FHWA's 
section 402 grant program. Language is included in the bill 
limiting funds available for Federal grants administration to 
$5,468,000 for NHTSA and $150,000 for FHWA.
    Over the last several years, NHTSA has made substantial 
progress in improving the Federal/State relationship in highway 
safety. The most significant recent action has been to allow 
States to submit a performance-based highway safety plan. 
Almost all of the States will soon have in place this 
alternative way to apply for and manage section 402 funds, 
allowing them to better manage their own highway safety 
programs while minimizing Federal interference. The Committee 
looks forward to the continued evolution of this initiative.
    Evaluation of State and community programs.--NHTSA is 
expanding its new performance-based procedures for the section 
402 program, which provides more flexibility to State grantees. 
Under the new process, States set their own highway safety 
performance goals and measurements; NHTSA provides program and 
technical assistance to the States. As the new pilot program 
expands, participants will benefit from additional technical 
assistance as they build the capacity to assess the 
effectiveness of their own performance. Consequently, within 
the funds provided for the administrative takedown for the 
section 402 program, $200,000 is provided to help States 
conduct evaluations. The funding to support this initiative 
shall be available through each of NHTSA's regional offices to 
the States.
    No earmarking for section 402.--In fiscal year 1996, NHTSA 
designed new performance-based procedures for the section 402 
program, and 16 States joined the new section 402 pilot 
process. For fiscal year 1997, 40 States, the District of 
Columbia, and three territories have elected to use the new 
approach. This commendable new management process gives States 
more responsibility to determine the best use of limited 
highway safety funds. Therefore, the Committee has decided not 
to earmark these funds for any specific programs, such as youth 
traffic safety or safe communities. The Committee concurs with 
the House that the States are best able to determine their 
individual needs.

                       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 zero 
tolerance 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, as requested, providing that 
$500,000 of the section 410 moneys shall be used for technical 
assistance.

                        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 is transitioning 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 bill includes an obligation limitation of $2,400,000 
for the NDR, which is the same as the administration's request.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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 $1,006,671,000 for the activities of the 
Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 1997. This is 
$41,666,000 less than the budget request and $294,017,000 more 
than the House allowance.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year      Fiscal year                                     
                  Program                      1996 enacted     1997 budget     House allowance     Committee   
                                                   \1\            estimate                        recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator................      $14,018,000      $16,883,000      $16,469,000       $16,739,000
Railroad safety............................       49,919,000       51,864,000       51,407,000        51,407,000
Railroad research and development..........       24,550,000       24,565,000       20,341,000        20,000,000
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program.....      115,000,000      200,000,000  ................      200,000,000
High-speed rail trainsets and facilities...  ...............       80,000,000       80,000,000        80,000,000
Next generation high-speed rail............   \2\ 24,205,000       26,525,000       19,757,000        26,525,000
Rhode Island rail development..............        1,000,000       10,000,000        4,000,000        10,000,000
Direct Loan Financing Program..............  ...............  ...............       58,680,000   ...............
Direct loan limitation.....................  ...............  ...............     (400,000,000)  ...............
Grants to National Railroad Passenger                                                                           
 Corporation \3\...........................      635,000,000      638,500,000      462,000,000       592,000,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation.............       10,000,000  ...............  ................       10,000,000
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..................................      873,692,000    1,048,337,000      712,654,000     1,006,671,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the      
  Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.                                              
\2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $5,000,000.                                                           
\3\ Includes mandatory passenger rail service payments.                                                         

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 1996 \1\................................     $14,018,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      16,883,000
House allowance.........................................      16,469,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,739,000

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

    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 
$16,739,000. The amount provided is $144,000 less than the 
administration's request and $270,000 more than the House 
allowance.

                        committee recommendation

    Civil rights.--The Committee concurs with the House's 
reduction of $144,000, which the administration has requested 
to add back funding for civil rights activities.
    Ravenna, OH, connection.--The Committee does not concur on 
the need to study an Amtrak connection from Ravenna to 
Youngstown, OH.
    Office of Chief Counsel.--The Committee directs that none 
of the personnel reductions planned for fiscal year 1997 shall 
be obtained from the Safety Division of the Office of Chief 
Counsel in order to ensure that sufficient staff support is 
provided for this important area.

                            Railroad Safety

Appropriations, 1996 \1\................................     $49,919,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      51,864,000
House allowance.........................................      51,407,000
Committee recommendation................................      51,407,000

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

    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 $51,407,000 program level for 
the Railroad Safety Program. This is the same as the House 
allowance.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:

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

    Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous.--The 
Committee supports the House recommendation of $798,000 for 
communications, utilities, and miscellaneous expenses, an 
increase of 10 percent above the enacted level. FRA has 
requested pagers for its inspectors and toll-free numbers for 
many of its field offices. The Committee believes that such 
costs can be deferred and should be reexamined.
    Rail Safety Advisory Committee.--FRA has requested $200,000 
to establish a Rail Safety Advisory Committee [RSAC] to 
facilitate progress on its substantial regulatory backlog. The 
new RSAC is comprised of 48 individuals from 27 member 
organizations. Hopefully, the RSAC's large size will not 
diminish its effectiveness in helping FRA reduce its safety 
regulatory backlog. The Committee notes, however, that the FRA 
administrator has the final responsibility to move the agency's 
safety agenda forward and to lead the process. To adequately 
support this initiative, the Committee provides $50,000 which 
is consistent with funding levels provided to other DOT 
advisory committees. If additional funding proves to be 
essential, the FRA administrator may reduce other 
administrative expenses, other than training for Federal and 
State safety inspectors, to provide such funds.
    Rail safety studies.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned with the FRA's efforts in the area of rail safety, 
especially in the wake of the recent fatal accidents in 
Secaucus, NJ, and Silver Spring, MD. The Committee is aware of 
ongoing efforts within the FRA to improve rail safety. However, 
the Committee believes that a more aggressive approach may be 
warranted. As such, the Committee directs the Administrator to 
conduct the following studies and issue reports on the status 
of these efforts to the Committee by June 1, 1997. The 
Administrator should include in the reports recommendations as 
to whether the programs should be implemented for the purpose 
of public safety, and, if the recommendation is affirmative, 
whether the FRA will be issuing regulations to implement the 
programs.
    The four following studies shall be conducted:
    One, study the technical, structural, and economic 
feasibility of automatic train escape devices and their 
benefits to public safety.
    Two, study whether the development of minimum safety 
standards for fuel tanks of locomotives of rail passenger 
trains is warranted, taking into account environmental and 
public safety. The standards may apply to new locomotives, if 
appropriate.
    Three, study the feasibility of establishing minimum 
crashworthiness standards for passenger cab cars, including 
requiring crash posts at the corners of rail passenger cars and 
safety locomotives on rail passenger trains.
    Four, study the placement of rail signals along railways, 
including whether FRA should require that a signal be placed 
along a railway at each exist of a rail station, and that a 
signal be placed so that it is visible only to the train 
employee of a train that the signal is designed to influence.
    Printing and reproduction.--The Committee supports the 
House recommendation and provides $102,000 for printing and 
reproduction, a 10-percent increase over the fiscal year 1996 
level.
    Other services.--The Committee supports the House 
limitation of a 5-percent increase above fiscal year 1996 and 
provides $4,638,000.
    Safety assurance and compliance program.--Last year, FRA 
was directed to report to the Committee on how an appropriate 
balance is being achieved between the resources used to promote 
cooperation and educational assistance and those used for 
enforcement. The report was to detail improvements, or lack 
thereof, in compliance for each of the railroads for which FRA 
approved a safety action plan. The Committee urges the FRA to 
complete this important report since it is now overdue.
    Improvement needed in the completeness of budget 
submission.--The Committee found the Office of Safety budget 
submission lacking in details. In addition to justifying new 
initiatives, future budget requests for this office should 
specify and explain expenses and activities in the base program 
including: funds for drug testing, information services, 
permanent change of station, training, RSAC, et cetera.

                   Railroad Research and Development

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $24,550,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      24,565,000
House allowance.........................................      20,341,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              20,000,000

    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 $20,000,000 
for railroad research and development. The amount provided is 
$4,565,000 less than the President's request and $341,000 less 
than the House allowance.
    Amtrak privatization study.--For purposes of identifying 
private options that will result in a world class national rail 
passenger system in the United States, the Committee encourages 
the FRA to conduct a study on privatization of intercity rail 
passenger service. Such a study may investigate the 
alternatives of: (a) a passenger system operating under the 
franchise of a public or private national coordinating 
authority with service provided by one or more private 
operators; (b) an option of privatization of Amtrak with a 
significant, sustainable, and stable source of capital funding; 
or (c) Federal withdrawal from all intercity passenger 
responsibility.
    The study could include the recommendations of the 
Discovery Institute Inquiry on Passenger Rail Privatization of 
October 1995, the British passenger rail privatization 
methodology, the Amtrak proposal for privatization with access 
to a trust fund, and any other plans deemed reasonable by those 
conducting the study. The study shall seek analysis and opinion 
from the Federal Railroad Administrator, Amtrak, the General 
Accounting Office, freight railroads, rail labor, and States 
currently planning intercity rail passenger service. At a 
minimum, views shall be sought from the States with a wide 
representation of urban and rural needs. A report should be 
submitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations 
by August 1, 1997.
    Mitigation study.--The Committee has been informed of local 
community concerns in Auburn, WA, regarding the reopening of 
Stampede Pass rail line operated by Burlington Northern-Santa 
Fe Railroad. For that reason, $100,000 is provided for the FRA 
to work with officials from the city of Auburn in conducting a 
study to mitigate the impacts of this line. The Committee also 
notes that local matching funds will be provided to complete 
this study.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
administration's budget submission:

New program initiatives.................................     -$2,725,000
Delete funding for maglev initiative....................      -1,000,000
Reduce costs of environmental program...................        -200,000
Decrease funding due to unobligated balances............        -640,000

    New program initiatives.--The Committee agrees with the 
House reduction in new program initiatives and has deleted 
$2,725,000, as did the House. The Committee directs that FRA 
continue the ongoing Oregon positive train separation project 
referenced in House Report 104-286 from within available 
account balances.
    Maglev technologies.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has deleted $1,000,000 requested to work in concert 
with the Air Force, Navy, and NASA, who are working on military 
and space launch applications of maglev technology. This 
reduction is made without prejudice to future funding requests 
for projects to ensure the safety of maglev systems.
    The Committee recognizes that pursuant to section 359(d) of 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, the 
Secretary is conducting a study evaluating the near-term 
applications of magnetic levitation ground transportation 
technology in the United States. Given the potential 
environmental benefits and job creation associated with maglev 
technology, the Committee commends the Department for its 
continuing efforts to establish maglev transportation as an 
alternative mode of passenger and small freight transportation. 
Although current fiscal constraints preclude a substantial 
Federal role in developing maglev technology, the Committee 
believes that FRA should continue to evaluate which maglev 
projects may warrant immediate application, especially those 
already certified elsewhere for commercial passenger service.
    Environmental program.--The Committee has reduced the 
environmental program by $200,000 in view of the substantial 
amount of funds already spent on understanding health and 
safety issues regarding electromagnetic fields.
    Grade crossing safety.--The Committee recommends $300,000 
to support Operation Lifesaver activities, the amount requested 
in the budget. A portion of these funds will be used to 
identify selected examples of effective practices or strategies 
used to promote grade crossing safety and to make this 
information readily available.
    Operating practices.--The Committee seeks to ensure that 
the operating practices program continues a strong focus on 
fatigue, stress, and other human dynamic questions not 
adequately addressed by private sector research, and has 
provided $2,595,000, the amount requested in the budget, for 
research on operating practices. Approximately one-third of all 
train accidents are due to human factors, including inadequate 
training, conflicting rules, fatigue, and irregular work hours. 
The Committee urges FRA to continue its efforts regarding 
stress and fatigue research, focusing on workplace factors 
involving scheduling, duration, and notification of work 
assignments and associated mitigation strategies aimed at 
reducing stress and fatigue experienced by locomotive engineers 
and dispatchers. Also within the funds provided for operating 
practices, the Committee recommends $100,000 for the ergonomics 
of advanced train control. This is the same amount allocated 
during fiscal year 1996.
    Passenger car standards.--The Committee urges FRA to 
complete necessary research to support the development of 
passenger car standards, and has provided $800,000 for this 
research, the amount requested in the budget.
    Strategic plan and improved budget submission.--The 
Committee concurs with the House request for a 5-year strategic 
plan of FRA's research and development program. In addition, 
this report should include the next generation program.
    Budget submission.--In order to ensure the continuity of 
the FRA research and development and the high-speed rail safety 
programs, the Committee requests that future budget submissions 
present funding levels for the past 2 years as well as the 
proposed levels of funding for each of the major projects for 
which support is requested.
    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, 1996....................................    $115,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     200,000,000
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                                             200,000,000

    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.
    Since 1976, some $3,600,000,000 has been invested by the 
Federal Government in the railroad. Amtrak is responsible for 
implementing the goals of NECIP, defined as regularly scheduled 
service between New York and Washington in 2 hours 30 minutes 
and between New York and Boston in 3 hours. Over 200,000,000 
intercity and commuter rail passengers travel on some portions 
of the Northeast corridor rail line each year.
    Since 1991, funding for the project has focused on two 
areas: reduction in trip time between New York and Boston; and 
state-of-good-repair recapitalization of the railroad between 
New York and Washington. The New York-Boston project is 
scheduled to be completed by October 1999, following 
construction of the new electrification system between New 
Haven and Boston and the delivery of the first of 18 new high-
speed trainsets. Many of the infrastructure improvements, 
necessary to permit up to 150-miles-per-hour speeds and 
facilitate increased growth on the rail line, have been 
designed and installed. Electrification construction work began 
on July 1, 1996. Other essential projects, including work to 
reduce rail congestion that benefits both Amtrak and commuter 
operations, also have progressed from design to construction.
    In March 1996, Amtrak announced the award of a contract for 
18 high-speed trainsets, 3 maintenance facilities, and 15 high-
speed locomotives. The trainsets will include in excess of 70 
percent American content. Importantly, Amtrak has been 
successful in securing financing for over 80 percent of the 
procurement--up to $860,000,000 in total financing--and will 
not be required to repay the debt until delivery of the 
trainsets for revenue service. The private financing will cover 
the cost of the trainsets and locomotives; however, because of 
the difficulty inherent in financing fixed-yard facilities, 
Amtrak must rely primarily on previously appropriated funds, 
together with $80,000,000 provided under the ``High-speed rail 
trainsets and facilities'' account, for the $250,000,000 cost 
of three maintenance facilities and other program activities.
    Amtrak projects that the operation of high-speed rail 
service on the Northeast corridor, made possible through the 
NECIP improvements, will enable it to generate net incremental 
revenues (after expenses and debt service) in excess of 
$150,000,000 per year, once the full fleet of trainsets is in 
operation. This revenue projection was the product of 2 years 
of extensive work by Amtrak and a team of industry experts. 
This incremental revenue will provide much of the funding that 
will enable Amtrak to eliminate its need for Federal operating 
support early next century.
    South of New York, Amtrak continues to seek funding to 
recapitalize the rail line and to preserve its ability to 
facilitate 125-miles-per-hour and faster operations. Amtrak is 
also working with the commuter authorities who operate the 
majority of the trains on the rail line to develop long-term 
recapitalization and upgrade programs. In a May 1996 joint 
report to Congress on the condition of the New York-Washington 
portion of the Northeast corridor, Amtrak and the FRA reported 
that some $1,970,000,000 is needed over time to replace 
critical facilities, improve the safety of the nearly 100-year-
old New York tunnels, and to increase the capacity of the rail 
line. This study reported that Amtrak carries between 12 and 13 
percent of all intercity trips in the New York City to 
Washington, DC, corridor, including those by private 
automobile. In 1995, Amtrak carried over 40 percent of the 
combined air and rail common carrier market between these two 
points, and over 65 percent of the total combined air and rail 
market when intermediate points (such as Philadelphia to New 
York City) are included. Amtrak and the FRA are undertaking a 
more indepth study of the work that will be required in the 
south end of the Northeast corridor.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of maintaining and 
upgrading the condition of this portion of the rail line. The 
New York-Washington segment of the corridor generates the most 
riders and the most revenues for Amtrak, and includes portions 
of five public commuter rail systems, including New Jersey 
Transit, MARC, SEPTA, LIRR, and URE. The joint Amtrak-FRA 
study, requested last year, is required to define a long-term 
program of improvements to preserve the corridor and ensure its 
ability to accommodate increased intercity and commuter 
service. In the absence of such a program, it is difficult for 
the Committee to prioritize the scarce funding available for 
investment. The Committee urges Amtrak and the FRA to progress 
phase II of the study as quickly as possible.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $200,000,000 for the Northeast 
Corridor Improvement Program. The amount provided is the same 
as the administration's request and $14,000,000 less than 
Amtrak's request. The House deleted all funds for NECIP.
    The Committee has allocated the NECIP funds as requested in 
the budget: $75,000,000 to progress the high-speed rail 
improvements north of New York; and $125,000,000 for 
recapitalization south of New York. The Committee has also 
included $80,000,000 as the final Federal contribution to the 
high-speed trainset program under a separate header.
    For the first time since the inception of the NECIP program 
in 1976, the House included no funding for investment in the 
Northeast corridor infrastructure. The House justified this on 
the availability of so-called balances within the ``NECIP'' 
account that had not yet been expended by Amtrak. The Committee 
contends that these balances are illusory. Amtrak's contractual 
obligations--money it is required to pay to contractors for 
work that is already underway--exceed the balance of unexpended 
funds and must remain available to meet Amtrak's payment 
obligations under the contracts. Moreover, because Amtrak 
itself undertakes much of the infrastructure work on its own 
railroad, funds that may be categorized as unexpended or 
unobligated, in fact, have been committed by Amtrak in the same 
way as if Amtrak had hired an outside contractor to undertake 
the work. Significant additional funding is required in fiscal 
year 1997 to progress work essential to meet the project goals 
in 1999.
    In the absence of additional funding during fiscal year 
1997, Amtrak will have to suspend all work on the New York-
Boston project except electrification and federally required 
mitigation. Three-hour service will not be achievable in time 
to generate the incremental revenues that Amtrak requires to 
offset the elimination of Federal operating support called for 
in the pending authorization bill. Finally, work to preserve 
current speeds and enhance safety on the south end of the 
railroad would stop, further undermining Amtrak's ability to 
earn revenue from its high-speed operations.
    The Committee believes that Amtrak cannot become self-
sufficient without capital investment in the project it is most 
dependent upon to generate new and significant revenues. 
Investment in the Northeast corridor is clearly vital to the 
future of Amtrak. The Committee has included sufficient funding 
to permit the timely completion of the New York-Boston program 
and to progress state of good repairs south of New York.

                High-Speed Rail Trainsets and Facilities

Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     $80,000,000
House allowance.........................................      80,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              80,000,000

    This appropriation will help Amtrak finance the acquisition 
of trainsets and related maintenance facilities specially 
designed to offer enhanced high-speed (150 miles per hour) 
service on the Northeast corridor from Washington, DC, to 
Boston, MA. The Committee's recommended level is the same as 
the budget request and House allowance, and $20,000,000 below 
Amtrak's request. The Committee concurs with the House that 
this is a one-time grant which, when combined with previously 
appropriated funds and private vendor financing, will ensure 
that Amtrak has sufficient funds to progress the needed 
facility improvements and acquire trainsets for high-speed rail 
service on the Northeast corridor.
    Key to Amtrak's efforts to wean itself from Federal 
operating assistance by fiscal year 2002 is the introduction of 
modern, electrified high-speed service in the Boston-New York 
City-Washington, DC, corridor, beginning in 1999. Independent 
analysis of the potential high-speed market projects that by 
2001, this service, using the new high-speed trainsets, will 
attract over 2 million additional passengers. With the increase 
in ridership and through yield management, the high-speed 
service will permit Northeast corridor operations to break even 
and generate increasing amounts of cash that can offset 
operating shortfalls in other areas. Without high-speed 
service, these projects show that the Northeast corridor will 
never reach a point where a Federal operating subsidy is not 
needed.
    The high-speed equipment will serve two purposes. First, it 
will replace 15-year-old locomotives presently in use, which 
pull 20-year-old Amfleet cars in Metroliner service. The aging 
equipment is not capable of achieving the NECIP trip time 
goals, is experiencing progressively more frequent failures, 
and does not possess the amenities necessary for Amtrak to 
attract and retain new riders. Second, the new high-speed 
equipment will permit Metroliners to directly operate between 
Washington and Boston, eliminating the need to change trains in 
New York City and freeing up capacity in congested Pennsylvania 
Station. The equipment is essential for achievement of the 
statutory time trip goal for the New York City-to-Boston 
service of under 3 hours.
    General provision.--Under the 1976 act establishing the 
Northeast corridor project, the Secretary of Transportation was 
required to implement the project (Public Law 94-210, sec. 
703). However, as directed by Congress in Public Law 96-954, 
section 206, the Secretary transferred all authority and 
responsibility for implementing the project to Amtrak in 1985. 
The Committee has included a general provision which confirms 
that the authority transferred to Amtrak to implement NECIP is 
the same authority that the Secretary had as implementor of the 
project, including the exemptions from State and local laws 
which a project undertaken by the United States enjoys. This 
will help avoid the possibility of time-consuming disputes with 
respect to State and local requirements applicable to 
construction, and will help facilitate the investment of 
private sector funds in the project, particularly for secured 
financing of high-speed train maintenance facilities. These 
facilities would cost the Federal Government at least 
$130,000,000 if not privately financed. Under the Committee 
provision, secured private sector financing is more likely, 
because the language permits a private sector corporation to 
reclaim the train maintenance facilities in the event of an 
Amtrak bankruptcy.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

                        (including trust funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 General          Trust \1\           Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996......................................       $19,205,000        $5,000,000       $24,205,000
Budget estimate, 1997.....................................        26,525,000  ................        26,525,000
House allowance...........................................        19,757,000  ................        19,757,000
Committee recommendation..................................        26,525,000  ................        26,525,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  

    The Committee has provided $26,525,000 in general fund 
appropriations for the high-speed ground transportation [HSGT] 
program. This amount, in combination with carryover of 
$1,420,882 from the trust fund, yields a total Committee 
recommendation of $27,945,882 for fiscal year 1997. The amount 
provided is $8,188,882 more than the House allowance and the 
same as 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.
    From within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 
the following allocations:
    Northwest high-speed rail projects.--The sum of $11,100,000 
is provided for the State of Oregon for track, signals, grade 
crossing improvements, and station improvements (Albany, 
Eugene, Oregon City, and Salem) within the Portland to Eugene 
segment of the Pacific Northwest high-speed rail corridor. This 
will complement the significant State and local investment 
being made in this FRA-designated high-speed rail corridor to 
achieve 2-hour service between Portland and Eugene. No matching 
funds shall be required for this project. These funds will 
assist efforts to enhance developing high-speed rail corridors.
    Turbo-train upgrades, State of New York.--The sum of 
$6,000,000 is provided to continue FRA's ongoing project with 
the State of New York. Moreover, the Committee disagrees with 
language in the House report stating that FRA should not fund 
the retrofit of older railcars or locomotives. The Committee 
supports FRA's position that the use of retired turbine 
locomotives [RTL's] as test platforms makes sound economic 
sense. In the RTL II demonstration in 1995, the RTL trainsets 
demonstrate their capability as low-cost platforms for testing 
components of advanced electric locomotive designs at speeds of 
at least 125 miles per hour in real world testing, including 
revenue service. The RTL II involved testing an advanced gas 
turbine design as a prime mover. Future testing on RTL test 
platforms could include further advancements in gas turbine 
designs, improved transmissions, and other enhancements that 
would improve performance and ride quality. In addition, at the 
conclusion of the initial testing phase, the RTL test platform 
can enter regular revenue service for extended periods of 
revenue tests, with the added benefit of reducing the demands 
on Amtrak's limited capital resources to acquire equipment, 
helping maintain the schedules on the Empire corridor into New 
York City.
    If the option of using retired turbine locomotive trainsets 
is not available to FRA, entirely new test platforms would have 
to be developed. This could increase the cost of tests or 
reduce the amount of funding available for testing advancements 
in nonelectric technology. In addition, there would be no 
follow-on benefit after the test in the form of operational 
equipment that could be used in revenue service.

                     Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................

Committee recommendation

                                                              10,000,000

    The Committee has included $10,000,000 for rail safety 
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.

               Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project

Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997..................................\1\ ($15,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ Funding for this project is included in the ``Grants to the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation'' appropriation budget request, capital 
expenses.

    The Committee has included a discussion of the Pennsylvania 
Station redevelopment project's funding request and the 
Committee's subsequent action under the ``Grants to the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation capital expenses'' 
account header.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

Appropriations, 1996....................................      $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      10,000,000
House allowance.........................................       4,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              10,000,000

    For fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $1,000,000 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 $6,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal 
actions brought by the P&W.
    For fiscal year 1997, 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 
$16,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal 
actions brought by the P&W. The Committee is providing 
$10,000,000 to continue the Rhode Island rail development 
project.

                     Direct Loan Financing Program

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Loan subsidy      Limitation on  
                                      appropriation       direct loans  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996..............  .................  .................
Budget estimate, 1997.............  .................  .................
House allowance...................        $58,680,000     ($400,000,000)
Committee recommendation..........  .................  .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The administration has not requested any funds under 
section 505 of the Rail Revitalization and Regulatory Reform 
Act of 1976. However, the House included $58,680,000 in 
appropriations to subsidize loans of $400,000,000 for the 
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. This large, ongoing 
project involves the elimination of over 200 at-grade-highway 
crossings along a 20-mile rail corridor in order to improve 
access to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The 
administration had requested funds for the Alameda corridor 
project under the Federal Highway Administration program. The 
Committee has directed, elsewhere in the report, that 
$58,680,000 provided under the State infrastructure banks 
program be made available for the Alameda corridor project.

       Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Appropriations, 1996....................................\1\ $635,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... \1\ 638,500,000
House allowance.........................................     462,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     592,000,000

\1\ Includes $120,000,000 for mandatory passenger rail payments in 
fiscal year 1996 and $142,000 in fiscal year 1997.

    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 25-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 
$592,000,000 for Amtrak. This is $130,000,000 more than the 
House appropriation, $46,500,000 below the administration's 
request, and $43,000,000 below the fiscal year 1996 Amtrak 
appropriation. The Committee understands that Amtrak management 
is concerned that it may not be able to achieve operating self-
sufficiency by fiscal year 2002, unless additional capital 
funds are provided. Therefore, the Senate has provided Amtrak 
with a total of $330,000,000 more in its capital accounts than 
that provided by the House. The Committee allocation includes 
$200,000,000 for NECIP, an account zeroed by the House, and 
$250,000,000 for capital, which is $130,000,000 above the House 
appropriation. In addition, $80,000,000 has been provided to 
advance the high-speed trainsets and facilities project, which 
Amtrak estimates will significantly increase revenues to the 
Corporation.

                                                   OPERATIONS                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                                                                   1997 request      allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Routine operating expenses......................................    $200,000,000    $200,000,000    $200,000,000
Mandatory passenger rail payments...............................     142,000,000     142,000,000     142,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has provided $200,000,000 for operations, the 
same as both the House allowance and the budget request and 
$63,000,000 below the enacted level. Amtrak has requested 
$250,000,000 for operations.
    Mandatory passenger rail payments.--This appropriation 
includes $142,000,000 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.
    Transition and restructuring costs.--Neither the 
administration nor Amtrak requested any funds for long-term 
transition expenses in fiscal year 1997, and the Committee has 
not provided any funding for such costs. In fiscal year 1996, 
the Committee provided $100,000,000 under this program which 
was used to cover operating expenses for Amtrak.
    General provision.--At Amtrak's request, the Committee has 
included a general provision which pertains to possible claims 
against Amtrak regarding unused tickets.

                            CAPITAL EXPENSES

    The Committee has provided $250,000,000 for capital grants, 
$130,000,000 more than the House allocation and $46,500,000 
below the administration's request.
    Northwest high-speed rail corridor.--The Committee expects 
the Corporation to proceed in fiscal year 1997 according to its 
capital business plan, with respect to funding its share of the 
costs for high-speed passenger rail equipment and maintenance 
facilities for this corridor. Project costs are being allocated 
among Amtrak and other funding partners.
    Pennsylvania Station redevelopment.--The high-speed 
trainsets being procured for use along the Northeast corridor 
are expected to bring 3 million more riders per year between 
Washington, DC, and Boston, MA. Major stations along the route 
have recently been improved to standards commensurate with such 
service except for New York's Pennsylvania Station, linchpin of 
the corridor and Amtrak's busiest station nationwide, which 
remains code-deficient and overcrowded. The current station is 
entirely underground. Of primary concern is vertical access to 
its platforms which do not lie entirely under the existing 
station. The platforms' western ends lie underneath the 
historic James A. Farley Post Office, built at the turn of the 
century when mail was delivered primarily by rail. Plans to 
expand the station would convert a portion of the Farley 
Building into an intermodal station, improving safety and 
circulation and providing significant new platform access.
    City, State, and private resources are to be used in 
conjunction with Federal funds to improve the federally owned 
station. The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corp., formed 
in 1995, is currently preparing a detailed cost estimate for 
the project. Once this cost estimate is completed, the 
Committee encourages Amtrak to finalize the cost-sharing 
agreement between the funding partners, prepare final drawings 
and schedules, and complete the other preconstruction 
activities so the project can proceed in a timely manner.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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.
    Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level 
of $4,382,832,000 would be provided for the programs of the 
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 1996. This is 
$86,708,000 more than the budget request and $332,040,000 above 
the House allocation.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations compared to fiscal year 1996, the 
administration's request, and the House allowance:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          1996 enacted \1\                                          Committee   
                 Program                                      1997 estimate   House  allowance   recommendation 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses.................       $42,000,000       $43,652,000       $41,367,000       $42,147,000
Formula grants \2\......................     2,052,925,000     2,151,972,000     2,052,925,000     2,149,185,000
Discretionary grants \3\ ...............     1,665,000,000     1,799,000,000     1,665,000,000     1,900,000,000
Transit planning and research...........        85,500,000        85,500,000        85,500,000        85,500,000
University transportation centers.......         6,000,000         6,000,000         6,000,000         6,000,000
Washington Metro........................       200,000,000       200,000,000       200,000,000       200,000,000
Violent crime reduction program.........  ................        10,000,000  ................  ................
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................     4,051,425,000     4,296,124,000     4,050,792,000     4,382,832,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and the     
  Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.                                              
\2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $1,110,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 and $1,930,850,000 in fiscal year  
  1997 estimate and $1,930,850,000 in Committee recommendation.                                                 
\3\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  

                        Administrative Expenses

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      43,652,000
House allowance.........................................      41,367,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,147,000

    The Committee recommends a total of $42,147,000 in general 
funds for administrative expenses. The amount provided is 
$780,000 more than the House allowance and $1,505,000 less than 
the administration's request.
    The Committee agrees with the reductions made by the House, 
except that it has added back $500,000 for nontechnical 
training, $130,000 to provide for four regional community 
planners, and $150,000 for the Director of Communications and 
External Affairs and executive assistant positions.

                             Formula Grants

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Appropriation        Limitation   
                                      (general fund)      (trust fund)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996..............      $942,925,000    ($1,110,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997.............       221,122,000     (1,930,850,000)
House allowance...................       490,000,000     (1,562,925,000)
Committee recommendation..........       218,335,000     (1,930,850,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 $2,149,185,000 for continuation of 
the Formula Grant Program including $115,122,428 for the 
section 5311 Nonurban Formula Program; $56,049,949 for the 
section 5310 Elderly and Disabled Program, and $1,978,012,623 
for the section 5307, Urban Formula Grants Program.
    Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These 
areas would receive $1,778,731,872 (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 $189,390,688 (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 $115,122,428 
under the section 5311 program. These funds are distributed 
based on nonurbanized area population not including the one-
half percent setaside.
    Elderly and disabled.--The section 5310 program would 
receive $56,049,949.
    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 continued language added to the 
bill last year to hold cuts in operating assistance for those 
urbanized areas [UZA's] under 200,000 in population to 25 
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 by a subsequent 44 percent in fiscal year 1996, and 
that further reductions may result in some combination of fare 
increases, service cuts, or increased support at the State and 
local government levels.
    Operating aid for larger UZA's has been frozen at the 
fiscal year 1996 level.
    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, 1997.
    The legislative intent of the ADA that fixed route public 
transit operators provide complementary paratransit services 
for eligible persons with disabilities did not assume the 
transfer to public transit operators of the financial burden of 
carrying persons with disabilities whose transportation costs 
have traditionally been funded by Department of Health and 
Human Services [DHHS] programs. Therefore, the Committee has an 
interest in ensuring that the existing human services 
transportation programs funded through DHHS not be eliminated 
or consolidated without an adequate and ongoing financial 
commitment by DHHS to pay for the transportation costs of their 
clients whether such transportation is provided by traditional 
human services transportation networks or by ADA complementary 
paratransit services.
    The Committee reiterates its position 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. The Committee believes that coordination of 
transportation for persons with disabilities, seniors, and 
others funded by DHHS programs or by public transit operators 
under their ADA complementary paratransit obligations must be 
planned and implemented at the State and regional levels in 
order to ensure cost-effective service delivery and improve 
access to DHHS program services. Federal guidelines to 
facilitate such coordination planning will provide assistance 
to public transit operators, community transportation 
providers, and human service transportation providers to 
achieve coordination objectives. In addition, a uniform cost 
accounting system is key to fostering coordination among the 
myriad Federal programs which fund transportation in order to 
streamline the payment for the administration of services 
funded by each program.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation, 
working with the Secretary of Health and Human Services through 
the DOT/DHHS Coordinating Council, to develop these guidelines 
for State and regional planning to achieve specific 
transportation coordination objectives including, but not 
limited to: joint identification of human service client 
transportation needs and the appropriate mix of transportation 
services to meet those needs; the expanded use of public 
transit services to deliver human services program 
transportation; and cost-sharing arrangements for DHHS program 
clients transported by ADA paratransit systems based on a 
uniform accounting system.

                   University Transportation Centers

Appropriations, 1996....................................      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................       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, 1996....................................     $85,500,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      85,500,000
House allowance.........................................      85,500,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              85,500,000

    The Committee has recommended $85,500,000 for transit 
planning and research. This is the same as both the House 
allocation and the administration's request. The Committee has 
allocated the funds in the same manner as did the House. The 
separate programs combined are: the research, training, and 
human resources program (sections 6, 10, 11, and 20), the 
planning program (section 5303), and the rural transit 
assistance program (section 5311(b)(2)). 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.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year   Fiscal year                              
                                                        1996 program   1997 budget      House        Committee  
                                                            level       estimate      allowance   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning.................................   $39,500,000   $39,500,000   $39,500,000    $39,500,000 
Rural transit assistance program......................     4,500,000     4,500,000     4,500,000      4,500,000 
State planning and research program...................     8,250,000     8,250,000     8,250,000      8,250,000 
Transit cooperative research program..................     8,250,000     8,250,000     8,250,000      8,250,000 
National Transit Institute............................     3,000,000     3,000,000     3,000,000      3,000,000 
National planning and research program................    22,000,000    22,000,000    22,000,000     22,000,000 
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................................    85,500,000    85,500,000    85,500,000     85,500,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has provided funding for a number of 
important initiatives in fiscal year 1997. They are as follows:

Project ACTION (accessible community transportation in our 
    Nation)...................................................$2,000,000
Fuel cell bus technology......................................15,000,000
Computer integrated transit environment [CITME] at Greater 
    Cleveland RTA............................................. 2,700,000

    The Committee has not earmarked other projects mentioned in 
the House report that are not listed in this report. This 
action is taken without prejudice to final decisions on project 
funding that will be made in conference.
    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.
    Advanced lead acid battery consortium [ALABC].--The 
Committee has previously expressed its strong support for the 
technology development and deployment program of the advanced 
lead acid battery consortium [ALABC], and notes that FTA has 
been directed to provide a total of $1,500,000 to the ALABC in 
Public Laws 104-19 and 104-50. The Committee understands that 
FTA has awarded $250,000, and is processing a further grant 
award in the amount of $500,000 for ALABC work in conjunction 
with the Santa Barbara transit system. The Committee directs 
the FTA to complete the award of $500,000 no later than 
September 30, 1996, and to award the balance of $750,000 to the 
ALABC no later than December 31, 1996.
    Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program.--The Committee directs the 
FTA to provide $15,000,000 to continue the advancement of the 
Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program. 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 
this important new technology.
    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.

                  Trust Fund Share of Transit Programs

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,120,850,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,920,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,920,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                         (1,920,000,000)

    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 1997, as in 
1996, 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, 1996....................................($1,665,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,799,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,665,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,900,000,000)

    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 
fixed guideway expenditures for existing older systems.
    The Committee recommends a level of $1,900,000,000. This is 
$235,000,000 more than that recommended by the House and 
$101,000,000 above the administration's request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year                               
                                                       1996 program   1997 budget      House        Committee   
                                                           level       estimate      allowance   recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities...............................       333,000       274,000       333,000         375,000 
Fixed guideway modernization.........................       666,000       725,000       666,000         725,000 
New systems and new extensions.......................       666,000       800,000       666,000         800,000 
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Total..........................................     1,665,000     1,799,000     1,665,000       1,900,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 1994 transportation appropriations bill (Public Law 
103-122) and previous acts making these funds available for 
reallocation in fiscal year 1997. As in previous years, a 
general provision (sec. 317) is included which limits funding 
availability for these fiscal year 1997 discretionary funds to 
3 years from enactment. A total of $56,956,000 has been 
reprogrammed to the new systems account, increasing the 
available funding from $800,000,000 to $856,956,000.
    The following amounts have been reallocated from various 
projects to new starts funding for fiscal year 1997:

Fiscal year 1992:
    Detroit.............................................      $4,890,000
    San Jose-Gilroy.....................................       4,000,000
Fiscal year 1995: New Bedford/Fall River................         744,000
Chicago central area circulator balances................      47,322,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      56,956,000

    Reallocation of Seattle-Tacoma Commuter Rail new starts 
funding.--The House reallocated unobligated fiscal year 1992 
balances of $1,620,000 from the Seattle-Tacoma Commuter Rail 
new start account to increase the amount of available new 
starts funding for fiscal year 1997. However, these funds were 
reprogrammed during the conference on the fiscal year 1996 
Transportation appropriations bill (House Report 104-286, p. 
66); and subsequently, King County, WA, and its coapplicants 
have been administratively authorized by the Federal Transit 
Administration to incur costs against this money. The 
Committee, therefore, expects the Federal Transit 
Administration to release these funds for purposes consistent 
with the intent of the conferees, and opposes the House action 
reallocating these funds.
    Interstate compact infrastructure banks.--Provisions in 
this bill provide funding for 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

    Due to budget constraints, the Committee has deleted 
funding for many meritorious bus and bus facilities projects 
which were earmarked in the House report. This action was taken 
without prejudice to these projects. The Committee expects to 
give full consideration to all projects mentioned in the House 
and Senate reports during conference committee deliberations on 
the Fiscal Year 1997 Transportation Appropriations Act.
    The recommended amount includes the following allocations:

                                                               Committee
        State/city and project description                recommendation

Arkansas: Little Rock, Central AR Transit, buses and bus 
    loading station.....................................      $2,000,000
California:
    Lake Tahoe, South Shore Transport., coordinated 
      transit system....................................       2,532,000
    Los Angeles County MTA, ATTB prototype buses........      13,100,000
    Los Angeles neighborhood initiative.................       3,000,000
    San Joaquin RTD downtown transit center (livable 
      communities)......................................       5,500,000
    Solano County Transit, buses and linking express 
      service to BART...................................       1,920,000
    Thousand Oaks multimodal center.....................         600,000
Delaware: Bus facility (in New Castle County)...........      10,000,000
Florida:
    Miami Beach, electric battery buses.................       1,200,000
    Tampa (Hillsborough area RTD), buses (HARTline).....       5,600,000
Indiana: Indianapolis metro, new buses..................       5,000,000
Iowa:
    Cedar Rapids:
        Hybrid electric bus consortium..................         892,600
        Surface park and ride lot.......................         897,000
    Sioux City multimodal park and ride facility........         750,000
    Waterloo, intermodal bus facility...................         665,000
Kansas: Johnson City, bus maintenance center............       4,400,000
Louisiana: Shreveport, Lafayette and New Orleans bus 
    facilities..........................................       7,000,000
Massachusetts:
    Hyannis, Cape Cod intermodal transportation center..       6,500,000
    Springfield, Union Station intermodal facility......         750,000
Michigan:
    Michigan DOT ISTEA earmark for buses and related 
      equipment.........................................      10,000,000
    City of Detroit, intermodal transportation center...      10,000,000
Mississippi:
    Jackson:
        Buses...........................................       1,500,000
        Downtown multimodal transit center..............       3,500,000
Missouri:
    Kansas City:
        KCATA buses.....................................       5,300,000
        Union Station intermodal........................      13,000,000
    Kansas City Trolley Corp., replacement trolleys.....         320,000
    State of Missouri, buses and bus facilities.........      20,000,000
Nevada: Reno, Regional Transportation Commission buses..       3,469,000
New Jersey: New Jersey Transit, Clean Air Act bus fleet 
    improvements........................................       6,000,000
New Mexico: Albuquerque URICA bus project...............       4,000,000
New York:
    Broome County, buses................................       1,900,000
    Chemung County, intermodal center...................       3,000,000
    Long Island Bus alternative fuels fueling facilities       3,800,000
    New York City, natural gas buses....................      20,000,000
    Rochester-Genessee RTA, buses.......................       3,500,000
    Utica, buses, support vehicles......................       2,400,000
    Alternative bus fuels fueling facilities: Brooklyn, 
      Bronx, and Manhattan..............................      12,000,000
North Dakota: Bismarck and Mandan (Bis-Man Transit) 
    intermodal center...................................       1,500,000
Ohio:
    Akron, diesel and CNG buses, vehicle locator system.      11,000,000
    Cincinnati (southwest Ohio RTA):
        Buses...........................................      15,000,000
        Administrative facility.........................       3,000,000
    Grand River (Laketran), maintenance facility........       1,000,000
Oregon:
    Eugene, Lane Transit District, buses and station....       5,100,000
    Central City streetcar..............................       6,000,000
    Hood River, buses...................................         175,000
    Salem, downtown transit center......................       3,700,000
    Portland, South bus mall extension..................      12,800,000
    Wilsonville, transit vehicles.......................         250,000
Pennsylvania:
    Erie, intermodal complex............................       4,000,000
    Philadelphia: Alternative fueled vehicles...........       8,000,000
South Carolina: Spartanburg, intermodal facility........       2,938,400
Texas:
    Brazos Valley woodlands town center project.........       2,700,000
    East Texas, Liberty, Montgomery, and Polk Counties 
      service expansion.................................       6,000,000
    Galveston trolley maintenance.......................         500,000
Utah:
    Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics:
        Buses and facilities............................      11,000,000
        Intermodal centers..............................      11,000,000
Vermont:
    Burlington, multimodal center.......................       3,000,000
    Rutland intermodal station..........................         700,000
    Urban and rural, buses and bus facilities...........       5,500,000
Virginia: Richmond, downtown intermodal station.........      20,000,000
Washington:
    Chelan-Douglas multimodal center--Amtrak platform...       2,000,000
    Seattle, Metro/King County multimodal...............       6,000,000
    Seattle/King Co. Metro, transit transfer centers....       4,000,000
West Virginia: Charleston, renovate maintenance facility       3,180,000
Wyoming: Fremont County, Shoshone and Arapahoe Nation's 
    buses and facility..................................       1,773,000

    Salem, OR.--The Committee directs that funds previously 
provided for the city of Salem, OR, may be applied to the Salem 
downtown transit center.
    Logan Transit District, UT.--The Committee notes that the 
Logan Transit District [LTD] plans to apply for funds in fiscal 
year 1997 and looks favorably upon LTD's efforts to secure 
discretionary bus funds.

                      fixed guideway modernization

    The Committee recommends a total of $725,000,000 for the 
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under ISTEA all 
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table 
itemizes by State the fiscal year 1997 rail modernization 
allocations:


Fixed guideway modernization apportionments

              Areas                                        Apportionment

Arizona: Phoenix........................................        $543,840
California:
    Los Angeles.........................................       8,187,646
    Sacramento..........................................         936,892
    San Diego...........................................       1,930,273
    San Francisco.......................................      47,144,013
    San Jose............................................       3,821,522
Colorado: Denver........................................         428,341
Connecticut:
    Hartford............................................         495,272
    Southwestern Connecticut............................      31,834,843
Delaware: Wilmington....................................         310,626
Washington, DC..........................................      16,847,946
Florida:
    Fort Lauderdale.....................................       1,126,692
    Jacksonville........................................          34,896
    Miami...............................................       3,074,946
    West Palm Beach.....................................         861,634
Georgia: Atlanta........................................       6,911,566
Hawaii: Honolulu........................................         252,354
Illinois: Chicago/Northwestern Indiana..................     100,326,955
Louisiana: New Orleans..................................       2,071,787
Maryland:
    Baltimore...........................................       2,665,108
    Baltimore commuter rail.............................      12,471,130
Massachusetts:
    Boston..............................................      50,136,690
    Lawrence-Haverhill..................................         472,380
Michigan: Detroit.......................................         175,326
Minnesota: Minneapolis..................................       1,283,319
Missouri:
    Kansas City.........................................          19,901
    St. Louis...........................................         950,072
New Jersey:
    Northeastern New Jersey.............................      63,352,402
    Trenton.............................................         531,340
New York:
    Buffalo.............................................         404,344
    New York............................................     248,719,886
Ohio:
    Cleveland...........................................      10,484,874
    Dayton..............................................       1,629,075
Pennsylvania:
    Philadelphia/Southern NJ............................      72,073,388
    Pittsburgh..........................................      14,882,066
Puerto Rico: San Juan...................................         821,459
Oregon: Portland........................................         991,010
Rhode Island: Providence................................         959,185
Tennessee: Chattanooga..................................          20,200
Texas:
    Dallas..............................................         287,857
    Houston.............................................       2,172,061
Virginia: Norfolk.......................................         450,949
Washington:
    Seattle.............................................       6,040,200
    Tacoma..............................................         188,823
Wisconsin: Madison......................................         237,411
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total apportionment...............................     719,562,500
Section 23 set-aside....................................       5,437,500
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total fixed guideway..............................     725,000,000

                              NEW SYSTEMS

    The bill includes $800,000,000, as requested in the 
administration budget, and $56,956,000 of reprogrammed funds, 
for a total of $856,956,000. 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:

Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry project................      $6,390,000
Atlanta-MARTA North Line extension......................      62,000,000
Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway....................      30,000,000
Burlington-Charlotte, VT, commuter rail.................       2,000,000
Chicago transit improvements............................      20,000,000
Cincinnati/northern Kentucky rail line project..........       3,000,000
Dallas-DART north central light rail extension project..      12,000,000
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN..............................      18,000,000
Florida (Miami) Tri-County commuter rail................      20,000,000
Houston-METRO regional bus plan.........................      24,000,000
Jackson, Mississippi intermodal corridor................       7,400,000
Kansas City, MO southtown corridor project..............       3,600,000
Little Rock, AR, Junction Bridge........................       6,000,000
Los Angeles metro rail MOS-3............................      55,000,000
Maryland central corridor LRT...........................       5,000,000
Maryland commuter rail [MARC]...........................      50,000,000
Memphis, TN, regional rail plan.........................       6,400,000
Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor, Florida..........       5,000,000
Morgantown, WV, train control system....................       4,240,000
New Jersey urban core/Secaucus..........................     105,530,000
New Jersey urban core/Hudson-Bergen.....................      10,000,000
New Orleans Canal Street corridor.......................      10,000,000
New York 63d Street/Queens connector....................      35,020,000
Oklahoma City, MAPS corridors transit system............      10,000,000
Orlando-Lynx light rail project.........................       2,000,000
Pittsburgh busway projects..............................      15,100,000
Portland Westside LRT project...........................     138,000,000
Portland South/North light rail transit.................       6,000,000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, regional transit 
    plan................................................       5,000,000
Sacramento..............................................       7,000,000
Salt Lake City LRT......................................      58,000,000
San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions............      20,000,000
Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail.....................       5,000,000
St. Louis Metrolink.....................................      30,000,000
St. Louis Metrolink/St. Clair County, IL, extension.....      45,000,000
Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail............................       2,000,000
Virginia Rail Express Richmond to Washington commuter 
    rail project........................................       8,000,000
Whitehall Ferry Terminal, New York......................       5,000,000

                          PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

    Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry project.--The Committee 
recommends $6,390,000 for the Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry 
project in southeast Alaska. This project will improve ferry 
service to provide vital transportation for residents of this 
remote area, as well as for tourists. The project includes 
building a passenger/vehicle ferry to operate year-round, 
making two round trips per day on the 38-nautical mile route 
between Hollis and Ketchikan, AK. The House provided no funds 
for this project.
    Atlanta-MARTA North Line extension.--The Committee 
recommends $62,000,000 for the Atlanta-MARTA North Line 
extension project. The House provided $66,820,000 for this 
project. This 1.9-mile, two-station extension from the Dunwoody 
station to North Springs is part of the larger 9 mile, five 
station North Line extension to the MARTA heavy rail rapid 
transit system. The segment from Buckhead to Dunwoody opened in 
June 1996. The North Line extension will 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 local share 
commitment for the federally funded portion of this extension 
is 20 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. To date, $29,457,400 has been obligated, as 
has the $10,000,000 provided in pre-ISTEA funds. No funds were 
appropriated for this project in fiscal year 1994 or fiscal 
year 1995. However, $41,900,252 was appropriated in fiscal year 
1996. The FFGA funding schedule provides for $66,820,000 in 
fiscal year 1997 new starts funds, with the remaining 
$156,830,000 provided over fiscal years 1998-2001. To date, 
$131,945,784 has been obligated to the entire project with only 
the fiscal year 1996 appropriation 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 $30,000,000 for the South Boston Piers Transitway 
project. The House provided $40,181,000 for this 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 and its construction is timed 
to coincide with 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-$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 
project received an appropriation of $19,818,888 in fiscal year 
1996. The FFGA funding schedule provides for $53,720,000 in 
fiscal year 1997. The remaining $164,600,000 would be provided 
over the course of fiscal years 1998-2001. To date, $92,458,125 
has been obligated to the project with only the fiscal year 
1996 appropriation remaining unobligated. This project received 
an ISTEA earmark of $278,000,000.
    Burlington-Charlotte, VT, commuter rail.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for the Federal share of capital 
improvements for the Burlington-Charlotte commuter rail 
project. The House provided no funds for this project. These 
funds will be used for upgrades to the Vermont Railway 
including track, signal, at grade crossing, and drainage 
improvements. The terminus in Charlotte will be located near 
Ferry Road. In Burlington, the terminus would be the newly 
developed Main Street Landing/Union Station site. The project 
will include the construction of three stations, in addition to 
Union Station, with park-and-ride lots and integrated feeder 
bus service. The State of Vermont has 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 
major investment study [MIS] has been completed and a public 
hearing on the preferred alternative has been held. The 
preferred alternative is a combination of highway improvements, 
passenger rail, and enhanced bus service. The MIS identifies a 
cost-effectiveness index of $8 per new passenger trip. The 
environmental assessment is currently being finalized. FTA has 
not rated the financial plan. A total of $5,582,090 was 
appropriated for this project in fiscal year 1996, completing 
the Federal funding requirement. These moneys have not yet been 
obligated. This project was not authorized in ISTEA.
    Chicago transit improvements.--The Committee recommends 
$20,000,000 for transit improvements in the city of Chicago. 
The House provided $25,000,000 for transit improvements for the 
city of Chicago to improve congestion and circulation in the 
central business district. These projects include renovations 
of existing subway stations, platform rehabilitation, and 
installing a cab signal system. These improvements are to take 
the place of the planned Chicago circulator project, which was 
planned as a multilegged light rail transit system within 
downtown Chicago. The cost of constructing the entire light 
rail project was estimated to be $775,000,000 (escalated 
dollars). Ridership was projected to be about 103,400 trips per 
day. On October 24, 1995, the executive board of the Chicago 
area circulator voted unanimously to recommend to the mayor and 
the city council the termination of the project. On October 26, 
1995, city staff notified FTA that the project had been 
terminated. A letter confirming this decision has been received 
by the city. FTA is currently working with the city to achieve 
final close out of the project, and funds previously 
appropriated for the circulator project have been reprogrammed 
to other transit new starts.
    Cincinnati/northern Kentucky rail line project.--The 
Committee recommends $3,000,000 for this project, the same 
amount as provided by the House. The corridor extends from the 
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport through 
downtown Cincinnati to Paramount King's Island Amusement Park 
in Warren County, OH. This 33-mile corridor parallels I-71 in a 
generally northeast direction, and so is referred to as the 
Northeast corridor. The capital cost of the rail alternative is 
$800,000,000. The project is currently in the system planning 
studies phase. For fiscal years 1994 through 1996, Congress has 
appropriated $3,518,856 for the corridor.
    Dallas-DART north central light rail extension project.--
The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the Dallas-DART north 
central light rail extension project. The House provided 
$10,000,000 for this project. This project is a 11.4-mile, six-
station, $354,300,000 LRT extension to Plano. The southern 6.8 
miles, from Park Lane to Richardson Transit Center, would be 
double tracked. The northern 5.5 miles would be single track 
initially with limited station development. Dallas area rapid 
transit has completed a major investment study [MIS] and the 
preferred alternative was selected in September 1994. The 
project is now in the preliminary engineering phase. A draft 
EIS should be ready for circulation in the summer of 1996. The 
local share commitment to this project is 50 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $9 per new passenger trip. FTA has 
assigned a financial rating of high to this project. Through 
fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $5,445,191 for this 
project. To date, $1,504,800 have been obligated with 
$3,940,391 in prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. 
The project is not authorized in ISTEA.
    Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN.--The Committee recommends 
$18,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project. The 
House provided $12,500,000 for this project. This project, 
scheduled to open in July 1999, 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 
to the project. The capital costs of phases one and two are 
$68,200,000 and $129,010,000 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 (46 percent), CMAQ funds (15 percent), 
highway demonstration funds (16 percent), and local funds (23 
percent). Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated 
$11,385,383 for this project. To date, $2,480,000,000 has been 
obligated with $8,905,383 of prior-year appropriations 
remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of 
$5,680,000.
    Florida (Miami) Tri-County commuter rail.--The Committee 
recommends $20,000,000 for the Tri-County commuter rail 
project. The House provided $9,000,000 for this project. 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 1996, Congress appropriated 
$34,380,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for Tri-Rail 
improvements. To date, $24,500,000 has been obligated to the 
project, with the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of 
$9,880,000,000 remaining unobligated. Information concerning 
the local share commitment to the program, cost-effectiveness 
index, and financial plan has not been finalized. The estimated 
total cost of the project is $428,300,000.
    Houston-metro regional bus plan.--The Committee recommends 
$24,000,000 for the Houston-metro regional bus plan. The House 
provided $40,590,000 for this project, the same as the 
administration's request. This $625,000,000 plan, developed by 
Houston metro, consists of a package of major improvements to 
the region's 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 $22,360,000 was provided 
to this project in FTA's fiscal year 1996 appropriation. An 
additional $118,590,000 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 $40,590,000 
in fiscal year 1997 new starts funds, with the remaining 
$172,390,000 needed to complete the project provided in fiscal 
years 1998-2000. To date, $264,660,000 has been obligated to 
the project with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation 
remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of 
$500,000,000.
    Jackson, MS, intermodal corridor.--The Committee recommends 
$7,400,000 for the Jackson, MS, intermodal corridor project. 
The funds provided are for right-of-way acquisition, design, 
and reconstruction of existing rail viaducts to provide access 
to the downtown multimodal transit corridor.
    Kansas City, MO, Southtown corridor project.--The Committee 
recommends $3,600,000 for the Kansas City Southtown corridor 
project. The House provided $1,500,000 for this project. The 
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority [KCATA] completed a 
major investment study [MIS] in the Southtown corridor and has 
entered P.E. The corridor extends from the riverfront and 
downtown Kansas City south to 85th Street. The locally 
preferred alternative [LPA] consists of a 15.2-mile light rail 
line connecting the downtown Rivermarket area with the Country 
Club Plaza south of the downtown. 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 $15 per new passenger trip. The local 
share commitment to this project is 25 percent. Through fiscal 
year 1996, all available funds remaining from a prior 
appropriation to this project have been obligated ($1,040,000). 
This project received an ISTEA earmark of $5,900,000.
    Little Rock, AR, Junction Bridge project.--The Committee 
has provided $6,000,000 for the Junction Bridge project in 
Little Rock, AR. The House provided no funding for this 
project. The project will upgrade the track and provide the 
equipment necessary to use Junction Bridge in Little Rock for 
passenger rail service. The bridge is in close proximity to 
riverfront developments, and approaches to the bridge are 
adjacent to the arena property. The funding provided will 
purchase rail cars, track upgrade, passenger platform, and 
right-of-way acquisition.
    Los Angeles.--The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the 
Federal share of MOS-3 (minimum operable segment 3) of the 
Metro Rail Red Line project in Los Angeles. The House provided 
$90,000,000 for this project. The first segment, MOS-1, opened 
for revenue service in January 1993. MOS-2 is currently under 
construction (with a 2-mile, three-station segment to Wilshire 
and Western to open in July 1996), 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 new start funding for the MidCity, north 
Hollywood, and East Side phase 1 segments are estimated to be 
$1,416,490,000. The local share commitment to this project is 
70 percent. ISTEA authorized $695,000,000, plus $535,000,000 in 
advanced construction authority. Through fiscal year 1996 and 
prior years, $440,710,000 was appropriated for MOS-3. Funding 
in the amount of $158,860,000 is recommended in fiscal year 
1997 under the FFGA funding schedule, with the remaining 
$816,920,000 to be provided over the course of fiscal years 
1998-2002. A total of $356,740,000 has been obligated to date 
with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of $83,980,000 
remaining unobligated.
    Maryland central corridor LRT.--The Committee recommends 
$5,000,000 for the central corridor LRT extensions. The House 
provided $10,260,000 for the project, the same as the 
administration's request. 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. The total cost of the three extensions 
of the project is estimated to be $106,340,000. 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 was 
signed for the three extensions. Through fiscal year 1996, 
$62,380,000 has been appropriated with an additional 
$12,300,000 in prior-year deobligated funds also applied to the 
project in fiscal year 1996. To date, FTA has obligated 
$74,640,000 (including $12,300,000 in deobligated funds) to the 
project with no prior-year appropriations remaining 
unobligated.
    Maryland commuter rail [MARC].--The Committee recommends 
$50,000,000 for the MARC commuter rail project. The House 
provided $27,000,000 for these commuter rail extension 
projects. Planned system extensions 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 major investment study [MIS] to evaluate transit 
alternatives in the Waldorf area. The MIS is expected to be 
completed in late 1996. 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 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 Frederick 
extension and capital improvement projects in June 1995 for 
$105,250,000, which includes $13,900,000 previously approved 
under the first increment of funding for the project. Through 
fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $23,770,000 applied 
to the FFGA for this project. The FFGA funding schedule calls 
for $81,480,000 in new starts funding in fiscal years 1997-98. 
To date, $13,890,000 has been obligated to the project with 
only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of $9,880,000 remaining 
unobligated. This project received an ISTEA earmark of 
$160,000,000.
    Memphis, TN regional rail plan.--The Committee recommends 
$6,400,000 for the Memphis Medical Center study. The House 
provided $2,000,000 for this project. The Memphis Area Transit 
Authority [MATA] currently operates the 2.2-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. 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. To date, Congress has 
appropriated $1,730,000 for the Memphis regional rail plan, of 
which $500,000 has been obligated. Only the fiscal year 1996 
appropriation ($1,230,000) remains to be obligated.
    Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor, Florida.--The 
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Metro-Dade Transit 
east-west corridor study. The House provided no funding for 
this project.
    Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit [MPRT], West Virginia.--
The Committee has provided $4,240,000 for the replacement of 
the computerized train control system at the Morgantown 
Personal Rapid Transit system in Morgantown, WV. The MPRT was 
designed and built at a cost of $170,000,000, 80 percent of 
which was funded through section 3 transit assistance.
    New Jersey urban core.--The Committee recommends 
$115,530,000 for the New Jersey urban core project, and directs 
that $105,530,000 shall go toward the Secaucus transfer and 
$10,000,000 shall go toward the Hudson-Bergen light rail line. 
The House provided a total of $115,530,000, the same as the 
administration's request, with $10,000,000 for the Hudson-
Bergen line and $105,530,000 for the Secaucus transfer. The 
urban core project consists of a number of rail improvements 
designed to improve mobility in northern New Jersey, and 
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 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 through 1997. 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 $444,250,000 through fiscal year 1998, including funds 
provided in prior years. The Secaucus transfer project consists 
of 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. The project is currently under construction. The 
Secaucus transfer project received an appropriation of 
$79,290,000 in fiscal year 1996. The project's FFGA funding 
schedule calls for $105,530,000 in new starts funding in fiscal 
year 1997 with a final $26,260,000 in fiscal year 1998. The 
administration has also announced plans to negotiate an FFGA 
for $515,000,000 for the initial operating segment (10 miles) 
of the Hudson-Bergen light rail project. The complete project 
is a 20.5-mile, 33-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. The 10-mile initial 
operating segment is in preliminary engineering. The cost-
effectiveness index is $5 per new passenger trip. The 
$694,000,000 Newark-Elizabeth light rail project, an 8-mile, 
15-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 $5 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 only the fiscal year 1996 
appropriation ($79,290,000) remaining unobligated; $108,990,000 
has been obligated to the Hudson-Bergen project with no 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.
    New Orleans Canal Street corridor.--The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street 
corridor project. The House provided $8,000,000 for this 
project. New Orleans Regional Transit Authority [RTA] completed 
a major investment study in March 1995, which evaluated transit 
alternatives on the 4.4-mile Canal Street corridor. In 
September 1995, FTA approved the initiation of preliminary 
engineering and the draft EIS. The locally preferred 
alternative follows 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. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated 
$18,440,000 for this project. To date, $5,760,000 has been 
obligated with $12,680,000 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 $35,020,000 for the Queens Boulevard/63d Street 
connection project. The House provided $35,020,000 for this 
project, the same as the administration's request. This \1/3\-
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 and is expected to be completed in 2001. The 
local share commitment to this project is 49 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 through 
1996. A FFGA for that amount has been issued for the Queens 
Boulevard project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has 
appropriated $271,080,000 for this project, all of which has 
been obligated to the project. The FFGA calls for $35,020,000 
in new starts funding in fiscal year 1997 to complete the 
Federal commitment.
    Oklahoma City, MAPS corridor transit system.--The Committee 
has provided $10,000,000 for the Oklahoma City metropolitan 
area projects [MAPS] rail trolley system. The system is 
estimated to cost about $22,000,000 and is an integral 
component of the city's $285,000,000 locally funded MAPS 
program. Project sponsors propose a 60-percent Federal/40-
percent local match.
    Orlando-Lynx light rail project.--The Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for the Orlando, FL, Lynx light rail project. The 
House provided $2,000,000 for this project, which is currently 
under development.
    Pittsburgh Airport busway.--The Committee recommends 
$15,100,000 for the airport busway project. The House provided 
no funding for this project. The Port Authority (PATransit) is 
constructing a 20-mile busway in the airport corridor between 
downtown Pittsburgh and the Greater Pittsburgh International 
Airport. Phase 1 of the project is a 7-mile busway from 
Carnegie to downtown Pittsburgh. Phase 1 also includes a 1.1-
mile HOV facility comprised of a rehabilitated Wabash Tunnel 
and a new bridge across the Monongahela River. In the remaining 
12 miles of the corridor, from Carnegie to the airport, buses 
will operate in mixed traffic on the relatively uncongested 
Parkway West (I-279). Phase 1 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 commits $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 1996, Congress 
appropriated $98,260,000 in new start funds for the project 
with an additional $22,740,000 in prior-year deobligated funds 
also applied to the project in fiscal year 1996. With these 
additional funds, the FFGA funding commitment for this project 
has now been completed. New starts funds totaling $121,000,000 
have been obligated to the project with no prior-year 
appropriations remaining unobligated.
    Portland Westside LRT project.--The Committee recommends 
$138,000,000 for the Portland Westside LRT project. The House 
provided $90,000,000 for this project. 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. 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 now 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 start 
share for this segment was $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 applied to 
this project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has 
appropriated $393,250,000 in new start funds. To date, all 
appropriated funds has been obligated with no prior-year 
appropriations remaining unobligated. The Committee intends 
this appropriation partially to address project progress needs 
that have been delayed due to the project's absorption of costs 
associated with tunneling and low floor cars. The Committee 
also has included a general provision to assure that project 
costs include items associated with tunneling, the introduction 
of low-floor light rail cars, project elements delayed because 
of premium costs for those cars, and for other necessary costs.
    Portland South/North light rail transit.--The Committee 
recommends $6,000,000 for the Portland South/North LRT. The 
South/North light rail transit project is the third link in 
Portland, Oregon's regional light rail transit [LRT] system 
connecting the already complete Eastside (Banfield) LRT line 
and the Westside/Hillsboro line currently under construction. 
Portland area residents overwhelmingly passed a bond measure in 
1994 to provide up to $475,000,000 of local matching funds for 
the project. Additionally, the Oregon Legislature has approved 
$375,000,000 of State lottery funds for the South/North LRT 
line.
    Research Triangle Park regional transit plan.--The 
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Research Triangle Park 
transit plan in Raleigh-Durham, NC. The House provides no 
funding for this project.
    Sacramento.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the 
Sacramento south corridor project. The House provided 
$6,000,000 for this extension project. The Sacramento Regional 
Transit District [RTD] is proposing a 6.3-mile, $220,300,000, 
LRT line on the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This will 
be phase I of a planned 11.3-mile extension in the south 
Sacramento corridor. The local share commitment to this project 
is 53 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $6 per new 
passenger trip. FTA has rated the capital finance plan for 
phase I as high. The administration has announced plans to 
negotiate an FFGA with Sacramento to provide a commitment of 
$100,000,000 in new starts funds to construct the 6.3-mile 
extension. Through fiscal year 1996, $3,960,000 has been 
appropriated for this project. To date, $1,980,000 has been 
obligated to the project, with only the fiscal year 1996 
appropriation remaining unobligated. ISTEA authorized 
$26,000,000 for this project.
    Salt Lake City LRT.--The Committee recommends $58,000,000 
for the Salt Lake City south LRT project. The House provided 
$20,000,000 for this project, and included bill language 
stipulating that not less than $10,000,000 of that amount shall 
be for related high occupancy vehicle and intermodal design 
costs. The Committee has deleted that restriction from the 
bill. 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. FTA has 
negotiated an FFGA with UTA committing $246,000,000 in new 
starts funds to the project. Total cost of the project is 
$312,500,000. Through fiscal year 1996, a total of $38,640,000 
has been appropriated by Congress to UTA (including $15,520,000 
in pre-ISTEA funds), of which $32,040,000 has been included in 
the FFGA. To date, $22,390,000 has been obligated to this 
project pursuant to the FFGA with only the fiscal year 1996 
appropriation ($9,640,000) remaining unobligated. This project 
received an ISTEA earmark of $131,000,000.
    San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions.--The 
Committee recommends a total of $20,000,000 for the San 
Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions. The House provided 
$35,000,000 for the two San Francisco projects. The 
administration had requested $51,070,000 for the San Francisco 
International Airport extension and $10,000,000 for the San 
Jose Tasman west light rail extension, for a total of 
$61,070,000. BART, in conjunction with the San Mateo County 
Transit District (SamTrans), plans to build a 7.5-mile, four-
station BART extension from Colma Station to Millbrae with an 
aerial station at the planned international terminal at San 
Francisco International Airport.
    FTA has announced plans to negotiate a FFGA with BART to 
commit $750,000,000 toward construction of the proposed 
extension. The project is now in the preliminary engineering 
stage. The locally preferred alternative is estimated to cost 
$1,110,000,000. The cost-effectiveness index is $20 per new 
passenger trip for the locally preferred alternative.
    The Tasman project has been divided into two phases in 
light of the court decision invalidating a countywide tax which 
would have provided the local share for the entire project. The 
initial phase, Tasman west, comprises the western portion of 
the original project and measures 7.6 miles in length, 
connecting the northern terminus of the existing Guadalupe 
light rail system with the CalTrain Commuter Rail Station at 
Mountain View. FTA entered into a FFGA with Santa Clara County 
to provide an additional $90,000,000 in the out-years for the 
initial phase. Preliminary engineering on the full system 
extension was completed in August 1992, the final EIS was 
approved in December 1992, and final design was started in May 
1993. Environmental clearance for the initial phasing of the 
project was received in March 1996.
    The California Transportation Commission has confirmed the 
State share for the new first phase and the local funding was 
approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC] at 
the regional level. The cost-effectiveness index for the Tasman 
project is $18 per new passenger trip. Overall, $215,280,000 of 
the $512,750,000 authorized by ISTEA in section 5309 new starts 
funds for the period fiscal years 1992-97 has been appropriated 
by Congress for the San Francisco Bay region through fiscal 
year 1996. Consistent with the ISTEA legislation, the MTC 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 $60,750,000,000 to the 
Tasman project. A $32,000,000 allocation of unobligated 
appropriations to Tasman, and the fiscal year 1996 and prior-
year unobligated appropriations for the BART Airport extension 
($11,115,051) have not yet been obligated.
    The Committee believes that BART has diligently made 
progress toward addressing the cost, environmental, and 
financing issues raised in last year's conference report; 
however, the Committee believes that significant problems 
remain and must be resolved before a long-term Federal funding 
commitment for the project shall be made. GAO indicates that 
the current cost estimate relies upon speculative savings from 
the so-called turnkey approach, it ignores escalation, and it 
includes inadequate mitigation costs. Turnkey projects are 
supposed to move forward quickly and save money. Clearly, the 
uncertainty surrounding both the amount and the source of this 
project's local funding, as well as delays in its anticipated 
Federal funding will cause finance charges to increase and make 
any cost savings highly unlikely. As a result, BART's cost 
estimates unrealistically understate the real project cost. Its 
financing plan depends upon high appropriations in the out-
years that are most uncertain. Should these appropriations fail 
to be made, the financing costs will further increase. Since 
all local agencies have capped their contributions to the 
project, there are no local sources of funds for cost 
increases. Further, the Committee is concerned that BART still 
has not identified the particular activities on which airport 
funds will be spent and has not satisfied legitimate concerns 
that those expenditures might improperly divert airport revenue 
from airport uses.
    Three local organizations have announced their intention to 
challenge the project under the California Environmental 
Quality Act, and suits under Federal environmental laws are 
also likely. In addition, a group of local officials has 
formally commenced the California initiative process to place 
the issue of whether BART goes to Millbrae on the ballot. In 
light of the extensive commitments of Federal funds in existing 
full funding grant agreements for other new starts projects, 
the Committee believes that it would be inadvisable to execute 
a long-term commitment for a project of this scope until the 
availability of adequate funds to cover costs increases is 
demonstrated and the remainder of these issues are resolved.
    The Committee encourages the Federal Transit Administration 
to continue to work with BART to develop a project and a 
financing plan that are appropriate for a full funding grant 
agreement, but directs the FTA not to execute a full funding 
grant agreement or to issue a letter of no prejudice for this 
project until BART has met all local funding commitment 
criteria of 49 U.S.C. section 5309(e), including the 
demonstration of adequate funds to cover cost increases and to 
prevent deterioration of other services. As part of this 
process, the FTA is directed to require BART and the airport to 
identify the particular activities on which airport funds are 
to be spent, and to obtain FAA approval of such expenditures. 
Further, the Committee directs the FTA not to execute a full 
funding grant agreement or to issue a letter of no prejudice 
for this project until all litigation regarding the project has 
been resolved and the previously announced initiative has been 
submitted to the San Mateo County voters on the next general 
election ballot or the time for qualifying the initiative for 
such ballot has expired. Finally, the Committee reiterates its 
firm direction to the FTA that the FTA notify the Committee 60 
days prior to the issuance of a full funding grant agreement 
that each of the Committee concerns noted in this report and 
House Report 104-286 have been resolved.
    Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail.--The Committee 
recommends $5,000,000 for the Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter 
rail project. The House provided no funding for this project. 
The three county Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 
[RTA] Board has adopted a revised master plan for transit in 
light of voter rejection of a $6,700,000,000 proposal. The new 
plan, while scaled down and valued at $3,500,000,000 in 
proposed transportation improvements, includes substantial 
commuter rail service in the region (principally between 
Seattle and Tacoma) as well as revised LRT and expanded bus 
service. A major investment study is currently underway. To 
date, $1,880,000 has been obligated with $3,950,000 in prior-
year appropriations remaining available and unobligated. No 
appropriation was made to the project in fiscal year 1996. This 
project received an ISTEA earmark of $25,000,000.
    St. Louis Metrolink.--The Committee has provided 
$30,000,000 for metrolink for light rail cars and transit 
enhancements that will increase safety and improve service. 
Metrolink's ridership averages 40,000 daily. The additional 
cars will reduce service time and help maintain train 
schedules.
    St. Louis Metrolink (St. Clair County, IL) corridor.--The 
Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the St. Clair County 
corridor LRT. The House provided $20,000,000 for this project, 
the same as the administration's request. The East-West Gateway 
Coordinating Council [EWGCC] has completed a major investment 
study of transit alternatives for the corridor between downtown 
East St. Louis, IL, and the Mid-America Airport in St. Clair 
County. The selected alternative is a 27-mile LRT extension 
with a capital cost of $431,500,000. The administration has 
announced plans to negotiate an FFGA for the initial segment of 
this alternative, terminating at Belleville. The Federal 
commitment has been set at $236,000,000. The local share 
commitment to this project is 20 percent, and a medium/high 
rating for financial capacity has been assigned by FTA. The 
cost-effectiveness index is $23 per new passenger trip for the 
full 27 mile project. Through fiscal year 1996, $16,400,000 has 
been appropriated to this project. To date, $8,490,000 has been 
obligated and $7,930,000 remains unobligated. This project is 
not authorized in ISTEA.
    Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail.--The Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for the Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail project. The 
House provided $2,000,000 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. 
Two rail studies have recently been completed: a feasibility 
study looking at system design, operational characteristics, 
and cost; and a study identifying public support for such a 
system. The Tampa Commuter Rail Authority will be completing a 
major investment study in late 1996 to develop information on 
transit alternatives in the corridor.
    Virginia Rail Express Richmond to Washington commuter rail 
project.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Quantico 
Creek bridge for the Virginia Rail Express [VRE] Richmond to 
Washington commuter rail project. The House provided no funding 
for this project, which is in the development stage.
    Whitehall Ferry Terminal, New York.--The Committee 
recommends $5,000,000 for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal study. 
The House provided $2,500,000 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.

                       Mass Transit Capital Fund

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................($2,375,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (2,000,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (2,000,000,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                         (2,300,000,000)

    The bill includes $2,300,000,000 to liquidate obligations 
incurred under contract authority provided in section 21 of the 
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.

                            Washington Metro

Appropriations, 1996....................................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     200,000,000
House allowance.........................................     200,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                             200,000,000

    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 1996, 
$849,700,000 has been appropriated, leaving a balance of 
$350,300,000.

                    Violent Crime Reduction Programs

                  (VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997...................................     $10,000,000
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

    County of Kauai, HI.--The Committee has included a general 
provision (sec. 338) clarifying that funds provided under the 
Federal Transit Administration's discretionary grants program 
for the County of Kauai in the fiscal years 1994-95 
appropriations acts shall be available for operating expenses, 
consistent with the directives of the Committee reports 
accompanying those two bills.
    WMATA oversight.--The Committee has retained the House 
provision (sec. 329) requiring that FTA's oversight of the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority be conducted 
from the agency's Washington, DC, offices.

              ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is a wholly 
owned Government corporation established by the St. Lawrence 
Seaway Act of May 14, 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, 1996.................................... \1\ $10,150,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      10,065,000
House allowance.........................................      10,037,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,337,000

\1\ Does not include reductions pursuant to sections 327, 335, and 349 
of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 maintain, 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 1997, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $10,337,000. This $300,000 increase above the 
House allowance was made at the request of the Department of 
Transportation, and reflects costs associated with DOT employee 
buyouts. The Department has made good progress in meeting the 
fiscal year 1999 National Performance Review [NPR] targets 
regarding employment. Because it is a small agency, the SLSDC 
contains a disproportionately high number of NPR targeted 
positions.
    Performance-based organization [PBO] initiative.--The 
administration has proposed that eight Government agencies 
restructure themselves as performance-based organizations 
[PBO's]. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 
[SLSDC] is one of these candidate agencies (the others are 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Patent and 
Trademark Office; National Technical Information Service; 
Defense Commissary Agency; Federal Housing Administration 
mortgage insurance services; Government National Mortgage 
Association; and Federal Retirement and Insurance Service). 
Each candidate agency is coordinating with the ``National 
Performance Review,'' Office of Management and Budget, and 
Office of Personnel Management to develop authorizing 
legislation that is customized to meet its unique needs. Though 
the initial PBO initiative was announced on March 4, 1996, 
enabling legislation has not yet been submitted to Congress to 
establish the SLSDC as a performance-based organization.
    It is the Committee's understanding that as a PBO, the 
Corporation would remain part of the Department of 
Transportation, but would be freed of certain departmental 
constraints. For instance, as a PBO the Corporation would be 
allowed to streamline its organization, personnel, and 
procurement rules; would have authority to conduct routine 
negotiations directly with the Canadian Seaway Authority 
regarding seaway operations; would be free to set its own 
policies and directives as they relate to operations; and would 
no longer be required to contribute to certain expenses shared 
by departmental operating expenses, such as working capital 
fund and reimbursable agreement costs. The Committee feels that 
there are potential operations improvements and cost savings 
associated with this restructuring, but is concerned that, 
under the current proposal, the Corporation would be funded by 
a mandatory annual authorization from the harbor maintenance 
trust fund, and would not be subject to the annual 
appropriations process. This lack of oversight is not 
acceptable to the Committee, nor would it be feasible to make 
the necessary offsets from mandatory expenses within the DOT 
and related agencies appropriations bill, which has very 
limited mandatory funding.

              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, 1996....................................     $23,937,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      28,169,000
House allowance.........................................      23,929,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              27,675,000

    The Committee has provided a total of $27,675,000 for the 
``Research and special programs'' account.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year        House         Committee  
                                                   1996 enacted    1997 estimate     allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety......................     $12,650,000     $12,812,000     $12,772,000     $15,572,000
    (Positions).................................           (111)           (111)           (131)           (131)
Emergency transportation........................      $1,022,000        $993,000        $993,000        $993,000
    (Positions).................................             (7)             (7)             (7)             (7)
Research and technology.........................      $3,288,000      $7,488,000      $3,323,000      $4,269,000
    (Positions).................................            (13)            (13)            (13)            (13)
Program and administrative support..............      $7,388,000      $6,876,000      $6,841,000      $6,841,000
    (Positions).................................            (46)            (46)            (46)            (46)
Accountwide adjustment..........................       -$411,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, research and special programs......     $23,937,000     $28,169,000     $23,929,000     $27,675,000
          (Positions)...........................           (177)           (177)           (177)           (197)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       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.
    Vitality of the OHMS enforcement program.--The Committee 
commends the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety for the 
conduct of its compliance program. The OHMS continues to 
maintain a vigorous enforcement program: the amount of 
penalties collected has risen 50 percent over the last 3 years, 
the cases closed per work year has increased. The Committee 
encourages the OHMS to maintain this quality level of effort.
    Inspection and enforcement.--The Committee recommends the 
$260,000 requested for compliance support, including the 
$40,000 deleted by the House for the hazardous materials 
internship program. For many years, the Committee has sought to 
strengthen the Federal/State partnership in hazardous materials 
transportation safety. RSPA's internship program, together with 
its support for training and COHMED, provides the foundation 
for this partnership. Through this internship, Federal 
officials learn first hand of the challenges facing State 
enforcement personnel and State personnel observe Federal 
enforcement and regulatory strategies and policies. This 
technology transfer builds a cadre of experts for State 
governments and leadership for COHMED. The States support this 
internship program and more candidates apply each year than can 
be supported. Most importantly, the program improves 
communications between Federal and State enforcement personnel 
in regulatory development, emergency response, and enforcement.
    Hazardous materials training.--In order to maintain funding 
at the fiscal year 1996 level, the Committee recommends 
$350,000 for hazardous materials training, an increase of 
$100,000 above the request. Because of the complexity of the 
hazmat regulations which occupy more than 1,000 pages of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, funds for additional training and 
guidance should not be decreased. State enforcement officers 
seek the quality training provided at the Transportation Safety 
Institute. Industry favors inspections that are conducted by 
competent Federal and State personnel. Information provided by 
RSPA indicates that during the last 3 years attendance levels 
at training sessions have held relatively constant at 
approximately 2,750 students per year and demand has not 
declined. RSPA proposes CD-Rom training modules as a partial 
substitute for direct TSI-sponsored training, however, these 
modules will not offer the advanced training and direct 
guidance that TSI-sponsored instructors provide. The additional 
funds recommended also will ensure continuation of a sufficient 
number of train the trainer classes.
    Special funding.--Following the recent ValuJet airliner 
accident, it became obvious to the Committee that RSPA needed 
to do more in the area of hazardous materials inspections. RSPA 
is the focal point in the Department for all of the hazardous 
materials regulatory actions. Presently, RSPA has 20 inspectors 
that conduct 1,200 inspections annually of shippers and 
packaging manufacturers. The Committee believes that it is 
vital to provide additional support at this time so that the 
Department may initiate several critical hazardous materials 
safety initiatives. In conjunction with the Federal Aviation 
Administration, RSPA is directed to provide additional 
inspections, technical resources, and other activities 
necessary for an expanded hazardous materials program, which 
would include such things as: Expand inspections of hazardous 
materials shippers, by placing emphasis on those who offer 
those types of materials for air transportation; expand current 
research initiatives to include a focus on hazardous materials 
transportation by aircraft, especially in the reactive 
chemicals and explosives area; and increase outreach to focus 
more on air transportation issues, including the development of 
training materials, a training program, and information on 
shippers, freight forwarders, and carriers, and the need for 
compliance with the hazardous materials regulations.
    The Committee also expects that RSPA will increase its 
rulemaking activities, and receiving more requests for 
interpretations of hazmat regulations and exemption 
applications as a result of FAA's hazardous materials program. 
The Committee has provided $980,000 above the budget request 
for contracted support, including:
  --Information resource management.--$125,000 is provided to 
        upgrade the hazardous materials information system to 
        allow easier electronic data manipulation and 
        recordation of hazardous materials data and information 
        supplied by RSPA employees, Federal and State agencies, 
        industry, and the public.
  --Hazardous materials training.--$225,000 is included to 
        upgrade current and for the development of future 
        training modules to assist FAA inspectors and to 
        conduct at least 20 additional separate hazardous 
        materials classes in 1997 that will involve the 
        training of approximately 350 to 400 FAA inspectors of 
        hazardous materials.
  --Hazardous materials technology.--$315,000 is provided so 
        that RSPA may engage contractor support and additional 
        expertise to support an increase in the demand for 
        safety reviews of explosives and reactive chemicals, 
        and to also outline and provide information regarding 
        new chemicals, new technologies, and materials which 
        increase the safety of transportation of hazardous 
        materials.
  --Hazardous materials information center.--$315,000 is 
        provided to support, by contract, the increased 
        workload.
    In the personnel area, the Committee has provided 
$1,680,000. It is expected that under this funding level RSPA 
will be able to employ 15 additional inspectors, primarily to 
enhance its capability to perform compliance oversight, 
particularly with respect to shippers and offerers of hazardous 
materials by air, and to strengthen RSPA's outreach activities 
with Federal, State, and local compliance agencies, the 
regulated industry, and the public. RSPA currently has 20 
inspectors who conduct 1,200 inspections annually. FAA has 
informed RSPA that it intends to significantly increase the 
number of hazardous materials inspections by targeting air 
carriers and air freight forwarders, of whom there are 2,000 
domestically. In addition to the additional inspectors, the 
Committee understands that it may be necessary to hire one or 
two additional personnel in the exemptions and approvals 
program, and one or two in the Office of the Chief Counsel for 
the support and review of enforcement cases.

                        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 to mitigate disasters 
and the implementation of these plans nationally and regionally 
in an emergency.
    The Committee recommends $993,000 for emergency 
transportation, which is the amount requested by the 
administration and provided by the House.

                        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 concurs with the $100,000 reduction proposed 
by the House for technology dissemination, provides $300,000 
above the House allowance for technology applications, and 
provides $650,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level for 
technology development.

                   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 has provided $6,841,000 and concurs with the 
$35,000 House reduction for information resources management.

                            Pipeline Safety

                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $28,750,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      31,500,000
House allowance.........................................      28,460,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              28,750,000

    The Research and Special Programs Administration is also 
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. This 
activity 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 following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year--                                    
                                                       ----------------------------     House        Committee  
                        Program                                           1997        allowance   recommendation
                                                        1996 enacted    estimate                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses....................................         9,550        10,683        10,683         10,300 
Information systems...................................         1,200         1,490         1,350          1,200 
Risk assessment/technical studies.....................         1,750         1,800         1,800          1,800 
Compliance............................................           300           300           300            300 
Training and information dissemination................           850           927           927            850 
Emergency notification................................           100           100           100            100 
Public education......................................           500           200           200            200 
Environmental indexing................................           500  ............  ............  ..............
Research and development..............................         2,000         2,000         1,100          1,500 
State grants..........................................        11,000        12,500        12,000         12,000 
Risk management grants................................  ............           500  ............            500 
One-call grants.......................................         1,000         1,000       ( \1\ )        ( \1\ ) 
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Totals..........................................        28,750        31,500        28,460         28,750 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded at $1,000,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.                                         

    Operating expenses.--OPS requested an increase in travel 
from $665,000 in fiscal year 1996 to $1,142,000 in fiscal year 
1997. Because of budgetary constraints, the Committee 
recommends a reduction of $383,000 in the request.
  --Cooperation with State of Hawaii.--On May 14, 1996, 
        approximately 900 barrels of heavy crude oil spilled 
        into the Waiau freshwater tributary and then into Pearl 
        Harbor in the State of Hawaii. To date, in excess of 
        750 barrels have been recovered through the assistance 
        of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Office of Pipeline Safety 
        is without a presence in Hawaii, and as such, there is 
        no local office to ensure pipeline maintenance, 
        operation, and inspection. The need for ongoing Federal 
        monitoring and assistance is critical, and may aid in 
        averting future spills. The Committee is pleased with 
        the level of assistance the Office of Pipeline Safety 
        is providing State officials which may result in the 
        establishment of a Hawaii-based office and the 
        solidification of a Federal-State partnership.
    Information systems.--Due to budgetary considerations, the 
Committee provides $1,200,000 for information systems, the same 
amount provided in fiscal year 1996. This program has grown 
significantly in the last 3 years, going from $402,000 in 
fiscal year 1994 to $1,200,000 in fiscal year 1996. Further 
increases are not merited at this time.
    Nondestructive evaluation.--The Committee recommends 
$900,000, as requested in the budget, for NDE technology 
development. Even though OPS has an unobligated balance of 
$1,700,000 for this project, current agency plans anticipate 
expending last year's appropriation by the end of this fiscal 
year. The requested amount is necessary to accelerate research 
in this area and to verify inspection technologies under 
pressurized pipeline conditions. This research will evaluate 
inspection robots to determine their use in detecting pipeline 
cracking and corrosion. Successful completion of this activity 
will greatly improve the ability to detect pipeline defects and 
significantly lower the detection cost. RSPA has signed a 
memorandum of understanding with the Gas Research Institute 
[GRI] on this project and has developed a detailed workplan.
    National Technical Information Service.--The Committee is 
concerned that OPS has failed to enter many of the reports and 
documents resulting from its research into the National 
Technical Information System [NTIS]. These documents are in the 
public domain and should be widely disseminated to be of 
maximum benefit. The Committee directs the Associate 
Administrator for Pipeline Safety to ensure that OPS promptly 
enters such reports and documents into the NTIS.
    Pipeline grant program.--The Committee recommends 
$12,000,000 for the natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline 
safety grants.
    One-call notification.--The Committee's recommendation 
includes $1,000,000 for the establishment and development of 
one-call notification systems through one-call grants. 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 concurs with the House bill language which 
directs the Office of Pipeline Safety to use up to $1,000,000 
from their reserve fund for this program. The effect of this 
approach is that more funding is available for State grants, a 
program which in the past had been used to pay for the one-call 
notification activity.
    OPS indicated that only $40,000 in fiscal year 1995 and 
$30,000 in fiscal year 1996 were used for enforcement 
activities related to one-call regulations and laws. According 
to OPS, only five States use siguificant one-call enforcement 
mechanisms. Because it is essential that excavators and other 
third-parties use one-call systems, the Committee believes that 
a more balanced use of grant funds, one that combines 
incentives to improve education as well as enforcement 
strategies, would be useful.
    Risk management grants.--The Committee's recommendation 
includes $500,000 for the establishment of risk management 
grants.

                            Pipeline Safety

                    (Oilspill Liability Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................      $2,698,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................       2,528,000
House allowance.........................................       2,528,000

Committee recommendation

                                                               2,528,000

    The Committee recommends $2,528,000 to be derived from the 
oilspill liability trust fund for implementation of the Office 
of Pipeline Safety [OPS] responsibilities under the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 [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.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (Emergency Preparedness Fund)

Appropriations, 1996....................................        $400,000
    (Limitation)........................................       8,890,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................         200,000
    (Limitation)........................................................
House allowance.........................................         200,000
    (Limitation)........................................................
Committee recommendation................................         200,000
    (Limitation)........................................................

    The Committee recommends $200,000 for the training 
curriculum activities authorized under existing law.
    The Hazardous Materials Uniform Safety Act of 1990 requires 
RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable emergency 
preparedness grants program; (2) monitor public sector 
emergency response training and planning and provide technical 
assistance to States, political subdivisions, and Indian 
tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national 
training curriculum for emergency responders. These activities 
are financed by receipts received from the hazardous materials 
shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the 
emergency preparedness fund. RSPA estimates that receipts in 
fiscal year 1997 will be essentially the same as the actual 
fiscal year 1995 receipts, which were $6,873,000.
    The administration had requested that the appropriations 
bill not include a limitation on obligations, a limitation 
which had been carried in previous bills. The reason RSPA made 
this request is that they are estimating that the emergency 
preparedness fund will be slightly larger than the expected 
$6,873,000 in receipts, and they are expecting to obligate all 
available resources within the fund.
    The House concurred with the administration's request, and 
did not impose an obligation limitation for the emergency 
preparedness grants program. By removing this limitation, RSPA 
will be able to obligate any carryover balances and recoveries 
from prior years, which previous limitations had prohibited. 
The Committee is recommending the administration requested 
language, and has imposed no obligation ceiling on the program. 
The following table is for illustrative purposes only, based on 
RSPA's estimates for fiscal year 1997 activity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year     Fiscal year                                     
                                               1996 enacted     1997 budget        House           Committee    
                                                    \1\        estimate \2\    allowance \1\  recommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants......................................      $4,933,000      $5,782,000      $5,782,000        $5,782,000  
Technical assistance........................         400,000         300,000         300,000           300,000  
Administrative costs........................         431,000         300,000         300,000           300,000  
Emergency response guidebook................         700,000         300,000         300,000           300,000  
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................       6,464,000       6,682,000       6,682,000         6,682,000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The obligation limitation for fiscal year 1996 was for up to $8,890,000.                                    
\2\ Estimated levels only.                                                                                      

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1996.................................... \1\ $40,238,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      39,771,000
House allowance.........................................      39,450,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,700,000

\1\ Does not includes reductions pursuant to sections 327, 335, and 349 
of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134.

    The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of 
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective 
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise 
audits and investigations relating to the programs and 
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and 
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and 
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; 
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; (4) keep the 
Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding problems 
and deficiencies; and (5) coordinate and recommend policies 
which promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and which 
help prevent fraud, waste, and abuse for activities involving 
the Department and other agencies and entities.
    OIG is divided into three major functional units: Office of 
Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, Office of Assistant 
Inspector General for Inspections and Evaluations, and Office 
of Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. All three 
units are supported by headquarters and regional staff.
    The Committee recommends $39,700,000, which is $250,000 
above the House allowance.
    The House included in bill language a prohibition against 
the use of any funds to conduct contract audits. Given that 
nearly $2,000,000 of the inspector general's fiscal year 1997 
request was based on contracting for audits, the House bill 
language results in an increase to the OIG base while necessary 
contract audits would be paid from each agency's ``Operating 
expense'' account. The Committee recommends bill language 
limiting contract audit funds of the inspector general to 
$1,900,000.

                  BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $2,200,000 
    (By transfer, highway trust fund)...................    (20,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      3,100,000 
    (By transfer, highway trust fund)...................    (25,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
    (By transfer, highway trust fund)...................    (25,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................................

    (By transfer, highway trust fund)

                                                            (25,000,000)

    The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] was 
established in section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and 
make accessible information on the Nation's transportation 
systems, collect information on intermodal transportation, and 
enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical 
programs of the Department of Transportation. Financing of BTS 
operations is authorized as contract authority out of the 
highway trust fund, by transfer from the Federal-aid highways 
program, and is subject to the obligations limitation on that 
program. For fiscal year 1997, a funding level of $25,000,000 
is authorized for BTS programs. BTS offices include the 
Director, Statistical Programs and Services, Transportation 
Studies, and the Office of Aviation Information [OAI]. In 
addition, effective January 1, 1996, the responsibility to 
collect motor carrier financial data was transferred to the BTS 
after the sunset of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
    In Public Law 104-50, the Office of Aviation Information 
was transferred from the Research and Special Programs 
Administration and the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of 
$2,200,000 went directly to the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics as a new account. The Office of Aviation Information 
collects and compiles financial and traffic (passenger and 
cargo) data. This information provides the Government with 
uniform and comprehensive economic and market data on 
individual airline operations. This program includes a small 
field office located in Anchorage, AK, which provides consumers 
and the Government with airline data related to essential air 
service and the intra-Alaskan mail rate program.
    For 1997, the administration is requesting an appropriation 
of $3,100,000 from the airport and airway trust fund for the 
OAI, a 41-percent increase above the fiscal year 1996 enacted 
level. The majority of this increase is associated with 
contract costs and computer equipment to be used in developing 
a software program and data processing system to directly 
access origin and destination data from airlines' computer 
reservation systems, for both domestic and international 
flights. The Committee lauds the OAI's efforts to improve and 
upgrade the 25-year-old airline data retrieval system. The 
statistical aviation data compiled by OAI includes: airline 
passenger traffic statistics, ontime performance data by 
carrier, financial performance and certification data, fuel 
purchase and consumption, and other business and consumer 
directed statistics. These statistics are vitally important to 
the Federal Government and the aviation industry. In some 
cases, it is statutorily required that these statistics be used 
by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation in allocation of trust funds, 
aviation bilateral negotiations, and other Federal 
transportation policy decisionmaking.
    Offsetting collections.--The Committee has deleted House 
bill language requiring that all airline statistics activities 
be offset by user fees charged for those activities. In 
calendar year 1995, Office of Aviation Information data sales 
totaled only $177,000. Though the Committee believes that these 
offsetting costs should be maximized to the extent possible 
(and holds the same belief concerning the sales of all BTS-
generated data products), it is unrealistic to expect the OAI 
to completely offset its operating costs through data sales and 
user fees in fiscal year 1997. However, the Committee agrees 
with the House assertion that BTS contract authority funds 
could be made available for the compilation of aviation 
statistics, and has, therefore, included a provision making up 
to $3,100,000 of BTS's ISTEA contract authority available for 
OAI, and has not provided either airport and airways trust 
funds or general funds to finance the operations of the Office 
of Aviation Information. Two ways that BTS can decrease 
expenditures in order to more readily absorb the costs of OAI 
are more efficient collection of funds from agency reimbursable 
agreements and tightening staff travel.
    BTS worldwide web site/National Transportation Library.--In 
order to promote the private sector development of magnetic 
levitation (maglev) technologies, and recognizing the wealth of 
information previously collected by Government and industry on 
maglev technology, the Committee directs the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics to collect statistical and other 
relevant information regarding the application of maglev 
technologies and to make available such information to the 
public by means of the National Transportation Library, part of 
BTS's dedicated worldwide web site accessible via the internet. 
The Committee expects that the Bureau will utilize the 
expertise and existing data collections of the High-Speed Rail/
Maglev Association Foundation in collecting and reviewing such 
information.
    General provisions.--The Committee has not included the 
provision requested by the administration which gives Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics the authority to enter into grants 
and cooperative agreements with other agencies, institutions, 
and individuals to collect data on the impact of natural 
disasters on transportation systems. The House bill did not 
contain this provision. Since BTS is absorbing new additional 
costs for OAI activities and motor carrier data collection, the 
expenditure of up to 5 percent of the agency's resources could 
potentially limit the allocation of funds to ongoing data and 
analysis programs. The Committee believes that BTS should 
request this natural disaster authorization in the next ISTEA, 
which is due for reauthorization in 1997.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1996....................................  \1\ $8,421,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................   \2\ 3,000,000
House allowance.........................................      12,344,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,344,000

\1\ Appropriated in section 342 of Public Law 104-50 for the successor 
to the Interstate Commerce Commission.
\2\ Represents $15,344,000 in user fees of which a maximum of $3,000,000 
would become available as an appropriation and subsequently be reduced 
as offsetting collections are received.

    The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 
1996, by Public Law 104-88, the ICC Termination Act of 1995. 
Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of 
the surface transportation industry, the act abolished the ICC, 
eliminated certain functions that had previously been 
implemented by the ICC, transferred core rail and certain other 
functions to the Board, and transferred motor licensing and 
certain other motor functions to the FHWA. The Board is 
specifically responsible for the regulation of the rail and 
pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of 
motor carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the Board, through 
its exemption authority, is able to promote deregulation 
administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail reforms made by 
the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been continued.
    The fiscal year 1997 program request is $15,344,000 to 
expand current Board staffing to meet projected one-time 
workload increases imposed by the act as well as ongoing 
workload demands. Under the administration's proposal this 
amount would be derived solely from user fees collected 
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701 from the beneficiaries of the 
Board's activities. However, the Committee agrees with the 
House that fully fee financing the ICC successor is not a 
viable option for fiscal year 1997. Such a proposal would 
require enactment of legislation and promulgation of new rules 
that are unlikely to be in place in time to ensure undisrupted 
funding for the Board.
    The Committee has provided $12,344,000 for activities of 
the Board, including statutory liability for severance 
payments. This amount will be augmented by the collection of 
user fees as provided under current law. The Board has informed 
the Committee that it anticipates collecting up to $3,000,000 
from these funds. Bill language has been included to assure 
that fees received in excess of $3,000,000 shall remain 
available to the Board but shall not be available for 
obligation until October 1, 1997.
                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1996....................................      $3,500,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................       3,540,000
House allowance.........................................       3,540,000

Committee recommendation

                                                               3,540,000

    The Committee recommends $3,540,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
the same funding level requested by the administration and 
provided by the House.
    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.
    Telecommunications Act of 1996.--The Committee wishes to 
recognize the Access Board for undertaking and absorbing the 
costs associated with developing accessibility guidelines for 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, 
as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Issuance of 
these guidelines is required by August 8, 1997, an 18-month 
deadline. This is an unusually compressed timeframe during 
which the Board, working in conjunction with the Federal 
Communications Commission, will establish an advisory 
committee, publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, solicit 
public input, and publish final guidelines.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1996....................................     $38,774,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................      42,407,000
House allowance.........................................      42,407,000

Committee recommendation

                                                              42,407,000

    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 $42,407,000, which is 
$3,633,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level. This funding is 
the same as the administration's amended budget request and the 
same as provided by the House. The amount recommended provides 
for a full-time equivalent [FTE] employment level of 370, an 
increase of 20 FTE's over fiscal year 1996. The following table 
incorporates the NTSB's internal realignment of administrative 
functions and provides for salaries and expenses to be 
distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget    
                                           Staff (FTE)      authority   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction...................              45      $5,694,000 
Aviation safety........................             129      14,696,000 
Surface transportation safety..........              99      11,207,000 
Research and engineering...............              56       6,618,000 
Administration.........................              31       2,831,000 
Administrative law judges..............              10       1,361,000 
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................             370      42,407,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

                        PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

                      Panama Canal Revolving Fund

                (limitation on administrative expenses)

Limitation, 1996.......................................\1\ ($52,741,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ Includes $2,000,000 supplemental 1996 funds in Public Law 104-134, 
the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriation Act of 1996.

    The Committee concurs with the administration's request and 
House action which deletes the limitation on administrative 
expenses of the Panama Canal Commission.
    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.
    Under the Department of Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), the Panama Canal 
Commission has been reconstituted as a United States Government 
corporation. Since the Panama Canal Commission undergoes 
reauthorization annually, and generates all its own revenues, 
there is no further need to carry appropriations language 
limiting the administrative expenses or operating and capital 
expenses of the Commission. However, Public Law 104-106 does 
not exempt the agency from oversight by Congress, and the 
Committee expects to continue its annual review of the 
Commission's budget submittal until the transfer of control 
over the Panama Canal to the Government of Panama takes effect 
on December 31, 1999.
                     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 1997 as approved by the House in 
H.R. 3675, with the following deletions or changes. Other 
changes are explained more fully under the account or agency 
affected by the general provision.

             changes, deletions/replacements, new sections

                               title iii

    Sec. 310(c)(3). Adds language requested by the 
administration which would allow for a takedown from the 
Federal-aid Highways program for specific authorized 
activities, including section 140(b) of 23 U.S.C., section 
1012(b) of Public Law 102-240, section 104(I) of title 23, 
section 1069(y) of Public Law 102-240; and section 130(d) of 
the Symms National Recreational Trails Act of 1991.
    Sec. 310(g). Includes language requested by the 
administration which would allow for an increase in the 
administrative takedown from the existing 3\3/4\ percent to 
4\3/4\ percent.
    Sec. 323. 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. 324. Adds a proviso to House language which directs 
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
provide in writing that safety conditions warrant the 
expenditure of funds for a sixth runway at the new Denver 
International Airport.
    Sec. 325. Deletes House language which requires the Bureau 
of Transportation Statistics to increase its fees to $3,100,000 
to cover the costs of the Office of Aviation Statistics. The 
Committee provides the funding through a drawdown of existing 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics funds.
    Sec. 330. Deletes the House provision that prohibits the 
use of funds for improvements to the Miller Highway in New 
York.
    Sec. 331. Changes the cap on advisory committees at the 
Department of Transportation from $850,000 to $1,050,000.
    Sec. 333. Deletes the House provision which prohibits funds 
other than that appropriated to pay for the activities of the 
Surface Transportation Board. The Committee has added a 
provision which adds a new section (m) to section 24902 of 
title 49, U.S.C., relating to Amtrak operations on the 
Northeast corridor.
    Sec. 335. Adds a provision regarding the full funding grant 
agreement for the Westside light rail project, Portland, OR.
    Sec. 337. Deletes the House provision regarding the use of 
funding for buses in the State of Michigan.
    Sec. 338. Deletes the House provision which provides 
funding for a national civil aviation review commission. The 
Committee has added a new section which allows transit capital 
funds previously provided to Kauai, HI, to be used for 
operating expenses.
    Sec. 339. Deletes the House provision which allowed for the 
transfer of a lighthouse at Montauk, NY. The Committee has 
added a new proviso which clarifies the status of an interstate 
maintenance project and a Federal lands project funded with 
discretionary funds.
    Sec. 341. Adds a new proviso that allows the Secretary of 
Transportation to collect fees from users of fitness centers 
operated by and for the Department.
    Sec. 342. Prohibits the use of any funds by the National 
Transportation Safety Board to study allowing individuals 60 
years of age to pilot commercial aircraft.
    Sec. 343. Limits the amount of bonuses and cash awards for 
the employees of the Department of Transportation to no more 
than $25,448,300.
    Sec. 344. Adds language exempting the National Passenger 
Railroad Corporation from State or local laws relating to 
abandoned or unclaimed ticket refunds.
    Sec. 345. Directs FAA to provide weather observers at Dutch 
Harbor, AK.
    Sec. 346. Adds a new proviso which allows the Secretary of 
Transportation to offer separation incentives for employees of 
the U.S. Coast Guard, Research and Special Programs 
Administration, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 
and Office of the Secretary.

                                title iv

    Sec. 401. Deletes the House provision which prohibits the 
use of certain trucks on U.S. Route 15 in Virginia.
    Sec. 402. Deletes the House provision which allows for 
funds in Mobile, AL, to be used for additional purposes.
    Sec. 403. Deletes the House provision regarding a transfer 
of funds which expands the use of funds for projects in St. 
Thomas, VI. The Committee has added a new sections which allows 
funds previously appropriated for certain highway-rail grade 
crossing in Mineola, NY, to be used on other highway-rail grade 
crossing in Nassau and Suffolk County, NY.
    Sec. 405. Deletes the House provision which expands the 
definition of the use of highway funds in Petoskey, MI.
    Sec. 406. The Committee adds a new provision which allows 
funds originally intended for a study in Whiting, IN, to be 
used for a congestion relief project in Merrillville, IN.

                                title v

    Sec. 501. Deletes the House provision which places a limit 
on new loan guarantees for certain railroad projects.
  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.''

Federal Aviation Administration:
    Operations..........................................   4,899,957,000
    Facilities and equipment............................   1,788,700,000
    Research, engineering, and development..............     187,000,000
    Grants-in-aid for airports..........................   1,460,000,000
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Grants to the National Railroad Passenger 
      Corporation.......................................     592,000,000
    Northeast Corridor Improvement Program..............     200,000,000
    Rhode Island rail development.......................      10,000,000
    Alaska railroad rehabilitation......................      10,000,000
    High-speed rail trainsets and facilities............      80,000,000
    Railroad research and development...................      20,000,000
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 
    Operations and research.............................     133,195,000
Research and Special Programs Administration: Pipeline 
    safety..............................................      28,750,000

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. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Mack
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Jeffords
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
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 3035(b) of Public Law 102-240 is amended as 
follows:

    (b) Westside Light Rail Project.--No later than April 30, 
1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear grant 
agreement with the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 
District of Oregon which includes [$515,000,000] $555,000,000 
from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the 
Federal Transit Act at the Federal share contained in House 
Report 101-584 to carry out the construction of the locally 
preferred alternative for the Westside Light Rail Project, 
including system related costs, set forth in Public Law 101-516 
and as defined in House Report 101-584. Such agreement shall 
also provide for the completion of alternatives analysis, the 
final Environmental Impact Analysis, and preliminary 
engineering for the Hillsboro extension to the Westside Project 
as set forth in Public Law 101-516.

    Section 24902 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following new subsection:

            ``(m) Applicable Procedures.--No State or local 
        building, zoning, subdivision, or similar or related 
        law, nor any other State or local law from which a 
        project would be exempt if undertaken by the Federal 
        Government or an agency thereof within a Federal enclave 
        wherein Federal jurisdiction is exclusive, including 
        without limitation with respect to all such laws 
        referenced herein above requirements for permits, 
        actions, approvals or filings, shall apply in connection 
        with the construction, ownership, use, operation, 
        financing, leasing, conveying, mortgaging or enforcing a 
        mortgage of (i) any improvement undertaken by or for the 
        benefit of Amtrak as part of, or in furtherance of, the 
        Northeast Corridor Improvement Project (including 
        without limitation maintenance, service, inspection or 
        similar facilities acquired, constructed or used for 
        high speed trainsets) or chapter 241, 243, or 247 of 
        this title or (ii) any land (and right, title or 
        interest created with respect thereto) on which such 
        improvement is located and adjoining, surrounding or any 
        related land. These exemptions shall remain in effect 
        and be applicable with respect to such land and 
        improvements for the benefit of any mortgagee before, 
        upon and after coming into possession of such 
        improvements or land, any third party purchasers thereof 
        in foreclosure (or through a deed in lieu of 
        foreclosure), and their respective successors and 
        assigns, in each case to the extent the land or 
        improvements are used, or held for use, for railroad 
        purposes or purposes accessory thereto. This subsection 
        (m) shall not apply to any improvement or related land 
        unless Amtrak receives a Federal operating subsidy in 
        the fiscal year in which Amtrak commits to or initiates 
        such improvement.''

                                            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 1997: Subcommittee on Transportation and                                                        
 Related Agencies:                                                                                              
    Defense discretionary...................................  ...........  ...........           37       \1\ 37
    Nondefense discretionary................................       11,950       11,950       35,416       35,416
    Violent crime reduction fund............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory...............................................          605          605          602          602
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:                                                      
    1997....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 12,270
    1998....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       13,502
    1999....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        5,024
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,830
    2001 and future year....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,033
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 1997                                                    
 in bill....................................................           NA          858           NA        3,860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1996 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997                
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or -)  
                        Item                          1996 appropriation    Budget estimate     House allowance        Committee     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    recommendation    1996 appropriation    Budget estimate     House allowance 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                
        TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                
               Office of the Secretary                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses...............................        $56,189,000         $55,376,000         $53,816,000         $53,376,000         -$2,813,000         -$2,000,000           -$440,000 
Office of Civil Rights..............................          6,554,000           5,574,000           5,574,000           5,574,000            -980,000   ..................  ..................
Transportation planning, research, and development..          8,220,000           7,919,000           3,000,000           4,158,000          -4,062,000          -3,761,000          +1,158,000 
Transportation Administrative Service Center........       (103,149,000)  ..................       (124,812,000)       (124,812,000)       (+21,663,000)      (+124,812,000)  ..................
Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway Trust                                                                                                                                              
 Fund):                                                                                                                                                                                         
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........        (22,600,000)        (21,922,000)        (10,000,000)        (25,900,000)        (+3,300,000)        (+3,978,000)       (+15,900,000)
    (Limitation on obligations).....................        (22,600,000)        (21,922,000)        (10,000,000)        (25,900,000)        (+3,300,000)        (+3,978,000)       (+15,900,000)
    Rescission of contract authority................       (-16,000,000)       (-16,678,000)       (-28,600,000)       (-12,700,000)        (+3,300,000)        (+3,978,000)       (+15,900,000)
    Rescission......................................        (-6,786,971)        (-1,133,373)        (-1,133,000)        (-1,133,000)        (+5,653,971)              (+373)  ..................
Rental payments.....................................        135,200,000         137,581,000         127,447,000         132,500,000          -2,700,000          -5,081,000          +5,053,000 
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           2,900,000           2,900,000   ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary................        210,963,000         211,250,000         194,637,000         200,408,000         -10,555,000         -10,842,000          +5,771,000 
          (Limitations on obligations)..............        (22,600,000)        (21,922,000)        (10,000,000)        (25,900,000)        (+3,300,000)        (+3,978,000)       (+15,900,000)
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources...............       (233,563,000)       (233,172,000)       (204,637,000)       (226,308,000)        (-7,255,000)        (-6,864,000)       (+21,671,000)
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
                     Coast Guard                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Operating expenses..................................      2,278,991,000       2,519,350,000       2,609,100,000       2,331,350,000         +52,359,000        -188,000,000        -277,750,000 
    Defense function (050)..........................  ..................        118,500,000   ..................  ..................  ..................       -118,500,000   ..................
    (Transfer from DOD).............................       (300,000,000)  ..................  ..................       (300,000,000)  ..................      (+300,000,000)      (+300,000,000)
Acquisition, construction, and improvements:                                                                                                                                                    
    Offsetting collections..........................  ..................        -20,000,000         -20,000,000   ..................  ..................        +20,000,000         +20,000,000 
    Vessels.........................................        167,600,000         237,000,000         205,600,000         227,960,000         +60,360,000          -9,040,000         +22,360,000 
    Aircraft........................................         12,000,000          21,400,000          18,300,000          19,040,000          +7,040,000          -2,360,000            +740,000 
    Other equipment.................................         49,200,000          46,700,000          39,900,000          46,200,000          -3,000,000            -500,000          +6,300,000 
    Shore facilities and aids to navigation                                                                                                                                                     
     facilities.....................................         88,875,000          59,500,000          47,950,000          52,900,000         -35,975,000          -6,600,000          +4,950,000 
    Personnel and related support...................         44,700,000          47,000,000          46,250,000          47,000,000          +2,300,000   ..................           +750,000 
    Rescission, fiscal year 1995....................  ..................  ..................          (-355,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................          (+355,000)
    Rescission, fiscal year 1996....................  ..................  ..................        (-3,400,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................        (+3,400,000)
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, AC&I................................        362,375,000         391,600,000         334,245,000         393,100,000         +30,725,000          +1,500,000         +58,855,000 
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
Environmental compliance and restoration............         21,000,000          25,000,000          21,000,000          23,000,000          +2,000,000          -2,000,000          +2,000,000 
Port Safety Development.............................         15,000,000   ..................  ..................          5,000,000         -10,000,000          +5,000,000          +5,000,000 
Alteration of bridges...............................         16,000,000           2,000,000          16,000,000          10,000,000          -6,000,000          +8,000,000          -6,000,000 
Retired pay.........................................        582,022,000         608,084,000         608,084,000         608,084,000         +26,062,000   ..................  ..................
Reserve training....................................         62,000,000          65,890,000          65,890,000          65,890,000          +3,890,000   ..................  ..................
Research, development, test, and evaluation.........         18,000,000          20,300,000          19,000,000          19,550,000          +1,550,000            -750,000            +550,000 
Boat safety (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund)..........         20,000,000   ..................         35,000,000          10,000,000         -10,000,000         +10,000,000         -25,000,000 
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Coast Guard............................      3,375,388,000       3,750,724,000       3,708,319,000       3,465,974,000         +90,586,000        -284,750,000        -242,345,000 
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
           Federal Aviation Administration                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Operations..........................................      4,645,712,000       4,918,269,000       4,900,000,000       4,899,957,000        +254,245,000         -18,312,000             -43,000 
    Offsetting Collections..........................  ..................       -150,000,000         -30,000,000         -75,000,000         -75,000,000         +75,000,000         -45,000,000 
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust                                                                                                                                              
 Fund)..............................................      1,934,883,000       1,788,700,000       1,800,000,000       1,788,700,000        -146,183,000   ..................        -11,300,000 
    Rescission......................................       (-60,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................       (+60,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and                                                                                                                                             
 Airway Trust Fund).................................        185,698,000         195,700,000         185,000,000         187,000,000          +1,302,000          -8,700,000          +2,000,000 
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)     (1,350,000,000)     (1,300,000,000)     (1,460,000,000)       (+10,000,000)      (+110,000,000)      (+160,000,000)
    Rescission of contract authority................      (-664,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................      (+664,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program (indefinite                                                                                                                                            
 borrowing authority)...............................             50,000   ..................  ..................  ..................            -50,000   ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on borrowing authority).............         (1,600,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................        (-1,600,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration........      6,766,343,000       6,752,669,000       6,855,000,000       6,800,657,000         +34,314,000         +47,988,000         -54,343,000 
          (Limitations on obligations)..............     (1,450,000,000)     (1,350,000,000)     (1,300,000,000)     (1,460,000,000)       (+10,000,000)      (+110,000,000)      (+160,000,000)
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources...............     (8,216,343,000)     (8,102,669,000)     (8,155,000,000)     (8,260,657,000)       (+44,314,000)      (+157,988,000)      (+105,657,000)
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
           Federal Highway Administration                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Limitation on general operating expenses............       (509,660,000)       (652,905,000)       (510,981,000)       (534,846,000)       (+25,186,000)      (-118,059,000)       (+23,865,000)
Highway-related safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                                                             
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........        (11,000,000)         (2,049,000)         (2,049,000)         (2,049,000)        (-8,951,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations).....................        (11,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................       (-11,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    Rescission of contract authority................        (-9,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................        (+9,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                                                                      
    (Limitation on obligations).....................    (17,550,000,000)    (17,714,000,000)    (17,550,000,000)    (17,650,000,000)      (+100,000,000)       (-64,000,000)      (+100,000,000)
    (Exempt obligations) (sec. 310).................     (2,331,507,000)     (1,314,802,000)     (2,055,000,000)     (2,055,000,000)      (-276,507,000)      (+740,198,000)  ..................
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........    (19,200,000,000)    (19,800,000,000)    (19,800,000,000)    (19,800,000,000)      (+600,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    Emergency appropriations........................       (300,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................      (-300,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Right-of-way revolving funds (Highway Trust Fund)...  ..................  ..................  ..................          8,000,000          +8,000,000          +8,000,000          +8,000,000 
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                                                               
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........        (68,000,000)        (74,000,000)        (74,000,000)        (74,000,000)        (+6,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations).....................        (77,225,000)        (85,000,000)        (77,425,000)        (79,000,000)        (+1,775,000)        (-6,000,000)        (+1,575,000)
    Rescission of contract authority................       (-33,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................       (+33,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Alameda corridor project loan program...............  ..................         58,680,000   ..................  ..................  ..................        -58,680,000   ..................
Alameda corridor project loan limitation............  ..................       (400,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................      (-400,000,000)  ..................
State infrastructure banks (Highway Trust Fund).....  ..................        250,000,000   ..................        250,000,000        +250,000,000   ..................       +250,000,000 
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Highway Administration.........  ..................        308,680,000   ..................        258,000,000        +258,000,000         -50,680,000        +258,000,000 
          (Limitations on obligations)..............    (17,638,225,000)    (17,799,000,000)    (17,627,425,000)    (17,729,000,000)       (+90,775,000)       (-70,000,000)      (+101,575,000)
          (Exempt obligations)......................     (2,331,507,000)     (1,314,802,000)     (2,055,000,000)     (2,055,000,000)      (-276,507,000)      (+740,198,000)  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources...............    (19,969,732,000)    (19,422,482,000)    (19,682,425,000)    (20,042,000,000)       (+72,268,000)      (+619,518,000)      (+359,575,000)
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
   National Highway Traffic Safety Administration                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Operations and research.............................         73,316,570          98,976,000          81,895,000          80,000,000          +6,683,430         -18,976,000          -1,895,000 
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund)........         51,884,430          59,537,000          50,377,000          53,195,000          +1,310,570          -6,342,000          +2,818,000 
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and research.............        125,201,000         158,513,000         132,272,000         133,195,000          +7,994,000         -25,318,000            +923,000 
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                                                             
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........       (155,100,000)       (191,000,000)       (167,100,000)       (169,100,000)       (+14,000,000)       (-21,900,000)        (+2,000,000)
    State and community highway safety grants (Sec.                                                                                                                                             
     402) (limitation on obligations)...............       (127,700,000)       (151,200,000)       (127,700,000)       (129,700,000)        (+2,000,000)       (-21,500,000)        (+2,000,000)
    National Driver Register (Sec. 402) (limitation                                                                                                                                             
     on obligations)................................         (2,400,000)         (2,400,000)         (2,400,000)         (2,400,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................
    Highway safety grants (Sec. 1003(a)(7))                                                                                                                                                     
     (limitation on obligations)....................  ..................        (15,000,000)        (11,000,000)        (12,000,000)       (+12,000,000)        (-3,000,000)        (+1,000,000)
    Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures                                                                                                                                                    
     programs (Sec. 410) (limitation on obligations)        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (26,000,000)        (25,000,000)  ..................  ..................        (-1,000,000)
    Rescission of contract authority................       (-56,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................       (+56,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Highway Traffic Safety                                                                                                                                                    
       Administration...............................        125,201,000         158,513,000         132,272,000         133,195,000          +7,994,000         -25,318,000            +923,000 
          (Limitations on obligations)..............       (155,100,000)       (193,600,000)       (167,100,000)       (169,100,000)       (+14,000,000)       (-24,500,000)        (+2,000,000)
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources...............       (280,301,000)       (352,113,000)       (299,372,000)       (302,295,000)       (+21,994,000)       (-49,818,000)        (+2,923,000)
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
           Federal Railroad Administration                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Office of the Administrator.........................         14,018,000          16,883,000          16,469,000          16,739,000          +2,721,000            -144,000            +270,000 
Railroad safety.....................................         49,919,000          51,864,000          51,407,000          51,407,000          +1,488,000            -457,000   ..................
Railroad research and development...................         24,550,000          24,565,000          20,341,000          20,000,000          -4,550,000          -4,565,000            -341,000 
Northeast corridor improvement program..............        115,000,000         200,000,000   ..................        200,000,000         +85,000,000   ..................       +200,000,000 
High-speed rail trainsets and facilities............  ..................         80,000,000          80,000,000          80,000,000         +80,000,000   ..................  ..................
Next generation high speed rail.....................         19,205,000          26,525,000          19,757,000          26,525,000          +7,320,000   ..................         +6,768,000 
Trust fund share of next generation high-speed rail                                                                                                                                             
 (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                                                                                          
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........         (7,118,000)         (2,855,000)         (2,855,000)         (2,855,000)        (-4,263,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations).....................         (5,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................        (-5,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation......................         10,000,000   ..................  ..................         10,000,000   ..................        +10,000,000         +10,000,000 
Rhode Island Rail Development.......................          1,000,000          10,000,000           4,000,000          10,000,000          +9,000,000   ..................         +6,000,000 
Direct loan financing program.......................  ..................  ..................         58,680,000   ..................  ..................  ..................        -58,680,000 
Direct loan financing program limitation............  ..................  ..................       (400,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................      (-400,000,000)
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger                                                                                                                                                       
 Corporation:                                                                                                                                                                                   
    Operations......................................        305,000,000         342,000,000         342,000,000         342,000,000         +37,000,000   ..................  ..................
    Transition costs................................        100,000,000   ..................  ..................  ..................       -100,000,000   ..................  ..................
    Capital.........................................        230,000,000         296,500,000         120,000,000         250,000,000         +20,000,000         -46,500,000        +130,000,000 
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Grants to the National Railroad                                                                                                                                                    
       Passenger Corporation........................        635,000,000         638,500,000         462,000,000         592,000,000         -43,000,000         -46,500,000        +130,000,000 
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration........        868,692,000       1,048,337,000         712,654,000       1,006,671,000        +137,979,000         -41,666,000        +294,017,000 
          (Limitations on obligations)..............         (5,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................        (-5,000,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources...............       (873,692,000)     (1,048,337,000)       (712,654,000)     (1,006,671,000)      (+132,979,000)       (-41,666,000)      (+294,017,000)
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
           Federal Transit Administration                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Administrative expenses.............................         42,000,000          43,652,000          41,367,000          42,147,000            +147,000          -1,505,000            +780,000 
Formula grants......................................        942,925,000         221,122,000         490,000,000         218,335,000        -724,590,000          -2,787,000        -271,665,000 
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund) (limitation on                                                                                                                                              
 obligations).......................................     (1,110,000,000)     (1,930,850,000)     (1,562,925,000)     (1,930,850,000)      (+820,850,000)  ..................      (+367,925,000)
    Operating assistance grants.....................       (400,000,000)       (500,000,000)       (400,000,000)       (400,000,000)  ..................      (-100,000,000)  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Formula grants......................     (2,052,925,000)     (2,151,972,000)     (2,052,925,000)     (2,149,185,000)       (+96,260,000)        (-2,787,000)       (+96,260,000)
University transportation centers...................          6,000,000           6,000,000           6,000,000           6,000,000   ..................  ..................  ..................
Transit planning and research.......................         85,500,000          85,500,000          85,500,000          85,500,000   ..................  ..................  ..................
    Metropolitan planning...........................        (39,500,000)        (39,500,000)        (39,500,000)        (39,500,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................
    Rural transit assistance........................         (4,500,000)         (4,500,000)         (4,500,000)         (4,500,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................
    Transit cooperative research....................         (8,250,000)         (8,250,000)         (8,250,000)         (8,250,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................
    National planning and research..................        (22,000,000)        (22,000,000)        (22,000,000)        (22,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................
    State planning and research.....................         (8,250,000)         (8,250,000)         (8,250,000)         (8,250,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................
    National transit institute......................         (3,000,000)         (3,000,000)         (3,000,000)         (3,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Transit planning and research.......        (85,500,000)        (85,500,000)        (85,500,000)        (85,500,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund)                                                                                                                                               
 (liquidation of contract authorization)............     (1,120,850,000)     (1,920,000,000)     (1,920,000,000)     (1,920,000,000)      (+799,150,000)  ..................  ..................
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund)                                                                                                                                                       
 (limitation on obligations):                                                                                                                                                                   
    Fixed guideway modernization....................       (666,000,000)       (725,000,000)       (666,000,000)       (725,000,000)       (+59,000,000)  ..................       (+59,000,000)
    Bus and bus-related facilities..................       (333,000,000)       (274,000,000)       (333,000,000)       (375,000,000)       (+42,000,000)      (+101,000,000)       (+42,000,000)
    New starts......................................       (666,000,000)       (800,000,000)       (666,000,000)       (800,000,000)      (+134,000,000)  ..................      (+134,000,000)
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Discretionary grants................     (1,665,000,000)     (1,799,000,000)     (1,665,000,000)     (1,900,000,000)      (+235,000,000)      (+101,000,000)      (+235,000,000)
Mass transit capital fund (Highway Trust Fund)                                                                                                                                                  
 (liquidation of contract authorization)............     (2,375,000,000)     (2,000,000,000)     (2,000,000,000)     (2,300,000,000)       (-75,000,000)      (+300,000,000)      (+300,000,000)
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority......        200,000,000         200,000,000         200,000,000         200,000,000   ..................  ..................  ..................
Violent crime reduction programs (Violent Crime                                                                                                                                                 
 Reduction Trust Fund)..............................  ..................         10,000,000   ..................  ..................  ..................        -10,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
      Total, Federal Transit Administration.........      1,276,425,000         566,274,000         822,867,000         551,982,000        -724,443,000         -14,292,000        -270,885,000 
          (Limitations on obligations)..............     (2,775,000,000)     (3,729,850,000)     (3,227,925,000)     (3,830,850,000)    (+1,055,850,000)      (+101,000,000)      (+602,925,000)
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources...............     (4,051,425,000)     (4,296,124,000)     (4,050,792,000)     (4,382,832,000)      (+331,407,000)       (+86,708,000)      (+332,040,000)
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust                                                                                                                                            
 Fund)..............................................         10,150,000          10,065,000          10,037,000          10,337,000            +187,000            +272,000            +300,000 
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
    Research and Special Programs Administration                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Research and special programs.......................         23,937,000          28,169,000          23,929,000          27,675,000          +3,738,000            -494,000          +3,746,000 
    Hazardous materials safety......................        (12,650,000)        (12,812,000)        (12,772,000)        (15,572,000)        (+2,922,000)        (+2,760,000)        (+2,800,000)
    Emergency transportation........................         (1,022,000)           (993,000)           (993,000)           (993,000)           (-29,000)  ..................  ..................
    Research and technology.........................         (3,288,000)         (7,488,000)         (3,323,000)         (4,269,000)          (+981,000)        (-3,219,000)          (+946,000)
    Program and administrative support..............         (7,388,000)         (6,876,000)         (6,841,000)         (6,841,000)          (-547,000)           (-35,000)  ..................
    Accountwide adjustment..........................          (-411,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................          (+411,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, research and special programs.......        (23,937,000)        (28,169,000)        (23,929,000)        (27,675,000)        (+3,738,000)          (-494,000)        (+3,746,000)
Pipeline safety (Pipeline Safety Fund)..............         28,750,000          31,500,000          28,460,000          28,750,000   ..................         -2,750,000            +290,000 
Pipeline safety (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)....          2,698,000           2,528,000           2,528,000           2,528,000            -170,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pipeline safety.....................         31,448,000          34,028,000          30,988,000          31,278,000            -170,000          -2,750,000            +290,000 
Emergency preparedness grants:                                                                                                                                                                  
    Emergency preparedness fund.....................            400,000             200,000             200,000             200,000            -200,000   ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations).....................         (8,890,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................        (-8,890,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Special Programs                                                                                                                                                      
       Administration...............................         55,785,000          62,397,000          55,117,000          59,153,000          +3,368,000          -3,244,000          +4,036,000 
          (Limitations on obligations)..............         (8,890,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................        (-8,890,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources...............        (64,675,000)        (62,397,000)        (55,117,000)        (59,153,000)        (-5,522,000)        (-3,244,000)        (+4,036,000)
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
             Office of Inspector General                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses...............................         40,238,000          39,771,000          39,450,000          39,700,000            -538,000             -71,000            +250,000 
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
         Bureau of Transportation Statistics                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses...............................          2,200,000   ..................  ..................  ..................         -2,200,000   ..................  ..................
Office of Airline Information (Airport and airway                                                                                                                                               
 trust fund)........................................  ..................          3,100,000   ..................  ..................  ..................         -3,100,000   ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
            Surface Transportation Board                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses...............................  ..................          3,000,000          12,344,000          12,344,000         +12,344,000          +9,344,000   ..................
    Offsetting Collections..........................  ..................         -3,000,000   ..................  ..................  ..................         +3,000,000   ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
                 General Provisions                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (transfer from                                                                                                                                              
 Federal-aid Highways)..............................        (20,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (25,000,000)        (+5,000,000)  ..................  ..................
Transportation Administrative Service Center reduc-                                                                                                                                             
 tion...............................................         -7,500,000   ..................        -10,000,000         -10,000,000          -2,500,000         -10,000,000   ..................
DOT field office consolidation (sec. 335)...........        -25,000,000   ..................  ..................  ..................        +25,000,000   ..................  ..................
ICC transition (sec. 344)...........................          8,421,000   ..................  ..................  ..................         -8,421,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
      Total, title I, Dept of Transportation (net)..     11,862,519,029      12,893,968,627      12,502,964,000      12,514,588,000        +652,068,971        -379,380,627         +11,624,000 
              Appropriations........................    (12,707,306,000)    (12,911,780,000)    (12,532,697,000)    (12,528,421,000)      (-178,885,000)      (-383,359,000)        (-4,276,000)
              Rescissions...........................      (-844,786,971)       (-17,811,373)       (-29,733,000)       (-13,833,000)      (+830,953,971)        (+3,978,373)       (+15,900,000)
          (Limitations on obligations)..............    (22,054,815,000)    (23,094,372,000)    (22,332,450,000)    (23,214,850,000)    (+1,160,035,000)      (+120,478,000)      (+822,400,000)
          (Exempt obligations)......................     (2,331,507,000)     (1,314,802,000)     (2,055,000,000)     (2,055,000,000)      (-276,507,000)      (+740,198,000)  ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
            Total budgetary resources including                                                                                                                                                 
             (limitations on obligations) and                                                                                                                                                   
             (exempt obligations)...................    (36,248,841,029)    (37,303,142,627)    (36,890,414,000)    (37,784,438,000)    (+1,535,596,971)      (+481,295,373)      (+894,024,000)
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
             TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance                                                                                                                                            
                        Board                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses...............................          3,500,000           3,540,000           3,540,000           3,540,000             +40,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
        National Transportation Safety Board                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses...............................         38,774,000          42,407,000          42,407,000          42,407,000          +3,633,000   ..................  ..................
Emergency fund......................................            360,802   ..................  ..................  ..................           -360,802   ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Transportation Safety Board...         39,134,802          42,407,000          42,407,000          42,407,000          +3,272,198   ..................  ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
           Interstate Commerce Commission                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Salaries and expenses...............................         13,379,000   ..................  ..................  ..................        -13,379,000   ..................  ..................
Payments for directed rail service (limitation on                                                                                                                                               
 obligations).......................................           (475,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................          (-475,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Interstate Commerce Commission.........        (13,854,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................       (-13,854,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
               Panama Canal Commission                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Panama Canal Revolving Fund: (Limitation on                                                                                                                                                     
 administrative expenses)...........................        (52,741,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................       (-52,741,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Related Agencies.............         56,013,802          45,947,000          45,947,000          45,947,000         -10,066,802   ..................  ..................
          (Limitation on obligations)...............           (475,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................          (-475,000)  ..................  ..................
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources...............        (56,488,802)        (45,947,000)        (45,947,000)        (45,947,000)       (-10,541,802)  ..................  ..................
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
                                                                                                                                                                                                
            TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                
General Provision 310...............................  ..................       (-41,000,000)  ..................  ..................  ..................       (+41,000,000)  ..................
General Provision 310(f)............................  ..................       -306,000,000   ..................  ..................  ..................       +306,000,000   ..................
Sec. 338--National Civil Aviation Review Commission.  ..................  ..................          2,400,000   ..................  ..................  ..................         -2,400,000 
                                                     ===========================================================================================================================================
      Total appropriations (net)....................     11,918,532,831      12,633,915,627      12,551,311,000      12,560,535,000        +642,002,169         -73,380,627          +9,224,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



