[Senate Report 105-249]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 468
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

  2d Session                                                    105-249
_______________________________________________________________________


 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  1999

                                _______
                                

                 July 15, 1998.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2307]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2307) 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, 
and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the bill do pass.


Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 1999

Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $13,694,249,569
Amount of budget estimates, 1999........................  13,354,129,000
Fiscal year 1998 enacted................................  12,720,568,766


                            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

Immediate Office of the Secretary................................     8
Office of the General Counsel....................................     9
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.....................     9
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
  Affairs........................................................     9
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs........    11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.......    11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............    11
Office of Public Affairs.........................................    12
Executive Secretariat............................................    12
Contract Appeals Board...........................................    12
Office of Intelligence and Security..............................    12
Office of the Chief Information Officer..........................    13
Office of Intermodalism..........................................    13
Office of Civil Rights...........................................    13
Transportation planning, research, and development...............    13
Transportation Administrative Service Center.....................    15
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund.........    16
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................    23
Minority business outreach.......................................    23
Amtrak Reform Council............................................    23

                            U.S. Coast Guard

Operating expenses...............................................    29
Acquisition, construction, and improvements......................    35
Environmental compliance and restoration.........................    43
Alteration of bridges............................................    43
Retired pay......................................................    43
Reserve training.................................................    44
Research, development, test, and evaluation......................    44
Boat safety......................................................    45

                    Federal Aviation Administration

Operations.......................................................    47
Facilities and equipment.........................................    57
Research, engineering, and development...........................    75
Grants-in-aid for airports.......................................    80

                     Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on general operating expenses.........................    88
Federal-aid highways.............................................    90
Magnetic levitation transportation...............................    98
Appalachian development highway system...........................    99

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Motor carrier safety grants......................................   102

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research..........................................   104
Highway traffic safety grants....................................   107

                    Federal Railroad Administration

Office of the Administrator......................................   109
Railroad safety..................................................   110
Nationwide differential global positioning system................   111
Railroad research and development................................   112
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program...........................   114
Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Program......................   115
Next generation high-speed rail..................................   115
Alaska railroad rehabilitation...................................   117
Rhode Island rail development....................................   118
Capital Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
  (Amtrak).......................................................   118

                     Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses..........................................   124
Formula grants...................................................   125
University transportation centers................................   128
Transit planning and research....................................   128
Trust fund share of transit programs.............................   131
Capital investment grants........................................   131
Mass transit capital fund........................................   160
Job access and reverse commute grants............................   161
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]...........   162

              St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance.......................................   164

              Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs....................................   166
Pipeline safety..................................................   169
Emergency preparedness grants....................................   171

                      Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses............................................   172

                      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
Emergency fund...................................................   176

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions...............................................   177
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.......................................   181

  Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds

    In addition to the appropriation of $13,694,249,569 in new 
budget authority for fiscal year 1999, 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 1999, estimated obligation 
limitations total $32,234,800,000. In addition, Amtrak receives 
a substantial subsidy from funds Congress identified in the Tax 
Reform Act of 1997.

                     program, project, and activity

    During fiscal year 1999, 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.

             transportation equity act for the 21st century

    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the 
previous authorization for most Federal highway, transit, and 
highway safety programs, expired on September 30, 1997. On May 
22, 1998, the Congress passed a new authorization bill, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], which 
the President signed into law on June 9, 1998. Under this law, 
most of the authorizations are contract authority; that is, 
they are available for obligation without appropriation. The 
role of the appropriations process with respect to contract 
authority programs generally is to set obligation limitations 
so that overall Federal spending stays within legislated 
targets and to appropriate liquidating cash to cover the 
outlays associated with obligations that have been made.

               the government performance and results act

    The Government Performance and Results Act [Results Act] 
requires Federal agencies to develop strategic plans and annual 
performance plans and reports. The first multiyear strategic 
plan was submitted September 30, 1997. The Committee is fully 
committed to support the Department as it seeks to implement 
the requirements of the Results Act.
    The Committee commends the Department for its aggressive 
implementation of the Results Act. In the performance plan for 
fiscal year 1999 that was delivered to Congress on February 23, 
1998, performance measures have been identified for all of the 
Department's major programs. A total of 70 performance goals 
have been established. All of these goals are stated in terms 
of effects on the American public, and many reflect ambitious 
target levels of performance.
    The Department provided the performance plan shortly after 
receipt of budget justifications. The plan generally contained 
objective and measurable performance goals covering the 
Department's budget and are generally useful. However, the plan 
could be improved by consistently linking strategic goals, 
program activities, and performance goals. Further, the plan 
could be strengthened by identifying current (or potential) 
interagency coordination of goals and measures including 
discussion of the Department's proposed or potential 
participation in such areas.
    The Department's activities under the Government 
Performance and Results Act are clearly a work in progress. The 
Department has made significant strides in assessing GPRA's 
potential for strategically aligning the varied and numerous 
programs under the Department's jurisdiction. However, although 
the plan identifies strategies to help achieve the Department's 
long-term goals, the plan does not adequately describe how 
those strategies will lead to realization of the long-term 
goals or the relative contributions of each strategy. 
Generally, this is a shortcoming reasonably expected to be 
addressed as the GPRA process evolves and becomes more 
integrated in the policy, budget, and regulatory formulation 
and identification processes. However, the Committee encourages 
the Department to focus in particular on improvements to 
management to achieve outcomes as this has been a historically 
weak area for the Department. For example, the Committee 
encourages greater refinement of goals with specific and 
quantitable measures to provide greater definition and focus 
for budgetary, regulatory, and administrative actions.
    For clarity, the performance plan should resist identifying 
activities of agencies or offices under strategic goals unless 
there is discussion of such organizations' primary 
contributions toward those goals in the body of the plan. 
Elimination of the mention of these organizations will provide 
greater focus on the priorities in the strategic goal (if 
mention of such organization is gratuitous), or will prompt 
reevaluation of the organizations' roles in the achievement of 
the strategic goal.
    The performance plan still has the feel of a document 
designed to cover the current panoply of activities ongoing or 
anticipated for the Department. As the process and the plan 
mature, the Committee anticipates that the performance plan 
will become a management document rather than a reporting 
document.
    The Committee recognizes that implementation will be an 
iterative process, likely to involve several appropriations 
cycles, and will support the efforts of the Department to 
improve its performance plan. We will consider the Department's 
progress in addressing weaknesses in its annual performance 
plan in tandem with its funding requests. To this end, we urge 
the Department to examine the program activities currently 
supporting its budget requests in light of the Department's 
strategic goals and to determine whether any changes or 
realignments would facilitate a more accurate and informed 
presentation of budgetary information. The Department is 
encouraged to consult with the Committee as it considers such 
revisions prior to finalizing any requests pursuant to 31 
U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will consider any requests with a 
view toward ensuring that fiscal year 2000 and subsequent 
budget submissions display amounts requested against program 
activity structures that bear clear relationships to 
performance goals.
    Year 2000 conversion.--The Committee notes that the 
Department has greatly improved its management oversight in 
recent months and appears to be devoting considerable resources 
to the year 200 conversion problem. However, the Department 
still has a long way to go and the Office of Management and 
Budget indicates that the Department, with 14.9 percent of its 
mission critical systems validated and 7.4 percent implemented, 
the Department lags well behind the Governmentwide schedule, 
and its assessments of four systems had not been completed as 
of the May reporting date.
    While the entire Department has year 2000 conversion 
issues, the most critical appear to be within the Federal 
Aviation Administration. The Federal Aviation Administration 
has taken significant steps in the last two quarters to 
accelerate efforts to address the year 2000 problems, but the 
FAA systems continue to pose a significant risk. The Office of 
Management and Budget specifically suggested that the FAA:

        * * * determine priorities for system conversion and 
        replacement based on systems' mission criticality; 
        develop plans for validating and testing all converted 
        or replaced systems; and continue working to develop 
        realistic contingency plans for all business lines to 
        ensure the continuity of critical operations, including 
        the availability of critical telecommunications 
        support. Of particular concern is the FAA's HOST 
        computer system, which is the backbone en route air 
        traffic control. The FAA intends to replace the HOST 
        computers at a pace sufficient to guarantee an adequate 
        supply of spare parts for the remaining computers. FAA 
        is continuing to assess the potential vulnerability of 
        the system's microcode and is validating the 
        feasibility of a date rollback as one of its potential 
        contingency plans. The FAA's contingency planning must 
        provide for continuity of operational capability of the 
        National Airspace System [NAS], including scenarios 
        when the HOST computer is not available.


                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

    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 $76,925,300 for the 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $40,000 for 
reception and representation expenses.
    The Committee is concerned about the continued level of 
vacancies in the Office of the Secretary and notes that many of 
the positions have been open for over a year. Accordingly, the 
appropriation for salaries and expenses has been adjusted 
downward to reflect current staffing levels generally across 
the Office of the Secretary. This adjustment is made without 
prejudice and will be reassessed before final enactment of this 
bill.
    In addition, the Committee is increasingly concerned about 
the apparent reticence on the part of the Office of 
Congressional Affairs to brief all impacted Committees of the 
Congress in a timely fashion of administration proposals 
directly relating to issues and accounts under those 
committees' jurisdiction. This concern comes directly on the 
heels of a constant stream of concerns by Members of Congress 
that matters of constituent interest are not relayed to all 
members of a State delegation in an even-handed and timely 
fashion. Unless these deficiencies are remedied immediately, 
the Committee will reconsider the need for a departmentwide 
Office of Congressional Affairs, and may resolve to transfer 
some of the functions to other offices in the Office of the 
Secretary and devolve the congressional liaison functions to 
the individual modal administrations.

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

    The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary 
responsibility for overall policy development, central 
supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the 
overall planning and direction of the Department.
    The Committee recommends $1,768,600, which is consistent 
with the fiscal year 1998 appropriation with controls placed on 
travel and PC&B growth. The Committee expects that the funding 
will be sufficient for the Immediate Office of the Secretary 
and expects that any shortfall can be accommodated by slight 
reductions in benefits and travel. The funding provided will 
allow for 16 positions.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

    The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the 
primary responsibility of assisting the Secretary in the 
overall planning and direction of the Department. The Committee 
has recommended a total of $554,700 for the Immediate Office of 
the Deputy Secretary. The Committee's recommendation provides 
for a staffing level of seven positions.

                     Office of the General Counsel

    The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the 
Department of Transportation and the final authority within the 
Department on all legal questions. The General Counsel's Office 
provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary, 
coordinates and reviews the legal work of the Chief Counsels' 
Offices of the operating administrations, and generally 
performs the full range of legal services involved in 
administering an executive department with national and 
international responsibilities. With the completion of the 
reauthorization of the Federal-aid Highway Program, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motor Carrier Safety 
Program, and Federal transit programs, the workload of the 
General Counsel's Office should substantially decrease, and the 
funds provided should be ample to carry out the duties of the 
Office of the General Counsel.
    The Committee recommends $8,645,000 for the Office of the 
General Counsel. At this funding level, the Committee expects 
that the Office will be able to fund 86 staff positions.

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

    The Assistant Secretary for Policy is the primary policy 
officer of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary 
for analysis, development, articulation, and review of policies 
and plans for domestic transportation.
    The Committee recommends $2,479,500 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Policy. This funding level is 
sufficient to fund the current onboard staff.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

    The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs is responsible for administering the economic 
regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and 
provides departmental leadership and coordination on 
international transportation policy issues relating to 
maritime, trade, technical assistance, and cooperation 
programs. As overseer of airline economic regulations, the 
Assistant Secretary is responsible for international aviation 
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness 
and licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, and 
special investigations such as airline delays and computer 
reservations systems [CRS].
    The Committee has provided $6,686,300, which will provide 
sufficient resources to fund 85 positions.
    Aviation competition guidelines.--When Congress passed the 
Airline Deregulation Act, it decided that the marketplace, and 
not regulators, should set airline prices and schedules. That 
landmark action has generated enormous benefits for the air 
traveling public. However, the Subcommittee on Transportation 
Appropriations has been very concerned about barriers to entry 
and the current health of airline competition which may distort 
the competitive landscape. The subcommittee has held a number 
of hearings over the past 2 years and one of the clear messages 
which has emerged from these hearings is that it is critically 
important to have a truly free market so that everyone, big and 
small, can compete. Where there is strong competition in the 
airline industry, the consumers are the primary beneficiaries. 
What should also be clear is that there is no prospect of 
support from the Committee to reregulate the airline industry.
    The Department of Transportation has recently come forth 
with a Proposed Statement of Enforcement Policy on Unfair 
Exclusionary Conduct by Airlines. The Committee applauds the 
Department's initiative to attempt to provide guidelines to the 
airlines as to what activities constitute anticompetitive 
activities, but the Committee is concerned that any such policy 
statement not undermine the very marketplace for airlines 
services that it is designed to foster. An incautious policy 
that intervenes in the wrong circumstances could itself chill 
the competitive process. The Committee also notes that several 
Committees of the Congress have held hearings and introduced 
legislation to promote airline competition.
    As the Department considers ways of providing greater 
certainty to the airlines as to what constitutes 
anticompetitive activity, the Committee encourages the 
Department to consider a process in which the Department, upon 
receiving a complaint, would consider within a specified time 
period whether such alleged activity should be referred to the 
Department of Justice or whether it was a permissible 
competitive activity. Such an approach would provide greater 
certainty for air carriers and could provide an efficient 
mechanism for focusing the Department of Justice's attention on 
the most suspect of activities. The Committee believes that 
such a process can be accommodated within current staffing 
resources and would reject a request for additional resources 
for the creation of an analytical or legal capability within 
the Department of Transportation that would also, by necessity, 
have to be constituted at the Department of Justice.
    The Committee urges the Department of Transportation to 
work with interested Committees of the Congress, the Department 
of Justice, and the airlines to implement existing laws and 
enforcement practices to protect the economy from 
anticompetitive conduct.
    Another concern raised during the subcommittee's hearings 
was that the role that travel agents play in the maintenance of 
a competitive landscape between airlines by virtue of the 
value-added services they provide for consumers might be 
threatened by actions taken by the major airlines. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to monitor the dynamics of 
the airline ticketing industry and the impacts that 
developments in that industry have on the access of consumers 
to airline tickets.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

    The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the 
principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development, 
review, and presentation of the Department's budget resource 
requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of the 
Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this 
Office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation 
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to 
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution 
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of 
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for 
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and advise 
the Secretary of program and legislative changes necessary to 
improve program effectiveness.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,687,800 for the 
Office of Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. At this 
level, the Committee has funded the current onboard staff 
positions and included $40,000 for reception and representation 
expenses for the Secretary.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

    The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises 
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental 
activities and on all Department legislative initiatives and 
other relationships with Members of the Congress; promotes 
effective communication with other Federal agencies and 
regional Department officials, and with State and local 
governments and national organizations for development of 
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences, 
awareness, and needs are brought into the decisionmaking 
process.
    The Committee recommends $1,600,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. This level holds 
travel below fiscal year 1998 levels and provides funding for 
23 positions.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration is the principal 
adviser to the Secretary on departmental administrative 
management matters, and is responsible for personnel and 
training, management policy, employment ceiling control 
systems, automated systems policy, administrative operations, 
real and personal property management, acquisition management, 
grants management, internal departmental financial systems, and 
ADP facilities and services.
    The Committee recommends $19,570,200 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration which includes the OST 
portion of rent and the majority of OST's TASC contribution. 
The Committee has provided a level that will support the 
current staffing levels with a slight reduction in travel and 
training activities.

                        Office of Public Affairs

    The Director of Public Affairs is the principal adviser to 
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news 
media on public affairs questions. The Office issues news 
releases, articles, factsheets, briefing materials, 
publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides 
information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the 
public and news media on transportation programs and issues.
    The Committee recommends $1,656,600 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, which will support current staffing levels.

                         Executive Secretariat

    The Executive Secretariat provides and organizes staff 
service for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to assist them 
in carrying out their management functions and facilitate their 
responsibilities for formulating, coordinating, and 
communicating major policy decisions. It controls and 
coordinates internal and external material directed to the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary and ensures that their decisions 
and instructions are implemented.
    The Committee recommends a funding level of $1,088,500 for 
the Executive Secretariat, sufficient resources to maintain 
current staffing levels.

                         Contract Appeals Board

    The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals 
is to provide an independent forum for the trial and 
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor 
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as 
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601.
    The Committee has provided $460,000 for the Contract 
Appeals Board. This level is sufficient to maintain the current 
staffing level of five positions.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for 
small and disadvantaged business participation in the 
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective 
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15 
of the Small Business Act, as amended.
    The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is sufficient 
funding to maintain current staffing levels.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

    The Office of Intelligence and Security within the Office 
of the Secretary coordinates security and intelligence policies 
and strategies among the modes of transportation and serves as 
liaison with other Government intelligence and law enforcement 
agencies.
    The Committee recommends $935,000 for the Office of 
Intelligence and Security. This level is sufficient to maintain 
the current staffing levels of nine positions and current 
activities of the office.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

    The Committee recommends $4,652,700 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer. This level is sufficient to maintain 
the current staffing level of 15 positions.

                        Office of Intermodalism

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Office of 
Intermodalism. This level is sufficient to maintain current 
staffing and activity levels with modest reductions in travel 
and the initiation of new projects.

                         Office of Civil Rights

    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.
    The Committee has provided a funding level of $5,562,000 
for the Office of Civil Rights. The Committee notes the 
unusually high number of vacancies in the Office of Civil 
Rights, and expects the Director to fill these positions as 
soon as possible. In addition, the Committee is aware of the 
persistent carryover load of EEO cases and encourages the 
director to explore alternative means of managing the caseload. 
Options to be explored should include contracting out and cost-
sharing arrangements with the administrations generating the 
largest portion of the Office's caseload.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................      $4,400,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       4,710,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,328,400

\1\ Does not include reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of 
Public Law 105-66.

    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.
    Policy studies.--The recommended level for policy studies 
for the development and implementation of transportation 
economic policy and for the development of environmental energy 
and safety policy has been reduced by $200,000.
    Transportation planning.--The recommended level includes 
funding for transportation planning assistance for the 2002 
Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and for planning and 
logistical support for the 1999 Special Olympics World Summer 
Games and the 2001 Special Olympic World Winter Games.
    Missing children.--The Committee is aware of the effective 
work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
to combat crimes against children and to reunite abducted or 
runaway children with their families. There are many 
opportunities in the transportation sector to alert the public 
to the status of a missing child. For example, truckstops, 
airports, rail and bus stations, and other transportation 
facilities are utilized by millions of Americans every day. 
These are ideal places to raise public awareness of missing 
children. Moreover, employees in the transportation sector, 
including flight attendants, bus and truck drivers, and ticket 
agents, come into contact with hundreds of individuals every 
day and could be a key element in identifying abducted 
children. When nonlaw enforcement entities adopt procedures 
that hinder pedophiles and kidnappers, they are doing a much 
needed public service. Of note is WalMart's Code Adam Program. 
When a child disappears in a participating store, Code Adam is 
addressed over the public address system. Store personnel 
immediately stop work to look for the child and monitor all 
exits. If the missing child is not located in 10 minutes, or is 
seen with someone other than a parent or guardian, the police 
are called. This program is implemented in all 2,800 WalMart 
and Sam's Club stores. The Committee urges the transportation 
sector to consider similar programs.
    The Committee directs the Secretary and each of the modal 
administrators to work with the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children and the transportation industry to identify 
and implement initiatives to maximize the transportation 
sector's involvement in the effort to relocate missing 
children. The Committee directs the Secretary to report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 
March 31, 1999, on the identified initiatives in this area and 
the actions taken to implement those efforts.
    Transportation noise model.--The Department of 
Transportation should continue research toward developing a 
multimodal acoustic noise model that encompasses all 
transportation related noise sources, so as to efficiently 
minimize combined impact on community noise. No later than 
January 1, 1999, the Department shall provide the Committee a 
plan for achieving this goal. The Department should continue to 
improve the transportation noise model [TNM] by incorporating 
neglected but relevant propagation phenomena that affect 
community noise, such as atmospheric effects. While the 
Department continues research toward developing a multimodal 
acoustic noise model, it should require concurrent use of TNM 
and its previous noise prediction model.
    Freight mobility.--The recommended level includes $40,000 
for a joint freight mobility study to initiate and coordinate a 
freight mobility system in Washington State to focus on the 
freight movement problems of the Puget Sound region. Special 
attention should be given to improving business practices to 
mitigate the freight mobility problems in the region.
    Flood project alternatives research.--Flooding in the 
Interstate 5 corridor at Centralia/Chehalis in Washington State 
compromises freight mobility in the corridor and presents a 
unique opportunity to provide a coordinated approach between 
flood control projects and highway construction. The Committee 
provides $250,000 and directs the Secretary to work with the 
Lewis County Economic Development Corp., the Washington State 
Department of Ecology, and Grays Harbor County to further 
efforts to identify and conduct preliminary work on a basinwide 
solution to this transportation problem as a pilot program for 
other flood plain and highway conflicts.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, 1998 \1\....................................  ($121,800,000)
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................   (175,715,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (165,215,000)

\1\ Does not reflect reduction pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 
105-66.
\2\ Proposed without limitations.

    The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC] 
provides a business operation fund for DOT to provide a wide 
range of administrative services to the Department and other 
customers. TASC functions as an entrepreneurial and self-
sufficient entity and provides competitive quality services 
responsive to customer needs. The TASC is governed by a Board 
of Directors composed of customer agencies operating in a 
competitive business-like environment. The TASC presents 
proposed operating and financial plans to the Board at the 
beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board has approved 
those plans the TASC provides products and services to its full 
customer base. The Director of TASC provides quarterly 
performance and financial reports to the Board, makes 
recommendations for changes to the approved plans and is 
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 formerly in DOT's working capital fund [WCF];
  --Office of the Secretary [OST] personnel, procurement and 
        information technology support operations;
  --Systems development staff;
  --Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets 
        facilities; and
  --Certain departmental services and administrative 
        operations, such as human resources management 
        programs, transit fare subsidy payments, and employee 
        wellness including substance awareness and testing.
    All of the services of the TASC will be financed through 
customer reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for-
service basis.
    The bill includes language that includes a limitation on 
activities financed through the transportation administrative 
service center at $165,215,000. The limitation shall not apply 
to non-DOT entities and the Committee directs that activities 
shall be provided on a competitive basis. Further, the 
Committee directs that the Department shall submit with the 
Department's congressional budget submission an approved annual 
operating plan of the transportation administrative service 
center and quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations.

        Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund

Appropriations, 1998 (mandatory authority) \1\..........     $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999 (mandatory authority).............      50,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory authority)..........      50,000,000

\1\ Transfer from FAA operations.

    The Essential Air Service [EAS] and Rural Airport 
Improvement Program provides funds directly to commuter/
regional airlines to provide air service to small communities 
that otherwise would not receive air service and for rural 
airport improvement as provided by the 1996 Federal Aviation 
Reauthorization Act.
    The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorizes 
$100,000,000 in user fees for flights that fly over, but do not 
land in, the United States. The first $50,000,000 of each 
year's fees go directly to carry out the Essential Air Service 
Program and, to the extent not used for essential air service, 
to improve rural airport safety. If $50,000,000 in fees is not 
available, funding must be transferred from other FAA 
appropriations to the EAS programs.
    Many EAS 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, and in many instances does not exist at all. 
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 has retained the general provision which 
limits the number of communities that receive EAS funding by 
excluding points in the 48 contiguous United States that are 
located fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest large or 
medium hub airport, or that require a subsidy in excess of $200 
per passenger unless such a point is more than 210 miles from 
the nearest large or medium hub airport.
    The following table reflects the points currently receiving 
service and the annual rates as of the end of March 1998. The 
$50,000,000 funding level is more than sufficient to maintain 
current service levels and quality of service at the 
communities currently served by the EAS program.
    In the lower 48 States, the tables show distances that EAS 
communities are from other air service centers and subsidy-per-
passenger calculations. The distance figures are shown to give 
a sense of the degree of isolation of the communities, and the 
subsidy-per-passenger figures are a rough measure of the cost 
of providing the service compared to the number of passengers 
benefiting from the service. Neither of those calculations are 
particularly relevant to Alaska. First, only three of the 26 
subsidized communities in Alaska have road access to other air 
service. Thus, the Alaskan communities are clearly among the 
most isolated in the Nation. In fact, many are islands and 
would be all but cut off from the rest of the world without air 
service. Second, any subsidy-per-passenger calculation would be 
highly misleading, at best. While subsidy-per-passenger may be 
used as a crude measure of cost benefit in the lower 48, in 
many of the subsidized EAS markets the principal traffic being 
carried on the EAS flights is food being delivered to the bush 
community. Thus, the whole community benefits--indeed is fully 
dependent on--the EAS flights, not just the few who may 
actually travel on the flights.

                                                 EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF JUNE 1, 1997 AND MARCH 1, 1998                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Estimated       Average daily                                                       
                                                                   mileage to      enplanements at   Annual subsidy                      Current annual 
                      States/communities                           nearest hub     EAS point (year  rates as of June     Subsidy per      subsidy rates 
                                                                 (small, medium,   ending June 30,       1, 1997        passenger \2\    (March 1, 1998)
                                                                  or large) \1\         1997)                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:                                                                                                                                                
    Kingman...................................................               101               6.9          $155,369               $51          $411,217
    Page......................................................               280              26.2           129,560                10           758,575
    Prescott..................................................               102              34.2           155,369                 8           411,217
Arkansas:                                                                                                                                               
    El Dorado/Camden..........................................               108               5.5           569,344               112           943,347
    Harrison..................................................               142               4.4           412,931               151         1,049,612
    Hot Springs...............................................                53              11.9           412,931                64         1,049,612
    Jonesboro.................................................                79               6.4           379,562                95           943,347
California:                                                                                                                                             
    Crescent City.............................................               234              26.0           151,450                12           189,043
    Merced....................................................               114               8.4           350,622                84           750,890
Colorado:                                                                                                                                               
    Alamosa...................................................               162              16.6           ( \3\ )           ( \3\ )           ( \3\ )
    Cortez....................................................               258              30.5           210,544                31         1,009,635
    Lamar.....................................................               163           ( \4\ )           595,788           ( \4\ )           579,992
Hawaii: Kamuela...............................................                39               4.4           292,061               181           335,454
Illinois:                                                                                                                                               
    Mattoon...................................................               126               5.1           182,319                62           218,783
    Mount Vernon..............................................                92               3.6           205,766                91           246,919
    Sterling/Rock Falls.......................................               105               1.5           382,072               645           458,485
Iowa: Ottumwa.................................................                85               4.5           382,072               181           458,485
Kansas:                                                                                                                                                 
    Dodge City................................................               149               9.9           146,225                28           611,661
    Garden City...............................................               201              38.3           101,767                 9           246,666
    Goodland..................................................               189           ( \4\ )           437,412           ( \4\ )           833,383
    Great Bend................................................               120               7.7           146,225                34           639,096
    Hays......................................................               180              21.3           146,225                10         1,108,781
    Liberal/Guymon............................................               145              15.3           101,767                12           191,077
    Topeka....................................................                71               7.9           102,362                18           367,662
Maine:                                                                                                                                                  
    Augusta/Waterville........................................                71              10.1           330,080                53           595,320
    Bar Harbor................................................               157              30.3           330,080                22           595,320
    Rockland..................................................                80              18.0           330,080                34           595,320
Michigan:                                                                                                                                               
    Alpena....................................................               236              15.1           141,363                37           494,668
    Ironwood/Ashland..........................................                59               9.6           412,223                24           198,799
    Manistee..................................................               115               3.6           132,014                56           158,417
    Sault Ste. Marie..........................................               280              29.4           141,363                 8           198,799
Minnesota:                                                                                                                                              
    Fairmont..................................................               121           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           678,375
    Fergus Falls..............................................               186           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           747,500
    Mankato...................................................                75           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )
Missouri:                                                                                                                                               
    Cape Girardeau............................................               138              14.1           108,120                24           295,466
    Fort Leonard Wood.........................................               130              14.4           164,667                27           346,883
    Kirksville................................................               137               4.2           275,969               103           450,736
Montana:                                                                                                                                                
    Glasgow...................................................               280               6.1           387,540               110           684,766
    Glendive..................................................               223               2.3           501,442               348           684,766
    Havre.....................................................               248               4.6           483,798               187           684,766
    Lewistown.................................................               125               3.4           483,798               249           684,766
    Miles City................................................               146               3.0           501,442               302           684,766
    Sidney....................................................               273               7.0           501,442               111           684,766
    Wolf Point................................................               293               5.4           387,540               132           684,766
Nebraska:                                                                                                                                               
    Alliance..................................................               256               3.9           346,863               296           797,133
    Chadron...................................................               311               3.4           346,863               375           797,133
    Hastings..................................................               162           ( \4\ )           500,000           ( \4\ )           805,000
    Kearney...................................................               181           ( \4\ )           437,412           ( \4\ )           833,383
    McCook....................................................               271               5.1           657,724               366         1,308,444
    Norfolk...................................................               109               6.6           343,232                77           678,375
Nevada: Ely...................................................               237               3.0           508,759               335           867,188
New Hampshire: Keene..........................................                56               5.3           382,283               132           737,926
New Mexico:                                                                                                                                             
    Alamogordo/Holloman AFB...................................                91              11.3           188,923                28           656,745
    Clovis....................................................               103              11.5           208,578                26           533,589
    Silver City/Hurley/Deming.................................               133               8.3           314,303                75           569,469
New York:                                                                                                                                               
    Massena...................................................               118              10.2           132,540                28           266,371
    Ogdensburg................................................               123               4.0           132,540                56           266,371
    Watertown.................................................                65              11.9           132,540                20           266,371
North Dakota:                                                                                                                                           
    Devils Lake...............................................               396              12.7           415,506                53           678,375
    Dickinson.................................................               319              17.9           141,502                16           247,235
    Jamestown.................................................               302               8.8           415,506                79           678,375
Oklahoma:                                                                                                                                               
    Enid......................................................                84               5.1           381,517               121           767,398
    Ponca City................................................                81               6.6           381,517                84           767,398
Pennsylvania: Oil City/Franklin...............................                86              24.2           118,373                 9           243,923
South Dakota:                                                                                                                                           
    Brookings.................................................                57           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           678,375
    Mitchell..................................................                69           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           ( \5\ )           693,000
    Yankton...................................................                81               5.1           343,232               103           678,375
Texas: Brownwood..............................................               138               2.9           499,109               227           807,717
Utah:                                                                                                                                                   
    Cedar City................................................               178              21.8           292,882                26           577,538
    Moab......................................................               236               5.7           404,700               143           769,572
    Vernal....................................................               174              12.6           194,466                28           280,854
Vermont: Rutland..............................................                69              10.6           382,283                62           737,926
Washington: Ephrata/Moses Lake................................               108              40.8           177,628                 9           219,483
West Virginia:                                                                                                                                          
    Beckley...................................................               173               8.5           270,835                60           618,017
    Princeton/Bluefield.......................................               137               6.7           270,835                68           618,017
Wyoming:                                                                                                                                                
    Laramie...................................................               144              35.3           ( \3\ )           ( \3\ )           ( \3\ )
    Riverton..................................................               256              42.4           ( \3\ )           ( \3\ )           ( \3\ )
    Rock Springs..............................................               184              32.5           ( \3\ )           ( \3\ )           ( \3\ )
    Worland...................................................               164               9.3           155,468                31           186,562
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activity Statistics. The above distances are based on the 1997   
  Airport Activity Statistics, which is based on calendar year 1996 passenger data.                                                                     
\2\ Rounded to the nearest dollar.                                                                                                                      
\3\ Subsidy rate under negotiation.                                                                                                                     
\4\ There was an extended service hiatus during the year ended June 30, 1997; thus, no meaningful calculation can be made.                              
\5\ Either no service or subsidy rate in place.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
NOTE.--The Department has authorized subsidy for service levels that meet at least the statutory minimums beginning in fiscal year 1998, that is,       
  October 1, 1998. The enplanements per day, on the other hand, reflect the subminimum service levels of ten round trips a week.                        


                                                                   GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS                                                                  
                                                         [Dollars and square feet in thousands]                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year 1997 enacted \1\    Fiscal year      Fiscal year 1998 estimate     Fiscal year 1999 estimate
                Administration                 ------------------------------    1997 GSA    -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Funding      Square feet     billings         Funding       Square feet      Funding     Square feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration................       [$17,294]       [1,078]       [$17,369]        $17,480           1,077        $17,922         1,076
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  ..............           217          4,361           4,234             217          4,042           206
Federal Railroad Administration...............  ..............           143          4,075           2,930             123          2,753           112
Federal Transit Administration................  ..............           152          3,091           3,239             155          3,030           140
Federal Aviation Administration...............  ..............         4,170         68,833          67,500           4,047         77,887         4,226
U.S. Coast Guard..............................  ..............         2,363         35,886          36,472           2,367         35,285         2,321
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation...  ..............            10            198             199              10   ............  ............
Research and Special Programs Administration..  ..............           105          2,041           2,075             106          1,965            98
Office of Inspector General...................  ..............           110          2,202           2,350             110          2,186           100
Office of the Secretary of Transportation                                                                                                               
 [OST]........................................  ..............           302          6,334           6,215             284          6,045           270
Transportation Administrative Service Center..  ..............           304          6,455           6,640             300          8,982           386
Bureau of Transportation Statistics...........  ..............            24            489             660              24            750            25
OST rental payments to GSA....................        127,447          7,900        133,965   ..............  ..............  ............  ............
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................        127,447          7,900        133,965         149,994           8,820        160,847         8,960
                                               =========================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration................         17,294          1,078         17,369   ..............  ..............  ............  ............
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, consolidated account..........        144,741          8,978        151,334   ..............  ..............  ............  ............
                                               =========================================================================================================
Maritime Administration.......................          4,433            286          4,361           4,684             286          4,364           287
Surface Transportation Board..................          1,471             56          1,471           1,488              56          1,517            56
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Department of Transportation.....        150,645          9,320        157,166         156,166           9,162        166,728         9,303
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Enacted as a single account under the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Fiscal year 1997 directed the reimbursement of FHWA GSA rent from  
  FHWA LGOE account to the consolidated account. Requirements for fiscal year 1997 are best represented by the actual billings. There was no            
  distribution made of the enacted amount of $144,741,000.                                                                                              

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       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 1999, the 
short-term loan program will continue to 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.
    The Committee encourages the Minority Business Resource 
Center to work with Stillman College to assist students in 
understanding the opportunities and challenges facing young 
entrepreneurs in the transportation industry.
    Since fiscal year 1993, the loan program has been a 
separate line item appropriation, 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 $13,775,000.
    Of the funds appropriated, $1,500,000 covers the direct 
subsidy costs for loans not to exceed $13,775,000; and, 
$400,000 is for administrative expenses to carry out the Direct 
Loan Program.

                       Minority Business Outreach

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $2,900,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       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.

                         Amtrak Reform Council

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................      $2,450,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................         500,000
Committee recommendation................................         450,000

\1\ Of the amount provided, $1,970,000 was utilized for the contract on 
the independent assessment of Amtrak, required by sections 202 and 409 
of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (Public Law 105-134); and 
$400,000 was transferred to the DOT inspector general for new 
responsibilities associated with section 409(c) of Public Law 105-134, 
leaving a balance for the Council of approximately $80,000.
\2\ In the administration's budget request, both the independent 
assessment of Amtrak's financial status and the Amtrak Reform Council 
are to be funded within this requested amount. This funding was 
requested as part of the capital grants to the National Passenger 
Railroad Corporation.

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for 
necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform Council [ARC]. Initial 
funding for the ARC was provided in the fiscal year 1998 
supplemental appropriations bill, Public Law 105-174.
    The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 [ARAA] 
directs the establishment of an independent commission to be 
known as the Amtrak Reform Council. The ARC consists of 11 
members, including four Senate appointees, four House 
appointees, two Presidential appointees, and the Secretary of 
Transportation. To date, the ARC slate has not been filled--one 
of the Presidential appointees has not yet been named. However, 
the ARC has begun meeting and coordinating with the DOT 
inspector general and other interested parties. The ARC members 
serve without pay, but receive travel expenses and per diem.
    Under the ARAA, the responsibilities of the ARC include 
evaluating Amtrak's performance and making recommendations to 
Congress and Amtrak for achieving further cost containment, 
productivity improvements, and financial reforms. The most 
important tool for the ARC's evaluation of Amtrak's performance 
will be the independent assessment of Amtrak's financial 
requirements through the end of fiscal year 2002, as required 
in section 202 of the ARAA. The contract for the independent 
assessment was let on May 5, 1998, to Battelle Memorial 
Institute, and will be completed in early November. The 
contractor is reviewing Amtrak's financial reports, business 
planning documents, and management consultant studies in order 
to develop a comprehensive assessment of Amtrak's financial 
condition. This will independently verify Amtrak's accounting 
methods, to determine whether assumptions made by Amtrak, on 
which the Corporation has built their strategic business plan, 
can be successfully borne out in future operating and capital 
investment decisions.
    Although the ARC will not have the results of the 
independent assessment until November 1998, the Committee lauds 
the decision to begin working toward meeting its legislative 
charge. As a practical matter, the ARC is a temporary 
commission. After December 1999, the Commission must make a 
determination on whether or not Amtrak can meet the financial 
goals outlined in the ARAA. If the ARC determines these goals 
cannot be met, they must then submit a restructuring plan, and 
Amtrak must submit a liquidation plan.
    The Committee's recommended funding level, $450,000, will 
allow the ARC to decisively move forward in performing its 
tasks and responsibilities. These funds are available for 2 
years, through September 30, 2000. The Committee is aware that 
the members of the ARC have been selected based on their 
technical qualifications, professional standing, and 
demonstrated expertise in areas relevant to the needs of the 
Council. Therefore, there should be no need for outside 
consultant services, and the Committee has included a provision 
precluding the use of appropriated funds for such services.
    Route closure and realignment recommendations.--Under 
current authority, the ARC can recommend improvements or 
changes in law that it believes to be necessary or appropriate, 
including recommending that the Amtrak Board of Directors close 
down or consolidate unprofitable routes. In addition, the 
sunset trigger in the ARAA directs the ARC to notify the 
President and the appropriate congressional committees if 
Amtrak's business performance prevents the railroad from 
meeting its financial goals, or if the ARC determines that 
continued Federal operating subsidies will be required after 
December 2, 2002. In order to help Amtrak work toward meeting 
its financial goals and to decrease reliance on Federal 
subsidies, the ARC shall identify Amtrak routes which are 
candidates for closure or realignment, and report to the 
Congress annually, as required under the ARAA, on these 
recommendations.
    The process for determining candidate routes for closure or 
realignment shall be based on Amtrak's own performance 
rankings, which incorporate information on each route's fully 
allocated costs and ridership on core intercity passenger 
service. A May 1998 General Accounting Office report entitled 
``Financial Performance of Amtrak's Routes'' (GAO/RCED-98-151) 
examined the operating ratios for all of Amtrak's 40 intercity 
routes during fiscal year 1997, and ranked the routes by 
performance. The only profitable route on Amtrak's system is 
the New York to Washington, DC Metroliner. All other Amtrak 
routes lose money on a per passenger basis, from a low of $11 
lost per passenger trip to a high of $284 lost per passenger. 
The average systemwide per passenger loss is $47. Though the 
Committee recognizes that the issue of connectivity is 
important to any passenger rail system, it is imperative that 
these losses be stemmed by judicious reductions and 
rationalizations. The Committee has determined that making 
recommendations for route closures or realignments is a task 
that is complementary to the Amtrak Reform Council's mission, 
and is well within the scope of the ARC's statutory 
responsibilities.

                           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 1999 be 91 personnel.
    Advisory committees.--The Committee has retained a general 
provision (sec. 327) 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 $1,000,000.
    Rebates, refunds, and incentive payments.--The Department 
receives funds from various Government programs at different 
time intervals (that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly). For 
example, under the General Services Administration's Travel 
Management Center [TMC] Program, rebate checks received from 
the travel contractor are distributed monthly to each element 
of the Department in proportion to net domestic airline sales 
arranged by the contractor. Past expenditures have to be 
analyzed to determine the proper sources to refund which can be 
a time-consuming process. The staff time and cost associated 
with the precise accounting for each such refund is 
prohibitive. To alleviate the need to specifically identify the 
source for each repayment the Committee has included language 
(sec. 333) that allows a fair and sensible allocation of the 
rebates and miscellaneous and other funds.
    Many repayments are received late in the fourth quarter of 
the fiscal year or in the first quarter of the new fiscal year 
and thus are not effectively available to the agency for new 
obligations. For example, rebate checks for September travel 
are received from the travel management contractor in October. 
To maintain good financial management incentives and avoid 
injudicious commitments, this provision would provide specific 
authority to use rebated funds for program purposes beyond the 
fiscal year of the appropriation charged for the initial 
payment.

                                 Other

    User fees.--The Committee has included bill language, 
included in previous appropriations bills, which permits the 
Office of the Secretary to continue to credit to this account 
$1,000,000 in user fees.
    Reductions in fiscal year 1998 appropriations.--In fiscal 
year 1998, reductions were made to a number of accounts due to 
limitations or reductions imposed in various areas, such as the 
Transportation Administration Services Center and the 
Presidential line-item veto. In the Senate Committee report, 
each account head shows the amount appropriated in Public Law 
105-66 before the various reductions were made. The table below 
depicts the amount of funds appropriated for each of the 
accounts, and the reductions required.

                                         CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 1998 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Public Law 105-66                             Public Law 105-119                   
                                                          -------------------------------------- President's line---------------------                  
                         Account                                                                     item veto       Appropriations    Net appropriation
                                                              Appropriations      GP 320 TASC                       transfer from DOS                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:                                                                                                                                
    Salaries and expenses................................         $61,000,000        -$343,000   ................  ..................       $60,657,000 
    Transportation planning, research, and development...           4,400,000           -8,000   ................  ..................         4,392,000 
    Office of Civil Rights...............................           5,574,000          -12,000   ................  ..................         5,562,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  ...................        -363,000   ................  ..................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
U.S. Coast Guard: Operating expenses (includes                                                                                                          
 $300,000,000 for defense-related activities)............       2,715,400,000         -529,000   ................             $63,000     2,714,934,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration: Operations..............       5,301,934,000         -939,000   ................           1,554,000     5,302,549,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration:                                                                                                                         
    Limitation on general operating expenses.............        (552,266,000)       (-610,000)  ................  ..................      (551,656,000)
    Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation).........      21,500,000,000         -657,000   ................  ..................    21,499,343,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  ...................        -657,000   ................  ..................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:                                                                                                         
    Operations and research (general)....................          74,901,000          -81,000   ................  ..................        74,820,000 
    Operations and research (trust)......................          72,061,000          -97,000   ................  ..................        71,964,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  ...................        -178,000   ................  ..................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration:                                                                                                                        
    Office of the Administrator..........................          20,290,000          -29,000   ................  ..................        20,261,000 
    Railroad safety......................................          57,067,000          -17,000   ................  ..................        57,050,000 
    Railroad research and development....................          20,758,000           -3,000   ................  ..................        20,755,000 
    Alaska Railroad rehabilitation.......................          15,280,000   ...............       -$5,280,000  ..................        10,000,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  ...................         -49,000         -5,280,000  ..................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration:                                                                                                                         
    Administrative expenses..............................          45,738,000         -124,000   ................  ..................        45,614,000 
    Transit planning and research........................          92,000,000   ...............          -500,000  ..................        91,500,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  ...................        -124,000           -500,000  ..................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: Operations                                                                                                 
 and maintenance.........................................          11,200,000           -7,000   ................  ..................        11,193,000 
Research and Special Programs Administration:                                                                                                           
    Research and special programs........................          28,450,000          -48,000           -450,000  ..................        27,952,000 
    Pipeline safety......................................          32,765,000          -44,000   ................  ..................        32,721,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  ...................         -92,000           -450,000  ..................  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and expenses...          42,000,000          -59,000   ................  ..................        41,941,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Bureau of Transportation Statistics \1\..................         (25,000,000)        (-47,000)  ................  ..................       (24,953,000)
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board: Salaries and expenses......          13,853,000           -3,000   ................  ..................        13,850,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total reductions, Department of Transportation.....  ...................      -3,000,000         -6,230,000           1,617,000  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BTS reductions in parentheses included under Federal-aid highways.                                                                                  

                            U.S. COAST GUARD

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 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 
$3,959,757,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal 
year 1999. The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--                          
                           Program                            ----------------------------------    Committee   
                                                                 1998 enacted    1999 estimate   recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses \1\ \2\...................................       2,715,400        2,771,705        2,761,603 
Acquisition, construction, and improvements \3\ \4\..........         397,850          442,773          388,693 
Environmental compliance and restoration.....................          21,000           21,000           21,000 
Alteration of bridges........................................          17,000   ...............          20,000 
Retired pay..................................................         653,196          684,000          684,000 
Reserve training.............................................          67,000           67,000           67,000 
Research, development, test, and evaluation..................          19,000           18,300           17,461 
Boat safety..................................................          35,000   ...............  ...............
    (Mandatory)..............................................         (20,000)         (55,000)  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       3,925,446        4,004,778        3,959,757 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66; excludes transfer from Department 
  of State pursuant to Public Law 105-119.                                                                      
\2\ Fiscal year 1998 enacted and fiscal year 1999 Committee recommended amount include $300,000,000 in defense  
  discretionary funding; fiscal year 1999 estimate includes $309,000,000, both amounts for national security    
  activities of the Coast Guard and scored against budget function 050 (defense).                               
\3\ Includes $9,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 in proposed asset sales.       
\4\ Fiscal year 1999 estimate includes $35,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance tax fees.                  

                           Operating Expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 General            Trust             Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998 \1\..................................    $2,690,400,000       $25,000,000    $2,715,400,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\.................................     2,746,705,000        25,000,000     2,771,705,000
Committee recommendation \3\..............................     2,741,603,000        25,000,000     2,761,603,000
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority..............        60,000,000  ................        60,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total available funds...............................     2,793,603,000        25,000,000     2,821,603,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).        
  Excludes reductions for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66; excludes transfer from Department  
  of State pursuant to Public Law 105-119.                                                                      
\2\ Includes $309,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).        
\3\ Includes $300,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).        

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

                    committee funding recommendation

    The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating 
expenses is $2,761,603,000, including $25,000,000 from the 
oilspill liability trust fund and $300,000,000 from function 
050 for the Coast Guard defense-related activities.
    The Committee notes that the cost per average FTE for the 
Coast Guard in the most recent complete fiscal year is $65,560. 
The anticipated cost per average FTE for fiscal year 1998 is 
$69,630. The Committee recommendation provides sufficient 
resources for an average FTE cost greater than that anticipated 
for fiscal year 1998 at staffing levels above current levels. 
The Committee also notes that the 5-year FTE experience 
indicates that the Coast Guard tends to lag behind requested 
FTE levels. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to strive 
to reduce the ratio of officers to enlisted and to report to 
the Committee by March 1, 1999, on the officer-to-enlisted 
ratio over the past 10 years with comparable officer-to-
enlisted ratios from the other services.

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year                             
                                    1998        Budget       Committee  
                                enacted \1\    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel resources:                                                    
    Military pay and benefits.    1,246,767    1,292,406      1,290,029 
    Civilian pay and benefits.      191,311      200,388        197,311 
    Military health care......      119,401      123,836        121,800 
    Permanent change of                                                 
     station [PCS] and related                                          
     travel and transportation       60,215       63,523         61,215 
    Training and education....       67,200       65,012         65,012 
    Recruiting................        6,313        6,158          6,158 
    FECA/UCX..................       11,091       11,148         11,148 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, personnel                                                  
       resources..............    1,702,298    1,762,471      1,752,673 
                               =========================================
Operating funds and unit level                                          
 maintenance:                                                           
    Atlantic area command.....      114,009      109,563        109,563 
    Pacific area command......      119,605      123,128        123,128 
    District commands:                                                  
        1st district..........       37,711       36,831         36,831 
        7th district..........       46,400       47,532         47,532 
        8th district..........       29,894       30,044         30,044 
        9th district..........       18,205       18,583         18,583 
        13th district.........       13,749       13,887         13,887 
        14th district.........        9,838       10,655         10,655 
        17th district.........       20,693       19,805         20,693 
    Headquarters directorates.      154,651      157,407        156,251 
    Headquarters managed units       45,216       44,563         44,563 
    Other activities..........        7,559        7,595          7,559 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, operating funds                                            
       and unit level                                                   
       maintenance............      617,530      619,593        619,289 
                               =========================================
Depot level maintenance:                                                
    Aircraft maintenance......      154,261      152,391        152,391 
    Electronic maintenance....       35,362       32,834         32,834 
    Ocean engineering and                                               
     shore facility                                                     
     maintenance..............      104,116      101,479        101,479 
    Vessel maintenance........      101,367      102,937        102,937 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, depot level                                                
       maintenance............      395,106      389,641        389,641 
                               =========================================
          Total appropriation.    2,714,934    2,771,705      2,761,603 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $529,000,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 
  of Public Law 105-66; includes transfer of $63,000,000 from Department
  of State pursuant to Public Law 105-119.                              
                                                                        
Note.--Fiscal year 1998 enacted and fiscal year 1999 request include    
  $300,000,000 and $309,000,000, respectively, for national security    
  activities, budget function 050 (defense).                            

                          personnel resources

    Military pay and benefits.--The Coast Guard is to be 
commended for the progress that has been made over the past 
several years to streamline and increase the efficiency of the 
uniformed services. Staffing continues to lag behind recruiting 
goals, in part because of the competition for qualified 
individuals that is endemic to the current robust state of the 
economy. However, the 5-year FTE utilization experience of the 
Coast Guard indicates that they continue to run behind 
requested levels and accordingly, the Committee recommends a 
reduction in the FTE levels and a commensurate reduction in the 
military pay and benefits request. The Committee also notes 
that the streamlining effort has not yet been fully reflected 
throughout the ranks and trusts that the Commandant will 
continue to pursue the streamlining efforts of his predecessor 
and seek a ratio of officers to enlisted personnel consistent 
with the other armed services and the unique nature of the 
Coast Guard's multiple mission requirements.
    International engagement in Caribbean.--The Committee has 
not included funding for the mobile, ship-based support and 
training buoy tender platform as requested in the budget, 
without prejudice. Although this may be a worthwhile foreign 
policy initiative, the budgetary constraints already facing the 
Coast Guard make such an addition to the Coast Guard's mission 
profile an unwarranted diversion of operating funding from 
other critical missions.
    Military health care.--The Committee has provided 
$121,800,000 for military health care, an increase of 
$2,399,000 over fiscal year 1998 levels.
    The Committee supports the Alaska Federal Health Care 
Partnership's proposal to develop an Alaska-wide telemedicine 
network to provide access to health services and health 
education information in remote areas of Alaska to the more 
than 200,000 Federal beneficiaries now living or stationed in 
Alaska, including more than 3,000 Coast Guard beneficiaries. 
The partnership, a joint effort of the Coast Guard, Department 
of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Indian 
Health Service will create 235 telemedicine health care access 
sites at Coast Guard, DOD, VA and IHS clinical facilities 
throughout Alaska linking remote installations and villages 
with tertiary health facilities located in Anchorage and 
Fairbanks over a 4-year period and should serve as a model for 
the use of telemedicine technology for the delivery of health 
care services and health care education in remote settings. The 
Committee has provided funding for the Coast Guard to 
participate in the partnership's Alaska telemedicine project.
    Training and education.--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 $65,012,000 consistent 
with the budget request. 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, further cuts are not necessary at this time and would 
undermine the Coast Guard's efforts to recruit and train to 
meet personnel needs in a streamlined Coast Guard.

               operating funds and unit level maintenance

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    National security.--The Committee's recommendation includes 
$300,000,000 from the defense function 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 the Persian 
Gulf, and more recently, in Operation Desert Thunder in the 
Persian Gulf and 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.

                                 OTHER

    Mackinaw.--The bill includes funding for continued 
operation and maintenance of the icebreaking cutter Mackinaw 
during fiscal year 1999.
    Drug interdiction activities.--The Committee has provided 
the requested $369,000,000 for the war on drugs. It should be 
left to the Commandant's discretion how the drug interdiction 
activities funding is to be distributed; however, the Committee 
believes that this area is perfectly suited for application of 
performance measures and evaluation of program impacts.
    Global marine distress signal system [GMDSS].--The 
Committee is concerned with potential problems with the 
implementation of the global marine distress signal system 
[GMDSS]. The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] has 
adopted regulations that will require GMDSS units to be 
installed on all vessels, including fishing vessels, over 300 
tons. This is intended to replace ship-to-ship emergency 
communications with an automated ship-to-shore system. Several 
problems exist with the GMDSS concept as it would be applied.
    One of the most serious problems would be that vessels 
carrying GMDSS equipment would no longer be required to monitor 
other communications channels including those most frequently 
used by fishing vessels. Most successful rescues are performed 
by other nearby commercial vessels, and under this new regime, 
the distressed vessel would have to rely on the Coast Guard to 
direct nearby vessels to the incident site. This will cause an 
unnecessary delay in response and could substantially degrade 
current levels of safety.
    Other potential problems include: (1) whether new shore-
based stations will provide adequate listening coverage for all 
parts of the Bering Sea; (2) cost per vessel of installing the 
new equipment; (3) lack of adequate training for system 
operators; and (4) whether manufacturers of GMDSS equipment are 
capable of supplying the number of units that will be required 
by February 1, 1999. The Committee directs the Commandant to 
ensure that the Coast Guard's mission to ensure the safety of 
life at sea is not compromised by the new GMDSS requirements 
and to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on what actions, if any, are necessary to 
provide this assurance.
    Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The Committee remains 
supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association 
[MFSA] to provide specialized firefighting 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 $178,000 to continue efforts by the 
nonprofit organization comprised of numerous fire departments 
on both sides of the Columbia River. The funding will be 
utilized to provide specialized communications, firefighting 
training and equipment, and to implement the oilspill response 
contingency plan for the Columbia River.
    Seasonal rescue capability.--The Committee remains 
concerned about maintaining critically important Coast Guard 
air rescue response time in the New York City area during the 
peak boating season. Therefore, the Committee directs the Coast 
Guard to establish and operate a seasonal air facility in the 
New York City area to provide helicopter rescue capability 
during the period April 15 through October 15.
    Container Inspection Program.--The Committee recommended 
funding level includes $1,191,000 for the restoration of the 
Container Inspection Program. The Committee rejects the request 
to downsize the Coast Guard container inspection work force and 
has provided sufficient funds to maintain the inspector work 
force at the fiscal year 1998 level. Testimony by the 
Commandant before the Committee indicates that, while the Coast 
Guard proposal is presented as a reduction solely to the 
container inspector work force, the actual effect of the 
reduction would be to cut personnel who are devoting a majority 
of their time to other critical marine safety functions at the 
direction of the captain of the port. As such, the proposed 
reduction, rather than serving to reduce only container 
inspections, would effectively reduce numerous other critical 
marine safety activities.
    These activities include the inspection of tankships and 
waterfront facilities handling crude oil, petroleum products 
and hazardous materials for compliance with safety and 
pollution prevention regulations; the inspection of foreign 
flag vessels under the Port State Control Program for 
protection of U.S. ports and harbors from the hazards posed by 
poorly maintained and unseaworthy vessels; the timely response 
to pollution incidents and oversight of pollution cleanup 
activities; and the performance of periodic shoreside and 
waterborne harbor patrols for law enforcement, port risk 
assessment and identification of potential safety hazards. The 
Committee continues to view the Container Inspection Program as 
a critical marine safety task and an important component of the 
Coast Guard's port safety mission, especially in light of the 
continued growth in containerized cargo entering U.S. ports.
    Ballast water management program.--The Committee 
recommended funding level includes $2,000,000 to implement the 
nationwide ballast water management program.
    USCG Station Rockaway, NY.--The Committee directs the Coast 
Guard to provide, on a quarterly basis, a report to the 
Appropriations Committees on the status of a readiness and 
manpower capability of the Rockaway, NY, U.S. Coast Guard 
Station.
    Secretary's discretionary transfer authority.--The bill 
includes language that permits the Secretary to transfer up to 
$60,000,000 from Federal Aviation Administration operations to 
Coast Guard operating expenses for the purpose of providing 
additional funds for drug interdiction activities.
    User fees.--The bill includes language that prohibits the 
planning, finalization, or implementation of any regulation 
that would promulgate new maritime user fees not specifically 
authorized by law after the date of enactment of this act.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998 \1\........................................    $377,850,000     $20,000,000   $397,850,000 
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\.......................................     422,773,000      20,000,000    442,773,000 
Committee recommendation........................................     366,093,000      20,000,000    388,693,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $9,000,000 in asset sales.                                                                         
\2\ Includes $1,000,000 in asset sales and $35,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees.                  

    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                   
                                                                 1998 enacted    1999 estimate      Committee   
                                                                     \1\              \2\         recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels......................................................          212,100          269,573          215,473
Aircraft.....................................................           25,800           37,131           46,131
Other equipment..............................................           44,650           33,969           35,389
Shore facilities and aids to navigation......................           68,300           53,650           43,250
Personnel and related support................................           47,000           48,450           48,450
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................          397,850          442,773          388,693
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $9,000,000 in asset sales.                                                                         
\2\ Includes $1,000,000 in asset sales and $35,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees.                  

                                vessels

    The Committee recommends $215,473,000 for vessel 
acquisition and improvement. The projected allocation of these 
funds is shown in the table below:

                                 VESSELS                                
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee  
                                           1999 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquire vessels and equipment:                                          
    Seagoing buoy tender [WLB]                                          
     replacement........................         105,000          45,000
    Coastal buoy tender [WLM]                                           
     replacement........................          31,000          31,000
    47-foot motor lifeboat [MLB]                                        
     replacement project................          20,800          20,800
    Coastal patrol boat [CPB]...........          37,600          37,600
    Follow-on for polar icebreaker                                      
     replacement........................           2,100           2,100
Stern loading buoy boat replacement.....          11,773          11,773
Survey and design--cutters and boats....             500             500
Mackinaw replacement....................  ..............           4,000
ATS-1 conversion........................          10,000          14,000
Surface search radar replacement project          12,900          12,900
Deepwater capability replacement........          28,000          28,000
Repair, renovate, or improve existing                                   
 vessels and small boats:                                               
    Configuration management............           3,800           3,800
    Polar class icebreaker reliability                                  
     improvement project [RIP]..........           6,100           4,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total (new program level).........         269,573         215,473
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] replacement.--The Coast Guard is 
in the process of replacing its 50-year-old fleet of seagoing 
buoy tenders with up to 16 new tenders. The request of 
$105,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 is to pay for the award of 
two ships under the full production contract, and to cover 
additional costs such as spare parts, logistics, and project 
administration. According to recent estimates, the contract for 
the first two production ships will be awarded no earlier than 
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the growing 
carryover balances in this program. Last year, the Committee 
maintained the funding in this account pursuant to the belief 
that the Coast Guard would be able to obligate a substantial 
portion of the funds. To date, that has not happened.
    In addition, this program is of concern to the Committee 
due to the increasing program administration costs, the 
vacillating sail-away costs, and the current unobligated 
balance. The Coast Guard estimates that the third and fourth 
vessels in the procurement cost a total of $65,000,000. The 
current request for two vessels under the anticipated full 
production procurement contract is $105,000,000. The cost 
escalation of this vessel procurement is of great concern to 
the Committee, and accordingly, the Committee recommends a 
reduction of $60,000,000 to the request. When combined with the 
unobligated balances, the program funding level should be 
sufficient to award a contract for two vessels at the average 
cost of the initial procurement assuming the cost profiles for 
the procurement remain stable for more than a couple of months. 
The Committee understands that the contract is structured for a 
minimum of two ships in fiscal year 1999. The Committee's 
intent is to provide sufficient funds for the Coast Guard to 
contract for the two vessels at a reasonable price and, at the 
same time, clear any unobligated balances associated with the 
program. The Coast Guard shall provide an analysis of the 
proposed procurement to the Committee prior to the obligation 
of these funds including an estimate of the cost of the 
complete procurement to fill the requirement for seagoing buoy 
tenders.
    Coastal buoy tender [WLM] replacement.--The Committee has 
provided $31,000,000 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 $31,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 is 
for economic price adjustments, change orders, logistics, and 
administration. All 14 ships have been ordered.
    Coastal patrol boat/82-foot WPB replacement.--The Committee 
has provided $37,600,000 for the coastal patrol boat 
replacement program. This program would replace the 82-foot 
coastal patrol boats which are over 30 years old. The 
$37,600,000 request for fiscal year 1999 was to procure eight 
new boats.
    The Committee had hoped to procure additional CPB's by 
exercising existing options to provide the Coast Guard 
increased flexibility in asset deployment at an earlier date 
than under the current procurement schedule, but budgetary 
constraints make that impracticable at this time. The CPB is 
one of the more versatile vessels in the Coast Guard inventory 
and should provide increased flexibility and capability as the 
Coast Guard transitions from the current fleet mix and 
recapitalizes the fleet.
    Stern loading buoy boat replacement project.--The Committee 
recommendation provides the entire Coast Guard request of 
$11,773,000 in fiscal year 1999 to procure eight new buoy 
boats.
    Mackinaw replacement.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 
for concept exploration to refine the specifications and costs 
for a heavy icebreaking replacement vessel, including a new 
multimission vessel, for the 53-year-old Mackinaw. While the 
Committee is pleased that the Coast Guard committed to the 
continued operation of the Mackinaw to maintain heavy 
icebreaking capabilities on the Great Lakes, the Committee is 
concerned about the long lead time projected by the Coast Guard 
to receive a replacement vessel when the Coast Guard has been 
studying this issue for a number of years, and projects that a 
replacement vehicle would not be available until the year 2006. 
The funding provided in the bill will prevent another year's 
delay in the acquisition process for a replacement heavy 
icebreaking vessel. The Committee expects the Coast Guard to 
issue an interim status report on the concept exploration to 
the Committee by January 31, 1999.
    ATS-1 conversion.--The Committee recommends $14,000,000 for 
conversion and the addition of a flight deck.
    Deepwater capability replacement.--The Committee has 
provided $28,000,000 consistent with the budget request. The 
Committee is concerned with the aggressive and novel approach 
envisioned by the Coast Guard in the deepwater capability study 
and procurement and notes that the Coast Guard and the 
Department have a history of difficulty with large complex 
procurements or asset modifications. The deepwater procurement 
promises to be the most complex and potentially controversial 
of procurements that the Coast Guard has managed. Accordingly, 
the Committee directs the Coast Guard to report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Senate 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee prior to the 
downselection concerning the anticipated number of project 
teams, the anticipated role of the Government team, and the 
anticipated schedule for final contract award. The Committee 
encourages the Department and the Coast Guard to structure the 
procurement to provide the greatest possible flexibility for 
the procurement, cost competitiveness, and diversity of 
approach for meeting the deepwater mission requirements.
    The Committee is concerned about the inclusion of a 
Presidential advisory council on Coast Guard roles and missions 
as part of the Deepwater capability replacement analysis 
justification. The justification indicated that the council 
would convene in early 1998, but as of June 10, 1998, the 
Committee had not been made aware of the formulation of such a 
council, much less any meetings. Before any funds are committed 
to initiate such a roles and mission review council, the 
Committee expects to be briefed on the expected composition of 
any such proposed council, the charter for any such council, 
and the anticipated timetable for completion of such a review. 
The Committee is concerned that too much time has elapsed in 
fiscal year 1998 for the initiation of such a review to have 
any meaningful contribution to the fiscal year 1999 
appropriations process and accordingly, directs that funding 
for such a review council be requested in the fiscal year 2000 
budget submission.
    Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement project 
[RIP].--The Comittee recommends $4,000,000 for this project and 
reiterates the cost overrun and project management concerns 
noted in the fiscal year 1998 conference report.

                                aircraft

    For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends 
$46,131,000. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are distributed as 
follows:

                                AIRCRAFT                                
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee  
                                           1999 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC-130 engine upgrade...................           9,941           9,941
HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring.......           4,500           4,500
HH-65A engine control program...........  ..............           9,000
Long range search aircraft capability                                   
 preservation...........................           1,590           1,590
HH-65A helicopter mission unit computer                                 
 unit replacement.......................           3,000           3,000
HC-130 aircraft sensor upgrade..........          11,000          11,000
HU-25 aircraft avionics improvements....           3,500           3,500
HH-60J navigation upgrade...............           1,100           1,100
HC-130 side looking airborne radar                                      
 [SLAR].................................           2,500           2,500
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................          37,131          46,131
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HH-65A performance limitations.--The Committee understands 
that there are a large number of mission situations where the 
combination of current mission weight requirements, fuel load, 
temperature, altitude, and sea state must be traded off with 
mission range, on-station time, and shipboard operations. A 
full authority digital electronic control [FADEC] engine 
control program, currently anticipated as a life cycle cost 
reduction and safety initiative in fiscal year 2000, is an 
essential initial step to restoring power margins on the HH-65.
    The Committee recommends $9,000,000 to initiate the FADEC 
program a year early and to initiate any associated engine 
upgrade engineering efforts required to facilitate a cost-
effective power upgrade program. The Committee further requests 
the Coast Guard to provide a description of the limitations and 
tradeoffs mentioned above, with relevant measures of how 
frequently power limitations restrict the HH-65 below original 
Coast Guard requirements and the impact of such limitations. 
Further, the Committee requests the Coast Guard to provide a 
plan to restore needed power margins while accommodating past 
and future weight growth over the second half of the HH-65's 
useful life. Please provide this report by March 1, 1999.

                            other equipment

    The Committee recommends $35,389,000. The following table 
displays the project allocations:

                             OTHER EQUIPMENT                            
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee  
                                           1999 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system [FLS]............           4,669           4,669
Ports and waterways safety system                                       
 [PAWSS]................................           6,600           5,500
Marine information for safety and law                                   
 enforcement [MISLE]....................           6,100           4,000
Local notices to mariners [LNM]                                         
 automation.............................           1,300           1,000
Defense message system [DMS]                                            
 impementation..........................             800             800
Communication system [COMMSYS] 2000.....           2,000           1,000
Differential global positioning system                                  
 [DGPS].................................           2,600           9,520
Personnel management information system/                                
 joint uniform military pay system II...           1,900           1,900
Aviation logistics management                                           
 information system [ALMIS].............           1,000           1,000
National distress system modernization..           3,000           2,000
Commercial satellite communication                                      
 upgrade................................           4,000           4,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................          33,969          35,389
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ports and waterways safety system [PAWSS].--The Committee 
recommends $5,500,000 for the development and implementation of 
a new ports and waterways safety system [PAWSS], the same level 
appropriated for fiscal year 1998. The Committee continues to 
be interested in Coast Guard activities to develop a new 
approach to navigation safety, with an emphasis on streamlining 
and reducing the cost of such safety systems. The Committee 
applauds the Coast Guard's efforts to develop such a system in 
cooperation with the maritime community and to apply 
information technology.
    Marine information for safety and law enforcement 
[MISLE].--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for this 
activity, the same level appropriated for fiscal year 1998.
    Local notices to mariners [LNM] automation.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for this activity, the same level 
appropriated for fiscal year 1998.
    Communications system [COMMSYS] 2000.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for this activity, the same level 
appropriated for fiscal year 1998.
    Nationwide differential GPS.--The Committee recommends 
$9,520,000 for this activity, $6,920,000 more than requested. 
The Committee directs the Coast Guard to use the additional 
funds provided to accelerate the Coast Guard's electronic 
equipment procurement, site preparation and construction work, 
and installation of conversion software at 33 Air Force 
groundwave emergency network [GWEN] transmitter sites, in order 
to convert these sites as quickly as possible to differential 
global positioning system transmitter sites. The Committee is 
convinced that the most reasonable way to proceed with the 
Department of Transportation's Nationwide Differential Global 
Positioning System [NDGPS] Program is to establish the DGPS 
transmitters in the fastest, most cost-effective manner 
possible. The Committee also understands that the Air Force may 
release the GWEN system in approximately 1 year, and economies 
of scale can be realized by accelerating the program at this 
point beyond the requested funding level. The Committee did not 
include NDGPS funds requested in either the Federal Highway 
Administration or within the Federal Railroad Administration 
budgets, but is supportive of the NDGPS effort, and wants to 
see the program carried out in a expeditious and logical 
manner. The funds provided will pay for the costs associated 
with converting a minimum of 33 GWEN sites that are currently 
in the optimal location for NDGPS service, and for the 
personnel costs associated with four installers.
    Personnel management information system.--The Committee has 
provided the full amount requested.
    National distress system modernization.--The Committee 
recommends a reduction of $1,000,000 below the requested level 
to $2,000,000. The Committee believes the Coast Guard can 
complete the activities anticipated for fiscal year 1999 in 
this program within the reduced funding level.

                shore facilities and aids to navigation

    The program level recommended is $43,250,000.

                 SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION                
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year       Committee   
                                         1999 estimate    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore--General:                                                         
    Survey and design shore projects..           5,000            5,000 
    Minor AC&I shore construction                                       
     projects.........................           6,000            6,000 
    Coast Guard housing...............          18,600            5,000 
Shore--Air stations:                                                    
    Air station Cape Cod--replace                                       
     electric distribution system.....           1,500            1,500 
    Air station Miami--renovate fixed                                   
     wing hangar......................           7,100            7,100 
Shore--Centers/groups/stations:                                         
    Station Oswego--47-foot MLB                                         
     improvements.....................           1,450            1,450 
    Station Neah Bay--waterfront                                        
     renovation.......................           3,000            3,000 
    Integrated support command--                                        
     Boston--waterfront rehabilita-                                     
     tion.............................           2,100            2,100 
    Station Cape Disappointment--47-                                    
     foot MLB improvements............           1,700            1,700 
    Station Dauphin Island............  ...............           3,200 
    Optimize Coast Guard training                                       
     infrastructure...................           2,200            2,200 
Aids to navigation facilities:                                          
 Waterways aids-to-navigation projects           5,000            5,000 
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................          53,650           43,250 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minor AC&I shore construction projects.--The recommended 
funding level includes funding for the Thatcher's Island, MA, 
boat launchway.
    Coast Guard housing.--The Committee recommends the Coast 
Guard reprogram prior unobligated balances in this account. The 
Department of Transportation inspector general has reported 
that there are in excess of $16,000,000 in projects that cannot 
be obligated.
    Station Dauphin Island.--The Committee recommends 
$3,200,000 for improvements to Station Dauphin Island. The 
improvements will permit the Coast Guard to station assets 
almost an hour closer to the most heavily utilized boating and 
fishing areas.

                     PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

    The program level recommended is $48,450,000. Within the 
amount provided, $750,000 shall be for core acquisition costs.
    The Committee has provided the full amount requested for 
AC&I personnel and related support.

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee  
      Personnel and related support        1999 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct personnel costs..................          47,700          47,700
Core acquisition costs..................             750             750
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................          48,450          48,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             bill language

    Asset sales.--The bill includes a provision which would 
credit the proceeds from the sale or lease of surplus Coast 
Guard real property to this appropriation. The administration 
requested this authority which allows asset sale revenues to be 
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections, but 
limits the amount of offsetting collections in fiscal year 1999 
to $1,000,000. Any excess proceeds from asset sales would 
accrue to the following fiscal year.
    The Committee would like the Coast Guard's estimate of 
properties of high value in the Coast Guard's real property 
portfolio; therefore, the Coast Guard is directed to submit to 
the Committee by March 1, 1999, an updated list of its 25 most 
valuable properties. This list should include information on 
the fair market value of each property (or an estimate 
thereof), the amount of land and the number of buildings, the 
current use being made of the property, and the annual 
operating costs for the activities housed on each property.
    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. The Coast Guard and FAA, like many other 
agencies, are reorganizing and downsizing while providing 
critical services to the public at less cost. The Committee 
believes that the Coast Guard, the FAA, the FHWA, and the 
Government as a whole, would benefit substantially if allowed 
budgetary credit for property they expect to excess as part of 
downsizing efforts. 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.
    Pier space use agreement.--The bill includes language that 
allows the Secretary of Transportation, acting through the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard, to enter into a long-term use 
agreement with the city of Homer for dedicated pier space on 
the municipal dock. This authority is necessary to support 
Coast Guard vessels when such vessels call on Homer, AK. The 
terms and conditions of the use agreement shall be developed by 
the Secretary and the city of Homer.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $21,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      21,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      21,000,000

    The Committee recommends funding of $21,000,000 to continue 
the environmental restoration and compliance-related actions 
throughout the Coast Guard.
    These fiscal year 1999 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.

                         Alteration of Bridges

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation (highway trust fund)...........      20,000,000

\1\ The budget estimate proposes that the cost of altering bridges will 
become eligible for funding from Federal-aid highways.

    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.
    The Committee directs that, of the funds provided, 
$3,000,000 shall be allocated to the Florida Avenue railroad/
highway combination bridge in New Orleans, LA; $7,000,000 to 
the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, GA; $2,000,000 
to the John F. Limehouse Bridge in Charleston, SC; $1,000,000 
to the Chelsea Street Bridge in Boston, MA; $5,000,000 to the 
highway 90 bridge in Pascagoula, MS; and $2,000,000 to the 
Mississippi River bridge in Greenville, MS.

                              Retired Pay

Appropriations, 1998 (mandatory)........................    $653,196,000
Budget estimate, 1999 (mandatory).......................     684,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory)....................     684,000,000

    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 
32,633 in fiscal year 1999, as compared with an estimated 
31,462 in fiscal year 1998 and 30,478 in fiscal year 1997.
    The budget estimate proposed indefinite budget authority 
instead of a fixed amount.

                            Reserve Training

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $67,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      67,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      67,000,000

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    President's      Committee  
                   Functional program element                       Fiscal year   request (7,600  recommendation
                                                                    1998 levels       SELRES)     (8,000 SELRES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial training................................................           3,341           2,466           2,466
Continuing training.............................................          39,827          40,820          40,820
Operation and maintenance support...............................          15,074          15,374          15,374
Program management and administration...........................           8,758           8,340           8,340
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          67,000          67,000          67,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998............................................     $15,500,000      $3,500,000     $19,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...........................................      14,800,000       3,500,000      18,300,000
Committee recommendation........................................      13,961,000       3,500,000      17,461,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Committee recommendation includes $17,461,000 for 
research, development, test, and evaluation distributed as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal year                
                               Fiscal year      1999         Committee  
                                  1998        estimate    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program areas:                                                          
    Search and rescue.......         1,875         1,250          1,250 
    Waterways safety and                                                
     management.............         1,225         2,216          1,225 
    Marine safety...........         2,955         3,603          2,955 
    Ship structure committee           437           289            289 
    Marine environmental                                                
     protection.............         1,525         1,904          2,704 
    Maritime law enforcement         1,250         1,129          1,129 
    Safety and environmental                                            
     compliance.............         2,925  ............  ..............
    Technology investment                                               
     \1\....................  ............         4,450          4,450 
    Command, control,                                                   
     communications,                                                    
     computers, and                                                     
     intelligence...........         1,050  ............  ..............
    Technology advancement..         1,663  ............  ..............
    Personnel, program                                                  
     support, and operations         4,095         3,459          3,459 
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................        19,000        18,300         17,461 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Project areas discussed in the servicewide safety and environmental 
  compliance; command, control, communication, computers, and           
  intelligence integration; and technology advancement and assessment   
  budget in the fiscal year 1998 request have been consolidated into a  
  single budget sheet (technology investment) for the fiscal year 1999  
  budget submission.                                                    

    The Committee has provided $17,461,000 for fiscal year 1999 
research and development.
    Waterways safety and management.--The Committee recommends 
$1,225,000 for this activity, the same level appropriated in 
fiscal year 1998.
    Marine safety.--The Committee recommends $2,995,000 for 
this activity, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
    Marine environmental protection.--The Committee recommends 
$2,704,000 for this activity, including $1,000,000 for further 
invasive species research efforts. Within the funds provided, 
the Coast Guard is directed to provide an assessment of the 
applicability of previously developed antisubmarine acoustic-
monitoring technology for application in the identification and 
capture of drug traffickers in high volume maritime transit 
zones.

                              Boat Safety

                     (aquatic resources trust fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $35,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ President's budget requests $55,000,000 in mandatory appropriations 
in fiscal year 1999.

    This account provides financial assistance for a 
coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for 
the several States. Title 46, United States Code, section 
13106, establishes a ``Boat safety'' account from which the 
Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist 
in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying 
State programs. The ``Boat safety'' account consists of amounts 
transferred from the highway trust fund which are derived from 
the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon).
    The President's budget requests no discretionary funding 
for 1999. Instead, the President's budget proposes to provide 
all funding for the State boating safety grant program by 
providing $55,000,000 from the aquatic resources trust fund.
    The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century 
provides for a guaranteed funding level of $55,000,000 annually 
for this program. No additional appropriations are necessary 
for fiscal year 1999.

                           General Provisions

    Land conveyance, Coast Guard Station Ocracoke.--The 
Committee has included language section 334 permitting the 
transfer of Coast Guard Station Ocracoke to the State of North 
Carolina.
    Transportation of edible oils.--The Committee has included 
a general provision (sec. 341) that requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to promulgate a regulation not later than March 
31, 1999, that is consistent with the Edible Oil Regulatory 
Reform Act, to specifically address facilities that handle 
animal fats and vegetable oils by amending 33 CFR part 154, 
which relates to response plans for marine-transportation 
related facilities. To be consistent, a rule for animal fats 
and for vegetable oils should include, at a minimum, separate 
definitions, a separate category from other oils, and provide 
requirements that are specific to and appropriate for animal 
fats and vegetable oils.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 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 1999 amounts to $9,899,569,269 including $43,000,000 in 
user fees credited to the ``Operations'' appropriation and a 
$2,100,000,000 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--                                
                                                     ----------------------------------------      Committee    
                       Program                                                1999 budget       recommendation  
                                                         1998 enacted          estimate                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations..........................................      \1\ 5,335,934           5,631,130           5,581,259 
    Direct appropriations...........................         (5,251,934)         (5,588,130)         (5,538,259)
    Secretary's discretionary transfer authority....  ..................  ..................             60,000 
    User fees: Budget authority (mandatory).........            (84,000)            (43,000)            (43,000)
Facilities and equipment............................      \2\ 1,875,477           2,130,000           2,044,683 
Research, engineering, and development..............            199,183             290,000             173,627 
Grants-in-aid for airports..........................          1,700,000           1,700,000           2,100,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................          9,110,594           9,751,130           9,899,569 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66; excludes transfer of $1,554,000   
  from Department of State pursuant to Public Law 105-119.                                                      
\2\ Excludes $25,000,000 supplemental Public Law 105-174.                                                       

                               Operations

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  General           Trust          User fees          Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998 \1\....................   $3,400,306,000   $1,901,628,000  ...............   $5,301,934,000
Budget estimate, 1999.......................    3,528,130,000    2,060,000,000      $43,000,000    5,631,130,000
Committee recommendation....................    3,379,328,885    2,158,930,135       43,000,000    5,581,259,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $939,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law 105-66; excludes transfer of $1,554,000 from 
  Department of State pursuant to Public Law 105-119; includes $50,000,000 transferred to EAS Program.          

    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.
    User fees.--The administration proposed collecting 
$93,000,000 in user fees in fiscal year 1999. These fees were 
to be available without Appropriations Committee action, 
including $50,000,000 for the essential air service program and 
rural airport safety and $43,000,000 for FAA expenses.
    The FAA cost allocation methodology, which the U.S. Court 
of Appeals cited as a critical deficiency in the court's 
decision to invalidate the schedule of overflight user fees, is 
scheduled to be operative during July 1998. Accordingly, the 
FAA has not appealed the court of appeals decision and the 
Committee assumes that FAA intends to reissue a fee schedule 
that comports with the court of appeals decision. The Committee 
further assumes that the FAA will adhere to prior congressional 
guidance as a new schedule of fees is formulated.
    Operations.--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.--Provides for 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 certification.--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.
    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 bill includes $5,538,259,000 for the operations 
activities of the Federal Aviation Administration, of which 
$2,158,930,135 shall be derived from the airport and airway 
trust fund.
    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 following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--                              
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee    
                                                            1998 program       1999 budget      recommendations 
                                                           level \1\ \2\         estimate                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services...................................          4,153,106          4,380,866          4,325,866
Aviation regulation and certification..................            609,879            636,027            624,879
Aviation security......................................             97,479            128,821            111,429
Research and acquisition...............................             92,340             94,202             92,340
Administration of airports.............................             47,891             49,854             47,891
Commercial space transportation........................              6,168              6,275              6,168
Administration.........................................            256,493            259,014            256,493
Staff offices..........................................             73,193             76,071             73,193
Accountwide adjustments................................  .................  .................                   
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................          5,336,549          5,631,130          5,538,259
                                                        ========================================================
User fees..............................................             84,000             43,000             43,000
Appropriated funds.....................................          5,252,549          5,588,130          5,538,259
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority...........  .................  .................             60,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total available funds............................          5,252,549          5,631,130          5,641,259
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $939,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66. Includes $1,554,000      
  transfer from Department of State pursuant to Public Law 105-119.                                             
\2\ Excludes $23,000,000 available balances of the $57,700,000 provided in the Omnibus Consolidated             
  Appropriations Act of 1997, Public Law 104-208.                                                               

                          air traffic services

    The Committee recommends a total of $4,325,866,000 for the 
operation and maintenance of the national air traffic control 
and flight service system.
    The Committee is confident that this level is completely 
sufficient for air traffic services and offers the following 
analysis for illustration of the flexibility represented by the 
Committee's recommendation. The requirements for funding for 
this activity could be predicated on a series of adjustments to 
the fiscal year 1998 appropriated level. Initially, the 
appropriation could be adjusted downward for the $93,000,000 in 
overflight fees that were not forthcoming in fiscal year 1998 
but are anticipated for fiscal year 1999. The Administrator and 
the Secretary have both indicated that the FAA has been able to 
maintain a safe air traffic control environment notwithstanding 
the inability to access the revenues that would have come from 
these fees. Second, the appropriation should be reduced by 
$10,994,000 requested for WAAS operations activities consistent 
with the treatment of the WAAS Program in the F&E account. In 
addition, over $23,000,000 in this appropriation is directly 
attributable to 248 controller staff-years that are solely 
committed to union activities and over $15,000,000 that is 
directly attributable to overtime staffing. For a great deal of 
the amount of time overtime is authorized, a union controller 
representative is also scheduled--but only for union 
activities. Given the high level of staff-years committed to 
union activities viewed in conjunction with the seemingly 
unalterable trend for substantial reliance on overtime 
staffing, the Committee encourages the Federal Aviation 
Administration to pursue greater flexibility in staffing 
arrangements to reduce the current reliance on overtime and to 
encourage the conduct of union activities in nonpeak air 
traffic control periods. It does not seem unreasonable to the 
Committee that union activities might be best conducted during 
the slower traffic period and that union representatives might 
best serve the union membership by conducting union activities 
while the bulk of the controllers (and presumably the union 
representatives as well) are not engaged in the heavier traffic 
flows.
    While the Committee does not recommend reducing the 
appropriation by the amount attributable to the overtime 
staffing and the seemingly suboptimal timing of the generous 
allotment of staff-years for union activities, or interim 
incentive pay, or even adjusting the base to reflect the actual 
fiscal year 1998 baseline, the FAA should pursue efficiencies 
that would result from a greater coordination of activities in 
this area.
    Further, the Committee notes that the FAA forecasting of 
aviation activity has tended to be overly optimistic. In the 
Independent Financial Assessment, Coopers & Lybrand noted:

          The FAA has a solid reputation in the aviation 
        community for its forecasting abilities. However, when 
        comparing actual past activity to 5-year historical 
        projections, the FAA has consistently overestimated 
        future aviation activity. Five-year projections are of 
        particular importance in assessing the FAA's financial 
        requirements as it takes 3 to 5 years to fully train a 
        new controller. Overestimates in the need for new 
        controllers 5 years from now will likely lead to 
        significant future expenditures for unnecessary 
        resources. It is also important because the Federal 
        budget process begins at least 2\1/2\ years before the 
        end of the particular fiscal year. Interviews with FAA 
        staff have indicated that these long-term 
        overestimations are principally caused by the economic 
        projections provided by OMB, as these projections 
        generally do not take economic cycles into account. 
        OMB's projections are used as the basis for the FAA's 
        own forecasting.
          Compared with the limited number of other aviation 
        forecasts, the FAA commercial airline forecasts are not 
        overly optimistic. However, it should be noted that all 
        of the aviation forecasters we identified had a natural 
        interest in optimistic forecasts. Some industry 
        observers have even suggested that the recent 
        phenomenal growth in commercial air carrier activity 
        has peaked.
          General aviation is likely to be overestimated. The 
        FAA has forecasted general aviation to grow by 
        approximately 7 percent from 1997 to 2002. Although 
        recent statistics have suggested that the decline in 
        general aviation activity may have ended, it is 
        unlikely that general aviation can sustain such a high 
        future growth rate as projected. A key indicator 
        suggested by user groups is that the number of general 
        aviation pilots, which has decreased by 25 percent from 
        1980 to 1996, and is expected to continue to decline. 
        Since general aviation accounts for 60 percent of total 
        U.S. civil airborne hours, such an overestimation will 
        have a significant impact on actual future FAA 
        workloads.
          Absolute aggregate error averages from 1990 to 1996 
        of 8.9 percent and 7.7 percent for 5-year RPM and ARTCC 
        operation forecasts respectively indicate that FAA 
        forecasting calculations have been historically 
        overestimated. The impact of these estimates on overall 
        FAA financial requirements depends how closely linked 
        demand is to staffing standards. Air traffic control 
        operation costs continue to increase faster than demand 
        for FAA air traffic control services. The high 
        likelihood that future FAA workloads are overestimated 
        needs to be among the factors considered when 
        estimating future controller staffing needs.

    In addition, the Coopers & Lybrand assessment implies the 
possibility for the FAA to increase the efficiency of the air 
traffic control work force. Some of those possible efficiencies 
are mentioned above. Further, the average annual growth in 
operations at air traffic control towers, en route centers, and 
flight service stations from 1992 to 1997 has been 0.05 
percent, 2.13 percent, and -0.55 percent, respectively. Current 
average operations per hour at en route centers are less than 3 
per controller hour, and current average operations per hour at 
air traffic control towers is less than 6 per controller hour. 
Those averages would seem to indicate that there is some room 
for improvement in controller efficiency or staffing 
coordination.
    The Committee also notes the recent completion of the labor 
negotiations between the FAA and the National Air Traffic 
Controllers Association. The Committee believes that careful 
management of the funds provided in this act will ensure 
sufficient resources are available to cover the substantial 
salary increases contained in the agreement.
    Training.--Pursuant to the recent concerns expressed by the 
Federal Aviation Administration about the need for retraining 
of air traffic controllers, the Committee is confident that any 
training or retraining initiatives can be accommodated within 
the recommended level. The Committee directs the Administrator 
to report to the Committee by August 1, 1998, on the following 
items: (1) the circumstances that led to the decision that 
retraining of air traffic controllers was necessary; (2) how 
the incident emerged within the Federal Aviation 
Administration; (3) the steps taken to both retrain controllers 
and to insure that deficiencies in the air traffic control 
system are surfaced immediately and brought to the attention of 
senior Federal Aviation Administration officials; (4) the 
anticipated training program for both fiscal years 1998 and 
1999.
    The Committee notes that the FAA has consistently 
underfunded controller training as compared to the request over 
the past several years. The Committee encourages the FAA to 
commit the requested $23,000,000 for training to training and 
not to allocate those funds to other activities. If the pattern 
of the past several years continues of diverting training funds 
for other purposes, additional measures may be taken to insure 
that critical training activities are not underfunded.
    As the Federal Aviation Administration reviews its training 
requirements, the Committee anticipates the establishment, from 
amounts provided for training, of a university-based center for 
training, as well as academics and research, that would design 
and deliver technology-based distance education and training 
courses to meet the needs and requirements of the Federal 
Aviation Administration and the general aviation community. 
Such a center should be designed to address immediate and time-
sensitive issues, such as the situation that led to the current 
decision to retrain controllers, as well as issues in flight 
standards, aviations safety, human factors, and cabin crew 
issues. The Committee recommends that such a center be located 
at an institution which currently possesses the pertinent 
technology and which has experience with the FAA in training, 
research, and distance education.
    Emergency services training.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,500,000 for specialized aircraft firefighting 
training for Federal and non-Federal emergency personnel, at 
the Rocky Mountain Emergency Services Training Center in 
Helena, MT.
    Contract tower program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $6,000,000 for a contract tower cost-sharing program. 
These funds are in addition to those provided for the regular 
contract tower program.
    The Committee notes that the Department of Transportation's 
Inspector General has found that the contract tower program has 
provided level I air traffic control services at a lower cost 
for 110 towers previously operated by the FAA and provided air 
traffic control services at 50 towers the FAA could not have 
afforded to staff.
    The new program allows those towers that fall below the FAA 
threshold to participate in the program by contributing a local 
match. The Committee believes that this new program will enable 
small airports to have their tower staffed with an FAA 
certified air traffic controller; thereby ensuring the safe and 
efficient movement of people and goods. The FAA is directed to 
continue operation of the Greenville, MS, contract tower, the 
Kinston Regional Jetport in North Carolina, the Joplin Regional 
Airport in Missouri, and the McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport 
tower in Jackson, TN; and to include the towers at New Bern and 
Hickory, NC, and at the Cape Girardeau Airport in Missouri 
under the contract tower cost-sharing program.
    The Committee urges FAA to work with the communities to 
explore alternatives, such as sharing tower operating costs, to 
maintain tower operations.
    Salisbury air traffic control tower.--The Committee directs 
the FAA to use such funds as necessary for operational expenses 
for an air traffic control tower, located in Salisbury, MD, 
provided that the Federal Aviation Administration has made a 
prior determination of eligibility for such tower to be 
included in the contract tower program.
    Technical noise assistance.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $100,000 for a technical assistance grant for a local 
citizens group to retain the services of a technical expert to 
facilitate the involvement of local citizens as the FAA pursues 
the existing plans to redesign the airspace.
    Equipment and staffing deficiencies in the New York/New 
Jersey region.--The Committee continues to be concerned about 
the reports regarding staffing and equipment needs at New York/
New Jersey area towers, the New York TRACON and the New York 
Air Traffic Control Center. While progress has been made since 
last year's subcommittee hearing on this topic, the Committee 
believes more can be done. The Committee urges the FAA to 
redouble efforts to improve the safety and efficiency of these 
facilities.
    Air traffic control reclassification New York-New Jersey 
metropolitan region.--The Committee recognizes the recent 
agreement between the FAA and air traffic controllers to 
reclassify the compensation structure for air traffic 
controllers nationwide. However, the Committee is concerned 
that the initiative, as proposed, threatens to undermine recent 
advances achieved in increases in controllers staffing levels 
at the towers of the three major airports--Newark, Kennedy, and 
LaGuardia. While the reclassification proposes to grant 
controllers at the New York Center and the New York TRACON an 
appropriate pay grade level of ATC-12, the controllers at the 
three major towers would receive a level that is fully two 
levels lower, creating an unacceptably large disparity in pay. 
This new pay grade gap generated by the FAA reclassification 
will serve to undermine all Congress has achieved, as 
controllers will rapidly leave the towers seeking higher wages. 
The FAA will not be able to attract and retain the most 
qualified and seasoned controllers to serve the towers in this 
busy region. The towers, the New York TRACON, and the New York 
Center share the same complexity, high volume and density of 
traffic, and the controllers share the same high cost of 
living. Congress acted to equalize pay grades among the five 
facilities in the fiscal year 1991 appropriations act. 
Consistent with that act the Committee directs the 
Administrator to take such actions as are necessary to provide 
for equitable pay levels at the relevant FAA site in the New 
York/New Jersey area.
    Cooperative efforts to minimize delays.--The Committee is 
aware that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 
Continental Airlines, and the Federal Aviation Administration 
have entered into an information partnership in an effort to 
reduce delays in the Nation's most delayed airport, Newark 
International Airport in Newark, NJ. This partnership, which 
has been underway since December 1997, has resulted in a 
substantial effort by all parties to focus energy and resources 
on these projects which can help to improve the chronic delays 
suffered by consumers who utilize Newark. As part of this 
partnership, a list of eight initiatives has been compiled. 
These are the items upon which the partnership has agreed to 
focus for 1998. Quarterly meetings have been held to check 
progress and refocus resources where necessary. The eight 
initiatives are as follows: airspace redesign; controller 
automated spacing aid [CASA]; increased use of runway 29 for 
turbojet departures; Teterboro Airport ILS runway 19; New York 
ARTCC automated flight plan processing [DSP]; integrated 
terminal weather system [ITWS]; south final vector radar 
position-New York TRACON; and optimize airport arrival 
capacity-runway use.
    The Committee directs the FAA to provide a quarterly report 
citing the status of each of these eight initiatives. Reports 
are to include target dates for completion and explanations for 
those projects which may exceed their target dates. Reports are 
to include an assessment of what is required to complete the 
project (for example, environmental analysis, equipment, 
personnel).
    Frederick Municipal Airport.--The Committee understands 
that the NTSB has recommended the FAA transfer responsibility 
for the Frederick Municipal Airport airspace from BWI Airport 
to the Dulles TRACON. Radar coverage at Frederick Municipal 
Airport currently terminates at 2,300 feet. The transfer would 
result in lowering radar coverage at Frederick Municipal 
Airport to approximately 900 feet. The Committee encourages the 
transfer of responsibilities of this airspace consistent with 
safety and efficient airspace management.
    Rotorcraft procedures.--The Committee anticipates that air 
traffic control [ATC] systems will, in the near future, be able 
to provide dispatch reliability, or instrument flight rules 
[IFR] capability for both helicopters and the newest rotocraft 
technology--tiltroter aircraft. Under the present ATC system, 
the only current IFR, or all-weather-capable, airspace control 
service is designed for runway approaches and departures. 
Rotorcraft operating from off-airport sites lack efficient and 
consistent all-weather dispatch availability and reliability. 
The Committee encourages the FAA to review its existing 
terminal instrument procedures [TERPS] and IFR regulations/
procedures and determine if changes are needed to facilitate 
the takeoff, flight and landing of helicopters, and tiltrotor 
aircraft. Special attention should be given to the feasibility 
of TERPS revisions which include procedures to provide 
noninterfering simultaneous operations and tiltrotor 
conversion/transition zones or procedures. The National 
Airspace System [NAS] would be improved by separating vertical 
flight aircraft from congested fixed-wing flight paths, and the 
Committee encourages the FAA to review the current procedures 
in this area.
    National airspace redesign.--The Committee has included 
$11,000,000 to support the administration's initiative to 
comprehensively review and design the domestic and oceanic 
airspace within the United States. Of this amount, $3,000,000 
is provided to concentrate the administration's initial efforts 
on the eastern region, particularly on the redesign of the New 
York/New Jersey metropolitan airspace, consistent with the 
administration's plans. These initial efforts will support the 
planning and design challenges in the New York/New Jersey 
region's airspace, the most complex and densely traveled 
airspace in the world. The national and regional redesign will 
take advantage of new technologies, such as satellite 
navigation and aircraft capabilities, and new flight paths. The 
Committee encourages the administration to ensure that the 
final result of the redesign will deliver the greatest safety, 
efficiency and environmental benefits to system operators, 
users and citizens near airports, particularly those who are 
affected by air noise.
    Leased telecommunication services/RCL.--In the report 
accompanying last year's appropriation bill as well as in this 
report, the Committee has expressed concern about 
underutilization of the radio communications link [RCL], which 
is owned by FAA and is one of the largest microwave networks in 
the country. The alternative to increased use of the RCL is 
increased reliance on leased telecommunications. The Committee 
directed FAA to transfer to the radio communications link as 
much of the existing workload as possible to better utilize 
that resource. The Committee understands that FAA plans to use 
an additional 2,300 to 2,900 RCL circuits rather than leasing 
circuits from a private vendor. Even if FAA adopts this plan, 
it would still only be utilizing 56 to 61 percent of its analog 
circuits and still have a significant amount of digital 
capacity sitting idle.
    The Committee has concluded that FAA is likely to continue 
to underutilize its radio communications link [RCL] network in 
favor of leased telecommunications. The Committee suggests that 
FAA accommodate constrained air traffic services appropriations 
by disposing of a part of its underutilized RCL network and 
taking staffing savings. The Committee requests a report by 
March 1, 1999, from the FAA outlining a plan to more fully 
utilize RCL or a plan to decommission it.
    Given that FAA will apparently continue to underutilize the 
RCL and prefers leased telecommunications links, the Committee 
is recommending a reduction of $10,000,000 from the request for 
the systems maintenance subactivity.
    Digital mapping.--The Committee is aware that at St. Louis-
Lambert international air traffic control tower the video 
mapper used for the final approach course was considered 
unusable by FAA standards thus cutting capacity during certain 
weather conditions. It was replaced with a digital mapper in 
order to keep capacity up and to meet standards to run 
simultaneous approaches. Controllers at the facility seek 
expanded use of the digital mapper. The Committee directs the 
FAA to work with the controllers at the St. Louis tower to 
expand the use of the digital mapping equipment consistent with 
all applicable safety standards.
    FAA data bases.--Over time, FAA has invested substantial 
resources in the development and maintenance of a large number 
of data bases. The growth and proliferation of data bases is a 
consequence of a number of factors including the wide scope of 
FAA's responsibilities, its organizational structure, and the 
widely differing dynamics of various components of the aviation 
industry. However, responsibility and/or control over the data 
bases is not centralized; instead it is spread among the 
various lines of business and other organizational elements who 
are the prime users of the data collected. There is little 
agencywide data integration. As such, FAA is becoming 
increasingly data rich and information poor.
    Accordingly, the Committee believes that the FAA should 
develop a data management plan that leads to optimized data 
sharing among FAA organizational elements; better control over 
the costs of data base management; the capability to review and 
analyze data on a subject as well as a functional basis; and 
enhanced capability of senior management to resolve time 
critical questions and issues that may cut across agency 
organizational elements. A report on the progress toward 
development of the plan should be made to the Senate 
Appropriations Committee and the House Appropriations Committee 
not later than 6 months from the date this legislation is 
enacted into law.

                 Aviation regulation and certification

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $624,879,000.
    Guidelines.--The Committee is concerned that FAA's proposed 
policy guidelines regarding the authority of law enforcement 
officers to carry weapons aboard aircraft may not adequately 
reflect the requirement that U.S. Secret Service personnel be 
able to carry firearms aboard aircraft in the most expeditious 
manner in the execution of their official duties. The 
protective mission of the Secret Service is unique, time 
sensitive, and critical to national security. The Committee 
believes it is imperative that special agents and officers of 
the Secret Service be included within any guidelines which 
provide the highest and most efficient level of access afforded 
to armed law enforcement officers on board aircraft. The FAA is 
directed to provide the Secret Service with the most 
unrestricted access provided to any law enforcement personnel 
in any issued regulations. The FAA shall keep this Committee 
informed as language is being formulated in regard to this 
issue.

                           Aviation Security

    The Committee recommends $111,429,000, an increase of 
$13,950,000 over fiscal year 1998.

                        Research and Acquisition

    The Committee recommends $92,340,000, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.

                       Administration of Airports

    The Committee recommends $47,891,000, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.

                    Commercial Space Transportation

    The Committee recommends $6,168,000, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.

                             Administration

    The Committee recommends $256,493,000, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
    Mentor-Protege Program.--The Committee supports the goals 
and objectives of the mentor-protege program, which was 
established by the FAA in 1997 in order to enhance the 
capabilities of socially and economically disadvantaged 
businesses, women-owned small businesses and other eligible 
entities, to compete for and successfully perform FAA 
contracts. The Committee encourages FAA procurement officials 
to use the program as a means of broadening the base of 
contractors who ultimately could compete for FAA contracts. The 
Committee is concerned, however, that despite the fact that 
three large companies have been approved to serve as mentors, 
no subcontracts have been awarded, to date, to protege firms 
because FAA procurement officials have opted not to use the 
program. In that regard, the Committee directs FAA to provide a 
report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees within 
6 months from the date of passage of this legislation on the 
progress of the Mentor-Protege Program and the impediments to 
its successful implementation.
    Reprogrammings.--The Committee is extremely concerned with 
the inspector general's recent findings of major variances in 
amounts proposed for reduction by budget line item to actual 
amounts reprogrammed. The FAA should not make changes to 
congressionally approved reprogramming notices, without 
congressional concurrence. To increase oversight in this area, 
the Administrator is directed to provide the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, with line by line accounts of all 
future reprogramming actions taken subsequent to approval by 
Congress.

                             Staff Offices

    The Committee recommends $73,193,000, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Second career training program.--The Committee has included 
bill language which was included in the President's budget 
request 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 1995-98. It was requested by the administration for 
fiscal year 1999.
    Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee 
has retained 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 1999.
    Contract tower program.--The Committee has included 
language for a contract tower cost-sharing program.
    Secretary's discretionary transfer funds.--The Committee 
has included language that provides authority for the Secretary 
to transfer up to $60,000,000 from Coast Guard operating 
expenses, for the purpose of air traffic control operations and 
maintenance to enhance aviation safety and security.

                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................  $1,900,477,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   2,130,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,044,683,269

\1\ Includes funds provided in the Fiscal Year 1998 Supplemental 
Appropriations Act.

    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    1997 CIP    1998 CIP      plan      1991 CIP    1993 CIP    1997 CIP    1998 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].  ..........  ..........     ( \2\ )        1998        1998  ..........  ..........     ( \2\ )        2005        2005
    Tower control computer                                                                                                                              
     complex [TCCC].............  ..........  ..........     ( \3\ )     ( \4\ )     ( \4\ )  ..........  ..........     ( \3\ )     ( \4\ )     ( \4\ )
    Tower automation program                                                                                                                            
     [TAP]......................  ..........  ..........  ..........     ( \5\ )     ( \6\ )  ..........  ..........  ..........     ( \5\ )     ( \6\ )
Air route surveillance radar                                                                                                                            
 [ARSR-4].......................        1998        1993        1994        1996        1996        1991        1996        1996     ( \7\ )        1999
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        2001        2002
Central weather processor [CWP].        1990        1991        1991        1991        1991        1991        1998    \8\ 1992    \8\ 1993    \8\ 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        1999        1999
Radio microwave link [RML]                                                                                                                              
 replacement and expansion......        1985        1986        1986        1986        1986        1989        1994        1993        1993        1993
Terminal doppler weather radar                                                                                                                          
 [TDWR].........................     ( \9\ )        1994        1994        1994        1994     ( \9\ )        1996        1996    ( \10\ )        2001
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 [TAP].                                          
\2\ STARS schedule was being rebaselined in keeping with new acquisition strategy.                                                                      
\3\ TCCC schedule was being rebaselined to reflect the incorporation of surface management advisor [SMA].                                               
\4\ TCCC has been replaced by the Tower Automation Program [TAP].                                                                                       
\5\ The Tower Automation Program [TAP] schedule is currently under review.                                                                              
\6\ The Tower Automation Program [TAP] has been terminated.                                                                                             
\7\ ARSR-4 last-site implementation date had not been determined due to environmental issues at Ajo, AZ.                                                
\8\ 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.                                                                                                       
\9\ The TDWR was not included in the 1983 NAS plan.                                                                                                     
\10\ TDWR last-site implementation indefinite due to site availability and land acquisition problems.                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
Source: FAA 1983 NAS plan; 1991 and 1993, 1995 CIP; 1997 and 1998 GAO ``Status of the FAA's Modernization Program.''                                    


          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. Delays have  
                                 also occurred due to changes in system 
                                 design, interface problems with other  
                                 ATC systems, and slips in site         
                                 construction. Recent delays are due to 
                                 environmental issues at Ajo, AZ, which 
                                 is the last site.                      
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 of communications     
                                 funding shortfalls and installation    
                                 delays of the communications           
                                 infrastructure to deliver weather      
                                 information. Recent delays are         
                                 associated with the addition of ASOS   
                                 systems per fiscal years 1997-98       
                                 congressional direction.               
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.      
                                 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 due to en     
                                 route interface requirements and site  
                                 preparation delays.                    
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. Recent delays are      
                                 associated with land procurement and   
                                 environmental issues at the last five  
                                 sites (Fort Lauderdale, San Juan, Las  
                                 Vegas, Midway, and New York).          
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 last-site      
                                 implementation was achieved on schedule
                                 in February 1997.                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill includes an appropriation of $2,044,683,269 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                    1999 budget      Committee  
                                             estimate     recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering, development, test, and                                     
 evaluation:                                                            
    En route programs:                                                  
        Aviation weather services                                       
         improvements...................     $26,300,000     $26,300,000
        Oceanic automation system.......      16,937,000       3,237,000
        Next generation VHF air/ground                                  
         communications system..........         500,000       4,706,000
        Air traffic management [ATM]....      47,800,000      64,300,000
        Traffic flow management.........       3,287,000       3,287,000
        En route automation program.....     118,000,000     113,000,000
        Aeronautical data link [ADL]....      16,500,000      23,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, en route programs...     229,324,000     237,830,000
                                         ===============================
    Terminal programs:                                                  
        Terminal Automation Program.....      74,700,000      74,700,000
        Runway incursion reduction......       3,168,000       9,168,000
        Airport technology..............       7,383,000       5,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, terminal programs...      85,251,000      88,868,000
                                         ===============================
    Landing and navigational aids                                       
     programs:                                                          
        Local area augmentation system                                  
         [LAAS].........................       6,500,000       6,500,000
        Wide area augmentation system                                   
         [WAAS] for GPS.................     101,500,000     117,500,000
        Navigation and surveillance.....      13,285,000      13,285,000
        Loran-C upgrades................  ..............      10,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, landing and                                         
           navigational aids programs...     121,285,000     147,285,000
                                         ===============================
    Research, test, and evaluation                                      
     equipment and facilities:                                          
        Independent operational test and                                
         evaluation [IOT&E] sup.........       3,500,000       3,500,000
        FAA Technical Center facility--                                 
         technical building lease.......       5,290,000       5,290,000
        NAS improvement of system                                       
         support laboratory.............       2,000,000       2,000,000
        Technical Center facilities.....       7,000,000       7,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, research, test, and                                 
           evaluation equipment and                                     
           facilities...................      17,790,000      17,790,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, engineering,                                           
           development, test, and                                       
           evaluation...................     453,650,000     491,773,000
                                         ===============================
Air traffic control facilities and                                      
 equipment:                                                             
    En route programs:                                                  
        Long Range Radar [LRR] Program--                                
         replace/establish..............       5,700,000       5,700,000
        En Route Automation Program.....     196,400,000     196,400,000
        Next generation weather radar                                   
         [Nexrad]--provide..............       4,900,000       4,900,000
        Air traffic operations                                          
         management system [ATOMS]......       1,000,000       1,000,000
        Weather and radar processor                                     
         [WARP].........................      20,000,000      22,200,000
        Aeronautical data link [ADL]                                    
         applications...................         600,000         600,000
        ARTCC building improvements/                                    
         plant improvements.............      63,931,563      63,931,563
        Voice switching and control                                     
         system [VSCS]..................      14,500,000      12,500,000
        Air traffic management..........      47,600,000      47,600,000
        Critical communications support.       2,400,000       1,850,000
        DOD base closure--facility                                      
         transfer.......................       1,000,000       1,000,000
        Backup emergency communications                                 
         [BUEC]--interim................       8,500,000       8,500,000
        Air/ground communication radio                                  
         frequency interference [RFI]...       1,600,000       1,600,000
        ATC beacon interrogator [ATCBI]                                 
         replace........................      14,800,000      14,800,000
        Air traffic control en route                                    
         radar facilities...............       5,300,000       5,300,000
        En route communications and                                     
         control facilities improvement.       3,126,731       2,000,000
        Volcano monitor.................  ..............       2,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, en route programs...     391,358,294     391,881,563
                                         ===============================
    Terminal programs:                                                  
        Terminal doppler weather radar                                  
         [TDWR]--provide................       4,300,000       1,800,000
        Terminal Automation Program.....     135,300,000     135,300,000
        Airport surface detection                                       
         equipment [ASDE]...............       5,600,000       5,600,000
        Airport movement area safety                                    
         system [AMASS].................       7,000,000       9,800,000
        Terminal air traffic control                                    
         facilities--replace............      82,300,000      82,300,000
        Air traffic control tower [ATCT]/                               
         TRACON facilites--improve......      22,722,280      22,722,280
        Terminal voice switch                                           
         replacement [TVSR].............      11,500,000      10,300,000
        Employee safety/OSHA and                                        
         environmental compliance                                       
         standards......................      22,000,000      22,000,000
        Chicago TRACON..................         500,000         500,000
        New Austin Airport at Bergstrom.       2,500,000       2,500,000
        Potomac TRACON..................      11,900,000  ..............
        Northern California TRACON......      27,600,000      17,900,000
        Atlanta TRACON..................      18,200,000      12,200,000
        Emergency transceivers--                                        
         replacement....................       1,000,000  ..............
        Airport surveillance radar [ASR-                                
         9].............................       6,300,000       6,300,000
        Voice Recorder Replacement                                      
         Program [VRRP].................       3,000,000       3,000,000
        NAS infrastructure management                                   
         systems [NIMS].................      22,000,000      22,000,000
        Terminal facilities integration.       5,600,000  ..............
        Terminal digital radar [ASR-11].      76,100,000      76,100,000
        ASR--weather system processor                                   
         [WSP]..........................      16,100,000      11,900,000
        DOD/FAA facilities transfer.....       3,600,000       1,000,000
        Precision runway monitors.......       3,300,000       3,300,000
        Terminal radar [ASR]--improve...       2,773,431       2,773,431
        Terminal communications                                         
         improvements...................       1,119,807       1,119,807
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, terminal programs...     492,315,518     450,415,518
                                         ===============================
    Flight service programs:                                            
        Flight service station [FSS]                                    
         automation.....................       2,000,000       1,000,000
        Automated surface observing                                     
         system [ASOS]..................       9,900,000      20,977,000
        FSAS operational and                                            
         supportability implementation                                  
         system [OASIS].................      25,500,000      16,000,000
        Flight service facilities                                       
         improvement....................       1,364,400       1,364,400
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, flight services.....      38,764,400      39,341,400
                                         ===============================
    Landing and Navigational Aids                                       
     Program:                                                           
        VOR/DME/TACAN network plan......       1,000,000       1,000,000
        Instrument landing system [ILS]--                               
         establish/upgrade..............       8,000,000      18,000,000
        ILS replace Mark 1A, 1B, and 1C.       2,100,000       2,100,000
        Tactical landing system.........  ..............       3,000,000
        Low level windshear alert system                                
         [LLWAS]--upgrade to phase  I...       3,000,000       3,000,000
        Approach Lighting System                                        
         Improvement Program [ALSIP]....       1,000,000       2,500,000
        Runway visual range [RVR].......       2,000,000       2,000,000
        Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program.       2,400,000       2,400,000
        Distance measuring equipment                                    
         [DME]--sustain.................       1,200,000       1,200,000
        Wide area augmentation system                                   
         for GPS........................      16,000,000  ..............
        Nondirectional beacon [NDB]--                                   
         sustain........................       1,000,000       1,000,000
        Visual NAVAIDS--establish/expand         400,000         400,000
        Navigational and landing aids--                                 
         improve........................       2,761,788       8,761,788
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, landing and                                         
           navigational aids............      40,861,788      45,361,788
                                         ===============================
    Other ATC facilities programs:                                      
        Alaskan NAS interfacility                                       
         communications system [ANICS]..       3,500,000       6,000,000
        Fuel storage tank replacement                                   
         and monitoring.................      10,600,000      10,600,000
        FAA buildings and equipment--                                   
         improve/modernize..............       8,000,000       4,000,000
        Electrical power systems--                                      
         sustain/support................      20,400,000      15,000,000
        Air navigational aids and air                                   
         traffic control facilities                                     
         (local projects)...............       2,000,000       2,000,000
        Computer-aided engineering                                      
         graphics [CAEG] replacement....       1,000,000       1,000,000
        Aircraft and Related Equipment                                  
         Program........................       5,000,000       2,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, other ATC facility                                  
           programs.....................      50,500,000      40,600,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, air traffic control                                    
           facilities and equipment.....   1,013,800,000     967,600,269
                                         ===============================
Nonair traffic control facilities and                                   
 equipment:                                                             
    Support equipment:                                                  
        NAS Management Automation                                       
         Program [NASMAP]...............         800,000         800,000
        Hazardous materials management..      17,000,000      17,000,000
        Aviation safety analysis system                                 
         [ASAS].........................      11,600,000      11,600,000
        Operational data management                                     
         system [ODMS]..................       1,200,000       1,000,000
        Logistics support systems and                                   
         facilities.....................       2,300,000       2,300,000
        Test equipment--maintenance                                     
         support for replacement........         500,000         500,000
        Integrated flight quality                                       
         assurance......................       3,000,000       3,000,000
        Safety performance analysis                                     
         system [SPAS]..................       3,500,000       3,500,000
        Performance enhancement system                                  
         [PENS].........................       9,700,000       9,700,000
        National Aviation Safety Data                                   
         Analysis Center [NASDAC].......       1,800,000       1,800,000
        FAA employee housing--provide...       8,000,000       8,000,000
        Facility security risk                                          
         management.....................       1,000,000       1,000,000
        Information security--NAS                                       
         information coordination.......       2,000,000       2,000,000
        Explosive detection systems.....     100,000,000  ..............
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, support equipment...     162,400,000      62,200,000
                                         ===============================
    Training, equipment, and facilities:                                
        Distance learning...............       2,100,000  ..............
        National airspace system [NAS]                                  
         training facilities............         400,000         400,000
        Aeronautical Center training and                                
         support facilities.............      12,000,000      12,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, training, equipment,                                
           and facilities...............      14,500,000      12,400,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, nonair traffic control                                 
           facilities and equipment.....     176,900,000      74,600,000
                                         ===============================
Mission support:                                                        
    System support and services:                                        
        System engineering and                                          
         development support............      29,800,000      28,960,000
        Program support leases..........      31,100,000      27,500,000
        NAS modernization integration...       8,000,000       8,000,000
        Logistics support services......       5,600,000       5,600,000
        Mike Monroney Aeronautical                                      
         Center--lease..................      14,800,000      14,800,000
        In-plant national airspace                                      
         system [NAS] contract support                                  
         services.......................       2,000,000       2,000,000
        Transition engineering support..      41,800,000      41,800,000
        Frequency and spectrum                                          
         engineering--provide...........       2,700,000       1,500,000
        Permanent change of station                                     
         [PCS]..........................       3,500,000       2,500,000
        FAA system architecture.........       4,500,000       2,000,000
        Technical services support                                      
         contract [TSSC]................      51,000,000      47,550,000
        Resource Tracking Program [RTP].       1,000,000         500,000
        Center for Advanced Aviation                                    
         System Development.............      57,000,000      57,000,000
        Year 2000 date change program...      36,000,000      36,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, mission support........     280,800,000     275,710,000
                                         ===============================
Personnel and related expenses..........     235,210,000     235,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, all activities.............   2,130,000,000   2,044,683,269
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             engineering, development, test, and evaluation

    The Committee recommends $369,973,000 for various 
engineering, development, test, and evaluation activities.

En route programs

    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].
    Aviation weather service improvements.--The Committee has 
included $26,300,000 as requested by the administration.
    Oceanic automation system.--The FAA has already canceled 
phase two of the project and FAA actions to reprogram fiscal 
year 1998 funds and to reduce the fiscal year 1999 budget raise 
questions as to the priority of this initiative. Moreover, many 
FAA officials involved with this project have argued for a 
revision of the project's scope. The Committee recommends a 
reduction for this project and notes that project officials 
report that fiscal year 1998 funds remain to complete the data 
link segment of phase one and to fund initial system 
maintenance.
    Air traffic management [ATM].--The Committee recommends an 
increase in this activity in order to support higher priority 
items in ATM activities identified by the administration.
    The Committee recommendation includes funding to support 
the revised approach to accelerate the testing and deployment 
of the traffic management advisor single center and the passive 
final approach spacing tool. These tools will provide 
controllers with increased capability to make efficient 
decisions regarding the sequencing and runway assignments of 
terminal arrival aircraft and en route arrival aircraft.
    The Committee is aware of the administration's plan to 
expedite early deployment of free flight phase I technologies 
by December 2002 at the sites identified by the Free Flight 
Select Committee. The Committee believes that one of the most 
important free flight phase I core capability programs is the 
center/TRACON automation system, which consists of traffic 
management advisor single center and passive final approach 
spacing tool [passive FAST]. The Committee supports the 
completion of the FAA's existing feasibility study that will 
determine if passive FAST can be implemented at the New York 
TRACON without multicenter TMA.
    The Committee directs that if the feasibility study shows 
that passive FAST can be implemented in the New York TRACON, 
the FAA should do so as soon as possible. If the FAA implements 
passive FAST at the New York TRACON, the Committee believes 
that the FAA should focus its priority for site adaptation of 
passive FAST on the airport with the highest levels of 
congestion as measured by air traffic control delays per 1,000 
operations. The Committee directs the Administrator to provide, 
within 60 days, a report detailing the timeline and funding 
profile for implementation of passive FAST, if feasible, at the 
major commercial airports served by the New York TRACON.
    En route automation program.--In addition to the 
recommended funding level, the Committee provided reprogramming 
approval for the host hardware and software suite replacement 
and the FAA has scaled back the conflict probe effort from 
implementation at 20 centers to 5 centers.
    In addition, the conflict probe has unobligated balances in 
excess of $5,000,000 in this account. The Committee has reduced 
the requested levels accordingly.
    Aeronautical data link [ADL].--The Committee recommendation 
has been increased by $6,500,000 in this activity to support 
higher items identified by the FAA.

Terminal programs

    Terminal automation program.--The Committee has provided 
the requested $74,700,000 for the terminal automation program, 
also known as standard terminal automation replacement system 
[STARS]. The contract was awarded in September 1996. Fiscal 
year 1999 funds will be used to continue to test and enhance 
commercial-off-the-shelf/nondevelopmental item [COTS/NDI]-based 
automated radar terminal systems for initial use in terminal 
radar approach control facilities and to develop the final 
system capability. The STARS contract is an exceptionally 
aggressive contract.
    For a variety of reasons, the FAA is behind schedule in 
developing the full service software for the initial STARS 
configuration and the development of STARS software entails 
several risks that are likely to cause further delays. In 
addition, the computer-human interface issues that have emerged 
in the last 9 months are likely to necessitate further software 
requirements growth. Current estimates anticipate a 6- to 9-
month delay in the program and cost growth in excess of 
$200,000,000.
    The FAA and the contractor have acknowledged the risk that 
the software development schedule may slip by several months 
and they currently have risk mitigation efforts underway. The 
Committee recommendation includes the entire request for the 
STARS Program, but the Committee is increasingly concerned 
about program slippages, cost growth, and the severity of the 
computer-human interface problems. The Committee is 
increasingly concerned that procurements like STARS, WAAS, and 
the deepwater capability replacement program are beyond the 
capability of the Department to manage given the complexity of 
the systems and the critical nature of the external factors 
that influence program development. The Committee would urge 
the Department to approach modernization efforts in a more 
incremental manner, rather than attempting--with an 
exceptionally high probability of failure--to revolutionize 
entire functions or capabilities with a single procurement.
    Runway incursion reduction.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $6,000,000 in this program for the inclusion of a 
surface movement adviser demonstration initiative. The 
demonstration would test a collection of tools that provide 
terminal data to participating airlines and permit the exchange 
of data that support the efficient movement of aircraft on the 
airport surface.
    Airport technology.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 
for this account, the same amount as appropriated in fiscal 
year 1998.

Landing and navigational aids programs

    Local area augmentation system [LAAS] for GPS.--The 
Committee has included $6,500,000 as requested by the 
administration.
    Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--The Committee 
reiterates the concern expressed in the fiscal year 1998 
appropriations legislation concerning the wide area 
augmentation system. Accuracy, integrity, availability, 
continuity, and service volume are the major performance goals 
for the system. Accuracy is defined as the degree to which an 
aircraft's position as calculated using the system conforms to 
its true position. Integrity is the system's ability to provide 
timely warnings when its signals are providing erroneous 
information and, accordingly, should not be relied upon for 
navigation. Availability is the probability that, at any given 
time, the system will meet FAA's accuracy and integrity 
requirements for a specified phase of flight. Continuity is the 
probability that the system's signal will meet accuracy and 
integrity requirements continuously for a specified period. 
Service volume is the area of coverage for which the system's 
signal will meet availability requirements.
    On May 13, 1998, the Department of Transportation Inspector 
General reported:

          ``* * * The WAAS program has technical and program 
        uncertainties. Uncertainties relating to interference 
        of the WAAS signal from unintentional and intentional 
        jamming, communications satellites, and ionospheric 
        variations must be resolved. Because of these 
        uncertainties, FAA is now reconsidering the need for a 
        backup system to WAAS. In our opinion, some type of 
        backup system for WAAS will be needed for the 
        foreseeable future. In addition, the national airspace 
        system modernization task force is discussing 
        alternatives regarding the future phases of WAAS. In 
        our opinion, determination of the intended ultimate use 
        of WAAS (whether it will be a primary or a sole means 
        of navigation) is the most critical issue impacting the 
        WAAS program.
          ``The ultimate decision on whether WAAS will be used 
        as a sole or primary means of navigation will impact 
        FAA and the aviation industry. For example, FAA 
        currently plans to begin decommissioning its existing 
        navigation aids in 2005 and transition to WAAS as a 
        sole means of navigation. If WAAS is not a sole means 
        of navigation, FAA will incur additional expenditures, 
        not currently planned, to acquire, upgrade, modernize, 
        and maintain existing navigation aids. FAA's decision 
        will also impact the aviation industry plans regarding 
        avionics equipage. Furthermore, in our opinion, this 
        schedule is very optimistic given all the uncertainties 
        in the WAAS Program.''

    Because of the uncertainties of the WAAS Program, the 
rethinking on the need for a backup system, the escalating cost 
estimates of the program, the number (and difficulty) of 
critical unresolved issues and lack of clarity in program scope 
and definition, the seemingly questionable and uncoordinated 
exercise of contract line items earlier this year for phases 2 
and 3 software development and systems engineering tasks, and a 
range of other issues that of and by themselves would cause the 
Committee serious concern, combined with the FAA's prior and 
current history of difficulty in managing large, complex 
procurements, the Committee has conditioned the release of all 
WAAS funding. The entire WAAS facilities and equipment request 
has been provided for WAAS for engineering, development, test, 
and evaluation, and the Secretary is directed, with the 
Administrator of the FAA, not to commit any funding to this 
program until certifying to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations that the following issues have been addressed in 
the affirmative:
  --(1) WAAS is a sole means of navigation;
  --(2) The signal continuity issues have been solved without 
        additional facilities or funding; and
  --(3) The cost benefit ratio of this program exceeds that of 
        other landing and navigational aids programs utilizing 
        the current $3,049,000,000 January 9, 1998, FAA 
        estimate or any other FAA estimate in excess of that 
        amount for the WAAS program.
    Loran-C.--The Committee continues to support steps to 
ensure that loran will be available to meet ongoing user 
navigation safety and efficiency requirements. Loran provides 
important multimodal navigation capabilities, well-proved, 
cost-effective, and significant safety and efficiency benefits. 
The Committee continues to be convinced that support of the 
loran infrastructure is prudent to meet continuing requirements 
for the technology, particularly in light of the difficultly 
the FAA is experiencing with WAAS. Clearly, a GPS/loran 
alternative to WAAS may have significant cost and operational 
advantages in both the short and longer term and failure to 
maintain the investment in loran infrastructure at this time 
would be irresponsible.

Research, test, and evaluation equipment and facilities

    Research, test, and evaluation equipment and facilities.--
The Committee recommends $17,790,000, the same amount requested 
by the administration.

              air traffic control facilities and equipment

En route programs

    Weather and radar processor [WARP].--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,200,000 for the program to support 
URET CCLD. The increase will allow the establishment of the 
connection between the National Weather Service rapid weather 
update cycles and the WARP system, providing critical winds 
aloft information for URET CCLD.
    Air route traffic control center [ARTCC] building 
improvement/plant improvements.--FAA is requesting $63,931,563 
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 
the full request.
    Critical communications support.--The Committee recommends 
a reduction of $550,000 to fund higher priority items in the 
air traffic management activity.
    Backup emergency communications [BUEC].--The Committee 
recommends $8,500,000 for this activity. The Committee notes 
that large unobligated balances have tended to grow in this 
program and the recommended level is sufficient to maintain the 
current pace of backup emergency communications equipment 
replacement.
    En route communications and control facilities 
improvement.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for this 
activity, an increase of $1,081,700 over fiscal year 1998 
appropriated levels.
    Volcano monitor.--The Committee has included an additional 
$2,000,000 for the Alaska Volcano Observatory for equipment and 
data transmission facilities to monitor suspect volcanoes 
across the Alaska peninsula and the Aleutian Islands. The 
Committee urges the FAA to incorporate this item in its future 
budget requests.

Terminal programs

    Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR].--Due to uncertainty 
over the plans for TDWR systems at two locations due to land 
acquisition problems, $2,500,000 of the request is unnecessary 
at the current time.
    Terminal automation program.--The administration is 
requesting $135,300,000 to procure 25 STARS systems and 12 
support systems and necessary actions to allow STARS 
installation at the TRACON's. The Committee has provided the 
full requested amounts.
    Airport movement area safety system [AMASS].--The Committee 
recommends an increase in this activity of $2,800,000.
    Terminal air traffic control facilities.--The Committee has 
provided $82,300,000 of new appropriated funds for this 
activity and notes that $7,800,000 of fiscal year 1998 
appropriated funds have been proposed for reprogramming by the 
Federal Aviation Administration. The recommended level includes 
funding to keep the construction of the new tower at Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport on schedule. Further, of the funds 
available for this activity, the Committee directs $1,900,000 
for the completion of the Lambert-St. Louis air traffic control 
tower; $1,000,000 for the Pangborn Memorial Airport air traffic 
control tower; $2,000,000 for the construction of an air 
traffic control tower at Paine Field; $1,000,000 for a 
replacement tower at Logan International Airport; $100,000 to 
complete the engineering work for the new air traffic control 
tower at Port Columbus International Airport; $1,300,000 for 
the Lawton air traffic control tower; and $2,000,000 for the 
North Las Vegas air traffic control tower.
    Martin State Airport.--The Committee is concerned that, 
despite the clear direction contained in the Senate report that 
accompanied the fiscal year 1998 Transportation appropriations 
bill, the FAA has failed to program funding to replace the air 
traffic control tower at Martin State Airport in Maryland. The 
Committee expects the FAA to initiate replacement of the tower 
immediately and to report back by February 1, 1999, on the 
status and construction schedule for the project.
    Airport traffic control tower [ATCT]/TRACON facilities.--
The administration is requesting $22,722,280 to upgrade and 
improve various terminal facilities and equipment on a 
continuing basis to provide an acceptable level of safe service 
and to meet current and future operational requirements. The 
Committee recommends the requested level for fiscal year 1999.
    Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR].--The Committee 
recommends a reduction of $1,200,000 in the request due to the 
delay in completion of the acceptance testing of the redesigned 
switch. Accordingly, FAA is requesting funds for more switches 
that it can field during the fiscal year.
    Potomac TRACON.--The administration is requesting 
$11,900,000 for the Potomac TRACON. The Committee appropriation 
for fiscal year 1998 is sufficient for proposed program 
initiatives for the Potomac TRACON.
    Northern California TRACON/Atlanta TRACON.--The Committee 
recommends a reduction in these two projects consistent with 
funding the completion of both projects over 2 fiscal years. 
Accordingly, the fiscal year 1999 fiscal year funding 
requirement is reduced and the resulting fiscal year 2000 
funding requirement will be increased to the fiscal year 1999 
appropriated levels.
    Emergency transceivers--replacement.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for this activity for fiscal year 1999.
    Airport surveillance radar [ASR-9].--The Committee is 
concerned about reports that the FAA did not include Washington 
County Regional Airport in Hagerstown, MD, among airports to 
initially receive service from the ASR-9 system currently being 
installed near Martinsburg, WV. The Committee directs the FAA 
to ensure that the system has the capacity and/or interface 
abilities to provide expanded radar coverage for aircraft 
operations to and from the Washington County Regional Airport.
    Terminal facilities integration.--The Committee recommends 
this activity be funded out of the terminal facilities 
modernization program or the specific major system acquisition 
program.
    Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee is aware 
that the slippage in the STARS Program schedule has a waterfall 
effect on several other major system acquisition programs. 
Accordingly, the resulting 6-month delay in the ASR-11 survey 
and design schedule at 16 sites provides a funding cushion in 
the fiscal year 1999 request. The Committee directs the FAA to 
use the additional funding flexibility in this program to 
initiate survey and design work for new radars to serve 
Anchorage International Airport in Anchorage, AK; central 
Oregon (Deschutes and Jefferson Counties); the mountainous 
region between Butte, Helena, and Bozeman, MT; and Provo and 
Salt Lake City International Airport in Salt Lake City, UT.
    ASR weather system processor [WSP].--The Committee has 
reduced the request by $4,200,000 because the FAA will not be 
able to deploy the fifth limited production system prior to 
December 2000.
    DOD/FAA facilities transfer.--The Committee recommends a 
reduction in the funding for this activity. The functions of 
the DOD facilities will not necessarily transfer within fiscal 
year 1999. Currently, the transition of the functions is 
anticipated within 18 months of the April 1, 1999, scheduled 
date. FAA anticipates assuming the functions at an existing FAA 
facility. The funds provided are sufficient for the transfer.

Flight service programs

    Flight service station [FSS] automation.--The Committee 
recommends a reduction in this activity of $1,000,000. The 
reduced level is sufficient to remedy the power fluctuation 
problems contained in the request.
    Automated surface observing system [ASOS].--The 
administration requested $9,900,000 for ASOS. The Committee has 
provided $20,977,000. The Committee intends that the requested 
$9,900,000 will be used to continue commissioning systems 
procured through fiscal year 1998 and for related program 
management costs. The Committee continues to be concerned that 
the FAA has not adequately funded the program for several 
years. Adequate funding was not provided for connectivity 
lines, controller equipment, or operation and maintenance 
funds. That oversight has left the FAA short of assets to fund 
ASOS systems for nontowered airports. The FAA, the National 
Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], and user aviation 
associations have identified over 200 sites which should be 
equipped with ASOS; $9,577,000 of the additional funding shall 
be used to procure additional ASOS systems toward the 
identified requirement.
    The Committee is aware of an advanced technology program, 
the precision airport location system [PALS], that promises to 
provide accurate, timely, and representative automated airport 
surface weather observations of visibility and sky condition to 
pilots, air traffic control, and other aviation weather users. 
The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the 
acceleration of the independent operational test and evaluation 
and first article testing of this technology and urges the FAA 
to evaluate this technology as a complement to the ASOS 
infrastructure.
    FSAS operational and supportability implementation system 
[OASIS].--The Committee has reduced the request by $9,500,000 
because system deployment will fall 18 systems less than 
planned in fiscal year 1999. This program should be reviewed 
and the FAA should address the human factor concerns raised by 
the air traffic controllers prior to deployment.

Landing and navigational aids programs

    Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport.--The Committee 
urges the FAA to proceed quickly to provide and install the 
necessary equipment to upgrade and equip the new commuter 
runway and the new airport air traffic control tower. The 
appropriated levels in this account provide sufficient 
resources for necessary equipment and installation at Atlanta 
Hartsfield International Airport.
    Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--The Committee 
recommends a reduction in this account consistent with the 
treatment of this program elsewhere in this account.
    Instrument landing system [ILS].--The Committee, consistent 
with the continued concern about the viability and cost 
effectiveness of the WAAS system, recommends an increase in the 
ILS procurement and installation program of $10,000,000. 
Priority consideration should be given to Burlington-Alamance 
Regional Airport and Stanly County Airport in North Carolina, 
North Las Vegas Airport and McCarran Airport in Nevada, Fresno 
Yosemite International Airport in California, Stennis 
International Airport in Mississippi, complete the installation 
of an ILS at Bessemer Airport in Alabama, install a glideslope 
indicator at Clovis Airport in New Mexico, Olive Branch Airport 
in Mississippi, and Hays Municipal Airport in Kansas.
    Tactical landing system.--The Committee recommended 
$3,000,000 for the establishment of tactical landing system 
test programs at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA, Pullman/Moscow, 
ID, Friedman Memorial Airport, ID, and at Logan/Cache County 
and Heber Airports in Utah.
    Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].--The 
Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 for the 
initiation of a MALSR system at Juneau International Airport. 
This project will complement the substantial strides and 
efforts that have been made to reduce the flight restrictions 
due to weather and visibility at this airport.
    Visual navigation aids.--The Committee is aware of a plan 
to install two localizer directional aids and a precision 
runway monitor for Newark International Airport that will 
enable the FAA to conduct simultaneous parallel approaches in 
visual meteoric conditions and marginal visual meteoric 
conditions. This equipment will help to reduce the numerous 
severe delays and enhance safety at the airport. The Committee 
directs the Administrator to begin preliminary work for the 
installation of this equipment. To this end, the Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for modeling simulation, risk assessment, 
site survey and other environmental work associated with this 
installation.
    Navigational and landing aids.--The recommended level has 
been increased by $2,000,000 to reflect changing programmatic 
priorities of the Federal Aviation Administration. The 
additional increase in the funding level over the request is 
for development work on a low cost next generation precision 
gyroscope utilizing silicon manufacturing technologies. In this 
development effort, the Committee directs the FAA to work with 
the University of Alabama to build on the substantial work that 
has already been done in this area to facilitate the expedited 
development of a lower cost gyroscope for application in 
navigation systems.

Other ATC facilities programs

    Alaskan NAS interfacility communications system [ANICS].--
The Committee recommendation is sufficient to substantially 
complete this activity.
    FAA buildings and equipment--improve/modernize.--The 
Committee recommends a reduction in this activity to increase 
the appropriation for higher-priority activities.
    Electrical power systems--sustain/support.--The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000 for this activity, and the Committee 
notes that there is currently unobligated balances for this 
activity of which a portion was proposed for reprogramming in 
fiscal year 1998.
    Aircraft and related equipment program.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for this activity, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.

Nonair traffic control facilities and equipment

    Operational data management system [ODMS].--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for this activity, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
    Explosive detection system.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for this activity in the ``Facilities and equipment'' 
account. Sufficient levels have been provided in the ``Airport 
Improvement Program'' account to accommodate the airports' 
demand for explosive detection equipment. The Committee 
continues to be concerned by the slow pace of installation of 
the equipment that has already been procured and the low 
utilization rates of the equipment that has been installed. The 
Committee encourages the FAA to work with interested airports 
to promote the integration of equipment provided by prior 
appropriations for explosive detection equipment into current 
airport and carrier operations and to facilitate airports' use 
of Airport Improvement Program funding for acquisition of 
explosive detection systems.

Training, equipment, and facilities

    Distance learning.--The Committee recommends no 
appropriation for this activity.

Mission support

    System engineering and development support.--The Committee 
recommends $28,960,000 for this activity, the level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
    Program support leases.--The Committee recommends 
$27,500,000 for this activity, the level appropriated in fiscal 
year 1998.
    NAS modernization integration.--The Committee includes 
$8,000,000 for training, procedures, testing, airspace 
analysis, and other activities to facilitate the modernization 
of the NAS consistent with the recommendations of the NAS 
modernization task force recommendations.
    Frequency and spectrum engineering--provide.--The Committee 
recommends $1,500,000 for this activity, the level appropriated 
in fiscal year 1998.
    Permanent change of station [PCS].--The Committee 
recommends $2,500,000 for this activity. The Committee is 
confident that the agency can manage the demands of this 
activity within that appropriation.
    FAA system architecture.--The Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for this activity. There are unobligated balances 
that the agency can draw upon for this activity, and the 
Committee notes that this activity has been offered as a source 
for reprogramming activities.
    Technical services support contract.--The Committee 
recommends $47,550,000 for this activity consistent with the 
agency's desire to support higher priority activities.
    Year 2000 date change program.--The Committee recommends no 
appropriation for this activity pursuant to previous 
reprogramming action and supplemental action to accelerate the 
agency's activities to correct year 2000 deficiencies. The 
Committee expects that the FAA Administrator will promptly 
notify the Committee of additional identified requirements to 
resolve the year 2000 problems.

                        major equipment activity

                                         TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   City                                 Acceptance                     Commissioning dates      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphis..................................  July 1993...........................  December 1994.                 
Houston Intercontinental.................  March 1993..........................  July 1994.                     
Atlanta..................................  April 1993..........................  December 1995.                 
Washington National......................  February 1994.......................  January 1996.                  
Denver...................................  December 1993.......................  August 1995.                   
Chicago O'Hare...........................  March 1994..........................  July 1996.                     
St. Louis................................  May 1994............................  February 1995.                 
Orlando..................................  June 1994...........................  April 1996.                    
New Orleans..............................  July 1994...........................  March 1996.                    
Tampa....................................  December 1994.......................  April 1996.                    
Miami....................................  November 1995.......................  June 1996.                     
Pittsburgh...............................  December 1994.......................  July 1997.                     
Andrews AFB..............................  December 1994.......................  August 1996                    
Newark...................................  December 1994.......................  October 1997.                  
Boston...................................  April 1995..........................  January 1996.                  
Kansas City..............................  December 1994.......................  July 1995.                     
Detroit..................................  March 1996..........................  September 1996.                
Houston Hobby............................  August 1995.........................  July 1996.                     
Dallas/Love..............................  May 1995............................  January 1996.                  
Dallas/Fort Worth........................  June 1995...........................  June 1996.                     
Dayton...................................  May 1995............................  April 1998.                    
Wichita..................................  June 1995...........................  September 1995.                
Indianapolis.............................  July 1995...........................  October 1996.                  
Cincinnati...............................  July 1996...........................  June 1997.                     
Philadelphia.............................  July 1996...........................  October 1997.                  
Phoenix..................................  March 1997..........................  March 1997.                    
Milwaukee................................  March 1997..........................  November 1997.                 
Chicago Midway...........................  To be determined....................  To be determined.              
Cleveland................................  July 1996...........................  October 1996.                  
Columbus.................................  December 1996.......................  May 1997.                      
San Juan.................................  To be determined....................  To be determined.              
West Palm Beach..........................  February 1996.......................  May 1997.                      
Nashville................................  April 1997..........................  February 1998.                 
Louisville...............................  June 1997...........................  April 1998.                    
Washington Dulles........................  November 1996.......................  March 1998.                    
Charlotte................................  September 1995......................  December 1995.                 
Salt Lake City...........................  March 1997..........................  April 1998.                    
Fort Lauderdale..........................  To be determined....................  To be determined.              
Baltimore................................  November 1996.......................  May 1997.                      
Raleigh/Durham...........................  April 1997..........................  January 1998.                  
Minneapolis..............................  March 1997..........................  May 1997.                      
Oklahoma City............................  March 1997..........................  April 1997.                    
Tulsa....................................  May 1997............................  April 1998.                    
New York City (JFK and LGA)..............  To be determined....................  To be determined.              
Las Vegas................................  To be determined....................  To be determined.              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT [ASDE-3]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Commissioning  
         Site location              Delivery date             date      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Academy \1\...............  .....................  .................
FAA Technical Center \2\......  .....................  .................
Pittsburgh, PA................  December 1989........  June 1996.       
San Francisco.................  November 1991........  October 1995.    
Dallas/Fort Worth \3\.........  February 1992........  March 1995.      
Philadelphia..................  February 1992........  March 1996.      
Los Angeles \3\...............  August 1992..........  April 1995.      
Detroit.......................  August 1992..........  December 1994.   
Cleveland.....................  August 1992..........  December 1994.   
Boston........................  August 1992..........  March 1995.      
Portland......................  August 1992..........  December 1994.   
Atlanta.......................  September 1992.......  January 1995.    
Seattle.......................  September 1992.......  December 1993.   
Los Angeles \3\...............  February 1993........  February 1995.   
Denver (DIA) \3\..............  March 1993...........  May 1995.        
St. Louis.....................  December 1993........  February 1995.   
Denver (DIA) \3\..............  December 1993........  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........  November 1996.   
Houston \3\...................  February 1995........  August 1995.     
Memphis.......................  June 1995............  December 1997.   
Chicago.......................  June 1995............  April 1996.      
Houston \3\...................  August 1996..........  July 1997.       
Charlotte.....................  June 1999............  November 1999.   
Louisville \4\................  March 1999...........  November 1999.   
Reagan Washington National....  February 1996........  April 1997.      
Cincinnati....................  October 1995.........  September 1996.  
Dulles........................  May 1997.............  February 1998.   
San Diego.....................  November 1995........  November 1996.   
Dallas-Fort Worth \3\ \4\.....  November 1996........  November 1997.   
Andrews AFB...................  January 1999.........  November 1999.   
Salt Lake City \4\............  February 1998........  February 1999.   
Las Vegas \4\.................  June 1998............  June 1999.       
New York-LaGuardia............  October 1998.........  October 1999.    
Newark........................  April 1997...........  April 1998.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA training/field support/depot support facility.                  
\2\ To be relocated to Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City.              
\3\ Dual sensor facilities.                                             
\4\ Assets redirected from Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Orlando, Orange       
  County.                                                               

                Terminal air traffic control facilities

    Funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in 
previous years:
  Merrill, AK
  Fort Smith, AR
  St. Louis (TRACON), MO
  St. Paul, MN
  Syracuse, NY
  Portland, OR
  Houston (HOU), TX
  Salt Lake City (ATCT), UT
  Salt Lake City (TRACON), UT
  Chicago (O'Hare), IL
  Chicago (Midway), IL
  Palwaukee, IL
  Pontiac, MI
  Albany, NY
  Windsor Locks, CT
  Klamath Falls, OR
  Birmingham, AL
  Little Rock, AR
  North Las Vegas, NV
  Topeka, KS
  Dallas (Addison), TX
  Bedford, MA
    Phase III for terminal air traffic control facilities started in 
fiscal year 1997 and before:
  Newark, NJ
  Seattle, WA
  LaGuardia, NY
  Grand Canyon, AZ
    Phase II funding for terminal air traffic control facilities 
started in fiscal year 1998 and before:
  Boston, MA
  Oakland, CA
  Roanoke, VA
  Newport News, VA
  Port Columbus, OH
  Islip, NY
  Seattle, WA
  Everett, WA
  Fort Lauderdale, FL
  Manchester, NH
    Phase I funding for terminal air traffic control facilities to be 
started in fiscal year 1999:
  Reno, NV
  Asheville, NC
  Tulsa (Riverside), OK

Personnel and related expenses

    Personnel and related expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$220,000,000 for this expense, the same level appropriated in 
fiscal year 1998. The reduction from the request can be 
accommodated by reduction in travel expenses.

                         advance appropriations

    The Committee has not included the advance appropriations 
for fiscal years 2000 through 2006 requested by the 
administration. There has been substantial uncertainty and 
change with respect to projects financed through the 
``Facilities and equipment'' account, and the Committee 
believes that continuing, annual congressional review of the 
status and funding needs of these projects is critical.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $199,183,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     290,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     173,627,000

    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 $173,627,000 for research, engineering, 
and development. The Committee suggests the following 
allocation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal year                
                                             1999 budget     Committee  
                                              estimate    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development and infrastructure:                                  
    System planning and resource                                        
     management...........................    $2,148,000     $1,164,000 
    Technical laboratory facility.........     9,730,000      9,730,000 
    Center for advanced aviation system                                 
     development [CAASD]..................     4,890,000      4,890,000 
                                           -----------------------------
      Subtotal............................    16,768,000     15,784,000 
                                           =============================
Capacity and air traffic management                                     
 technology:                                                            
    System capacity, planning, and                                      
     improvements.........................     4,044,000      7,000,000 
    Flight 2000...........................    90,000,000  ..............
    Cockpit technology....................     1,642,000      1,000,000 
    General Aviation and Vertical                                       
     Technology Flight Program............     2,902,000      2,902,000 
    Operations concept validation.........     6,818,000  ..............
    Software engineering R&D..............     1,605,000      1,000,000 
                                           -----------------------------
      Subtotal............................   107,011,000     11,902,000 
                                           =============================
Weather...................................    12,284,000     19,284,000 
Aircraft safety technology:                                             
    Fire research and safety..............     4,750,000      4,750,000 
    Advanced materials/structural safety..     1,734,000      1,734,000 
    Propulsion and fuel systems...........     2,831,000      5,000,000 
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards                                   
     research.............................     2,619,000      2,619,000 
    Aging aircraft........................    14,694,000     21,540,000 
    Aircraft catastrophic failure                                       
     prevention research..................     1,787,000      4,000,000 
    Aviation safety risk analysis.........     6,471,000      6,471,000 
                                           -----------------------------
      Subtotal............................    34,886,000     46,114,000 
                                           =============================
System security technology:                                             
    Explosives and weapons detection......    39,545,000     42,200,000 
    Airport security technology                                         
     integration..........................     5,396,000      3,941,000 
    Aviation security human factors.......     5,282,000      5,282,000 
    Aircraft hardening....................     4,649,000      2,000,000 
                                           -----------------------------
      Subtotal............................    54,872,000     53,423,000 
                                           =============================
Human factors and aviation medicine:                                    
    Flightdeck/maintenance/system                                       
     integration human factors............     9,903,000      9,903,000 
    Air traffic control/airway facilities                               
     human factors........................     8,297,000      8,297,000 
    Aeromedical research..................     4,029,000      4,029,000 
                                           -----------------------------
      Subtotal............................    22,229,000     22,229,000 
                                           =============================
Environment and energy....................     3,391,000      2,891,000 
Innovative/cooperative research...........     2,330,000      2,000,000 
                                           =============================
      Total...............................   290,000,000    173,627,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    System planning and resource management.--The Committee 
recommends $1,164,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal 
year 1998.
    FAA technical laboratory facility.--The administration's 
request was $9,730,000 for work at the FAA Technical Center. 
The Committee fully funds the administration's request.
    Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development [CAASD].--
The Committee 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.
    System capacity, planning, and improvement.--The Committee 
recommends a reduction from the original request to $3,000,000 
and includes an additional $4,000,000 for flight 2000 planning 
and scoping activities. A primary stated goal of the research 
is to develop an overall strategy to enhance capacity. The 
Committee encourages the FAA to focus on that goal and to 
narrow the budget justification's scope of initiatives 
advertised under this activity. The recommended funding is 
adequate for these tasks.
    Cockpit technology.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 
for this initiative. This funding is adequate for the principal 
focus to design and implement change 7 to TCAS II.
    Flight 2000.--The Committee has included $4,000,000 in 
system capacity, planning, and improvement, to allow the FAA to 
complete the initial program planning activities into flight 
2000 concepts. The Committee notes that the request for fiscal 
year 1999 differs from the fiscal year 1998 request primarily 
in the ambitiousness of the program and in the discussion of 
WAAS. While the Committee continues to believe that GPS based 
navigational and landing systems have substantial promise for 
the aviation community, the Committee is concerned about the 
FAA's desire to initiate research into this area with a request 
that would increase the RE&D program by 45 percent. Given the 
budgetary constraints faced by the Committee, the uncertainties 
of whether WAAS can ever be cost effective, the prior 
difficulty that FAA has had with overly ambitious initiatives 
into modernization or new technologies (MLS, AAS, and WAAS), 
the Committee directs the FAA to focus on accomplishing the 
tasks that must be completed prior to the start of a more 
robust flight 2000 effort--namely, definition and validation of 
a flight 2000 operational concept and evaluation, development 
of a flight 2000 integrated program plan, and further 
development of a plan to implement flight 2000 capabilities in 
Alaska, Hawaii, and Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center 
[ARTCC] oceanic and domestic airspace. The recommended level in 
system capacity, planning, and improvement is sufficient for 
those initiatives.
    Operations concept validation.--The Committee does not 
recommend any funding for this effort at this time. The 
operations concept validation is contingent upon the transition 
to a free flight environment. Although the Committee endorsed, 
in concept, such a transition, it is premature to establish a 
transition plan to an environment that has yet to be adequately 
defined by the FAA or endorsed by the Congress. The Committee 
would welcome the reconsideration of this initiative once 
greater clarity and definition is available on the free flight 
concept.
    Software engineering R&D.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for this initiative to assess the prior work of the 
Office of Information Technology and to identify processes and 
guidelines to help the FAA address the shortcomings noted in 
software dependent procurements. The Committee encourages the 
FAA to conduct an indepth analysis of the processes within the 
FAA which are affected by COTS/NDI technologies, identify new 
methods to test and validate safety-critical systems that are 
not dependent on source code analysis, investigate ways to 
reduce cost and time to establish high confidence in a system. 
Establishment of a center is an activity better considered in 
the context of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill.

                                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 recommends $19,284,000 for the weather 
program, a $7,000,000 increase over the administration's 
request. This increase reflects the Committee's concern about 
the impact of weather on aviation safety and the need to 
continue an aggressive program of research and development.
    Project Socrates.--The Committee has added $3,000,000 to 
this program to continue FAA's sensor for optically 
characterized ring-eddy atmospheric turbulence emanating sound 
(Project SOCRATES). Project SOCRATES is the only ongoing 
project in the FAA to develop a new sensor technology aimed at 
improving air passenger safety by early detection of 
atmospheric hazards, including wind shear, wake vortex, and 
clear air turbulence.
    Juneau, AK.--The Committee has included $4,000,000 for the 
Juneau turbulence and windshear project. The funding is 
sufficient to continue the research and to permit the FAA to 
purchase the wind profilers and anemometers at the airport. The 
preliminary results of the research indicate that this may be a 
technology and approach that is transferable to other similarly 
situated airports with critical approach patterns and severe 
wind conditions. The Committee urges the FAA to integrate this 
project into current operational procedures as soon as the 
research data warrants and the operational benefits can be 
realized.

                       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.
    Aging aircraft.--The Committee has provided $21,540,000 for 
FAA's research in the aging aircraft area, $6,846,000 more than 
the administration's request. This research supports airborne 
data monitoring systems, corrosion fatigue research, the Center 
for Aviation Systems Reliability [CASR], and the Aging Aircraft 
Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center [AANC], which 
conducts research in these areas. The Committee is concerned 
that the administration's request for this line item would hold 
aging aircraft research at a no-growth posture, which would 
severely strain the aging aircraft program. The administration 
request does not follow through on the recent Gore Commission 
report recommending that the aging aircraft program be 
increased to cover nonstructural systems. The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for direct support of the 
AANC's work. Further, the Committee directs the FAA to explore 
the options of building a new hanger for AANC or modifying the 
existing hanger at Albuquerque airport. The FAA should report 
back to the Committee on the results of this exploration by 
January 15, 1999. Of the request level, the Committee expects 
$1,000,000 to be available for aging aircraft-related 
activities at CASR. The additional funding above the request 
includes $6,000,000 to support the Airworthiness Assurance 
Center of Excellence, which the FAA is forming to integrate 
inspection, crashworthiness, and advanced materials research 
efforts of university programs with the validation efforts of 
the AANC. This center will work with industry in a 
comprehensive effort to improve the safety of aging aircraft. 
Of the total funds provided, the Committee directs that 
$4,440,000 be used to further the engine titanium inspection 
component of this line item.

                       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 $42,200,000 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. This is 
consistent with the administration's request adjusted for the 
resources reprogrammed prior to the beginning of this fiscal 
year.
    Of the funds provided, the Committee directs $4,000,000 to 
the pulsed fast neutron analysis cargo inspection system [CIS] 
for an operational field demonstration by the Federal Aviation 
Administration at an airport; $6,000,000 for the continuation 
of the research into the pulsed fast neutron transmission 
spectroscopy [PFNTS]; $1,000,000 to accelerate research and 
development of explosives and chemical or biological agents 
currently being conducted by the Insititute of Biological 
Detection Systems; and $1,000,000 for exploration of x-ray 
scanning technology which incorporates combined automatic 
organic detection and software based threat image projection 
testing capabilities.
    The Committee believes that FAA's R,E&D efforts to identify 
and develop alternative technologies continue to be very 
important. The funds provided are sufficient to continue 
research and development efforts in this area and to explore 
the most promising new technologies.
    Airport security technology integration.--The Committee 
recommends $3,941,000 for this activity, an increase of 
$1,456,000 over the fiscal year 1998 appropriation.
    Aircraft hardening.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 
for this activity, the level appropriated in fiscal year 1998.

                  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. The Committee recommends full funding 
of the request.
    Aeromedical research.--The Committee directs the FAA to 
report on the utility of a multiperson hyperbaric chamber and 
attendant supporting research and evaluation equipment to the 
goals of the aeromedical research program.

                         environment and energy

    Objectives: To protect the environment, conserve energy, 
and keep the U.S. air transportation industry strong and 
competitive. The Committee recommends $2,891,000, the level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.

                    innovative/cooperative research

    Objectives: To maximize the total effectiveness of 
research, engineering, and development by incorporating the 
efforts of other Government agencies, the industry, and 
universities. The Committee recommends $2,000,000, the level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $1,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,600,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,600,000,000

    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 $1,600,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the 
Committee's obligation limitation on airport grants for fiscal 
year 1999 and for the payment of previous years' obligations.

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

Limitation, 1998........................................  $1,700,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,700,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,100,000,000

    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 1999 is $2,100,000,000 and 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 level that the Committee has proposed will mean more 
money for airports in all the States as compared to the 
administration's budget request. The table below shows 
estimates of the entitlement and State allocation grant funds 
that each State would receive under the Committee 
recommendation. This does not include discretionary funds, 
which would also be greater under the Committee recommendation.

Airport Improvement Program formula distributions

     [Estimated fiscal year 1998 entitlement and State allocations]

                                                     Total formula funds
        State                                          at $2,100,000,000

Alabama.................................................      $5,823,950
Alaska..................................................      31,277,460
Arizona.................................................       8,759,576
Arkansas................................................       4,577,601
California..............................................      31,086,667
Colorado................................................       7,958,160
Connecticut.............................................       2,809,935
Delaware................................................         635,295
District of Columbia....................................         468,506
Florida.................................................      13,064,255
Georgia.................................................       8,040,687
Hawaii..................................................       1,186,786
Idaho...................................................       5,134,047
Illinois................................................      11,777,613
Indiana.................................................       6,148,104
Iowa....................................................       5,065,177
Kansas..................................................       6,193,550
Kentucky................................................       4,932,788
Louisiana...............................................       5,778,788
Maine...................................................       2,734,919
Maryland................................................       4,298,977
Massachusetts...........................................       5,091,338
Michigan................................................      12,190,141
Minnesota...............................................       7,873,545
Mississippi.............................................       4,490,016
Missouri................................................       7,558,689
Montana.................................................       8,289,328
Nebraska................................................       5,247,768
Nevada..................................................       6,692,991
New Hampshire...........................................       1,334,174
New Jersey..............................................       6,348,164
New Mexico..............................................       7,508,916
New York................................................      16,573,616
North Carolina..........................................       7,827,567
North Dakota............................................       4,180,667
Ohio....................................................      10,647,533
Oklahoma................................................       6,061,992
Oregon..................................................       7,247,957
Pennsylvania............................................      11,505,588
Puerto Rico.............................................       2,632,148
Rhode Island............................................         832,693
South Carolina..........................................       4,302,524
South Dakota............................................       4,559,359
Tennessee...............................................       5,936,395
Texas...................................................      26,942,447
Utah....................................................       5,752,302
Vermont.................................................         933,033
Virginia................................................       6,947,024
Washington..............................................       7,410,694
West Virginia...........................................       2,638,950
Wisconsin...............................................       7,204,305
Wyoming.................................................       5,421,196
Insular areas...........................................       2,564,100
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     388,500,000

Note.--States allocation includes: General aviation, reliever, and 
nonprimary commercial service airports and is based on 1997 
distribution.
Entitlement funds are those distributed to commercial service airports 
based on enplanements. Estimates are based on 1996 enplanements.

    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 March 1, 1998, 289 airports have been approved for 
collection of PFC's in the amount of $18,100,000,000. During 
calendar year 1997 it is estimated that airports collected 
$1,222,745,000 in PFC charges and $1,258,000,000 is estimated 
to be collected in calendar year 1998. Of the airports 
collecting PFC's, approximately one-fifth collected about 85 
percent of the total, and all of these are either large or 
medium hub airports. DOT estimates that these airports will 
collect more than $1,157,000,000 in calendar year 1999, 
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 also partially benefited 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 1998 $111,300,000 that would 
have been distributed as grants based on passenger enplanements 
to PFC-charging airports is being redistributed to small 
airports. 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.

                    AIP FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget estimate       Committee    
                                           \1\        recommendation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation limitation..........    $1,700,000,000     $2,100,000,000 
Entitlements:                                                           
    Primary airports..............       527,949,003        527,949,003 
    Cargo airports (2.5 percent)..        42,500,000         52,500,000 
    Alaska supplemental...........        10,672,557         10,672,557 
    States (18.5 percent).........       314,500,000        388,500,000 
    Carryover entitlements........       100,000,000        100,000,000 
                                   -------------------------------------
      Subtotal entitlements.......       995,621,560      1,079,621,560 
                                   =====================================
Returned entitlements: Small                                            
 airport fund.....................       113,767,800        113,767,800 
Discretionary set-asides:                                               
    Noise.........................       211,054,936        225,000,000 
    Military airport program......        51,590,063         26,000,000 
    General aviation/reliever/                                          
     nonprimary commercial........        27,965,640         96,432,305 
Other discretionary:                                                    
    Capacity/safety/security/noise       210,779,025        405,162,776 
    Small hubs....................        18,961,300         18,961,300 
    Remaining discretionary.......        70,259,675        135,054,259 
                                   -------------------------------------
      Subtotal other discretionary       300,000,000        559,178,335 
                                   =====================================
      Total entitlement...........     1,109,389,360      1,193,389,360 
      Total discretionary.........       590,610,640        906,610,640 
                                   -------------------------------------
      Grand total.................     1,700,000,000      2,100,000,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes current law pending AIP program reauthorization with        
  continuation of MAP and noise levels at fiscal year 1998 levels.      

                          DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

    As the table above illustrates, at a level of 
$2,100,000,000 for the total AIP program, as recommended by the 
Committee, there are $906,610,000 in discretionary funds. At 
this level, the authorization legislation causes a transfer 
from the other discretionary programs--specifically, the 
discretionary account for capacity, safety, security, and noise 
and the remaining discretionary funds, which are critical in 
meeting commitments under letters of intent and advancing 
projects that have systemwide benefits--to the set-asides for 
noise, the military airport program, and a set-aside for 
general aviation, reliever, and nonprimary commercial airports. 
The latter category provides additional funds for airports that 
are most dependent on Federal assistance to make safety and 
capacity improvements.
    At the recommended levels for the total AIP program under 
the prior AIP authorization, a transfer normally would have 
occurred from the other discretionary programs--specifically, 
the discretionary account for capacity, safety, security, and 
noise and the remaining discretionary funds, which are critical 
in meeting commitments under letters of intent and advancing 
projects that have systemwide benefits--to the set-asides for 
noise, the military airport program, and a set-aside for 
general aviation, reliever, and nonprimary commercial airports. 
The latter category provides additional funds for airports that 
are most dependent on Federal assistance to make safety and 
capacity improvements. But, without caps, the set-asides for 
noise and the military airport program would increase to more 
than $377,000,000 and $132,000,000, respectively. In the 
Committee's judgment, a cap on the transfer to these two set-
asides would result in a better allocation of resources to meet 
the airport capital investment needs that most impact air 
travelers today. Therefore, the Committee has recommended bill 
language that caps the noise set-aside at $225,000,000, and the 
military airport set-aside at $26,000,000.
    The Committee has carefully considered a broad array of 
discretionary grant requests that can be expected in fiscal 
year 1999. The Committee expects the Administrator to give 
great deference to the Committee's recommendations for 
discretionary grants in fiscal year 1999. Specifically, the 
Committee expects the FAA to give priority consideration to 
grant applications for the projects listed below in the 
categories of discretionary grants for which they are eligible. 
If funds in the remaining discretionary category are used for 
any projects in fiscal year 1999 that are not listed below, the 
Committee expects that they will be for projects for which FAA 
has issued letters of intent (including letters of intent the 
Committee recommends below that the FAA subsequently issues), 
or for projects that will produce significant aviation safety 
improvements or significant improvements in systemwide capacity 
or otherwise have a very high benefit/cost ratio.
    Within the obligation level recommended, the Committee 
directs that priority be given to grant applications involving 
the further development of the following airports:

Albuquerque International Sunport, NM
Allen C. Thompson Field, MS
Anaconda Airport, MT
Anchorage International Airport, AK
Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, MI
Birmingham International Airport, AL
Bishop Airport, MI
Bismarck Municipal Airport, ND
Brunswick County Airport, NC
Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport, NC
Burns Airport, OR
Butler County Airport, PA
Capital City Airport, MI
Chautauqua/Jamestown Airport, NY
Chicago Midway Airport, IL
Chignik Lagoon Airport, AK
Clarence E. Hancock Airport, NY
Clarks Point Airport, AK
Colorado Springs Airport, CO
Concord Regional Airport, NC
Creve Coeur Airport, MO
Dane County Regional Airport, WI
Deer Lodge Airport, MT
Erie International Airport, PA
Eufaula Airport, AL
Fairbanks International Airport, AK
Felts Field Airport, WA
General Carl A. Spatz Airport, PA
Global Transpark, NC
Golden Triangle Regional Airport, MS
Grand Rapids, Kent County Airport, MI
Greater Baton Rouge Airport, LA
Greensboro-High Point-Winston Regional Airport, NC
Halifax County, NC
Hays Municipal Airport, KS
Helena Regional Airport, MT
Huntsville International Airport, AL
Jackson International Airport, MS
Kahului International Airport, HI
Karluk Airport, AK
Kent County Airport, MI
Lacrosse Municipal Airport, WI
Lansing Capital City Airport, MI
Lancaster Airport, PA
Lee Summit Municipal Airport, MO
Madison County Airport, AL
Manistee County-Blacker Airport, MI
March Joint Use Airport, CA
Miami International Airport, FL
Midway Airport, IL
Moore County Airport, NC
New Orleans International Airport, LA
Newport State Airport, VT
Niagara Falls International Airport, NY
Nikola Airport, AK
Northwest Alabama Regional Airport, AL
Oakland County International Airport, MI
Olive Branch Airport, MS
Pangborn Field, WA
Peachtree De Kalb County Airport, GA
Peterson Field, CO
Philadelphia International Airport, PA
Philadelphia Airport, MS
Piedmont-Triad International Airport, NC
Pittsburgh International Airport, PA
Paine Field Airport, WA
Reading Airport, PA
Republic Airport, NY
Rickenbacker International Airport, OH
Roswell Industrial Air Center, NM
Russian Mission Airport, AK
Salt Lake City International Airport, UT
San Bernardino Airport (Norton Air Force Base), CA
Santa Barbara Airport, CA
Schaumburg Regional Airport, IL
Shelby County Airport, AL
Sheldon Point Airport, AK
Siletz Bay Airport, OR
Spokane International Airport, WA
Stanly County Airport, NC
Stennis Airport, MS
Syracuse-Hancock International Airport, NY
Traverse City Cherry Capital Airport, MI
University Airport, MS
W.K. Kellogg Regional Airfield, MI
Waynesboro Airport, MS
Westchester County Airport, NY
Westmoreland/Latrobe County Airport, PA
Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, PA
Wilmington International Airport, NC

    Clayton Municipal Airport/Abbeville Airport, AL.--The 
Committee directs the FAA to work with interested airport 
authority officials at both these airports to determine the 
eligibility of these airports for inclusion in the national 
plan of integrated airport systems [NPIAS].
    Greater Baton Rouge Airport district, Louisiana.--The 
Committee urges the FAA to give priority consideration to 
requests for discretionary funding to support continuation of 
the airport's improvement program, including the reconstruction 
of existing taxiways, the relocation of an electrical vault, 
the acquisition of an aviation easement for an existing runway, 
and to mitigate the remaining homes and churches in the 
airport's noise mitigation program.
    Helena Regional Airport.--The Committee is concerned by the 
flow of traffic between runways and aircraft staging areas at 
Helena Regional Airport. The airport has requested funding for 
an exit taxiway that would permit aircraft not to have to cross 
the active main runway at the airport midpoint in order to 
utilize the south parallel taxiway. In addition, there is a 
line-of-sight correction project that the Committee is aware 
that the FAA is working with the airport to resolve. The 
Committee urges the FAA to give priority consideration to 
correcting the line-of-sight problem and to include the full 
length of taxiway ``F'' in the project in order to facilitate 
the safe movement of aircraft around the airport.
    Gulf Coast Regional Airport.--The Committee is aware of 
efforts to develop a regional airport to serve the southern 
gulf coast region. The Committee directs the FAA to study the 
feasibility of such a regional airport and to work with the 
University of West Florida and the University of South Alabama 
for the research, the necessary demographic projections, and an 
assessment of the economic impact of a gulf coast regional 
airport located between Mobile, AL, and Pensacola, FL.
    Kahului Airport, HI.--The Committee understands the State 
of Hawaii will soon file an application for a discretionary 
grant to strengthen and extend the Kahului Airport runway in 
Maui, HI. The application, however, is pending the issuance of 
a record of decision [ROD] on the EIS associated with the 
extension of the runway, which was approved by the FAA regional 
office more than 7 months ago. The Committee directs the FAA to 
give priority consideration to issuance of the ROD associated 
with this project and, further, provide priority consideration 
for the strengthening and extension project.
    Mesquite Airport, NV.--The Committee is aware that the 
Clark County, NV, Department of Aviation is conducting a site 
selection, airport master plan, and an environmental assessment 
for a regional commercial airport to be located near Mesquite, 
NV. The Committee directs the FAA to give priority 
consideration to requests for discretionary funding to complete 
these studies.
    New Orleans International Airport.--The Committee 
reiterates the priority consideration placed on the new 
parallel north/south runway from prior appropriations acts for 
completion of the environmental impact statement and initial 
land acquisition to meet the growing needs of this region.
    Philadelphia Airport, MS.--Due to rapid economic 
development in east-central Mississippi, a project to extend 
the runway at the Philadelphia, MS, Airport should be given 
high priority by the Federal Aviation Administration. The 
Committee directs that the FAA conduct an immediate assessment 
of air operations at the airport which will count all air 
operations and commitments for such operations, including 
resort-related charter commitments, on an equal basis in 
determining the eligibility for funding of the project to 
extend the airport runway.
    2002 Olympic general aviation airports, Utah.--The 2002 
Winter Olympic Games will place significant additional demand 
on the Salt Lake City metropolitan airports system. The Olympic 
aviation system plan, being developed by various local and 
State planning agencies in conjunction with the FAA and the 
Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, has identified four key 
general aviation airports (Ogden, Provo, Tooele Valley, and 
Heber), which will serve over 65 percent of the general 
aviation demand during the Olympics. The Utah Statewide Capital 
Improvement Program, prepared in cooperation with the FAA's 
airport division, has identified projects at these airports 
which have a high national priority and are necessary for these 
airports during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The Committee 
urges the FAA to give priority consideration to request for 
discretionary funding for these necessary capital improvements.
    Schaumburg Regional Airport, IL.--The Committee commends to 
the FAA's attention the growing need for a debt retirement plan 
for the Schaumburg Regional Airport. The village of Schaumburg, 
at the urging of the FAA, purchased the Schaumburg Air Park in 
1994 and has converted it into a first-class, regional general 
aviation facility. Therefore, the Committee recommends the FAA 
give priority consideration to discretionary funds for 
retirement of the outstanding principal balance.

                           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.
    The Committee in the past was concerned that FAA had not 
exercised sufficient control over the use of LOI's. 
Accordingly, to maintain program integrity and ensure LOI 
commitments are met, the Committee repeats its recommendation, 
as Congress reauthorizes this program, that FAA be granted the 
authority to award new LOI's only after scheduled and 
recommended LOI payments fall to less than 50 percent of AIP 
discretionary funds.
    Current letters of intent assume the following fiscal year 
1999 grant allocations:

Arkansas: Fayetteville (northwest Arkansas).............      $5,000,000
Colorado: Denver International..........................      24,931,000
Georgia: Hartsfield Atlanta International...............       7,083,000
Illinois:
    Mid-America, Belleville reliever....................      14,000,000
    Chicago Midway......................................       3,000,000
Kentucky:
    Greater Cincinnati..................................       6,000,000
    Louisville..........................................      18,243,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan..........................      16,400,000
Mississippi: Golden Triangle............................         300,000
Nevada: Reno/Tahoe International........................       6,500,000
New York: Buffalo International.........................       1,700,000
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State...................       6,500,000
South Carolina:
    Hilton Head.........................................         558,000
    Florence Regional...................................          94,000
Tennessee:
    Nashville International.............................         555,000
    Memphis International...............................      18,733,000
Texas:
    New Austin at Bergstrom.............................      11,430,000
    Dallas/Fort Worth International.....................      12,500,000
    Midland.............................................       1,327,000
Virginia: Reagan Washington National....................      14,232,000
Washington: Seattle-Tacoma International................       4,400,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     173,486,000

    Under current law, 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 $173,486,000 that FAA has 
committed to LOI's during fiscal year 1999, the Committee 
estimates that approximately $131,300,000 will need to come 
from the AIP's discretionary limitation. As shown in the 
preceding AIP funding chart, the Committee recommended level 
would provide sufficient discretionary funding to cover LOI's.
    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.
    Salt Lake City International Airport, UT.--The Salt Lake 
City International Airport has been one of the fastest growing 
local origin and destination travel airports in the Nation. The 
airport has experienced significant growth for 17 consecutive 
years. SLCIA is the only primary commercial service airport in 
the region and will serve as the gateway for most Olympic 
visitors during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The Salt Lake 
City Airport Authority has planned airport terminal expansion 
and modernization projects to meet both short-term demand and 
future needs. The Committee urges the FAA to give full and 
immediate consideration to the SLCIA application for a letter 
of intent.
    Anchorage International Airport, AK.--The Anchorage 
International Airport is one of the fastest growing passenger 
and cargo airports in the country and provides a unique mix of 
international, rural, hub, military, and point-to-point 
aviation operations. The massive growth in enplanements and 
cargo tonnage has been accommodated with a minimum of 
infrastructure improvements. The Committee urges the FAA to 
give full and immediate consideration to the Anchorage 
International Airport application for a letter of intent.
    Orlando International Airport, FL.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to 
the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority's application for a 
letter of intent for construction of a north crossfield taxiway 
connecting the two west runways (18L/36R and 18R/36L) with the 
existing east runway. The Committee is informed that 
substantial safety and capacity benefits will accrue from the 
completion of this project.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 Program

    The principal missions of the Federal Highway 
Administration are: administration, in cooperation with the 
States, of the Federal-aid highway program; 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 governance of the safety in 
movement over the Nation's highways of dangerous cargoes such 
as explosives, flammables, and other hazardous materials.
    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $27,018,903,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 1999. The 
following table summarizes the fiscal year 1998 program levels, 
the fiscal year 1999 program request and the Committee's 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--                        
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee  
                             Program                               1998 program     1999 budget   recommendation
                                                                       level         estimate                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appalachian development highway system \1\......................        300,000   ..............        200,000 
Federal-aid highways \2\ \3\....................................     21,500,000      21,500,000      25,511,000 
    Limitation on administrative expenses \2\...................   \4\ (552,266)   \5\ (325,421)   \5\ (320,413)
        Office of Motor Carrier Administrative expenses \6\.....        (51,000)        (55,383)        (53,375)
Exempt Federal-aid obligations..................................      1,597,851       1,265,143       1,207,903 
Emergency relief supplemental...................................        259,000   ..............  ..............
State infrastructure banks......................................  ..............        150,000   ..............
Transportation Infrastructure credit enhancement................  ..............        100,000   ..............
Motor carrier safety............................................         84,825         100,000         100,000 
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     23,741,676      23,115,143      27,018,903 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The administration proposed $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and $290,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 in     
  contract authority for this program under Federal-aid highways as part of ISTEA reauthorization.              
\2\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66.                                   
\3\ Obligation limitation on contract authority.                                                                
\4\ Includes funding for research and technology programs.                                                      
\5\ Does not include research and technology programs funded with contract authority.                           
\6\ Included within limitation on administrative expenses.                                                      

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................    $552,266,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................     325,421,000
Committee recommendation \2\............................     320,413,000

\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 
105-66. Includes funding for research and technology programs.
\2\ Does not include funding for research and technology programs funded 
with contract authority.

    The limitation on administrative expenses controls spending 
for virtually all the salaries and expenses of the Federal 
Highway Administration. Under the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the limitation on 
general operating expenses included funding for research 
activities, including intelligent transportation systems. The 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century changed the 
funding source for the highway research accounts from the 
administrative takedown of the Federal-Aid Highway Program to 
individual contract authority provisions.
    The following table reflects the fiscal year 1998 level, 
the level requested by the administration, and the Committee's 
recommendation:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--                      
                             ----------------------------    Committee  
           Program                           1999 budget  recommendation
                               1998 level     estimate                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses                                                 
 (except OMC):                                                          
    Salaries and benefits...       180,065       184,130        184,130 
    Travel..................         9,473         9,973          9,973 
    Transportation..........           656           656            656 
    GSA rent................        17,480        17,922         17,922 
    Communications, rent,                                               
     and utilities..........         9,369         9,589          9,589 
    Printing................            89            89             89 
    TASC....................        20,336        25,028         25,028 
    Supplies................         2,079         2,079          2,079 
    Equipment...............         6,303         6,303          6,303 
    Other...................        13,708        14,269         14,269 
    Accountwide adjustment..  ............  ............         -3,000 
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............       259,558       270,038        267,038 
                             ===========================================
Motor carrier safety                                                    
 administrative expenses:                                               
    Salaries and benefits...        40,700        41,280         41,280 
    Travel..................         3,120         3,480          3,200 
    Transportation..........            55           110             60 
    Communications, rent,                                               
     and utilities..........           395           395            395 
    Printing................           415           558            558 
    Other services..........         5,203         7,478          5,800 
    Supplies................           275           275            275 
    Equipment...............           837         1,807          1,807 
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............        51,000        55,383         53,375 
                             ===========================================
      Total.................       310,558       325,421        320,413 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends a 
reduction of $3,000,000 in administrative expenses and provides 
FHWA the flexibility to allocate that reduction among such 
expenses as ADP, permanent change of station, travel, 
transportation, and nonmandatory bonuses and incentives. The 
Committee notes that FHWA requested roughly $12,000,000 in 
increases of nonsalary administrative expenses. The Committee 
has also included language to require the FHWA to transfer 
$3,000,000 to the Appalachian Regional Commission for the 
administrative costs associated with the Appalachian 
development highway system, as requested by the administration.
    Motor carrier operations.--The Committee recommends 
$53,375,000 for motor carrier operations. This is an increase 
of $2,375,000 over the enacted 1998 level, but $2,008,000 less 
than requested. At this level, salaries and benefits, printing, 
supplies, and equipment are fully funded. Travel, 
transportation, and other service programs were held to a lower 
rate of growth.

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998

                                                         $20,800,000,000

Budget estimate, 1999

                                                          23,000,000,000
Committee recommendation
                                                          24,000,000,000

    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 are 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 $24,000,000,000 for the Federal-aid highways program.

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998 \1\

                                                         $21,500,000,000

Budget estimate, 1999

                                                          21,500,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          25,511,000,000

\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 
105-66.

    The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of 
$25,511,000,000 for the Federal-aid highway program for fiscal 
year 1999.
    The following table shows the estimated amount each State 
will receive in Federal-aid highway funds for fiscal year 1999:

Federal-aid highway funds

        States                                                    Amount

Alabama.................................................    $437,353,306
Alaska..................................................     252,320,041
Arizona.................................................     344,931,488
Arkansas................................................     282,579,790
California..............................................   1,991,755,320
Colorado................................................     259,578,089
Connecticut.............................................     323,124,550
Delaware................................................      99,379,774
District of Columbia....................................      87,500,316
Florida.................................................   1,000,449,443
Georgia.................................................     754,962,181
Hawaii..................................................     111,163,793
Idaho...................................................     159,169,262
Illinois................................................     725,721,558
Indiana.................................................     506,152,008
Iowa....................................................     261,973,826
Kansas..................................................     255,167,363
Kentucky................................................     375,665,177
Louisiana...............................................     338,954,945
Maine...................................................     115,063,711
Maryland................................................     327,736,090
Massachusetts...........................................     403,582,854
Michigan................................................     675,089,120
Minnesota...............................................     319,764,565
Mississippi.............................................     263,410,883
Missouri................................................     507,923,396
Montana.................................................     220,718,067
Nebraska................................................     175,808,636
Nevada..................................................     158,367,488
New Hampshire...........................................     109,009,011
New Jersey..............................................     554,254,802
New Mexico..............................................     213,589,362
New York................................................   1,099,208,782
North Carolina..........................................     611,178,278
North Dakota............................................     147,048,006
Ohio....................................................     739,155,849
Oklahoma................................................     337,184,137
Oregon..................................................     259,884,779
Pennsylvania............................................   1,051,222,087
Rhode Island............................................     131,222,264
South Carolina..........................................     348,091,802
South Dakota............................................     155,040,095
Tennessee...............................................     489,038,856
Texas...................................................   1,569,977,644
Utah....................................................     168,272,822
Vermont.................................................     101,608,486
Virginia................................................     556,710,098
Washington..............................................     383,048,289
West Virginia...........................................     237,063,277
Wisconsin...............................................     428,463,250
Wyoming.................................................     155,569,193
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................  21,581,208,209
Special limitation:
    High priority projects..............................   1,271,395,575
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge...............................      68,175,000
    Allocation reserve..................................   2,590,221,216
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total limitation..................................  25,511,000,000

    Star landing highway/rail enhancement, Desoto County, MS.--
For the purpose of constructing an underpass to improve access 
and enhance highway/rail safety and economic development along 
Star Landing Road in Desoto County, MS, the State of 
Mississippi may use funds previously allocated to it under the 
transportation enhancements program, provided that the State 
would otherwise be unable to use the funds for transportation 
enhancement projects consistent with current law.

                   intelligent transportation systems

                      (limitation on obligations)

    The Committee recommends a total limitation of $200,000,000 
to be distributed as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget         Committee  
                                          estimate, 1999  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent transportation systems:                                     
    Research and development............          58,600          38,000
    Operational tests...................          28,100          17,000
    Evaluation..........................          12,400           7,000
    Architecture and standards..........          19,400          18,000
    Mainstreaming.......................          21,500           6,000
    Program support.....................          10,000           9,000
    ITS Deployment Incentives Program...         100,000         105,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, ITS........................         250,000         200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ITS deployment projects.--The Committee action provides a 
limitation of $105,000,000 for ITS deployment projects. The 
funds provided are for deployment projects in the areas listed 
below. The amounts associated with each area represent the 
minimum amount such area shall receive.

                                                               Committee
        ITS deployment projects                           recommendation

Atlanta, GA...................................................$4,000,000
Brandon, VT...................................................   750,000
Buffalo, NY................................................... 1,750,000
Columbus, OH.................................................. 2,000,000
Corpus Christi, TX............................................   900,000
Delaware River, PA............................................ 4,000,000
Huntington Beach, CA.......................................... 1,000,000
Jackson, MS................................................... 4,000,000
Kansas City, MO............................................... 1,000,000
Missouri rural ITS............................................ 1,000,000
Mobile, AL.................................................... 5,000,000
Monroe County, NY............................................. 1,000,000
Montgomery, AL................................................ 2,500,000
Nashville, TN................................................. 1,000,000
New York/Long Island, NY...................................... 5,000,000
Onondaga County, NY, rural ITS................................ 1,000,000
Raleigh-Wake County, NC....................................... 4,000,000
Riverside, CA................................................. 1,000,000
Spokane, WA...................................................   900,000
St. Louis, MO................................................. 1,500,000
State of Alaska............................................... 3,000,000
State of Idaho................................................ 1,000,000
State of Maryland............................................. 2,000,000
State of Michigan............................................. 2,000,000
State of Montana.............................................. 2,000,000
State of Nevada............................................... 1,150,000
State of New Jersey........................................... 6,000,000
State of New Mexico........................................... 2,000,000
State of North Dakota......................................... 1,450,000
State of Pennsylvania......................................... 4,000,000
State of Texas................................................ 2,000,000
State of Utah................................................. 7,200,000
State of Washington........................................... 3,000,000
State of Wisconsin............................................ 3,000,000
Westchester and Putnam Counties, NY........................... 1,000,000

    Intelligent vehicle initiative [IVI].--The Committee urges 
the Director of the Joint Program Office to ensure that the 
primary Federal role in the IVI is focused on expediting the 
innovation of integrated crash avoidance technologies for 
passenger vehicles. In view of the substantial human factors 
research, performance specification work, crash avoidance and 
information systems integration, and cost/benefit assessment 
work that remains to be completed, an IVI program focused on 
those critical safety issues is of foremost importance. Such 
activities as automation of transit vehicles, snow removal 
systems, and other highway maintenance vehicles and research on 
nonsafety components of the IVI shall receive a much lower 
priority than critical safety objectives.
    Evaluation.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for 
program evaluation studies and recognizes the importance of 
continuing to evaluate the benefits and costs of various ITS 
projects and tracking progress on those projects.
    Architecture and standards.--The Committee recommends 
$18,000,000, for architecture and standards work.
    Mainstreaming.--The Committee believes that the Department 
is spending too much of scarce ITS resources trying to convince 
planners, the engineering community, and others of the benefits 
of ITS. There is substantial literature documenting the 
benefits of using ITS; numerous training courses and programs 
are well underway; and the ITS concept is beginning to be 
mainstreamed in the transportation community. Consequently, the 
Committee's allowance deletes funds for grass roots involvement 
(-$535,000), eliminates funds for cooperation with transit 
companies (-$350,000), and reduces funds for commercial vehicle 
operations mainstreaming to no more than $500,000. The 
Committee also reduces funds for planning/policy mainstreaming 
activities to less than $1,000,000 and denies funds to 
establish the role of ITS in supporting FHWA/FTA mobility 
goals. The Committee also denies funds for ITS awareness and 
advocacy (-$2,000,000). Publication funds should be included as 
an integral part of related activities. Remaining mainstreaming 
funds shall be used to provide technical assistance on the 
planning, procurement, and implementation of integrated ITS 
technologies, offer guidance on the use of the national 
architecture, and supplement critical training not available 
from the private sector or universities.

                Transportation Research and Development

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

    The Committee recommends a total limitation of $178,150,000 
on research and development activities. These funds shall be 
distributed as follows:

Surface transportation research:
    Highway research and development....................     $65,000,000
    Technology assessment and deployment................      14,000,000
    Research and technology technical support...........       7,500,000
    Long-term pavement performance......................      10,000,000
    International outreach..............................         500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      97,000,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Technology deployment program...........................      35,000,000
Training and education..................................      15,000,000
University transportation research......................      31,150,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     178,150,000

    National advanced driving simulator [NADS].--Within the 
funds available for research and development, the Committee 
directs that $9,000,000 be for the NADS. NADS is a key element 
of crash avoidance research and will serve as a helpful tool 
for evaluating various ITS and other collision avoidance 
products. This new driving simulator will enhance the agency's 
capability to safely conduct research into complex driver-
vehicle interactions that contribute directly to the cause of 
more than three-quarters of all vehicle crashes. The NADS will 
be installed in a dedicated building being constructed at the 
University of Iowa's Oakdale Research Park.
    Alabama Transportation Research Institute.--The Committee 
is aware of the current and planned research activities being 
conducted at the University of Alabama's Transportation 
Research Institute [ATRI] in Tuscaloosa, AL. In particular, 
these activities include research into advanced vehicle 
technologies, intelligent transportation systems, and computer-
based highway safety data systems. The ATRI is to be commended 
for the foresight evidenced by the research in these specific 
areas, and in the applications of new technology to ATRI's work 
and the integration of Internet access. Further, the Committee 
applauds the aggressive and ambitious plans the university and 
the ATRI have for expanding the research and facilities 
dedicated to this initiatives, and directs the Secretary to 
utilize the strengths of the Alabama Transportation Research 
Institute as the Department carries out transportation research 
and development activities, including intelligent 
transportation system research.

                    Highway Research and Development

    The Committee recommends the following allocation of 
highway research and development contract program funds:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       1999     
                                                                   1998 program    1999 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety..........................................................           9,500          11,202          12,835
Pavements.......................................................          10,500          11,150          15,000
Structures......................................................          15,256          15,256          17,000
Environment.....................................................           5,666           6,352           5,000
Real estate services............................................             365             365             365
Policy..........................................................           5,400           6,362           4,400
Planning........................................................           7,000           9,369           4,000
Motor carrier...................................................           7,400           8,652           6,400
Highway operations..............................................  ..............           2,000  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          61,087          70,708          65,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the appropriate research areas, FHWA is directed to 
fund each of the research activities or programs specified in 
various sections of TEA21.
    Within the funds available for transportation research and 
development, the Committee directs that $500,000 be made 
available pursuant to section 5118 of TEA21 for infrastructure 
research conducted by the Drexel University Intelligent 
Infrastructure Institute.
    Safety.--The Committee recommends $12,835,000 for safety 
research and development activities. The Committee supports 
research and demonstration activities to advance technology 
combining the use of UV lights and flourescent materials to 
improve night time visibility, to help identify lane markings 
and pedestrians at night. Because of the substantial benefits 
that might be realized as a result of that technology, FHWA 
should accelerate that initiative as expeditiously as possible.
    Work zone safety.--More than 700 people are killed and 
5,000 injured each year in accidents that occur in road 
construction sites across the Nation. That figure is 
anticipated to rise as an ever-increasing amount of road work 
is done under traffic and at night. Driver awareness of 
potential work zone hazards is an important element of 
increasing safety in this area. Of the funds provided in the 
safety research account, the Committee directs that $1,000,000 
be used to educate new drivers on the special challenges and 
potential dangers of road construction work zones by developing 
and distributing a multimedia driver training program module on 
this subject. The Committee encourages the FHWA to work with a 
national nonprofit transportation development foundation to 
carry out this project.
    Pavements.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for 
pavements research. The Committee is encouraged by the 
potential benefits for highway construction--including lower 
construction and maintenance costs, higher riding quality, and 
a longer life-cycle of new and reconstructed highways--
resulting from the use of geosynthetic materials. Therefore, 
the Committee has included $1,000,000 for geosynthetic material 
research at the Western Transportation Institute at Montana 
State University.
    The Committee also directs FHWA to conduct further research 
into polymer additives for pavements. The Committee is aware 
that recent performance measurements have shown in various 
limited applications to increase the expected life of asphalt 
pavement. Therefore, the Committee has included $3,000,000 to 
conduct extensive research into this area. Of this amount, 
$1,000,000 shall be for the development and deployment of a 
second generation FRP composite bridge deck system at the 
University of West Virginia. Further, the Committee encourages 
the FHWA to work with an academic and industry-led national 
consortium and fund with available balances, an additional 
polymer additive project to demonstrate the use of polymer 
additives in pavement for civil infrastructure purposes.
    The Committee is aware of the Federal Highway 
Administration's pavement design analysis work that utilizes 
the fundamental properties of the various pavement materials, 
analytical packing algorithms and granular mechanics, coupled 
with state-of-the-art imaging techniques and computational 
modeling and builds on the work performed at the University of 
Mississippi. The Committee directs the FHWA to continue to 
cooperate and work with the researchers there to develop 
concepts and technologies that will lead to better constructed 
and longer lasting high quality pavements.
    The Committee recognizes the potential for the use of 
silica fume to decrease the national waste material stream and 
increase the durability and quality of concrete structures and 
pavement. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that 
$1,000,000 be used to evaluate and promote the benefits of 
using silica fume high performance concrete, and that the 
Administrator of the FHWA report on its findings to the 
Committee no later than September 30, 2001. The Committee 
directs the Administrator to work with a representative 
national organization of the silica fume industry to carry out 
this project.
    Structures.--The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for 
structures research. The Committee believes that a unique 
opportunity to conduct research exists during the Interstate 15 
reconstruction project and other transportation projects in the 
Salt Lake Valley, UT. The research performed during the 
reconstruction of I-15 and other projects will provide the 
country with a detailed analysis of the load capacities of 
deteriorated bridge structures, seismic retrofitting, new 
nondestructive evaluation techniques, and many other valuable 
areas of research. The Committee has included an additional 
$2,000,000 for this research and because of the urgency of this 
research, directs the FHWA to make these funds available to the 
Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transportation 
Center in a timely manner to ensure the execution of this 
research.
    The Committee is aware of the University of Missouri-
Rolla's leading role in exploring the use of advanced 
composites for repair and rehabilitation of buildings and civil 
infrastructure and of the university's current work in the 
field of advanced composites with a number of private 
organizations in the State of Missouri, the National Science 
Foundation, and the Missouri Department of Transportation. The 
Committee has included $1,000,000 for research at the 
University of Missouri-Rolla to explore new technologies in 
advanced composite materials that will help prolong the 
functional lifespan of bridges and reduce retrofit maintenance 
costs in the long term.
    The Committee recognizes that wood composite products have 
demonstrated tremendous potential as an alternative method of 
providing low-cost, extremely durable, and environmentally 
sensitive material for building and repairing bridges across 
the country. The Committee has, therefore, included $1,000,000 
for wood composite research and $1,000,000 for the Innovative 
Bridge Research and Construction Program at the University of 
Maine's Wood Composite Center.
    Currently, bridges over 20 feet must be inspected once 
every 2 years. This inspection usually consists of a visual 
check. Although this type of monitoring can detect several 
structural problems, it cannot detect deterioration or distress 
that occurs beneath the asphalt. The Committee has included 
$2,000,000 for the evaluation of new technologies for 
nondestructive evaluation of bridges and encourages the 
department to work with recognized industry leaders to carry 
out this evaluation.
    The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 conference 
report included funding for research into high performance 
materials and bridge systems which could be applied to improve 
safety, function, durability, and renewability with minimal 
cost and environmental impact. The Committee directs the 
Administrator to work with Lehigh University, Pennsylvania on 
this research.
    Environment.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for 
environmental research. Within that amount, $50,000 is provided 
to conduct a study to determine noise levels in Rattlesnake 
Valley near Missoula, MT, and $100,000 is included to conduct a 
regional air quality study for the San Joaquin Valley in 
California.
    Policy.--The Committee recommends $4,400,000 for policy 
research. The Committee is not convinced of the need to update 
the national personal transportation survey continuously and 
FHWA should plan on completing the next edition of that study 
as soon as practicable. FHWA should develop a work plan being 
certain to limit the scope and size of the NPTS to essential 
questions of importance to both the States and the Federal 
Government users.
    Fuel tagging.--The Committee is aware that fuel dyeing 
technology may be insufficient to protect against illegal 
avoidance of Federal fuel taxes. In addition, the Committee is 
concerned that fuel dye may inadvertently contaminate other 
fuels, such as jet fuels, during the refining process and in 
transport. The Committee, therefore, directs the Administrator 
of the Federal Highway Administration to report to the House 
and Senate Appropriations Committees, no later than March 31, 
1999, on the viability of existing alternative technology 
developed through research conducted at the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. Further, the report should include an examination 
of other possible uses of molecular tagging, for example, as a 
deterrent against theft and as a method for determining surface 
and underground pollution.
    Planning.--The Committee's allowance includes $4,000,000 
for planning research. The Committee is aware that $2,000,000 
designated in its fiscal year 1998 report for an assessment of 
the transportation infrastructure of the Northern Great Plains 
States has not yet been administered by the FHWA. The Committee 
restates its support for such an assessment and urges the FHWA 
to act expeditiously toward its initiation. The Committee also 
directs the FHWA to provide a report to the Committee on the 
status of the assessment by October 15, 1998.
    Motor carrier.--The Committee recommends $6,400,000 for the 
motor carrier research program. The FHWA budget office is 
directed to improve the presentation of the budget 
justification pertaining to this area. Future budget requests 
should clearly articulate the specific projects that will be 
funded and the exact amounts that are requested for each of 
those projects. In addition, baseline funding amounts for both 
terminating and continuing projects should be specified.
    The Committee is concerned about several features of the 
current motor carrier research program. There is a 
proliferation of at least 100 diffuse research projects that 
are now being managed by numerous staff. The Office of Motor 
Carriers should focus the motor carrier research program on 
those areas that are most likely to make the greatest 
contribution to its strategic goals and performance measures. 
The Committee directs FHWA to request the Research and 
Technology Coordinating Committee of the National Academy of 
Sciences [NAS] to review the scope and direction of the OMC 
research program, its organizational framework, diversity of 
projects, and allocation of funds. The Administrator of the OMC 
should report back to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than May 1, 1999, on the 
administration's response to the NAS recommendations.
    Within the funds provided, the Committee directs the OMC to 
prepare a report to the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees--no later than September 1, 1998--documenting the 
potential safety advantages of a Federal rule to require a 
uniform national display policy for inspection stickers on 
commercial motor vehicles.

                     TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM

    Center for Advanced System Technology.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for the Center for Advanced Simulation 
Technology, Long Island, NY, of which not less than $500,000 
shall be made available to Auburn University for a 
transportation management program. These funds will be used to 
develop outreach initiatives involving technology transfer, 
technical assistance and training related to transportation 
management, traffic control, and simulation and human factors.

       CONSTRUCTION OF FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES

                      (limitation on obligations)

    The Committee has provided a limitation on obligations of 
$38,000,000 for the new construction of ferry boat and ferry 
terminal facility program. The Committee notes that the 
authorization of this program reserves $20,000,000 of the total 
amount for projects within the marine highway system. Within 
the $18,000,000 not reserved for this purpose, $4,000,000 shall 
be provided to the North Carolina State ferry system, which is 
an essential component of the State of North Carolina's 
hurricane evacuation program. In addition, $3,000,000 shall be 
provided to the State of Hawaii to initiate a high-speed ferry 
boat demonstration program on the Island of Oahu and neighbor 
islands. In addition, $1,000,000 is provided for the 
restoration of S.S. dboUdnm/NobskadboUdnm/ and New Bedford, MA, 
ferry service.

                   Magnetic Levitation Transportation

                     TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM

                      (Limitation on obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................................
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................   ($15,000,000)

    Pursuant to section 1218 of the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century, $15,000,000 in highway trust funds are 
made available for obligation in the same manner as if the 
funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, U.S.C. 
Therefore, these funds are within the highway funding firewall 
established in TEA21 under the Federal-aid highways program 
obligation ceiling. Within the funds made available under this 
heading, $6,000,000 is directed to be provided to the State of 
Pennsylvania for a high-speed intercity magnetic levitation 
project between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, that will 
incorporate an Americanized version of the German Thyssen 
Transrapid System magnetic levitation train technology. The 
guideway for the system will be heavy steel plate, presenting 
the opportunity for market growth in the U.S. precision 
fabrication industry. The system will be developed for American 
operational conditions, using American manufacturing methods 
and materials. The funds provided in this appropriation will 
support the design and development of: intermodal 
transportation facilities on the system's right-of-way; right-
of-way alignment finalization; a draft environmental impact 
statement; and magnetic levitation industry standards for 
communications, control, and power systems. This program will 
be administered by the Federal Railroad Administration.

                 Appalachian Development Highway System

    The Committee has provided $200,000,000 for construction of 
unfinished segments of the Appalachian development highway 
system [ADHS]. The ADHS connects largely rural, underdeveloped 
areas in 13 States. Its completion is critical to the economic 
development of these often-ignored areas. In many cases, the 
unfinished segments of the ADHS are high-accident locations in 
the Appalachian States, so the Committee believes continued 
construction will have a high payoff in highway safety 
benefits.
    The Committee is aware that the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century provided $450,000,000 per year in contract 
authority over the next 5 years. However, the Federal share of 
the current cost to complete the Appalachian development 
highway system is $5,800,000,000. Given the funding schedule in 
the TEA 21 legislation, and without inflationary increases, it 
would take at least another 13 years to complete the system, 
putting the completion date at 46 years from its inception in 
1965. Given the hazardous conditions of many of the roads on 
and around the unfinished segments of the ADHS, and the 
commitment of the Congress to the people of Appalachia, this 
delay is unacceptable. The funds provided in this legislation 
should be viewed as an effort to expedite the completion of the 
system in a reasonable fashion, and not as a substitute for any 
funds which may be provided in any other legislation.

                     FEDERAL LANDS highways program

    The Committee is very concerned with the degree to which 
funding awards are made on a partisan basis in the Public Lands 
Program. The General Accounting Office has noted in a draft 
report that the administration has awarded more projects and 
total funding to projects in Democratic districts, even though 
States requested more funds for projects in Republican 
districts. The Committee directs FHWA to move toward a merit-
based approach in funding public lands projects, and to develop 
specific criteria for the funding of projects under this 
program. The Secretary shall report to both the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees no later than December 1, 
1998, with a detailed proposal to address this problem.
    The Committee urges the Federal Highway Administration to 
authorize the Montana Department of Transportation to begin 
construction of a pending four-lane improvement plan of Highway 
93 within the Flathead Indian Reservation in northwest Montana. 
The road is a direct and vital link to support commerce and 
personal travel for both Indian and non-Indian residents on and 
off the reservation. The Committee urges the FHWA to reconsider 
a FHWA record of decision requiring resolution at the State and 
local level and pursuant to the Treaty of Hellgate (July 16, 
1855) and the Upper Missouri Treaty (October 17, 1855) signed 
by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and to use the 
authority of the Federal Government pursuant to these treaties 
to acquire all right-of-way necessary to construct the four 
lane design. Local, State, tribal, and Federal officials have 
been negotiating this issue for over 5 years with little 
resolution and progress. Highway 93 is a direct route from 
Missoula, MT, providing access to northwest Montana, one of the 
State's fastest growing regions. The current two-lane 
configuration of Highway 93 is subject to hazardous traffic 
scenarios and has resulted in increased accidents and 
fatalities due to traffic growth patterns of up to 3 percent 
annually with that number forecasted to increase.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to make $3,000,000 
available under this program for a design study for the 
construction upgrade to a paved public road standard for 50.4 
miles of roadway in southeastern Montana known as Highway 323, 
located between the communities of Alzada, MT, and Ekalaka, MT. 
This important project would improve upgrades on lands held in 
ownership by the Bureau of Land Management (13.71 miles), the 
Federal Government, and private landowners. The Committee is 
aware that Highway 323 is a main roadway from southeastern 
Montana to the north and that all major trade is completed in 
the community located directly to the north of the southern 
terminus of this highway. This road provides access to the 
Bureau of Land Management areas and would provide vital fire 
safety access. In addition, this roadway provides access to the 
areas of national interest, including Devil's Tower National 
Monument and Medicine Rocks State Park, both native American 
heritage sites. The State of Montana has agreed to match 20 
percent of the cost of construction of the roadway.
    The Committee also directs the Secretary to make available 
under this heading $3,900,000 for improvements to roadways on 
Federal lands on the Kenai Peninsula, AK; $4,000,000 for 
construction and improvements to the Bear River Migratory Bird 
Refuge access road and Soldier Hollow, which is an integral 
access road for the 2002 Olympics; $200,000 for snow removal 
activities on Beartooth Highway in Montana; $4,000,000 to 
continue work on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway; $1,000,000 
for restoration and preservation of the historic Columbia River 
Highway in Oregon; $5,000,000 for Federal lands highways 
improvements associated with Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge 
in Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks in Hawaii; and 
$1,200,000 for repair work to three access roads to the Katmai 
National Park in Alaska--Lake Camp Road, Valley Road, and Bear 
Pond Terrace Road, in the Brooks River area.

                  BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

                      (limitation on obligations)

Appropriations, 1998....................................   ($25,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...................................    (31,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (31,000,000)

    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. For fiscal year 
1999, the Committee recommends a funding level of $31,000,000.
    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.
    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. 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.
    Railroad rationalization and diversion analysis.--The 
Committee directs that of the funds provided, $375,000 be for a 
railroad rationalization and diversion analysis. The Committee 
notes that railline abandonments and diversion of traffic from 
railroads to trucks are having a significant impact on rural 
grain-producing regions. Major grain producing States in the 
Midwest have experienced significant reductions in railroad 
service from 1965 to 1995. This research project would develop 
nationwide capabilities to analyze the impacts of grain-traffic 
diversion from railroads to highways, and provide important 
planning information for State and local governments. In 
addition, the recent shortages of rail cars for grain 
transportation have created diversion of grain shipments from 
rail trucks. The main objectives of this project should be to: 
(1) document the extent of railroad traffic diversion and its 
likely consequences on highway budgets; (2) forecast the scope 
of potential future traffic diversions as a result of changes 
in railroad rate structures, shortages of grain cars or poor 
management of rail car spotting, and additional line 
abandonments; (3) estimate the likely impacts of future traffic 
diversions on State and local highway needs; and (4) formulate 
potential asset management strategies and policy alternatives. 
The Committee encourages the Bureau to work with North Dakota 
State University to carry out this project.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $85,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

    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 $100,000,000.

                      (limitation on obligations)

Appropriations, 1998....................................   ($84,825,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   (100,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (100,000,000)

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$100,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants.
     The Committee recommends the following allocation of motor 
carrier safety funds:

Basic motor carrier safety grants.......................     $84,500,000
Performance-based incentive grant program...............................
Border assistance.......................................       2,000,000
Priority initiatives....................................       2,500,000
State training and administration.......................       1,000,000
Information systems and strategic planning..............      10,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     100,000,000

    Basic motor carrier safety grants.--The Committee has 
provided $84,500,000 for basic motor carrier safety grants, an 
increase of $11,000,000 over the fiscal year 1998 level.
    Safety performance incentive grant program.--The Committee 
has not provided any of the funds requested for performance 
grants, partly because FHWA has not yet implemented applicable 
congressional guidance. In designing an incentive program, OMC 
should ensure that the allocation formula does not result in a 
decline from a prior year in the amount of basic funds received 
by any State.
    Information systems and analysis.--The Committee has 
provided $10,000,000, which is $2,000,000 more than the amount 
provided last year. Of that amount, $3,000,000 will be provided 
to the States to improve information systems and computer and 
evaluation capabilities. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 
for driver safety activities to continue to improve the CDL 
programs or judicial outreach of the various States.
    The Committee allowance includes $5,000,000 for the PRISM 
project to increase the number of States participating in this 
program.
      

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 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.
    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. Alcohol incentive grants 
are allocated to the States for alcohol-impaired driver safety 
programs. The occupant protection incentive grants reward 
States that implement strong laws and programs to increase 
safety belt and child safety seat use and those that show 
exceptional performance in raising safety belt use rates. The 
State highway safety data grants encourage the States to take 
effective actions to improve the timeliness, accuracy, 
uniformity, and accessibility of their highway safety data.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year                                    
                           Program                               1998 enacted     Fiscal year       Committee   
                                                                     \1\         1999 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research......................................    $146,962,000     $172,902,000   \2\ $161,400,00
                                                                                                              0 
    Highway trust fund.......................................     (74,901,000)  ...............     (89,400,000)
    Highway trust funds (firewall)...........................     (72,061,000)    (172,902,000)     (72,000,000)
Highway traffic safety grants (firewall) \3\.................  \2\ 186,500,000     233,000,000      200,000,000 
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................     333,462,000      405,902,000      361,400,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66.                                  
\2\ Includes funding for National Driver Register.                                                              
\3\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  

                        Operations and Research

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

    The Congress has recently passed--and the President has 
signed into law--the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century. For fiscal year 1999, this legislation provided 
$72,000,000 of contract authority from the highway trust fund 
to finance NHTSA's operations and research activities under 
title 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included within the 
firewall guarantee for highway spending, and is not subject to 
appropriations. The bill includes an authorization subject to 
appropriations of $89,400,000 for operations and research 
activities under sections 30104 and 32102 of title 49 U.S.C. 
and chapter 303 of title 49 U.S.C. for fiscal year 1999. Thus, 
the total authorized level for fiscal year 1999 for NHTSA 
operations and research activities is $161,400,000, and the 
Committee recommends that this full amount be appropriated and 
be distributed as follows:

                                                               Committee
        Program                                           recommendation

Safety performance......................................     $14,695,000
Safety assurance........................................      21,491,000
Highway safety..........................................      56,041,000
Research and analysis...................................      60,147,000
National driver register................................       2,000,000
Office of the Administrator.............................       4,100,000
General administration..................................       9,250,000
Grant administration reimbursement......................      -6,324,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     161,400,000

    Agencywide FTE levels.--Due to budgetary constraints, the 
Committee denies the request to increase the number of FTE's 
from 621 to 631. Consequently, the Committee's allowance does 
not include the $780,000 requested for that purpose.

                      safety performance standards

    Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The Committee has 
included a prohibition that has been included in previous 
appropriations acts, 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.
    Side impact standard harmonization.--In the conference 
report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 bill, the conferees 
noted that there are substantial differences between the U.S. 
side impact standard and a similar European requirement. The 
report notes that ``these differences are inconsistent with the 
need for the international harmonization of motor vehicle 
safety standards'', and directed that a report be provided on 
NHTSA's plan for achieving harmonization of the side impact 
rule. The Committee is concerned that NHTSA is not moving 
forward more aggressively on this matter, particularly since a 
harmonized standard could result in a safety improvement for 
U.S. motorists. Therefore, the Committee directs NHTSA to use 
funds made available in the vehicle safety performance standard 
program budget for development of a harmonized side impact 
standard so long as the Administrator is convinced that such a 
harmonization effort will improve the safety of U.S. motorists. 
The Committee directs NHTSA to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by December 15, 1998, on progress 
in addressing this issue.

                            safety assurance

    Safety defects investigation.--A portion of the funds 
provided will be used to examine whether there are significant 
defect problems in heavy, transit, and emergency response 
vehicles that require the agency's continued attention. NHTSA 
should be prepared to document next year the continued need for 
the additional dollars provided herein for the monitoring and 
investigating of defects of small population vehicles.

                        highway safety programs

    Alcohol Program.--The Committee asserts that State and 
local governments would benefit greatly if NHTSA provided 
additional guidance and evaluations on the new grant criteria 
authorized in the revised alcohol countermeasures traffic 
safety incentive grant. Information on best practices, 
implementation guidelines, and countermeasure effectiveness 
would be particularly beneficial. More specifically, there is a 
need to ensure that the effectiveness and impacts of 0.08 BAC 
laws in numerous States are well understood. Special attention 
needs to be paid to information and analysis that will help 
State legislatures decide on whether to adapt such a standard. 
Additional studies on the impacts of the 0.08 BAC laws on the 
judicial and law enforcement community would be especially 
beneficial. Also, there is a need for additional implementation 
guidelines and studies on the effectiveness of countermeasure 
programs targeted at the 21- to 34-year-old drivers impaired 
with alcohol and to help States assess whether they wish to 
impose increased penalties for those convicted of driving while 
under the influence of higher BAC levels.
    Youth, drugs, and driving initiative.--For the same reasons 
detailed last year, the Committee deletes funds for the 
prelicensure drug testing pilot project.
    Emergency medical services.--Head injury is a serious 
public health problem in the United States, with over 2 million 
injuries occurring each year and over 500,000 leading to 
hospitalization, the majority of which are caused by motor 
vehicle accidents. NHTSA began a collaborative project in 1998 
to significantly decrease mortality and morbidity due to severe 
head injury, and to reduce the substantial economic costs to 
society in caring for head-injured patients. The first phase of 
this project covered the development of a voluntary national 
standards curriculum for emergency medical service providers on 
the prehospital treatment of severe head injury. The Committee 
directs that of the funds made available for emergency medical 
services, $250,000 be used to complete the second phase of this 
project to field test the dissemination and implementation of 
these head injury prehospital protocols. The Committee 
encourages NHTSA to continue to work with the Aitken 
Neuroscience Center to carry out this program. The Committee 
has also included $1,000,000 for a head injury prevention 
project at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The initial 
focus of this effort will be on the prehospital aspect of 
trauma research involving the causative factors of the injury. 
Roadway design, environmental factors, and automotive safety 
all contribute to the potential for head injury. Funds will be 
used to develop a sophisticated computer center for maintenance 
of a detailed data base which would integrate both the 
engineering design factors with patient care outcomes.
    Older driver research.--The Committee has included 
$1,000,000 for the Pennsylvania State University consortium for 
the demonstration of technologies and practices to improve the 
driving performance of older drivers and other special groups.
    Red light running initiative.--The Committee continues to 
be concerned with the high number of motorists who disregard 
traffic signals. Failure to obey traffic signals is one of the 
leading causes of urban crashes, which claim the lives of many 
Americans every year. The Committee notes that Secretary Pena 
reported that accidents resulting from failure to obey traffic 
signals cost Americans about $7,000,000,000 in medical bills, 
time off work, insurance premium increases, and property 
damage. The problem of red light running in Jefferson Parish, 
LA, is exacerbated by the interstate nature of traffic 
patterns. To combat this problem, the Jefferson Parish 
Sheriff's Office has initiated an innovative program to combat 
red light running. This program has the potential to serve as a 
national model, and the Committee has included $100,000 for the 
development, deployment, and evaluation of this program in 
Jefferson Parish.

                         research and analysis

    Biomechanics.--Funding is continued 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.
    Child crash test dummy.--The Committee recognizes that 
during fiscal year 1998, a program to develop a new child test 
dummy was launched by a consortium of Pennsylvania universities 
and a private crashworthiness firm. This project will compare 
the injuries suffered by children in automobile accidents with 
crash dummy tests to assess the level of injury prediction of 
the current dummies. This project will improve the current 
state of research on injuries suffered by children in 
automobile accidents, and the Committee encourages NHTSA to 
work with this consortium to improve child safety.
    Spray suppression research.--The Committee acknowledges the 
work previously undertaken by NHTSA in the area of spray 
suppression research and evaluation of abatement technologies 
and continues to support further research by NHTSA in this area 
to make travel on the Nation's highways safer and less 
stressful. The Committee is aware of the progress made in the 
European Union in designing beneficial performance standards 
and implementing roadway spray suppression regulations to 
improve highway visibility. The Committee directs NHTSA to 
update its research by conducting a comprehensive review and 
evaluation of spray suppression measures that can be employed 
on heavy duty vehicles (over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight 
rating) to provide clearer highway visibility and safety during 
periods of adverse weather conditions. NHTSA shall publish and 
report its findings to Congress within 12 months of enactment.

                        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. 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 $2,000,000 for the NDR.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................  ($186,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   (197,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (200,000,000)

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
authorized the following State grant programs: Highway Safety 
Program, the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive 
Grant Program, the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program, 
and the State Highway Safety Data Grant Program. Under the 
Highway Safety Program, grant allocations are determined on the 
basis of a statutory formula established under 20 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. The Alcohol-Impaired Driving 
Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program encourages States to 
enact stiffer laws and implement stronger programs to detect 
and remove impaired drivers from the roads. The occupant 
protection program encourages States to promote and strengthen 
occupant protection initiatives. The State Highway Safety Data 
Grants Program encourages States to improve their collection 
and dissemination of important highway safety data.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation 
of contract authorization of $200,000,000 for the payment of 
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant 
programs.
    The Committee has included a 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. Separate obligation limitations are included in the 
bill with the following funding allocations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee   
                                                                 1998 enacted    1999 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs......................................     $149,700,000     $166,700,000     $150,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants..............       34,500,000       39,000,000       35,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants.........................  ...............       20,000,000       10,000,000
Drugged driving incentive grants.............................  ...............        5,000,000  ...............
State highway safety data grants.............................  ...............  ...............        5,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................      184,200,000      230,700,000      200,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 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 
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad 
Administration.
    The Committee recommends new appropriations and obligation 
limitations totaling $707,150,000 for the activities of the 
Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 1999. This is 
$44,209,000 less than the budget request. In addition to these 
appropriated Federal funds, $1,091,810,000 will be paid to 
Amtrak in fiscal year 1999 by the Secretary of the Treasury 
pursuant to section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--                            
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee   
                          Program                                                1999 budget     recommendation 
                                                            1998 enacted \1\      estimate                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator...............................      $20,290,000       $21,573,000       $21,020,000 
Railroad safety...........................................       57,067,000        61,959,000        61,876,000 
Railroad research and development.........................       20,758,000        20,757,000        25,760,000 
Nationwide differential global positioning sys-  tem......  ................        3,000,000   ................
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program....................      250,000,000            ( \2\ )  ................
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program.  ................  ................  ................
Next generation high-speed rail...........................       20,395,000        12,594,000        28,494,000 
Alaska railroad rehabilitation............................       10,000,000   ................       10,000,000 
Rhode Island rail development.............................       10,000,000        10,000,000         5,000,000 
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corpora-  tion                                                            
 (appropriations) \3\.....................................      344,000,000       621,476,000       555,000,000 
    Taxpayer Relief Act...................................   (1,091,810,000)   (1,091,810,000)   (1,091,810,000)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Amtrak and NECIP..........................    1,685,810,000     1,713,286,000     1,646,810,000 
                                                           =====================================================
      Total budgetary resources...........................    1,824,320,000   \4\ 1,843,169,00                  
                                                                                            0   \4\ 1,798,960,00
                                                                                                              0 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66; also excludes reduction to Alaska 
  railroad rehabilitation pursuant to Presidential line item veto.                                              
\2\ Included in Amtrak request.                                                                                 
\3\ Administration requests fiscal year 1999 appropriation from highway trust fund.                             
\4\ Includes Taxpayer Relief Act funds.                                                                         

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $20,290,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      21,573,000
Committee recommendation................................      21,020,000

\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 
105-66.

    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.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:

Travel........................................................  -$52,000
Equipment.....................................................  -101,000
Electronic grant program......................................  -200,000

Decrease amount estimated for vendor increases/inflation

                                                                -200,000

    The recommendation for the Office of the Administrator is 
$21,020,000, which is $553,000 less than the amount requested 
in the administration's budget. The Committee is holding travel 
and equipment expenses to the fiscal year 1998 level, and 
directs that funds for the electronic grant program be obtained 
within the agency's base program funding.

                            Railroad Safety

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $57,067,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      61,959,000
Committee recommendation................................      61,876,000

    This appropriation finances the development, 
administration, and enforcement of programs designed to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry.
    The Committee recommends a $61,876,000 program level for 
the Railroad Safety Program, $83,000 less than the amount 
requested by the administration.
    The Committee has provided funding for the three railroad 
safety activities at the following levels:

Federal enforcement.....................................     $45,826,000
Automated track inspection program......................       2,500,000
Safety regulation and program administration............      13,550,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total, Office of Railroad Safety..................      61,876,000

    Federal enforcement staffing increases.--The FRA has 
requested a staffing increase of 32 FTE's in fiscal year 1999, 
for a total of $1,691,000 in associated personnel costs. The 
Committee recommendation provides funding for 16 of these 
requested positions: 8 principal inspectors positions, who will 
be assigned to each of FRA's regional offices to assist in the 
agency's Safety Assurance and Compliance Program [SACP]; and 8 
field inspectors, who will be distributed throughout selected 
regional offices to perform site-specific inspections 
(particularly of small railroads), and to participate in agency 
rulemaking working groups. Overall, the workload of FRA's 
inspector resources has been increased by railroad mergers, 
where as large railroads consolidate, numerous small feeder 
railroads are being independently formed. The SACP process has 
also increased inspector responsibilities. However, the 
Committee notes that during the last 10 years there has been a 
substantial increase in the number of FRA staff employed by the 
Office of Railroad Safety, and in view of the significant 
improvements in railroad safety during that same period, the 
Committee maintains that an increase of 32 positions over 2 
years is inappropriate.
    Operation Lifesaver.--The Committee recommends $600,000 for 
Operation Lifesaver to help fund the organization's State 
assistance grants, educational programs, and 5-year public 
awareness and education campaign. This level is $300,000 above 
that requested by the administration. The Federal Highway 
Administration provides annual funding from the Surface 
Transportation Program safety set-aside to cover Operation 
Lifesaver salaries and benefits and overhead costs ($300,000 a 
year under ISTEA; $500,000 a year is authorized in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21]). All 
the appropriated funds in this account are program funds, 
supporting Operation Lifesaver's 49 active State programs and 
national safety initiatives.
    In the fiscal year 1998 Senate Report 105-55, the Committee 
encouraged FRA to increase the percentage of safety inspectors 
who are certified to be Operation Lifesaver presenters from 60 
to 80 percent. FRA's response was immediate and robust. 
However, it has come to the Committee's attention that some FRA 
inspectors are not comfortable with, or particularly effective 
at, public speaking. Therefore, the Committee is broadening the 
interpretation of this goal to include certification as 
Operation Lifesaver associates within the goal of 80 percent 
FRA inspector participation.
    Operation Respond.--Operation Respond is a public/private 
partnership that provides critical information to first 
responders at hazardous cargo and passenger train incidents. 
Subscribers to Operation Respond's software package can access 
rail and motor carriers' mainframe data bases for access by the 
emergency response community, so a firefighter or police 
officer can obtain, via computer modem, a list of the cargo 
contents and guidelines on how to safely manage a Hazmat spill 
or passenger train accident. Federal support for Operation 
Respond is included in the safety regulation and program 
administration base.
    Grade crossing safety.--In addition to the increased 
Operation Lifesaver funding level, the Committee recommends an 
additional $450,000 for FRA's public education, training, and 
enforcement liaison activities associated with grade crossing 
and trespasser challenges above the requested funding of 
$757,000. The Committee has been informed that FRA was required 
to conduct an unanticipated environmental impact statement 
[EIS] for the agency's forthcoming regulation pertaining to 
whistle bans. The funds to conduct the study were derived from 
the core grade crossing program--$220,000 of the additional 
$275,000 provided by the conferees in fiscal year 1998 for 
enhanced grade crossing safety initiatives. Though whistle ban 
work is one of the six eligible activities listed in the 
statement of managers, the Committee believes that additional 
funds are needed in fiscal year 1999 to strengthen FRA's 
overall grade crossing safety program, and has provided these 
funds for the express purposes outlined in the conference 
report (House Report 105-313). In addition, FRA is encouraged 
to work with law enforcement personnel on grade crossing 
activities, and some portion of these additional funds may be 
used to defer costs associated with these cooperative efforts.

           Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System

Appropriations, 1998....................................................
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      $3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    In 1999, the administration has requested a new 
appropriation under FRA and FHWA which will enable installation 
of nationwide differential global positioning system [NDGPS] 
transmitters by enhancing the existing Coast Guard network 
throughout the United States. The FHWA portion of the NDGPS 
installation funding, $5,500,000 would be administered by FRA 
to support national NDGPS coverage toward establishing a 
network that would facilitate positive train control 
technologies. Also in the FHWA budget, $4,154,000 was requested 
under the NDGPS contract for the L5 system (an alternative 
civil frequency) for the GPS. In total, the Department's budget 
requests $15,254,000 for NDGPS activities in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee has not provided the funds requested for 
NDGPS under this head, and has also denied funding for related 
requests within the Federal Highway Administration's surface 
transportation research contract program. However, $6,920,000 
in NDGPS funding has been included in the Coast Guard's 
``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' account, for 
continued installation of DGPS transmitters throughout the 
United States, toward the enhancement of the existing Coast 
Guard DGPS network, which is now operating only in areas along 
the coasts and navigable inland waterways.
    In terms of transportation needs, the primary benefit of 
the requested investment for the L5 system would accrue to the 
Federal Aviation Administration's wide area augmentation system 
program. The Committee maintains that it would be inappropriate 
to fund these aviation benefits from the Federal highway trust 
fund. Furthermore, there is little, if any, evidence of the 
pressing need for a substantial departmental investment in DGPS 
to support the National ITS Program or the development of 
positive train control-based rail systems. The Committee is 
also concerned that the total costs for construction, 
operation, and maintenance of the DGPS over the next 15 years 
could exceed $90,000,000 and that costs of construction of L5 
line has not yet been reliably determined, but could require 
$100,000,000 to $200,000,000.
    More generally, the Committee has not provided DGPS funds 
because the primary benefit of that investment in the near-term 
would accrue to many other Federal agencies and commercial 
interests. The Committee maintains that DGPS-related expenses 
should not be derived solely from the Federal highway trust 
fund or other DOT accounts. Recognizing the importance of both 
DGPS and L5 to a wide array of strategic national purposes, the 
Secretary will need to obtain funding from other Federal 
agencies and sources as well as other modal administrations.
    The Department is directed to submit a report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations as part of the fiscal 
year 2000 budget justification identifying the long-term costs, 
benefits, and cost sharing that might be reasonably expected 
for both DGPS and the L5. The likely financial role of the 
States, other Federal agencies, and the private sector in those 
systems should be clearly specified in terms of expected cash 
and in-kind contributions. The report also should address the 
role that DGPS will play in the national ITS program and in the 
development of positive train control systems. Both near-term 
(next 5 years) and long-term (next 20 years) needs should be 
considered. The costs and benefits of further investment in 
DGPS for transportation purposes, and an analysis of the actual 
number of highway crashes in which emergency responders are 
substantially delayed because of an inability to obtain exact 
crash locations also should be addressed in the report.

                   Railroad Research and Development

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $20,758,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      20,757,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,760,000

    The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and 
Development Program provides for research in the development of 
safety and performance standards for high speed rail and the 
evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. The program also provides support for the 
Deputy Associate Administrator for Technology Development and 
the staff of the Office of Research and Development. The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,760,000 for 
railroad research and development.

                        committee recommendation

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

Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials...........     +$1,800,000
Safety of high speed ground transportation..............        -150,000
R&D facilities..........................................        -500,000
Alaska Railroad positive train control research and 
    implementa- tion....................................      +4,000,000
Administration..........................................        -147,000

    Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials.--The 
Committee recommends a program funding level of $7,466,000, 
which is $1,800,000 more than the administration's request. 
Within this amount, $2,000,000 shall be for a full-scale crash 
test of rail passenger equipment at the Transportation Test 
Center [TTC] near Pueblo, CO. Currently, FRA has a contract 
with the Volpe Transportation Research Center that supports 
research on rail equipment collision and evacuation safety 
which depends heavily on computer modeling. It is the 
Committee's belief that the accuracy and usefulness of this 
research will be enhanced with a controlled, full-scale, 
passenger car crash (utilizing donated equipment), which will 
generate real-time data on which to base further computer 
modeling and simulation work. The Committee has decreased the 
human factors budget activity by $200,000 for the proposed 
study on engineer napping strategies.
    Track and vehicle-track interaction.--The Committee 
recommends a program funding level of $6,950,000, which holds 
the program to the enacted level. This funding level represents 
all projects being held to a current services level and an 
increase of $500,000 in the bridge safety area. The additional 
bridge safety funds shall be used to demonstrate and evaluate 
the use of carbon composites for strengthening aging steel 
railroad bridges. These funds shall be made available to a 
constructed facilities center with extensive experience in this 
area. The Committee is concerned that recent consolidations in 
the rail freight industry have caused significant increases in 
rail congestion and safety implications for the affected 
communities. Within this total funding level, $500,000 is 
provided for the development of an automatic traffic control 
management and monitoring system to enhance safety and minimize 
traffic congestion that results from increased rail freight 
traffic in selected high density corridors.
    Safety of high-speed ground transportation.--The Committee 
recommends a program funding level of $4,800,000, a decrease of 
$150,000 below the administration's request. Funding is not 
provided for the assessment of current maglev systems.
    Research and development facilities.--The Committee has 
included the requested bill provision that allows FRA to sell 
old aluminum reaction rail at the TTC. The aluminum reaction 
rail test track with side guide rail was built in the 1970's, 
and does not have any research function in today's high-speed 
rail testing environment. The aluminum is an unused asset that 
could be sold to raise funds for needed capital improvements at 
the TTC. The aluminum has not been formally appraised, and 
there will be costs associated with removing the track, but 
estimates of the aluminum's net worth range from $500,000 to 
$1,000,000. The Committee has authorized FRA to use any profits 
realized from this sale for physical plant improvements at TTC.
    The Committee recommends a program funding level of 
$130,000 for R&D facilities, and has not provided the requested 
funds for the T-6 research vehicle (-$500,000). The Committee 
is aware that the Association of American Railroads [AAR], 
which jointly manages many of the research activities at the 
TTC, has recently purchased a new track research vehicle. To 
avoid duplicative costs, the Committee directs FRA to include 
in the fiscal year 2000 budget justification a description of 
FRA's track research vehicle needs, and an analysis of whether 
the FRA could utilize the AAR track research vehicle that is 
currently onsite at TTC.
    Alaska Railroad positive train control research and 
implementation.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the 
Alaska Railroad's ongoing efforts to implement collision 
avoidance positive train control system over the entire Alaska 
Railroad system. These funds will help fund a satellite-based 
communications and tracking system that will provide positive 
train separation for all locomotives and track vehicles, and 
precision train control with movement-pass planning 
capabilities. The Committee understands that the Alaska 
Railroad presents a uniquely suitable staging area for positive 
train control, because it will be much simpler and quicker to 
install PTC on the Alaska Railroad than on any other American 
rail system. The Alaska Railroad does not have any signaling 
system in place today, only grade crossing signals, and 
dispatching of trains is done exclusively with voice radio 
transmission of track warrants. Consequently, unlike the 
situation on other privately controlled systems in the lower 48 
States, on the Alaska Railroad there is no debate over the 
correct strategy to convert from current conventional signaling 
to PTC signaling. This project, once completed, will be more 
than a demonstration project--it will be a fully operational 
PTC system, providing the FRA and rail industry with an 
invaluable baseline reference for other positive train control 
system development projects.
    Administration.--The Committee has provided $2,612,000 for 
administration of the Office of Railroad Research and 
Development, holding funding to current service levels. The 
Committee approves the position requested to manage and oversee 
communications-based positive train control projects, but has 
not approved the new position for an additional track engineer.

                 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $250,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ Requested funding of $200,000,000 for NECIP and $11,746,530 for 
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment is included in the proposed ``Capital 
grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (highway trust 
fund)'' appropriation.

    For fiscal year 1999, the administration has requested 
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program [NECIP] funding under 
the ``Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation'' account.

       Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program

    Section 502 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes 
obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs 
of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism 
to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or 
consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new 
loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 1999 
consistent with the budget request.
    The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, 
as established in section 7203 of the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century [TEA21], will enable the Secretary of 
Transportation to provide loans and loan guarantees to State 
and local governments, Government-sponsored authorities and 
corporations, railroads and joint ventures to acquire, improve, 
or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, 
including track, bridges, yards, and shops. However, due to 
budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide 
fiscal year 1999 appropriated general funds to fund the credit 
risk premium portion of the program as required by the Credit 
Reform Act.
    The Committee anticipates that the Department will likely 
receive applications incorporating non-Federal commitments for 
this risk premium, as authorized in the enabling legislation. 
The Committee expects that the Secretary will consider any such 
applications carefully, given the extent of the potential risk 
to the Federal Government as the guarantor of the loan 
guarantee amount. While this loan and loan guarantee program 
provides an opportunity for developing significant rail 
infrastructure improvements benefiting the national 
transportation system, the Secretary should proceed judiciously 
to ensure that any approved applications are fully warranted.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $20,395,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      12,594,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,494,000

    The Committee has provided $23,494,000 in general fund 
appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT] 
Program. The amount provided is $10,900,000 more than the 
administration's request.
    The Committee first provided funding for the Next 
Generation High-Speed Rail [NGHSR] Program in fiscal year 1995. 
The program funds high-speed rail research, development, and 
technology programs that are aimed at demonstrations to foster 
high-speed passenger service on corridors throughout the 
country. The NGHSR program's authorization lapsed at the end of 
fiscal year 1998, and has been recently reauthorized in 
sections 7201 and 1103 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century. In section 1103, an automatic set-aside of 
$5,250,000 a year from surface transportation program safety 
funds is made available for the elimination of rail-highway 
crossing hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are deemed 
eligible for these funds, including the gulf coast high speed 
railway corridor. Of these set-aside funds, the Committee 
directs that $1,000,000 be used to mitigate grade crossing 
hazards on the Mobile, AL, to New Orleans, LA, segment of the 
gulf coast corridor. In addition to the automatic set-aside 
funding, $15,000,000 in general funds is authorized to be 
appropriated for these purposes. However, due to budgetary 
constraints, no additional funds are appropriated pursuant to 
this authorization. Section 7201 of TEA21 provides a more 
general authorization of the high-speed rail program at a total 
level of $35,000,000 in general funds each year through fiscal 
year 2001. Within this total, $10,000,000 a year is authorized 
for high-speed rail corridor planning. The current Federal 
Railroad Administration NGHSR program emphasizes technology 
development and consequently, the Committee has not provided 
any new funds for high-speed rail corridor planning activities.
    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
administration's next generation high-speed rail programs:

Prototype nonelectric high-speed [HS] locomotive........     +$4,200,000
Advanced propulsion project.............................      +1,600,000
New York RTL-3 turbo trains.............................      +2,500,000
Sealed corridor initiative..............................      +2,100,000
High-speed Talgo service, Las Vegas-Los Angeles.........      +5,000,000
Positive train control study............................        +500,000

    Nonelectric locomotives.--The Committee has provided a 
total of $15,100,000 for the high-speed, nonelectric locomotive 
program. This is $8,300,000 more than the level requested by 
the administration (a request that was $2,500,000 less than the 
fiscal year 1998 enacted program level). The Committee is 
dismayed by the administration's lack of program continuity in 
the nonelectric locomotive area. FRA should take ownership of 
these projects, and request a steady and reliable funding 
stream from year to year. The Committee expects that the fiscal 
year 2000 budget justification will demonstrate this continuity 
and commitment to the nonelectric locomotive projects that are 
currently underway.
    Prototype nonelectric HS locomotive and advanced propulsion 
project.--The funds for these programs focus on the 
demonstration of a high-speed, lightweight fossil fuel 
locomotive that will be able to facilitate the testing of an 
advanced locomotive propulsion system [ALPS]. The Committee 
recommends $9,000,000 for the locomotive demonstration and 
$3,600,000 for the ALPS program. These locomotives will be 
designed to facilitate the testing of a flywheel turbine 
developed under the ALPS program. The locomotives should have 
the potential to operate at 150 mph, yet be available for 
revenue demonstration at speeds of 125 mph within a 2-year 
period.
    New York RTL-3 turbo trains.--The Committee recommends 
$2,500,000 for the refurbishment of two turbo trainsets for 
revenue service on Amtrak's empire corridor from New York City 
to Buffalo. This project received $2,500,000 in fiscal year 
1998, which remains unobligated at this time. With this 
additional funding, the contract to complete the upgrades on 
two trainsets will be fully realized.
    Grade crossing hazard mitigation.--The Committee recommends 
$2,500,000 for the North Carolina sealed corridor initiative, 
$2,100,000 more than the level requested by the administration. 
The sealed corridor initiative is a State-supported effort to 
systematically install crossing hardware that positively 
prevents crossing incursions on 130 grade crossings on the 140-
mile route from Raleigh to Charlotte. This project is also an 
excellent candidate for the TEA21 set-aside hazard elimination 
program referenced above, and the Committee encourages FRA to 
consider granting up to $2,500,000 of the funds in that program 
to the North Carolina sealed corridor initiative upon enactment 
of the authorization bill.
    High-speed Talgo service between Las Vegas and Los 
Angeles.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for 
infrastructure upgrades including traffic and signal systems, 
improving right-of-way quality and elevation, and construction 
of passenger facilities on the 340-mile rail corridor from Las 
Vegas to Los Angeles. Currently, there is no Amtrak rail 
service between these cities. The private sector partners have 
agreed to cover all operating expenses associated with this 
service.
    Positive train control study.--The Committee recommends 
$500,000 for the FRA to conduct a study that will promote 
positive train control [PTC] systems used in high-speed rail 
operations and interoperability among those systems. Currently, 
there is no assurance that all PTC systems being advanced will 
allow equipment of one railroad to be used on the track of 
another. There is no common agreement of the communication 
formats and information flows that must be shared to allow 
interoperability. The objective of the proposed study is to 
characterize the common elements required for interoperability 
in order to promote high-speed rail development in the United 
States. The study will provide the basis for developing an open 
systems architecture to facilitate interoperable PTC systems. 
The study is an important step toward ensuring that different 
positive train control technologies, which might be used in the 
future by different railroads, can communicate or interact 
effectively with each other. This research will accelerate the 
development of any high-speed rail project, the RSAC work on 
positive train control, and the national objective of 
establishing an interoperable high-speed rail system in the 
United States. In order to ensure an objective study, these 
funds shall be awarded to a research institution or 
organization without a vested interest in any particular PTC 
technology.

                     Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

\1\ Reflects reduction of $5,280,000 pursuant to Presidential line item 
veto.

    The Committee has included a total of $10,000,000 for rail 
safety and infrastructure 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. The $10,000,000 provided 
in the bill will continue the railroad's multiyear effort to 
reduce the backlog of deferred track maintenance and related 
capital rehabilitation. The railroad has always provided a 
substantial non-Federal match for past Federal appropriations, 
and will continue to do so.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for construction of a 
third track paralleling the Northeast corridor for the 22-mile 
stretch between Quonset Point/Davisville and Central Falls, RI. 
This project is an initiative supported by the administration 
and Amtrak, to avoid mixing freight traffic and high-speed 
passenger rail service and to provide sufficient clearance to 
accommodate double-stack freight cars. There is a 50-percent 
match required on the third-rail project, and Rhode Island 
voters have approved a $50,000,000 State bond issue to meet 
this match requirement.
    In May 1998 the Federal Highway Administration and Federal 
Railroad Administration signed the record of decision on this 
project, completing the environmental impact statement [EIS] 
process. This will enable the State of Rhode Island to commence 
action on final design and construction. To date, this project 
has received $23,000,000 in Federal funds, of which $3,500,000 
has been obligated. However, with the completion of the EIS, 
the Committee anticipates that the spending pace will speed up, 
and that, by the end of fiscal year 1999, at least $37,600,000 
in total project funds will have been expended. According to 
the State's project schedule, the total amount of Federal funds 
that should be obligated by the end of the fiscal year is 
$18,800,000, leaving a Federal share unexpended balance of 
$4,200,000. Combined with the $5,000,000 made available in this 
appropriation, there should be sufficient carryover funds to 
allow Rhode Island to sign long-lead procurement contracts in 
1999, so that the integrated construction plan is not slowed, 
nor the overall Northeast corridor electrification program 
impeded.

 Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Public Law 105-                  
                                                              Appropriation    34 section 977         Total     
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations and other Federal funding, 1998............      $344,000,000    $1,091,810,000  \1\ $1,685,810,0
                                                                                                              00
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\.................................       621,476,000     1,091,810,000     1,713,286,000
Committee recommendation..................................       555,000,000     1,091,810,000     1,646,810,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This total includes Northeast corridor improvement program funds.                                           
\2\ The administration requested that 1999 funding be derived from the highway trust fund.                      

    The Fiscal Year 1998 Transportation Appropriations Act, 
Public Law 105-66, included $543,000,000 for Amtrak capital and 
operating grants from general funds. The capital funding 
portion of this appropriation, $199,000,000, was included to 
ensure some level of capital support for Amtrak in the event 
that the tax refund mechanism contained in the Taxpayer Relief 
Act (Public Law 105-34 section 977) was not enacted. The bill 
was signed by the President on August 5, 1997, and on December 
2, 1997, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act was enacted, 
triggering the release of the TRA funds. On March 20, 1998, the 
Secretary of the Treasury made a payment of $1,161,500,000 to 
Amtrak--one-half of the total TRA payment, with the remainder 
due in 1999. Amtrak is statutorily required in the TRA to make 
payments to each of the six non-Amtrak States (Alaska, Hawaii, 
Maine, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming) of 1 percent of the 
total Amtrak receives in that year. On April 19, 1998, Amtrak 
transferred a payment of $11,615,000 to each non-Amtrak State, 
for a total of $69,690,000. Therefore, the net level of Federal 
funding that Amtrak received from the Taxpayer Relief Act in 
fiscal year 1998 was $1,091,810,000. The railroad will receive 
an identical payment, under the same requirements, in fiscal 
year 1999.
    For fiscal year 1999, the administration has requested an 
appropriation of $621,476,000 for capital funding, to be 
derived from the highway trust fund. These funds would be in 
addition to the $1,091,810,000 in fiscal year 1999 TRA funds. 
The total, $1,713,286,000, would represent an historically high 
Federal funding level for Amtrak over its 28-year history as a 
Government-subsidized for-profit corporation.

Amtrak appropriations history--1971-98

                        [In millions of dollars]

        Fiscal year                                         Annual total

1971-72.......................................................      40.0
1973..........................................................     170.0
1974..........................................................     149.1
1975..........................................................     276.5
1976..........................................................     471.2
Transition quarter (fiscal year change).......................     180.0
1977..........................................................     800.7
1978..........................................................   1,116.0
1979..........................................................   1,234.0
1980..........................................................   1,223.4
1981..........................................................   1,246.3
1982..........................................................     905.0
1983..........................................................     815.0
1984..........................................................     816.4
1985..........................................................     707.6
1986..........................................................     602.7
1987..........................................................     618.5
1988..........................................................     608.3
1989..........................................................     603.6
1990..........................................................     629.1
1991..........................................................     798.9
1992..........................................................     861.2
1993..........................................................     846.1
1993 supplemental appropriations..............................      45.0
1994..........................................................     922.2
1995..........................................................     972.0
1996..........................................................     750.0
1997..........................................................     760.0
Omnibus consolidated appropriations 1997......................      82.5
1998 (Taxpayer Relief Act)....................................   1,091.8
1998 (appropriations, Amtrak operations and Northeast corridor 
    improvement program)......................................     594.0
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................  20,937.1

Source.--Amtrak Strategic Business Plan, fiscal year 1998-2000 
(September 23, 1997).



    Under the administration's fiscal year 1999 request, no 
less than $200,000,000 would be for Northeast corridor 
improvements; $409,229,470 would be for capital grants; 
$11,746,530 would be for the New York Pennsylvania Station 
redevelopment project; and $500,000 would be for departmental 
costs associated with the independent assessment of Amtrak's 
financial requirements and Amtrak reform council administrative 
expenses.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an additional $555,000,000 for 
Amtrak capital grants in fiscal year 1999. This is $66,476,000 
less than the administration's request, and brings total 
Federal fiscal year 1999 funding for Amtrak to $1,646,810,000 
when the Taxpayer Relief Act funding of $1,091,810,000 is 
included. This funding level should be sufficient to provide 
for Amtrak's capital infrastructure and equipment needs.
    The Committee has included bill language to allow the 
capital funds provided in this act to be spent under the same 
definition of capital expenses that currently pertains to 
Federal capital funds provided for other transportation modes.
    In addition, section 977 of the TRA, which allows the use 
of funds for ``the acquisition of equipment, rolling stock, and 
other capital improvements, the upgrading of maintenance 
facilities, and the maintenance of existing equipment, in 
intercity passenger rail service * * *'', statutorily provides 
Amtrak the flexibility to utilize the TRA capital funds in the 
most effective ways. According to the fiscal year 1999 budget, 
Amtrak estimates that approximately $400,000,000 of its annual 
operating expenses are spent on progressive overhauls and 
maintenance of existing equipment, and that these expenses are 
eligible for funding under the TRA. If Amtrak's own operating 
revenues are insufficient to cover its fiscal year 1999 costs, 
an amount of the railroad's eligible expenses could be funded 
either through the TRA or through funds provided in this act 
utilizing the broader definition of capital expenses.
    Use of appropriated capital funds.--The administration's 
request earmarks $500,000 for departmental costs associated 
with the independent assessment of Amtrak's financial 
requirements and Amtrak reform council administrative expenses. 
This is not necessary, because the Committee has responded to 
both these issues within other accounts. The departmental 
expenses have been incurred primarily by the Office of 
Inspector General [OIG], and the Committee responded this past 
spring by allowing the OIG to transfer $400,000 of the 
$2,450,000 provided for the Amtrak Reform Council in the fiscal 
year 1998 emergency supplemental (Public Law 105-174), to 
alleviate the costs of new responsibilities associated with 
administering the contract for the independent financial 
assessment. In addition, $450,000 is provided for the newly 
formed Amtrak Reform Council under a separate head in this 
bill, to pay for administrative expenses incurred in carrying 
out its mission as outlined in the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act of 1997.
    The administration's request also earmarks $11,746,530 for 
the New York Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project. It is 
not necessary to provide appropriated general funds for this 
project, because it has been fully funded by a high-priority 
projects contract authority earmark of $40,000,000 in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21, sec. 
1602, No. 1679). The Federal Government committed to a 
$100,000,000 share of this project, which will renovate and 
reconstruct the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City as 
a new Amtrak station, replacing the current Amtrak connection 
at Pennsylvania Station one block away. The two stations will 
be connected by a lengthened underground passenger platform, 
mitigating crowded conditions, and separating the commuter rail 
operations from the intercity passenger rail operations. To 
date, Federal funds provided through ISTEA and appropriations 
bills total $88,253,470. With the $40,000,000 guaranteed 
highway funds that are provided in TEA21, the Federal 
commitment will be more than filled, and further appropriated 
funds are not necessary.
    Northeast Corridor Improvement Program.--The Committee has 
recommended $200,000,000 of the appropriated capital funds for 
the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, as requested by the 
administration. The Committee is aware that work on 
implementing Amtrak's Northeast corridor high-speed rail 
program is progressing rapidly on all fronts. Electrification 
and infrastructure work and trainset manufacturing are 
underway, and the railroad is planning every facet of 
implementation of the new high-speed rail service when the 
first Bombardier trainset is delivered to Amtrak for revenue 
service in October 1999. Much of Amtrak's future is riding on 
the success of this high-speed service. Amtrak estimates in its 
March 10, 1998 revised strategic business plan that the profits 
associated with the initiation of high-speed service in the 
Northeast corridor will net the railroad some immediate level 
of profit in fiscal year 1999, and an increasing profit margin 
of $93,000,000 in fiscal year 2000, $190,000,000 in fiscal year 
2001, and $210,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. The cost benefits 
of high-speed service will allow the railroad to become less 
dependent on Federal subsidies, and the shorter travel times 
should make all passenger train service between Washington, DC, 
and Boston even more competitive with other transportation 
choices.
    Of the appropriated general capital funds provided for 
Amtrak in this bill, $3,950,000 shall be dedicated to funding 
the following projects of high priority in the specified 
amounts:
    Southern Pines, NC, railroad station restoration.--The 
Committee recommends $800,000 for restoration of the historic 
Southern Pines, NC, railroad station, which is owned by the 
State of North Carolina and is served by Amtrak's Silver Star 
route. The State will contribute to this project, which enjoys 
broad local support.
    Brattleboro to White River Junction, VT, rail signalization 
upgrade project.--The Committee recommends $500,000 for the 
replacement of outdated pole line signal controls along the 
main rail line between Brattleboro and White River Junction, 
VT. The Amtrak Vermonter is routed along this track, which is 
owned by the New England Central Railroad. These funds shall be 
used to upgrade the pole line signal system to an electronic 
control system along this 60-mile stretch of track.
    Advanced civil speed enforcement systems upgrade.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the installation of a speed 
monitoring system, the advanced civil speed enforcement systems 
[ACSES], on all locomotives operating between New Haven, CT, 
and Boston, MA. In the interest of passenger and crew safety, 
the Federal Railroad Administration has required the 
installation of the ACSES on all locomotives, of both passenger 
and freight trains, that operate on the segment of the 
Northeast corridor between New Haven and Boston, before high-
speed rail service is introduced on the north end of the 
corridor. The funds made available herein shall be distributed 
to freight or passenger operators who have not yet made this 
capital upgrade, and priority consideration shall be given to 
smaller operators who have no alternative Federal source of 
funds for this purpose.
    Amtrak station at T.F. Green Airport.--The Committee is 
aware of the State of Rhode Island's interest in enhancing high 
speed passenger rail service and improving intermodal 
transportation by establishing an Amtrak station at T.F. Green 
Airport. The Committee believes the airport's close proximity 
to the Northeast corridor and the State's efforts to date make 
this a worthy initiative that deserves Amtrak's and the Federal 
Railroad Administration's [FRA] support and assistance. The 
Committee instructs Amtrak and the FRA to report on their 
efforts to assist the State of Rhode Island by February 1, 
1999.
    Erie, PA, rail passenger station renovation.--The Committee 
recommends $1,400,000 for rehabilitation and relocation of the 
Erie, PA, Amtrak passenger station. Amtrak's Northeast Direct, 
Lake Shore Limited, and Pennsylvanian routes serve this 
station, which has become profoundly dilapidated over the years 
and is in need of repairs and improvements to bring the station 
into compliance with Americans With Disabilities Act 
regulations. Amtrak shall work with the city of Erie and the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to explore all funding match 
alternatives, and to begin renovation work on the station with 
all due speed.
    High-speed rail improvements outside the Northeast 
corridor.--The Committee directs Amtrak and the Federal 
Railroad Administration to determine what improvements would 
need to be made on the Washington, DC, to Richmond, VA, 
corridor to bring the line higher-speed rail service. 
Currently, the 107-mile distance between Richmond and 
Washington takes approximately 2 hours on Amtrak, an average 
speed of 53 miles per hour. Amtrak is directed to report its 
findings to the Committee no later than March 31, 1999. The 
study shall include an analysis of current and potential 
ridership, cost-sharing strategies, necessary capital 
improvements, track use agreement issues, and a cost-benefit 
analysis for each outlined option. The Committee recommends 
that Amtrak use up to $250,000 of the funds provided in this 
appropriation to prepare this study.

                           General Provisions

    The Committee has included the following general provision 
relating to Amtrak funding and operations.
    Section 325.--Public disclosure of Amtrak ticket subsidy.--
The Committee believes that Amtrak should provide each 
passenger with a clear and unambiguous description of the 
American taxpayers' support for its operations. In its recent 
analysis of Amtrak's route system, the General Accounting 
Office calculated Amtrak's average per passenger loss by using 
Amtrak's fully allocated costs and the ridership on its core 
intercity passenger service. The Committee believes that this 
method produces a meaningful indication of Amtrak's operating 
performance. Accordingly, the bill requires Amtrak to 
incorporate this method of calculating its per passenger loss 
in its disclosure to passengers. Further, the bill requires 
Amtrak to verify its calculation with the General Accounting 
Office. The Committee expects that Amtrak will convey its per 
passenger loss and continuing need for support from the 
American taxpayers using the following language: ``The American 
taxpayer subsidized this railroad ticket. Amtrak lost an 
average of $47 per passenger in fiscal year 1997.'' Amtrak 
would be expected to update the disclosure contained on 
passenger tickets with the latest annual data.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 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 in both metropolitan 
and rural areas; 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.
    The current authorization for the programs funded by the 
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
    Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level 
of $5,365,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the 
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 1999.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations compared to fiscal year 1998 and the 
administration's request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee    
                        Program                          1998 enacted \1\   1999 estimate \2\    recommendation 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................             45,738             48,142             54,000
Formula grants.........................................          2,500,000          3,709,235          2,850,000
University transportation research.....................              6,000            ( \3\ )              6,000
Transit planning and research..........................             92,000             91,900             98,000
Capital investment grants..............................      \4\ 2,000,000        \4\ 876,115      \4\ 2,257,000
Job access and reverse commute grants..................  .................            100,000             50,000
Washington Metro.......................................            200,000             50,300             50,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................          4,843,738          4,775,692          5,365,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66 and Presidential line-item veto.  
\2\ The budget proposes funding all FTA programs from the ``Mass transit'' account of the highway trust fund.   
\3\ Proposed to be funded within transit planning and research.                                                 
\4\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  

                        Administrative Expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              General fund        Trust fund                    
                                                                                                       Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................       $45,738,000    ................      $45,738,000 
Budget estimate, 1999...................................  ..................      $48,142,000        48,142,000 
Committee recommendation................................        10,800,000         43,200,000        54,000,000 
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $124,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66.                       


    The Committee recommends a total of $54,000,000 in budget 
resources funds for administrative expenses. The 
administration's request envisioned funding administrative 
expenses from the ``Mass transit'' account of the highway trust 
fund.
    Project management oversight activities, section 5327.--The 
FTA's Project Management Oversight Program is intended to 
inform and assist FTA management and FTA grantees in carrying 
out their individual responsibilities as stewards of public 
funds under the Federal transit law. The Project Management 
Oversight Program encompasses project management oversight of 
major capital projects, and safety, procurement, management, 
and financial compliance reviews and audits of FTA grantees.
    There are approximately nine fixed guideway projects 
planned and in process that are expected to cost $1,000,000,000 
or more. The DOT Office of Inspector General is in the process 
of auditing two of those projects. The Committee directs the 
OIG to track the progress of all fixed guideway projects of 
national significance and perform audits of those experiencing 
cost, schedule, or financing problems. To help fund this work, 
the OIG is authorized to draw $1,000,000 from FTA's project 
management oversight funds, as specified in the bill.

                             Formula Grants

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              General fund       Trust fund            Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998......................................      $240,000,000    $2,260,000,000    $2,500,000,000
Budget estimate,\1\ 1999..................................  ................     3,709,235,000     3,709,235,000
Committee recommendation..................................       570,000,000     2,280,000,000     2,850,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The administration request includes fixed guideway modernization.                                           

    Formula grants to States and local agencies funded under 
this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula 
grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. 
sec. 5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of 
elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. 
sec. 5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized areas 
(U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds 
are directed to: a new grant program for intercity bus 
operators to finance Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] 
accessibility costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements 
to its passenger operations.
    Within the total funding level of $2,850,000,000, the new 
statutory distribution of these formula grants is allocated 
among these categories as follows:

Urbanized areas (sec. 5307).............................  $2,548,190,791
Clean fuels (sec. 5308).................................      50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................      67,035,601
Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311)..........................     177,923,658
Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program....       2,000,000
Alaska railroad.........................................       4,849,950

    Section 3007 of the Transportation Equity Act amends U.S.C. 
section 5307, urbanized area formula grants by striking the 
authorization to utilize these funds for operating costs, but 
includes a specific provision allowing the Secretary to make 
operating grants to urbanized areas with a population of less 
than 200,000. Generally, these grants may be used for capital 
projects, and to finance planning and improvement costs of 
equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance used 
in mass transportation. All urbanzied areas greater than 
200,000 in population are statutorily required to use 1 percent 
of their annual formula grants on enhancements, which include 
landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and connections to 
parks.
    Section 3008 of TEA21 overwrites the Mass Transit Account 
Block Grants Program and replaces it with the Clean Fuels 
Formula Grants Program. The new program provides grants for the 
purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for eligible recipients 
in areas that are not in compliance with air quality attainment 
standards. TEA21 statutorily sets aside $50,000,000 of the 
total formula program funds for the new clean fuels program. 
The Committee is aware that several problems associated with 
heavy mass transit buses can be addressed through the use of 
lightweight composite primary structure. These problems include 
excessive road wear, fuel economy, brake wear, and difficulty 
incorporating clean fuel systems. The Committee encourages the 
Administrator to use $4,000,000 of the clean fuels formula 
funds to establish a composite bus structure demonstration 
program to validate long-term structural integrity and 
maintainability of composite primary bus structure in a transit 
operating environment.
    The elderly and disabled and nonurbanized areas formula 
grants programs have been reauthorized without any substantive 
changes.
    The following table displays the State-by-State 
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the 
program categories:

         FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Section 5310                  
                                                Section 5307     Section 5311     elderly and                   
                    State                      urbanized area    nonurbanized     persons with    Total formula 
                                                  formula          formula        disabilities       programs   
                                               apportionment    apportionment    apportionment                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................      $11,448,978       $4,228,780       $1,160,647      $16,838,405
Alaska......................................        2,084,859          630,602          185,871        2,901,332
American Samoa..............................  ...............           89,880           52,397          142,277
Arizona.....................................       28,863,235        1,851,249        1,023,763       31,738,247
Arkansas....................................        4,437,072        3,380,734          812,084        8,629,889
California..................................      404,820,386        8,251,269        6,271,272      419,342,928
Colorado....................................       31,175,375        1,761,316          794,916       33,731,608
Connecticut.................................       35,537,313        1,597,680          910,339       38,045,332
Delaware....................................        4,871,260          398,583          278,659        5,548,502
District of Columbia........................       19,766,462  ...............          276,620       20,043,082
Florida.....................................      121,835,003        5,304,280        4,233,062      131,372,345
Georgia.....................................       44,801,810        6,182,926        1,503,895       52,488,632
Guam........................................  ...............          255,869          132,972          388,840
Hawaii......................................       19,715,744          693,939          353,457       20,763,140
Idaho.......................................        2,611,707        1,400,002          361,628        4,373,337
Illinois....................................      178,200,662        5,672,490        2,737,694      186,610,846
Indiana.....................................       28,038,909        5,479,496        1,438,171       34,956,576
Iowa........................................        7,342,475        3,524,466          872,739       11,739,680
Kansas......................................        6,877,235        2,803,601          732,264       10,413,100
Kentucky....................................       14,117,305        4,628,133        1,112,476       19,857,914
Louisiana...................................       23,605,365        3,827,801        1,116,063       28,549,229
Maine.......................................        1,873,536        1,847,063          451,211        4,171,811
Maryland....................................       66,793,154        2,305,970        1,121,323       70,220,447
Massachusettes..............................       97,110,007        2,471,299        1,613,444      101,194,750
Michigan....................................       50,670,971        6,692,700        2,342,839       59,706,510
Minnesota...................................       25,338,046        3,851,262        1,137,080       30,326,388
Mississippi.................................        4,031,432        3,758,332          789,061        8,578,825
Missouri....................................       28,788,463        4,485,729        1,458,410       34,732,602
Montana.....................................        1,976,281        1,134,112          332,096        3,442,489
Nebraska....................................        7,022,250        1,711,231          517,396        9,250,877
Nevada......................................       15,616,798          558,691          385,885       16,561,374
New Hampshire...............................        2,768,934        1,479,267          364,757        4,612,959
New Jersey..................................      150,533,752        2,115,039        1,936,285      154,585,075
New Mexico..................................        5,915,986        1,662,741          455,491        8,034,218
New York....................................      455,065,563        7,445,190        4,481,782      466,992,534
North Carolina..............................       22,137,693        7,908,991        1,709,831       31,756,515
North Dakota................................        1,926,497          838,726          283,256        3,048,479
Northern Mariana Islands....................  ...............           83,293           52,189          135,482
Ohio........................................       72,161,826        8,051,902        2,856,940       83,070,668
Oklahoma....................................        9,323,663        3,442,105          960,541       13,726,309
Oregon......................................       22,267,054        2,733,062          893,273       25,893,390
Pennsylvania................................      125,058,247        8,981,981        3,424,587      137,464,814
Puerto Rico.................................       38,115,924        2,684,099          847,585       41,647,607
Rhode Island................................        8,372,466          343,837          402,028        9,118,332
South Carolina..............................        9,650,172        3,958,489          928,595       14,537,257
South Dakota................................        1,389,716        1,022,342          305,582        2,717,640
Tennessee...................................       18,996,990        5,109,957        1,369,761       25,476,709
Texas.......................................      131,378,560       10,788,540        3,536,745      145,703,845
Utah........................................       17,042,862          774,992          424,725       18,242,578
Vermont.....................................          698,431          914,062          253,268        1,865,761
Virgin Islands..............................  ...............          195,639          135,122          330,761
Virginia....................................       51,284,500        4,530,472        1,424,809       57,239,782
Washington..................................       68,412,549        3,174,445        1,278,234       72,865,228
West Virginia...............................        3,367,205        2,699,193          679,558        6,745,956
Wisconsin...................................       29,244,129        4,663,889        1,304,931       35,212,950
Wyoming.....................................          965,020          652,297          215,996        1,833,313
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............................    2,535,449,837      177,034,040       67,035,601    2,779,519,477
Oversight...................................       12,740,954          889,618  ...............       13,630,572
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................    2,548,190,791      177,923,658       67,035,601    2,793,150,050
                                             ===================================================================
Alaska Railroad.............................  ...............  ...............  ...............        4,849,950
Clean Fuels.................................  ...............  ...............  ...............       50,000,000
Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive                                                                    
 Program....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............        2,000,000
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............    2,850,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Coordination between public transit agencies and human 
service agencies.--The Committee notes the success that Madison 
METRO in Madison, WI, has had in coordinating with the State 
and county officials on the provision of nonemergency Medicaid 
transportation. The Madison experience contains valuable 
lessons and should be shared with other public transit 
providers, particularly since many areas have had difficulty 
achieving a coordinated effort. In order to foster the best use 
of limited public resources, the Committee directs the 
Secretary of Transportation, working with the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services through the DOT/HHS Coordinating 
Council, to advance joint efforts to create State and regional 
planning guidelines which promote transportation coordination 
between public transit agencies and human service 
transportation providers. The joint planning guidelines task 
force, which was created to tackle this issue, is further 
encouraged to work collaboratively with Madison METRO and the 
coalition for paratransit solutions to ensure timely public 
transit agency input and dissemination of the planning 
guidelines.

                   University Transportation Research

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998............................................      $6,000,000  ..............      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...........................................         ( \1\ )  ..............         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation........................................       1,200,000      $4,800,000       6,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed to be funded within transit planning and research accounts.                                        

    Section 5505 of TEA21 provides authorization 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.
    The Committee action provides $6,000,000 for the university 
transportation centers program, the same level as provided in 
fiscal year 1998.

                     Transit Planning and Research

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998 \1\........................................     $92,000,000  ..............     $92,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999 (highway trust fund)......................  ..............     $91,900,000      91,900,000
Committee recommendation........................................      19,800,000      78,200,000      98,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $500,000 reduction pursuant to Presidential line-item veto.                                        

    The Committee action provides $98,000,000 for transit 
planning and research. The bill contains language specifying 
that $43,841,600 shall be available for the metropolitan 
planning program; $5,250,000 for the rural transit assistance 
program; $27,500,000 for the national planning and research 
program; $9,158,400 for the State planning and research 
program; $8,250,000 for transit cooperative research; and 
$4,000,000 for the National Transit Institute. 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 service and operational 
improvements. 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 
administration's request proposes to fund the rural transit 
assistance program under formula programs and include 
university transportation centers under this ``Transit planning 
and research'' account.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--                      
                             ----------------------------    Committee  
                              1998 program   1999 budget  recommendation
                                  level       estimate                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning.......   $39,500,000   $39,500,000    $43,841,600 
Rural transit assistance                                                
 program....................     4,500,000  ............      5,250,000 
State planning and research                                             
 program....................     8,250,000     8,250,000      9,158,400 
Transit cooperative research                                            
 program....................  ............     8,250,000      8,250,000 
National Transit Institute..     3,000,000     3,000,000      4,000,000 
National planning and                                                   
 research program \1\.......    36,250,000    26,900,000     27,500,000 
University transportation                                               
 centers....................  ............     6,000,000  ..............
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................    91,500,000    91,900,000     98,000,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects $500,000 Presidential line-item veto in fiscal year 1998.  

    The Committee action provides funding for a number of 
important initiatives in fiscal year 1999. They are as follows:
    National Transit Institute.--Of the funds provided, the 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 be committed to transit 
workplace safety training.
    Within the national planning and research program, the 
folowing projects have been provided specific funding levels in 
the bill:
    Calstart.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for two 
transportation technology projects in the State of California: 
the Santa Barbara Electric Transportation Institute and for the 
San Diego Clean Fuel Ferry Program. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to work with the CALSTART advanced transportation 
technology consortium to fund a feasibility analysis and 
preliminary implementation plan for clean fuel ferry service in 
the San Diego area. The Committee also notes that the Santa 
Barbara ETI is eligible for formula funding under the new clean 
fuels formula program and the capital investment grant bus set-
aside program for clean fuels bus projects.
    City of Branson congestion study.--The Committee is aware 
of Branson, MO, severe traffic congesting and the urgent need 
to explore transportation alternatives. The Committee has 
provided $450,000 for the city of Branson to undertake a 
transportation investment analysis to develop and evaluate 
mobility alternatives.
    Special Olympics planning and assistance.--The Committee 
has provided $1,500,000 for transportation system support for 
the 1999 Special Olympics World Summer Games, to be held in the 
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle in North Carolina from June 
26 through July 4, 1999. This funding complements other Federal 
agency participation in the games, which will be the largest 
multisport event in the world during 1999.
    Skagit County north sound connecting communities project.--
The Committee has provided $50,000 for the Skagit County 
Council of Governments North Sound connecting communities 
project (the Cascadia project). The Cascadia project will 
recommend enhanced intercounty connections to expanded service 
on the Northwest passenger rail corridor between Seattle and 
Vancouver, BC, including local and intercounty transit, auto, 
and passenger-only ferry service, intercity coach and airporter 
service. The allocation shall be matched equally with State, 
local, and private sector funds.
    Project Action.--The Committee recognizes the ongoing 
efforts of Easter Seals Project Action, and supports a 
continued active role for Project Action in the Federal Transit 
Administration's national planning and research program 
specialized transit services activity. Consistent with TEA21, 
the annual setaside for project action is increased from 
$2,000,000 to $3,000,000.
    Olympics security training and assistance.--The Committee 
has provided $1,000,000 for the Salt Lake City, UT Winter 2002 
Olympics transit training and security programs. The funds will 
be used for training operators and mechanics of both bus and 
light rail operations, and for training security personnel for 
the Utah Transit Authority system and facilities.
    Desert air quality.--The Committee has provided $500,000 
for a comprehensive analysis of air quality in Las Vegas, NV, 
by the Desert Research Institute, to develop a remote pollution 
sensing program to identify high-emitting vehicles, study air 
pollution transport from the Los Angeles Basin, develop 
emission reductions strategies, and study the impact of air 
pollution in desert climates.
    Vegetation control techniques on rail right-of-way.--The 
Committee has provided $250,000 for a survey of known effective 
vegetation control technologies currently in use on rail 
rights-of-way throughout the United States. Vegetation growth 
that encroaches on the right-of-way is a problem common to 
commuter and freight carriers throughout the county. However, 
many States are considering moratoria on herbicide use as 
public interest in pursuing alternatives to chemical control of 
vegetation increases. FTA is directed to work with the Federal 
Railroad Administration to conduct demonstration testing of 
vegetation control technologies in cooperation with commuter or 
freight railroad carriers that express interest in 
participating in this research program.
    Zinc-air battery.--The Committee recognizes that a 
demonstration program for alternative, renewable, and clean 
transportation technologies has been authorized for 
implementation in southern Nevada. This comparative framework 
provides valuable opportunity to assess the relative merits of 
these emerging technology options. Accordingly, the Committee 
directs FTA to provide $1,000,000 to continue and expand the 
zinc-air bus demonstration project in Las Vegas, NV.
    Virtual transit enterprise [VTE].--The Committee has 
provided $1,400,000 for phase II of the virtual transit 
enterprise, a science and technology collaboration between the 
South Carolina Department of Transportation and the South 
Carolina Research Authority designed to improve efficiency and 
reduce the cost of operations of South Carolina transit 
providers through the use of distributed information 
technology.
    In addition to the initiatives listed above, the Committee 
reaffirms the transit planning and research grants from the 
national program that were contained in sec. 3012 of the 
Transportation Equity Act:

North Orange-South Seminole County, FL, fixed guideway 
    ITS application.....................................        $750,000
Galveston, TX, fixed guideway ITS activities............         750,000
Washoe County, NV, transit technology...................       1,250,000
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority advanced electric 
    transit buses and related infrastructure............       1,500,000
Palm Springs, CA, fuel cell buses.......................       1,000,000
Gloucester, MA, intermodal technology center............       1,500,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority advanced 
    propulsion control system...........................       2,000,000

    However, the Committee notes that, according to the ITS 
Joint Program Office, any and all of these projects could be 
funded within the intelligent transportation system program.

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................  $2,260,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................   2,446,200,000

\1\ Includes $50,000,000 made available in section 607 of Public Law 
105-78.

    For fiscal year 1999, the Committee has provided 
$2,446,200,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of 
transit expenses associated with the following programs: 
administrative expenses, formula grants, university 
transportation research, transit planning and research, and job 
access and reverse commute grants. This level of funds is equal 
to the total budget authority from the highway trust fund 
inside the transit firewall as outlined in the transportation 
discretionary spending guarantee subtitle of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century.

                       Capital Investment Grants

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $2,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     876,114,857
Committee recommendation................................   2,257,000,000

    Section 5309 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 Transportation Equity Act, 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 
administration's request proposes to combine the funding for 
bus and bus-related activities and fixed guideway modernization 
with the formula programs. Therefore, under the 
administration's proposal, only new fixed guideway systems or 
extensions--major capital investments--would be funded in this 
account.
    The Committee action provides a level of $2,257,000,000. 
Within this total, $1,805,600,000 is from the ``Mass transit'' 
account of the highway trust fund, and no more than 
$451,400,000 shall be appropriated from general funds. The 
following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year                 
                                                                     1998 program   1999 budget     Committee   
                                                                         level       estimate    recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities.............................................       400,000  ............         451,400 
Fixed guideway modernization.......................................       800,000  ............         902,800 
New systems and new extensions.....................................       800,000       876,115         902,800 
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................     2,000,000       876,115       2,257,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 1996 Transportation appropriations bill (Public Law 
104-50) and previous acts making these funds available for 
reallocation in fiscal year 1999. As in previous years, a 
general provision (sec. 317) is included which limits funding 
availability for these fiscal year 1999 discretionary funds, 
except fixed-guideway modernization funds, to 3 years from 
enactment.
    Under the 3-year availability rule, funding provided in 
fiscal year 1996 for the following bus and bus-related projects 
will lapse if the grant recipients do not obligate the 
remaining unobligated funds by September 30, 1998.

                                                               Remaining
                                                       unobligated funds
Norwich, CT, bus transfer/parking facility..............      $1,488,750
Buffalo, NY, Crossroads intermodal station..............         496,250
Albany, NY, CNG buses...................................       4,962,500
New Rochelle, NY, intermodal facility...................         744,375
Rensselaer, NY, intermodal station......................       5,843,750
Erie, PA, intermodal complex............................       3,970,000
Nashville, TN, electric buses...........................         297,750
Peoria, IL, transfer facility...........................         714,601
Arkansas, buses.........................................         794,000
Saint Bernard Parish, LA, intermodal facility...........       1,488,750
San Diego, CA, San Ysidro intermodal center.............       4,674,500

    The Committee urges the grant recipients noted above to 
move swiftly to obligate these funds. When the transportation 
appropriations conferees meet later this year, any unobligated 
funds in the bus or new systems accounts that were earmarked in 
fiscal year 1996 or prior will be available for reprogramming 
under the 3-year availability rule.
    Honolulu buses and bus facilities.--Funds provided in 
Public Law 104-50 for the Honolulu/Oahu Kuakini Medical Center 
are reprogrammed for buses and bus facilities for the city and 
county of Honolulu, HI.

                         bus and bus facilities

    The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities 
funding is $451,400,000, which is 20 percent of the total made 
available for capital investment grants. These funds may be 
used to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related 
equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. Under TEA21, 
there are three set-asides from bus funds within the allocation 
of discretionary bus grants: $3,000,000 is made available for 
the Altoona, PA, bus testing facility; $50,000,000 is made 
available only for grants that meet the 49 U.S.C. section 5308 
Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program standards, and $4,850,000 is 
made available for qualifying fuel cell bus projects.
    The Committee has included bill language that delineates a 
number of eligible bus and bus facilities projects, and directs 
the Federal Transit Administrator to submit to the 
congressional appropriations and authorizing committees, within 
60 days of enactment of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations 
legislation, a grant recommendation list choosing from among 
the projects listed in the appropriations bill. This list is 
inclusive of all bus and bus facilities projects that were 
included in the TEA21 legislation (sec. 3031), as well as 
projects that have been brought to the Appropriations 
Committee's attention as being meritorious and in need of 
Federal assistance.
    The Committee recommends the following projects for funding 
under this program.
    AC Transit electric bus program, CA
    Albany, NY paratransit buses and facilities
    Albuquerque, NM buses and bus facilities
    Alexandria, VA King Street Station access
    Alexandria, VA bus maintenance facility
    Allegheny County, PA buses and intermodal station
    Altoona, PA Metro Transit Authority buses
    Altoona, PA pedestrian crossover
    Altoona, PA Metro Transit Authority Logan Valley Mall 
suburban transfer center
    Anacortes, WA ferry terminal information system
    Anchorage, AK Ship Creek intermodal facility
    Arkansas statewide bus needs
    Armstrong County-Mid County, PA bus facilities and buses
    Atlanta, GA MARTA buses
    Austin, TX Capital Metro bus replacement
    Babylon, NY intermodal center
    Beaver County, PA transit facility
    Bellingham, WA Whatcom Transit Authority bus maintenance 
facility
    Berlin, NH Tri-County Community Action transit garage
    Birmingham, AL intermodal facility
    Birmingham-Jefferson County, AL buses
    Boston, MA Logan Airport intermodal buses
    Boston, MA Charles Street/MA General Hospital ``T'' Station 
Rehabilitation
    Boston, MA South Station intermodal center connection link
    Boulder/Denver, CO RTD buses
    Bradford County, PA Endless Mountain Transportation 
Authority buses
    Brattleboro, VT Union Station multimodal center
    Brazos, TX Transit Authority buses and facilities
    Bremerton, WA Sinclair's Landing, multimodal center
    Brockton, MA intermodal transportation center
    Brookhaven Town, NY elderly and disabled buses and vans
    Brooklyn-Staten Island, NY mobility enhancement buses
    Broome County, NY buses and fare collection equipment
    Broward County, FL buses
    Buffalo, NY Crossroads intermodal station
    Buffalo, NY Auditorium intermodal center
    Burlington, VT ferry terminal improvemets
    Burlington, VT multimodal center
    Butte, MT bus replacements
    California I-5 corridor intermodal transit centers
    Cambria County, PA bus facilities and buses
    Carroll County, NH transportation alliance buses
    Cedar Rapids, IA Ground Transportation Center
    Centre Area, PA Transportation Authority buses
    Chambersburg, PA Transit Authority buses and intermodal 
center
    Chelan, WA Chelan-Douglas multimodal center
    Chester County, PA Paoli transportation center
    Clark County, NV RTC CNG fueling facility
    Clark County, NV Regional Transportation Commission buses
    Cleveland, OH Triskett Garage bus maintenance facility
    Clinton, WA ferry terminal
    Colorado statewide buses
    Columbia, SC bus replacement
    Concord Area Transit, NH buses
    Corpus Christi, TX transit authority buses and facilities
    Crawford Area, PA buses
    Culver City, CA CityBus buses
    Dade County, FL Metro-Dade Transit Agency replacement buses
    Dallas, TX Dallas Area Rapid Transit buses
    Davis, CA Unitrans transit maintenance facility
    Davis/Sacramento CA hydrogen bus technology validation
    Dayton, OH multimodal transportation center
    Daytona, FL intermodal center
    Deerfield Valley, VT Transit Authority
    Demonstration of universal electric transportation 
subsystems (DUETS), bus system, NM
    Denver, CO Stapleton intermodal center
    Des Moines, IA intermodal facility
    Dothan, AL Wiregrass Transit Authority demand response 
shuttle buses and transit facility
    Duluth, MN Transit Authority community circulation vehicles
    Duluth, MN Transit Authority intelligent transportation 
systems
    Duluth, MN Transit Authority transit hub
    Dutchess County, NY Loop System buses
    East Hampton, NY elderly and disabled buses and vans
    El Paso, TX Sun Metro demand response, maintenance, and 
terminal facility
    Erie, PA Metropolitan Transit Authority buses
    Essex and Middlesex Counties, MA buses
    Eugene, OR Lane Transit District buses
    Everett, WA multimodal transportation center
    Fairbanks, AK intermodal rail/bus transfer facility
    Fayette County, PA intermodal facilities and buses
    Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas Transit System 
buses
    Folsom, CA Railroad block project
    Fort Ord, CA multi-modal transportation center
    Fort Dodge, IA Intermodal Facility
    Fort Worth, TX buses
    Frankford, PA Septa transportation center
    Galveston, TX alternative fuel buses
    Gary, IN Transit Consortium buses
    Georgetown University fuel cell bus development and 
manufacturing
    Gloucester, MA intermodal transportation center
    Grand Forks, Fargo, Bismarck-Mandan and Minot, ND buses
    Grant County, WA buses and vans
    Greater Laconia, NH Transit Agency buses
    Greensboro, NC Transit Authority buses and vans
    Greensboro, NC multimodal center
    Harrison County, MS multimodal center/hybrid electric 
shuttle buses
    Harrisonburg, VA buses
    Hartford, CT transportation access project
    Healdsburg, CA intermodal facility
    Honolulu, HI bus facility and buses
    Hot Springs, AR transportation depot and plaza
    Humboldt, CA intermodal facility
    Huntington Beach, CA senior center shuttle buses
    Huntington, WV intermodal facility
    Huntsville, AL U.S. Space and Rocket Center intermodal 
facility
    Hyannis, MA intermodal transportation center
    Illinois statewide buses and bus-related equipment
    Indianapolis, IN buses
    Iowa/Illinois Transit Consortium bus safety and security
    Iowa statewide bus request
    Ithaca, NY TCAT bus technology improvements
    Jackson, MS buses and facilities
    Jacksonville, FL Transit Authority buses and mini transit 
center
    Jasper, AL buses
    Johnson County, KS bus maintenance/operations facility
    Kansas City, MO Union Station redevelopment
    Kansas City, MO two-way radios; farebox system; facility 
repair
    Keene, NH HCS community care buses and equipment
    King County/Kingdome, WA pedestrian bridges
    King County, WA Metro transit transfer facilities
    Lackawanna County, PA Transit System buses
    Lake Tahoe, CA intermodal terminal
    Lake Tahoe, CA alternative fuels station
    Lake Tahoe, CA coordinated transit system
    Lakeland, FL Citrus Connection transit vehicles/equipment
    Lane County, OR bus rapid transit
    Lansing, MI CATA bus technology improvements
    Las Vegas, NV RTC South Resort Corridor transit center
    Las Vegas, NV Citizen Area Transit System
    Las Cruces, NM buses, facilities and park and ride
    Lebanon, NH advance transit buses
    Lee County, AL buses
    Little Rock, AR Central Arkansas Transit buses
    Little Rock, AR New Harbor Inlet intermodal center
    Livermore-Ardmore Valley, CA automatic vehicle locator 
program
    Long Island, NY CNG transit vehicles and facilities
    Long Island, NY bus replacement
    Long Beach, NY central bus facility
    Los Angeles County, CA Foothills transit buses
    Los Angeles County, CA Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority bus replacement
    Los Angeles, CA Foothills transit bus maintenance facility
    Los Angeles, CA San Fernando Valley smart shuttle buses
    Los Angeles, CA Union Station Gateway intermodal transit 
center
    Los Angeles, CA municipal transit operators consortium
    Louisiana statewide bus request
    Louisville, Kentucky University of Louisville and River 
City buses
    Lynchburg, VA buses
    Market Street, NJ bus maintenance facility
    Maryland statewide bus facilities and buses
    Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority statewide bus 
replacement
    Mercer County, PA buses
    Miami-Dade, FL buses
    Miami Beach, FL electric shuttle service
    Michigan statewide buses
    Milwaukee, WI train station improvements
    Milwaukee County, WI buses
    Mineola/Hicksville, NY LIRR intermodal centers
    Minnesota Metro transit buses
    Minnesota I-35 corridor transit stations
    Missouri statewide bus and bus facilities
    Mobile, AL bus replacement
    Mobile, AL intermodal facilities
    Modesto, CA bus maintenance facility
    Monroe County, PA Transportation Authority buses
    Monroe, LA maintenance facility
    Monterey, CA Monterey-Salinas buses
    Montgomery, AL Union Station intermodal center and buses
    Morongo Basin, CA Transit Authority bus facility
    Mount Vernon, WA multimodal center
    New York City, CNG buses and refueling station
    New Orleans, LA RTA maintenance facility
    New York, NY West 72nd St. intermodal station
    New Jersey statewide buses and bus facilities
    New Hampshire statewide transit systems
    New Haven, CT bus facility
    New Bedford/Fall River, MA mobile access to health care
    New Rochelle, NY intermodal center
    New Mexico statewide buses and bus facilities, including 
northern New Mexico park and ride
    New Jersey Transit jitney shuttle buses
    Newark, NJ Morris and Essex Station access and buses
    Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Hublink, NY
    North Slope Borough, AK buses
    North Carolina statewide buses and bus facilities
    North Dakota statewide buses and bus-related facilities
    Northern Kentucky Area Development District senior citizen 
buses
    Northstar Corridor, MN intermodal facilities and buses
    Norwich, CT buses
    Oak Park, IL Marion Street multimodal transit center
    OATS Transit, MO
    Ogden, UT Intermodal Center
    Ohio statewide buses and bus facilities
    Oklahoma statewide bus facilities and buses
    Olympia, WA bus replacement
    Olympic Peninsula, WA International Gateway transportation 
center
    Omnitrans, CA replacement buses
    Oneida County, NY Union Station intermodal facility
    Oneida County, NY buses and equipment
    Orlando, FL Lynx buses and bus facilities
    Orlando, FL Downtown intermodal facility
    Pee Dee, SC Regional Transportation Authority
    Pennsylvania statewide request for small communities
    Perris, CA bus maintenance facility
    Phenix City, AL express transit system
    Philadelphia, PA Market Street bus maintenance facility
    Philadelphia, PA Frankford transportation center
    Philadelphia, PA Septa ADA bus acquisition
    Philadelphia, PA 30th Street intermodal station
    Philadelphia, PA regional transportation system for elderly 
and disabled
    Phoenix, AZ alternatively fueled buses
    Pittsfield, MA intermodal center
    Portland, OR Tri-Met buses
    Potomac and Rappahanock, VA Trans Commission buses
    Poughkeepsie, NY intermodal facility
    Prichard, AL bus transfer facility
    Providence, RI buses and bus maintenance facility
    Rankin County, MI Intermodal Connector
    Reading, PA BARTA intermodal transportation facility
    Red Rose, PA transit bus terminal
    Reno, NV RTC transit passenger and facility security 
improvements
    Rensselear, NY intermodal facility
    Rhode Island Public Transit Authority buses
    Rialto, CA Metrolink depot
    Richland, WA Ben Franklin Transit maintenance, operation, 
and administration facility
    Richmond, VA Main Street station
    Richmond, VA GRTC bus maintenance facility
    Riverhead, NY elderly and disabled buses and vans
    Riverside, CA Transit Agency buses, facilities and ITS 
applications
    Roanoke, VA buses
    Robinson, PA Towne Center intermodal facility
    Rochester-Genessee, NY CNG buses
    Rochester, NY Rochester central bus facility
    Rogue Valley, OR transit district bus purchase
    Rome, NY intermodal center
    Rural Texas bus replacement
    Sacramento, CA intermodal station
    Sacramento, CA CNG buses
    Salem, OR area mass transit buses
    San Francisco, CA Islais Creek maintenance facility
    San Joaquin, CA buses and facilities
    San Juan, Puerto Rico intermodal access
    Santa Clarita, CA facilities and buses
    Santa Cruz, CA bus facility
    Santa Rosa/Cotati, CA intermodal transportation facilities
    Santa Clara, CA Valley Transportation Authority buses
    Savannah, GA Chatham buses and bus facilities
    Savannah, GA downtown multimodal center
    Seattle RTA buses
    Seattle, WA intermodal transportation terminal
    Seward, AK intermodal facility
    Shelter Island, NY elderly and disabled buses and vans
    Sinclair Landing transit facility, WA
    Sioux Falls, SD buses
    Sioux City, IA park and ride bus facility
    Smithtown, NY elderly and disabled buses and vans
    Solano Links, CA intercity transit consortium
    Solano County, CA automated vehicle locator
    Somerset County, PA bus facilities and buses
    Sonoma County, CA intermodal center
    South Bend, IN urban intermodal transportation facility
    South Carolina statewide Virtual Transit Enterprise
    South Dakota computerized bus dispatch system, radios, 
money boxes, lift replacements
    South Amboy, NJ regional intermodal transportation 
initiative
    South Dakota statewide bus facilities and buses
    Southampton, NY elderly and disabled buses and vans
    Southeast Missouri transportation services
    Southold, NY elderly and disabled buses and vans
    Spartanburg, SC intermodal facility
    Springfield, MA Union Station
    Springfield/Branson, MO bus terminal
    St. Louis, MO Bi-state intermodal center
    St. Louis, MO Care-Cab
    St. Louis, MO Bi-State development agency bus replacement
    Suffolk County, NY elderly and disabled buses and vans
    Syracuse, NY CNG buses and facilities
    Tacoma, WA Tacoma Dome station
    Tampa, FL Hartline buses
    Tampa, FL Ybor intermodal station (Hillsborough Area 
Regional Transit Authority)
    Tennessee statewide bus and facility replacement
    Texas statewide small urban and rural buses
    Tompkins County, NY new technology project
    Towamencin Township, PA intermodal bus transportation 
center
    Tucson, AZ alternatively fueled buses
    Tuscaloosa, AL intermodal center
    Ukiah, CA transportation center
    Ulster County, NY bus garage and equipment
    University of North Alabama, pedestrian walkways
    Utah Olympics park and ride lots
    Utah Olympics intermodal transportation centers
    Utah Hybrid electric vehicle bus purchase
    Utah Transit Authority/Park City Transit, UT buses
    Utah Transit Authority, UT intermodal facilities
    Utica and Rome, NY bus facilities and buses
    Utica, NY Union Station
    Vancouver, WA C-Tran Seventh Street transit center 
expansion
    Vancouver, WA I-5 park and ride lots
    Vermont statewide bus needs
    Volusia County, FL bus systems integrated fleet operations 
system
    Washington County, PA intermodal facilities
    Washington, Community Transit bus replacement
    Washington statewide buses
    Washington RTA buses
    Washington, D.C. intermodal transportation center
    Washoe County, NV transit improvements
    Waterbury, CT bus facility
    Waukesha, WI downtown transit center
    West Virginia statewide intermodal facility and buses
    Westchester County, NY DOT articulated buses
    Westchester County, NY Bee-Line transit system shuttle 
buses and fareboxes
    Westfield, MA intermodal center
    Westmoreland County, PA intermodal facility
    Wilkes-Barre, PA intermodal facility
    Williamsport, PA bus facility
    Wilsonville, OR buses and bus shelters
    Windsor, CA intermodal facility
    Wisconsin statewide bus facilities and buses
    Woodland Hills, CA Warner Center transportation hub
    Worcester, MA Union Station intermodal transportation 
center
    Yonkers, NY intermodal facility
    Yosemite area, CA regional transportation strategies

                      fixed guideway modernization

    The Committee recommends a total of $902,800,000 for the 
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under TEA21 all 
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table 
itemizes the fiscal year 1999 rail modernization allocations by 
State:

Fixed guideway modernization apportionments

              State                                        Apportionment

Alabama.................................................................
Alaska..................................................................
American Samoa..........................................................
Arizona.................................................      $1,240,236
Arkansas................................................................
California..............................................      83,594,745
Colorado................................................       1,132,463
Connecticut.............................................      34,548,995
Delaware................................................         661,223
District of Columbia....................................      28,912,935
Florida.................................................      11,206,655
Georgia.................................................      15,834,034
Guam....................................................................
Hawaii..................................................         498,050
Idaho...................................................................
Illinois................................................     108,868,175
Indiana.................................................       7,307,446
Iowa....................................................................
Kansas..................................................................
Kentucky................................................................
Louisiana...............................................       2,648,872
Maine...................................................................
Maryland................................................      21,397,326
Massachusetts...........................................      59,250,813
Michigan................................................         361,728
Minnesota...............................................       2,694,403
Mississippi.............................................................
Missouri................................................       1,695,212
Montana.................................................................
Nebraska................................................................
Nevada..................................................................
New Hampshire...........................................................
New Jersey..............................................      81,197,462
New Mexico..............................................................
New York................................................     300,062,837
North Carolina..........................................................
North Dakota............................................................
Ohio....................................................      14,775,328
Oklahoma................................................................
Oregon..................................................       2,483,658
Pennsylvania............................................      94,063,790
Puerto Rico.............................................       1,468,302
Rhode Island............................................       1,833,110
South Carolina..........................................................
South Dakota............................................................
Tennessee...............................................          47,600
Texas...................................................       4,607,963
Utah....................................................................
Vermont.................................................................
Virgin Islands..........................................................
Virginia................................................         504,285
Washington..............................................      12,613,895
West Virginia...........................................................
Wisconsin...............................................         517,458
Wyoming.................................................................
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................     896,029,000
Oversight...............................................       6,771,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     902,800,000

                              NEW SYSTEMS

    The bill provides $902,800,000 for new starts. 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. Under section 3009(g) of 
TEA21, there is an 8-percent statutory cap on the amount made 
available for activities other than final design and 
construction--that is, alternatives analysis, environmental 
impact statements, preliminary engineering, major investment 
studies, and other predesign and preconstruction activities. 
Within the total of $902,800,000 for new systems, no more than 
$72,224,000 may be allocated for these activities. The funds 
are to be distributed as follows:

        Project                                           Recommendation

Alaska and/or Hawaii ferry projects.....................     $10,400,000
Albuquerque/Santa Fe regional multimodal transportation.       2,500,000
Albuquerque light rail project..........................      10,000,000
Atlanta--MARTA North Springs project....................      55,000,000
Austin Capital Metro preliminary engineering............       2,000,000
Baltimore central downtown MIS..........................       1,000,000
Baltimore light rail double-track project...............       2,000,000
BART to San Francisco Airport extension and San Jose 
    Tasman West extension...............................      37,600,000
Birmingham light rail feasibility study.................       1,000,000
Boston North-South rail link............................       1,000,000
Boston--South Boston Piers MOS-2 project................      53,983,000
Boston urban ring.......................................       1,500,000
Burlington-Essex, VT, commuter rail.....................       4,000,000
Charleston, SC, monobeam rail project...................       3,000,000
Charlotte, NC, North-South Corridor Transitway..........       3,000,000
Chicago Metra commuter rail extensions and upgrades.....      19,000,000
Chicago CTA Ravenswood and Douglas Branch Lines.........       4,000,000
Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail line........       3,600,000
Cleveland Berea red line MIS............................       1,000,000
Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement project...........       4,000,000
Colorado--North Front Range corridor feasibility study 
    (Greeley-Fort Collins)..............................         500,000
Dallas DART north central light rail extension..........      20,500,000
Denver southwest corridor light rail project............      40,000,000
Denver southeast corridor multimodal corridor...........       1,000,000
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Tri-County commuter rail...........      10,000,000
Fort Worth Railtran.....................................      12,000,000
Galveston, TX, rail trolley system extension............       1,000,000
Harrisburg, PA, capitol area transit/corridor one.......       2,000,000
Hartford, CT light rail.................................       3,300,000
Honolulu major investment analysis......................       1,000,000
Houston Metro regional bus plan.........................      59,670,000
Jacksonville light rail/bus corridors study.............       1,000,000
Johnson County, KS, I-35 commuter rail project..........       1,500,000
Kansas City, MO, commuter rail study....................         500,000
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, WI, commuter rail.............       1,000,000
King County, WA Elliott Bay water taxi..................         250,000
Knoxville, TN, transit program..........................       2,000,000
Largo, MD, Metro extension..............................       2,000,000
Las Vegas resort corridor fixed guideway system.........       4,000,000
LIRR East Side access project, New York.................      40,000,000
Little Rock, AR, Arkansas River rail project............       4,000,000
Los Angeles MOS-3 project...............................      30,000,000
MARC commuter rail improvements.........................      17,000,000
Memphis Medical Center rail extension...................       2,200,000
Massachusetts North Shore corridor project..............       1,500,000
Miami Metrorail Palmetto extension......................       3,000,000
Miami East-West corridor................................       4,000,000
Miami North corridor transitway to Broward County.......       8,000,000
Morgantown, WV, fixed guideway modernization............       4,500,000
Nashville regional commuter rail........................       2,500,000
New Jersey urban core Hudson-Bergen light rail..........      70,000,000
New Jersey urban core Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link........      12,000,000
New London, CT waterfront access project................       1,000,000
New York City, Kennedy class ferryboat replacement......      12,000,000
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority light rail car 
    rebuild.............................................       2,000,000
Norfolk-Virginia Beach corridor.........................      20,000,000
Northern Indiana commuter rail (south shore) project....       6,000,000
Old Saybrook-Hartford rail extension project............         500,000
Orlando Lynx light rail project.........................      20,000,000
Philadelphia to Pittsburgh high-speed magnetic 
    levitation..........................................         500,000
Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley Metro......       6,500,000
Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro...................       1,000,000
Pittsburgh Allegheny County Stage II light rail.........       5,000,000
Pittsburgh Airborne Shuttle System......................       5,000,000
Pittsburgh North Shore central business district MIS....       1,000,000
Portland Westside and South-North light rail projects...      26,700,000
Puget Sound RTA Link light rail.........................      13,000,000
Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail...................      47,000,000
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle Transit.............      14,000,000
Sacramento South corridor LRT extension.................      23,480,000
Salt Lake City South light rail project.................      70,000,000
Salt Lake City/Airport to University (West-East) light 
    rail................................................       8,000,000
San Diego-Mission Valley and Mid-Coast Corridors........       5,000,000
San Juan Tren Urbano....................................      19,967,000
Santa Fe rail link......................................       2,000,000
Sioux City micro rail trolley system, planning..........         250,000
South DeKalb-Lindbergh Corridor LRT.....................       1,000,000
Southeast Michigan commuter rail viability study........         200,000
St. George Terminal project, NY.........................      10,000,000
St. Louis METRO Link/St. Clair County (IL) LRT..........      35,000,000
St. Louis-Jefferson City-Kansas City, MO commuter rail..         500,000
Stamford, CT fixed guideway connector...................       2,700,000
Tampa Bay regional rail project.........................       1,000,000
Whitehall Ferry Terminal, NY............................      15,000,000

Note.--Of the funds provided for Los Angeles Metro Rail, $24,000,000 are 
reprogrammed from funds provided in fiscal year 1998.

                          PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

    Alaska and/or Hawaii ferry.--The Committee recommends 
$10,400,000 for Alaska and/or Hawaii ferry projects. Section 
3009 of TEA21 authorizes $10,400,000 of new starts funds to be 
made available each year for capital ferry projects in Alaska 
and Hawaii. Eligible purposes include new fixed guideway 
systems such as ferryboats, extensions to existing systems, 
ferry terminal facilities, and approaches to ferry terminal 
facilities. The State of Alaska, due to its isolated nature, 
relies on ferries to connect many of the coastal islands and 
towns. The State operates the Alaska Marine Highway, a system 
of 17 vessels, primarily in the southeast part of the State. 
There are still a number of isolated communities in the State 
which rely on access by water or air, since a road system is 
simply not developed. The State of Hawaii is nearing the 
initiation of interisland ferry service to improve its 
transportation infrastructure. The addition of ferry service 
will provide an alternative to air-only options.
    Albuquerque/Santa Fe regional multimodal transportation.--
The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for a regional major 
investment study to identify and establish both a near and 
long-term multimodal transportation system for the Albuquerque/
Santa Fe region of New Mexico. The study shall provide a 
comprehensive assessment of travel corridors in northern New 
Mexico, and shall outline a full alternatives analysis for each 
of these corridors. The administration has not been responsive 
to directives from the Committee to perform this study that 
were contained in both the 1998 appropriations bill and 1998 
supplemental appropriations bill, and the Committee expects 
that this funding provided herein will be promptly utilized for 
the regional transportation study.
    Albuquerque light rail project.--The city of Albuquerque 
has developed a proposed light rail system that is authorized 
in the new starts projects section of TEA21. The middle Rio 
Grande region of central New Mexico is the most rapidly growing 
area of the State, with population projected to grow to 1 
million people by 2020, one-third more than currently live in 
the area. While the road system is being expanded, it cannot 
keep pace with the rapid growth and limitations of geography, 
including rugged mountains and large areas of tribal 
reservation lands. Air quality standards are becoming an 
increasing concern with this rapid growth. The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 for major investment studies, 
preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and an 
environmental impact statement for a light rail system in the 
Albuquerque metropolitan area.
    Atlanta-MARTA North Springs extension.--The Committee 
recommends $55,000,000 for the Atlanta-MARTA North Springs 
extension 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 for $305,010,400 in section 5309 funds. The 
current cost estimate for the project totals $487,700,000. The 
sum of $208,146,866 has been made available in appropriated 
funds through fiscal year 1998.
    Austin Capital Metro--Northwest/North Central corridor.--
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for Austin Capital Metro 
for preliminary engineering for the proposed light rail project 
in north Austin, to serve the central business district, the 
State capitol, and the rapidly growing population and 
employment centers of the city. Capital Metro and the Texas 
Department of Transportation have recently completed a major 
investment study in March 1997 which identifies a 30-mile LRT 
as the locally preferred alternative. The initial cost estimate 
totals $182,300,000.
    Baltimore downtown central MIS.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 to conduct a major investment study in Baltimore in 
the central downtown business district. This funding will allow 
Baltimore to study a range of available technologies and 
alternatives and, ultimately, to determine a locally preferred 
alternative, to address heavy traffic congestion in the core 
area of downtown.
    Baltimore light rail double track project.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for double-tracking existing rail line in 
the city of Baltimore, for the purpose of initiating light rail 
transit services.
    BART to San Francisco airport and San Jose Tasman west 
extensions.--The Committee recommends $37,600,000 for the BART 
to San Francisco airport extension and the San Jose Tasman west 
extension. Local officials in the San Francisco area have 
proposed a four-station, 8.7-mile extension of the bay area 
transit [BART] system from Colma to an intermodal station at 
Millbrae with a spur serving the San Francisco International 
Airport. The proposed route would serve the cities of south San 
Francisco and San Bruno, connect with the airport, and continue 
to Millbrae. However, BART is deferring letting construction 
bids on the south San Francisco and the San Bruno stations 
until later this year. The majority of the proposed route is to 
follow a combination of existing and abandoned railroad rights-
of-way. An FFGA was issued in 1997, in the amount of 
$750,000,000. To date, Congress has provided $113,726,474 in 
appropriated funds for the project.
    The Committee has followed the progress of this line with 
great interest and some concern. The SFO Airport/Millbrae 
extension has incurred serious cost overruns, documented by 
GAO. Through the use of contingency funds and additional funds 
from the State of California, these costs are being met within 
the project budget. The Committee also notes that BART is 
projecting an initial fare on the SFO/Millbrae line of $4.50 
one way from downtown San Francisco to the airport. This is the 
highest transit-to-airport fare in the country (average 
transit-to-airport fare is $1.50). The Committee is concerned 
that this high fare may reduce patronage below EIS projections.
    The San Jose Tasman LRT project consists of 7.6 miles of 
surface LRT from the northern terminus of the Guadalupe LRT in 
Santa Clara, west through Sunnyvale, to the CalTrain commuter 
rail station in Mountain View. The project will include 11 
stations and will be double tracked except for partial single 
tracking between Mountain View and Lockheed Station. The west 
extension is estimated to cost $342,500,000. In 1994, Santa 
Clara County District entered into an FFGA totaling 
$182,750,000 for the west extension, and the requested funding 
for fiscal year 1999 under the FFGA is $35,000,000. To date 
appropriations totaling $124,080,786 have been made available 
for this project.
    Birmingham, AL, light rail feasibility study.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for a transit alternatives 
analysis and feasibility study in Birmingham, AL. Birmingham is 
the most congested city in the State, and the city has been 
declared an EPA nonattainment area.
    Boston north-south rail link.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for a major investment study, being conducted by the 
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority [MBTA], to examine 
transit options in the corridor between North Station and South 
Station in downtown Boston. The alternatives under 
consideration include various configurations of a rail tunnel 
which would permit through commuter rail trains to serve both 
downtown stations. Currently, MBTA commuter rail service is 
split into two completely separate services, one serving the 
North Station and one serving the South Station. A feasibility 
study on the proposed corridor was completed in 1995. 
Currently, the major investment study [MIS] is considering 
tunnel alternatives under the Boston central artery. Through 
fiscal year 1998, Congress has appropriated $250,000 for this 
effort.
    Boston-South Boston Piers MOS-2 project.--The Committee 
recommends $53,983,000 for the South Boston Piers Transitway 
project. This project consists of a 1-mile bus tunnel 
connecting South Station to the Fan Pier and to the World Trade 
Center. 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 under 
construction. The local share commitment to this project is 20 
percent. An FFGA was issued in November 1994, in the amount of 
$330,726,320. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made 
available $188,300,861 in appropriated funds.
    Boston urban ring.--The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for 
developing a preferred alternative for the Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority's planned circumferential corridor 
surrounding the Boston central core. Alternatives for this new 
service include various combinations of light rail, busways, 
and rapid transit service to new station stops on the existing 
radial system, and enhanced local bus service. All build 
alternatives require a tunnel under the Charles River and, 
depending on the alternative, bridges and/or tunnels at the 
Southeast Expressway in south Boston. Initial cost estimates 
range from $700,000,000 to $2,400,000,000. This project has 
received a total of $2,088,514 in past years' appropriations.
    Burlington-Essex, VT, commuter rail.--The Committee 
recommends $4,000,000 for the construction of a commuter rail 
line linking Burlington to Essex Junction. The commuter rail 
improvements in this corridor include track, tunnel, signal at 
grade crossing, and drainage improvements. In Burlington, the 
terminus would be the newly developed Main Street Landing/Union 
Station site. Hourly commuter rail service would be provided on 
the New England Central Railway right-of-way. The project 
includes the construction of stations with park-and-ride lots 
and integrated feeder bus service. Through fiscal year 1998, 
Congress has made available $4,983,828 in appropriated funds.
    Charleston, SC, monobeam rail project.--The Committee 
recommends $3,000,000 for the construction of a full-scale 
demonstration monobeam rail line linking the Charleston 
International Airport to the Charleston Coliseum/Convention 
Center. The preliminary cost estimates for the 1.2 miles of the 
distance between the coliseum and the convention center totals 
approximately $35,000,000, mostly from private sources. Through 
fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available $1,495,150 in 
appropriated funds for this project.
    Charlotte, NC, north-south corridor.--The Committee 
recommends $3,000,000 for the Charlotte, NC, north-south 
corridor. The city of Charlotte, in cooperation with the North 
Carolina Department of Transportation, is conducting an MIS to 
explore the feasibility of constructing a rapid transit system 
within the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County area. The South 
Corridor Transitway extends 13.5 miles from the Uptown 
Charlotte Transportation Center to Interstate 485 near 
Pineville, NC. The total estimated cost for the transitway is 
$250,000,000. The corridor is included in the Mecklenburg-Union 
Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2015 long-range plan. 
Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has appropriated $1,000,000 
for this effort.
    Chicago Metra extensions and upgrades.--The Committee 
recommends $19,000,000 for three Chicago Metra extensions and 
upgrades: (1) double tracking the north-central corridor line, 
which was inaugurated in August 1998 and has already exceeded 
ridership projections. The line runs along Wisconsin Central 
Railroad line from Antioch and Franklin Park to downtown 
Chicago; (2) extending the southwest corridor, which runs on 
Norfolk Southern Railroad line from Orland Park to Chicago's 
Southwest Side; and (3) extending the system's service westward 
along Union Pacific Railroad line into Kane County, a rapidly 
growing suburban area with high employment growth. Metra is the 
country's second largest commuter rail, serving a population 
base of over 7.5 million. The Federal funds will be matched 
with a 20-percent local share.
    Chicago Transit Authority [CTA] Ravenswood and Douglas 
Branch lines.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for capacity 
expansion of the Chicago Ravenswood and Douglas Branch light 
rail systems. The Ravenswood line carries approximately 105,000 
people daily. The area is experiencing rapid growth in 
ridership, and increased capacity is required to handle this 
growth. The funds provided will allow CTA to complete the major 
investment study and related environmental reviews for the 
capacity expansion project. CTA plans to lengthen existing 
platforms in order to accommodate trainsets of eight cars in 
length. The Douglas Branch of the Chicago CTA blue line is in 
immediate need of rehabilitation. The line is a century old, 
and already operating at reduced speed due to poor track and 
structure conditions. The Committee directs that, of the funds 
provided, the Ravenswood line shall receive $2,000,000 and the 
Douglas Branch line shall receive $2,000,000.
    Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky Rail Line project.--
The Committee recommends $3,600,000 for the corridor extending 
from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 
through downtown Cincinnati to King's Island Amusement Park in 
Warren County, OH. This 33-mile corridor paralleling I-71 
generally runs in a northeasterly direction, and so is referred 
to as the northeast corridor. The capital cost of the rail 
alternative range from $800,000,000 to $1,200,000,000. The 
project is currently in the system planning studies phase. 
Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available 
$6,996,308 in appropriated funds for this project.
    Cleveland Berea Red Line MIS.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for a major investment study to determine 
transportation options to provide a direct link between 
downtown Cleveland, Hopkins International Airport, the 
International Exposition Center, and Baldwin Wallace College. 
The proposed Berea Rapid Transit extension, approximately 3 
miles from the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's 
airport station, is directly aligned with the local transit 
operator's red line rapid rail system. The MIS is also 
considering adequate walkup access and park-and-ride facilities 
to encourage greater use of the red line light rail transit 
system.
    Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement project.--The 
Committee recommends $4,000,000 for design and construction 
costs of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's 
5.6-mile downtown corridor, incorporating exclusive bus lanes 
and related capital improvements on Euclid Avenue from Public 
Square in downtown Cleveland east to University Circle. The 
proposed project is known as the Euclid corridor improvement 
project [ECIP]. In addition, five stations along the existing 
red line will be relocated in order to spur economic 
development and improve access between the stations, 
surrounding neighborhoods, and employment centers. In November 
1995, the GCRTA Board of Trustees selected the ECIP as the 
locally preferred alternative. The total capital cost estimate 
for the ECIP is $332,500,000. Through fiscal year 1998, 
Congress has appropriated $8,740,000.
    Colorado-north front range feasibility study.--The 
Committee recommends $500,000 for the north front range MPO 
transportation feasibility study. This study would propose 
alternative regional solutions to the growing safety, 
congestion, and air quality concerns in the traffic corridors 
among northern Colorado's population centers between Fort 
Collins and the Greeley areas and Denver. This study will 
explore a wide array of alternatives, including highway 
widening, intercity passenger rail alignment, and bus system 
improvements and any other modal option.
    Dallas-DART north-central light rail extension project.--
The Committee recommends $20,500,000 for the Dallas-DART north-
central light rail extension project. This project is a 12.3-
mile, eight-station, $513,000,000 LRT extension to Plano. The 
southern 7.3 miles, from Park Lane to Richardson Transit 
Center, would be double tracked. The northern 5 miles will be 
double tracked as well. Dallas area rapid transit has completed 
a major investment study and the preferred alternative was 
selected in September 1994. The project is now in final design. 
The local share commitment to this project is 35 percent. The 
cost-effectiveness index is $13.50 per new passenger trip. FTA 
has assigned a financial rating of high to this project for 
both stability and reliability of the capital financing plan 
and operating financial plan. Through fiscal year 1998, 
Congress has made available $27,332,867 in appropriated funds 
for this project.
    Denver southwest corridor LRT.--The Committee recommends 
$40,000,000 for the Denver southwest corridor light rail 
transit [LRT] project. The total FFGA amount for this 8.7-mile 
LRT extension is $120,000,000. The extension will connect with 
the existing Denver central corridor light rail line from the 
I-25/Broadway interchange, and run over an exclusive, grade-
separated right-of-way paralleling Santa Fe Drive, to Mineral 
Avenue in Littleton. This project is currently in the final 
design stage. The cost-effectiveness index is $3 per new 
passenger trip. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made 
available $24,415,144 in appropriated funds for this project. 
An additional $1,341,506 was made available from reprogrammed 
funds.
    Denver southeast corridor multimodal corridor.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Denver southeast 
corridor, a proposed 10-station, 19.7-mile light rail transit 
system extending from an existing LRT station at I-25 and 
Broadway in Denver, along I-25 to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas 
County, with a spur LRT line along I-225 to Parker Road in 
Arapahoe County. The double track system will operate over an 
exclusive, grade separated right-of-way and connect with the 
existing 5.3-mile central corridor LRT line in downtown Denver. 
At I-25 and Broadway, the southeast corridor will also connect 
with the regional transportation district's southwest corridor 
LRT line which is currently under construction. The capital 
costs of the fixed guideway element is $479,700,000, including 
right-of-way acquisition, final design, construction, and 
acquisition of rolling stock.
    Fort Lauderdale, FL, tricounty commuter rail.--The 
Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the tricounty commuter 
rail project. The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority [Tri-Rail] 
operates a 71-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. The local share 
commitment to this project is 39 percent. The estimated total 
capital cost of the project is $573,100,000. To date, Congress 
has appropriated $51,281,075 in section 5309 funds for Tri-Rail 
improvements.
    Fort Worth Railtran.--The Committee recommends $12,000,000 
for the Fort Worth Railtran commuter rail and intermodal 
transportation center project, which will provide a much needed 
commuter rail link between Fort Worth and Dallas. Service 
between Dallas and Arlington has already been initiated. These 
funds will allow Fort Worth's connection to this service 
beginning in 2000, and complete the Federal share of funding 
for the Railtran commuter rail project. Federal funds are 
matched with 70 percent local and State participation.
    Galveston rail trolley system.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 to expand the existing Galveston Island rail trolley 
system by 3.2 miles, to connect the University of Texas Medical 
Branch, the island's largest employer, to downtown Galveston. 
The current system, which has been in continuous operation 
since 1987 was expanded in 1995 to provide service to the new 
waterfront development including hotels, restaurants, museums, 
cruise ship terminal, parking, and other facilities. The 
proposed project also includes the purchase of one additional 
diesel-electric vintage rail trolley replica vehicle, necessary 
switches, and station development. The total project cost is 
$10,000,000. The project received an appropriation of 
$1,993,530 for this project in fiscal year 1998.
    Harrisburg, PA, capital area transit/corridor one.--The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000 for final design and 
preliminary engineering costs associated with the development 
of a regional light rail system in the Harrisburg, PA, 
metropolitan area in a corridor which would ultimately link 
Lancaster to Carlisle via Harrisburg. The total cost is 
estimated at $56,000,000 and would consist of an initial 12-
mile segment from Harrisburg Transportation Center to the 
Navy's Mechanicsburg, PA, installation.
    Hartford, CT, light rail project.--The Committee recommends 
$3,300,000 for the proposed light rail system in Hartford, CT, 
of which $2,300,000 is provided in section 340 of this bill. 
This system is to be built along the I-91 north corridor 
alignment, from North Meadows to the central business district 
of Hartford.
    Honolulu major investment analysis.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for a major comprehensive transportation 
investment analysis in the congested Honolulu-Ewa corridor on 
the Island of Oahu. Over the next 10 years, person trips along 
the Honolulu-Ewa corridor are expected to grow to more than 
600,000 daily. The region has significant geographical 
constraints, and all alternative modes of transportation must 
be considered in determining how best to accommodate the 
growing demands.
    Houston Metro regional bus plan.--The Committee recommends 
$59,670,000 for the Houston Metro regional bus plan. The 
estimated total for the project is $625,000,000. The 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. A total of $378,257,998 
has been made available from appropriated funds for this 
project through fiscal year 1998.
    Indianapolis northeast corridor.--While no funding is 
provided for this project in fiscal year 1999, the Committee is 
pleased to note that the $1,250,000 provided in fiscal year 
1998 for a major investment study [MIS] has generated 
significant matching efforts at the State and local level as 
well as in the private sector. With a 30-percent State/local 
match, the MIS is underway, and private sector efforts have 
been undertaken to build the momentum for mass transit 
solutions to the traffic congestion that plagues the northeast 
corridor of Indianapolis. The Lilly Endowment is sponsoring a 
$500,000 community consensus process to build public support 
for mass transit, and a group of downtown Indianapolis business 
and governmental leaders have announced plans to move forward 
with the possible construction of a light rail/trolley system 
that would link major downtown destinations. If the MIS results 
in a recommendation of a light rail system for the northeast 
corridor, this downtown trolley system could ultimately become 
phase I of such an overall light rail system serving 
Indianapolis. In addition, the downtown trolley would be 
totally funded with local public and private sector dollars, 
and could reduce the amount of Federal support needed for the 
northeast corridor project.
    Jacksonville light rail/bus corridors study.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for studies and environmental analysis 
for new mass transit corridors in Duval County, FL. An indepth 
regional transportation study completed in March 1997 
identified four major transit corridors in the Jacksonville 
metropolitan area that show unique benefits for the traveling 
public and the greatest potential for significant ridership. 
Three of the corridors can support light rail, and the fourth 
can support express bus service. Environmental and other 
planning studies should be performed on each of the four 
recommended corridors.
    Johnson County, KS, I-35 commuter rail project.--The 
Committee recommends $1,500,000 for planning and design of a 
commuter rail project along the railroad tracks that parallel 
Interstate 35, extending from Johnson County into downtown 
Kansas City. I-35 cannot be widened and proactive Kansas local 
governments, along with the support of business groups, have 
identified commuter rail as the preferred option to avoid 
traffic gridlock. The I-35 highway use figures have shown a 
steady 6-percent annual increase over the past decade. The 
Kansas State Department of Transportation will provide matching 
funds.
    Kansas City, MO, commuter rail study.--The Committee 
recommends $500,000 for a study of the need for commuter rail 
service for the greater metro Kansas City area. The study will 
quantify the economic benefits that commuter rail would bring, 
congestion mitigation benefits, safety benefits, and the 
opportunity of an expanded labor pool.
    Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, WI, commuter rail extension.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for a major investment study 
for the corridor linking southeastern Wisconsin and Chicago. A 
feasibility study examined extending rail service along 33 
miles of rail right-of-way and instituting service on a daily 
basis with 10 trains in each direction. The study estimated 
that annual ridership would be 1,300,000, and improved travel 
opportunities between Kenosha and Milwaukee would reduce 
traffic on Interstate 94 by 290 vehicles per hour.
    King County, WA, Elliott Bay water taxi.--The Committee 
recommends $250,000 for King County, WA, to purchase a ferry 
boat and rehabilitate the ferry facility as part of the Seattle 
transit system. The Elliott Bay water taxi first ran in late 
1996, during the Christmas holidays, and was activated in 
summer 1997 as a demonstration project. During these 
demonstrations, the average ridership was over 545 passengers a 
day. The funds provided herein will enable King County to 
purchase a permanent ferry boat and to rehabilitate the dock 
facility at Seacrest Park in west Seattle.
    Knoxville, TN, transit program.--The Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for a trolley and light rail system in the downtown 
Knoxville area. The funds provided will initiate site planning, 
engineering, and environmental studies needed to finalize the 
design and begin construction of the parking facilities and 
pedestrian connections.
    Largo, MD, Metro extension.--The Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for environmental studies, preliminary engineering, 
and final design of a 3-mile extension of the Washington Metro 
Blue Line from Addison Road to Largo Town Center in Prince 
George's County, MD. The State of Maryland has invested 
$10,100,000 for preliminary work on the project under an FTA 
letter of no prejudice. The project will reduce daily vehicle 
miles traveled by diverting almost 13,000 daily automobile 
trips to transit, and will add 2,700 parking spaces at two new 
stations, which will help relieve the parking capacity problem 
at the Addison Road Station.
    Las Vegas resort corridor, fixed guideway system.--The 
Committee recommends $4,000,000 for preliminary engineering and 
design for a proposed fixed guideway system in the Las Vegas, 
NV, resort corridor. There are two major components to the 
proposed fixed guideway system: a 18.4-mile core system running 
south from Cashman Field to the Stratosphere Tower, then 
branching out along Sahara Avenue and paralleling Las Vegas 
Boulevard south behind the valley's resorts. In addition, an 
extension to McCarran International Airport is planned. The 
regional transportation commission has requested FTA approval 
to enter preliminary engineering for phase I of the Las Vegas 
corridor. FTA has rated both the project's capital financial 
plan and its operating financial plan as medium. The initial 
cost estimate for this project is between $2,100,000,000 and 
$2,300,000,000. The local financial commitment for this project 
is 55 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is under $4.50 per 
new transit rider. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made 
available $4,983,828 in appropriated funds for this project.
    Long Island Rail Road East Side access project, New York.--
The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for the East Side access 
project which will link the Long Island Railroad [LIRR] to 
Grand Central Station and New York's East Side. The funds 
provided are for right-of-way acquisition, construction 
management, project management, and related costs such as value 
engineering, constructability reviews, and peer review. The 
63rd Street Tunnel, now used by subway trains, has a lower 
level built for future use by Long Island Railroad trains, and 
this link is expected to reduce the need for passengers to 
backtrack from Penn Station on New York's West Side to their 
destinations on the East Side. The projected total capital cost 
is $3,400,000,000. Federal and local funding shares have not 
yet been determined. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has 
made available $19,935,314 in appropriated funds for this 
project. The New York MTA has demonstrated its ability to 
rapidly commit funds appropriated for this project. The 
Committee understands that the grantee has in place a 
professional East Side access project organization, divided 
according to functional responsibilities, led by a chief 
program executive, which is designed to ensure that 
appropriated funds are obligated efficiently.
    Little Rock, AR, Arkansas River rail project.--The 
Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the Little Rock, AR, river 
rail streetcar project, which utilizes an existing bridge over 
the Arkansas River to connect Little Rock to North Little Rock. 
The Central Arkansas Transit Authority has begun the process of 
converting the railroad bridge into a light rail passenger 
facility. Through fiscal year 1998, the project has received 
$2,000,000 in Federal funds.
    Los Angeles, MOS-3 project.--The 23-mile, $5,700,000,000 
Metro Red Line rail project is planned as minimum operable 
segments [MOS's] for funding purposes. ISTEA defined MOS-3 to 
include three Metro Rail extensions including the north 
Hollywood extension, the East Side extension, and the midcity 
extension. An FFGA has been signed, committing $1,416,490,000 
in funding. A revised and restated FFGA for the north Hollywood 
segment was signed in June 1997. Through fiscal year 1998, 
Congress has made available $571,527,593 in appropriated funds.
    The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for the Los Angeles 
MOS-3 project, toward completion of the system's north 
Hollywood Red Line extension. Of this amount, $24,000,000 is 
made available from funds previously provided for the east-side 
extension, which has been temporarily suspended by the 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's chief executive 
officer. An additional $6,000,000 in new budget authority is 
also provided. The Committee notes that the LACMTA has met the 
five requirements outlined in the fiscal year 1998 conference 
report (House Report 105-313) which had to be met in order to 
release funds made available in the 1998 appropriations act. 
The Committee notes that the FTA has accepted the recovery plan 
submitted by the LACMTA Board of Directors, which details how 
LACMTA will improve their financial and managerial ability to 
complete the two federally funded rail projects that are now in 
construction, MOS-2 and MOS-3. Under the recovery plan, work on 
the east-side extension and the midcity extension has been 
temporarily suspended. Over the 17-year history of Federal 
funding, the Los Angeles Metro Rail project has been troubled 
by cost overruns, mismanagement, and engineering failures. The 
Committee is supportive of efforts within Congress and at the 
local level to protect Federal investments in this project. The 
Committee is encouraged that the new management team, 
experienced in cost cutting, and the Board of the LACMTA, led 
by Mayor Richard Riordan, is committed to restoring long-term 
financial stability to capital projects and daily operations of 
the LACMTA.
    Maryland commuter rail [MARC].--The Committee recommends 
$17,000,000 for the MARC commuter rail project. Planned system 
extensions would provide service to Washington, DC, from 
Frederick, MD. The extension of MARC service to Frederick 
consists of a 13.5-mile line which 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, the new equipment, and make 
station improvements. An FFGA was issued for the Frederick 
extension and capital improvement projects in June 1995 for 
$105,251,373. To date, Congress has made available $87,633,965 
in appropriated funds for this project.
    Memphis, TN, medical center rail extension.-- The Committee 
recommends $2,200,000 for the Memphis Medical Center rail 
extension project. The Memphis Area Transit Authority [MATA] 
currently operates the 2.2-mile Main Street trolley, a vintage 
rail trolley line in downtown Memphis. The Main Street trolley 
extension via the Riverfront loop was opened for service in 
October 1997. This line serves existing and proposed 
developments along the Mississippi River and connects with the 
Main Street trolley, Central Station, and North End terminal. 
The funds provided for the rail connection to the medical 
center will complete the downtown rail circulation system. 
Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available 
$5,745,788 in appropriated funds for the Memphis regional rail 
plan.
    Massachusetts North Shore corridor project.--The Committee 
recommends $1,500,000 out of available capital investment grant 
funds (sec. 340) for the Massachusetts North Shore corridor 
project. These funds will be utilized for a major investment 
study of an extension of the MBTA blue line to the North Shore 
communities of Lynn, Salem, and Beverly, MA.
    Miami Metrorail Palmetto extension.--The Committee 
recommends $3,000,000 for construction on the Miami Metrorail 
1.4-mile Palmetto extension and passenger station. The project 
includes a 700-space park-and-ride facility. The new line, 
station, and parking facilities are slated to open for revenue 
service in 2001. All environmental studies, preliminary 
engineering, and final design work has been completed. Miami-
Dade County is in the process of advertising for bids on the 
station/parking facility, obtaining right-of-way, and 
contracting for procurement of rails, ties, and other capital 
construction needs.
    Miami east-west corridor.--The Committee recommends 
$4,000,000 for the proposed heavy rail line linking the 
suburban area southwest of Florida International University to 
Miami International Airport [MIA], downtown Miami, and the Port 
of Miami seaport. The locally preferred alternative includes an 
11.2-mile minimum operable segment of heavy rail running from 
the Palmetto Expressway to the Port of Miami, with a spur from 
MIA to the Miami Intermodal Center. Capital cost estimates for 
the project total $1,580,000,000. Preliminary engineering and 
the final environmental impact statement are currently being 
completed, and the funds provided in this bill will allow the 
Florida Department of Transportation to begin construction 
activities.
    Miami north corridor transitway to Broward County.--The 
Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the proposed heavy rail or 
busway link between the major urban communities of Broward 
County, FL, and the neighborhoods of northwest Dade County to 
Miami's existing Metrorail facility. The grantee, Metro-Dade 
Transit Agency [MDTA], is considering three transit 
alternatives along the NW 27th Avenue corridor: a one-lane 
reversible busway in the median of the road; a two-lane busway 
on the west side of the road; or an elevated metrorail 
extension. Preliminary capital cost estimates for the three 
options range from $58,000,000 for the one-lane busway to 
$473,000,000 for the metrorail extension. MDTA has completed a 
major investment study, and selected the NW 27th Avenue 
alignment as the locally preferred alternative. Alternatives 
analyses have been completed, and the final environmental 
impact phase began in May 1998. The funds provided herein will 
begin construction activities on the transit alternative that 
is selected by the MDTA.
    Morgantown, WV, fixed guideway modernization.--The 
Committee recommends $4,500,000 for the Morgantown people mover 
system, to replace the guidway's heating system. The system was 
first installed in 1971, and as the guideway system ages, 
several of its major systems are in need of replacement or 
upgrade.
    Nashville regional commuter rail.--The Committee recommends 
$2,500,000 for the Nashville for feasibility studies, a major 
investment study, and preliminary engineering on a commuter 
rail service connecting the downtown Nashville area with other 
areas in the Southeast region of the United States. The 
proposed commuter rail system would incorporate approximately 
five existing rail lines, and would be phased in over a 20-year 
period, with a mutual terminus in downtown Nashville.
    New Jersey urban core Hudson-Bergen project.--The Committee 
recommends $70,000,000 for the New Jersey urban core project-
Hudson-Bergen light rail line. 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; Northeast corridor 
signal system; improvements to New York Penn Station; Hudson-
Bergen LRT; and Newark-Newark International Airport-Elizabeth 
transit link, which also includes a rail connection between the 
Penn and Broad Street Stations in Newark. 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. The Hudson-Bergen project is a 
20.1-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 and 34th Street in Bayonne. The 9.6-
mile initial operating segment is now under construction.
    New Jersey urban core Newark-Elizabeth rail link.--The 
Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the Newark-Elizabeth light 
rail project. Estimates of total capital costs are $694,000,000 
for the 9-mile, 15-station light rail transit line linking the 
cities of Newark and Elizabeth as well as the Newark 
International Airport. The initial operating segment, a 1-mile 
connection between the Penn and Broad Street Stations in 
Newark, is in preliminary engineering and is expected to total 
$141,000,000. In January 1997, New Jersey State officials 
agreed to alter the alignment of Hoboken to the west of the 
city. An environmental assessment is currently underway to 
examine the environmental impacts of the change. Through fiscal 
year 1998, Congress has made available a total of $609,080,000 
in appropriated funds for the New Jersey urban core projects.
    New London, CT, waterfront access project.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for the city of New London to develop and 
implement a mass transit program that will improve access to 
the waterfront area of the city.
    New York City ``Kennedy'' class ferryboat replacement.--The 
Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the replacement of one 
Kennedy class passenger ferryboat running between Staten Island 
and Manhattan, NY. The replacement ferryboat will likely have 
the capacity to carry a limited number of automobiles, will 
increase the New York City ferryboat fleet's ADA compliance, 
and will reduce hydrocarbon and particulate emissions by using 
new clean diesel technology or compressed natural gas. The 
current ferryboat fleet averages 35 years in age, which is 10 
years older than FTA's recommended replacement age for ferries.
    Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority light rail car 
rebuild.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Buffalo, 
NY, midlife rebuild project of light rail cars owned by the 
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority. Under the expanded 
capital definition adopted by the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century, such preventive maintenance is an allowed 
capital cost, and will increase the life of the NFTA light rail 
car fleet.
    Norfolk-Virginia Beach corridor.--The Committee recommends 
$20,000,000 out of available capital investment grant funds 
(sec. 340) for the Norfolk-Virginia Beach corridor light rail 
project, a 25-mile line from the Oceanfront area in Virginia 
Beach to downtown Norfolk. Through 1998, the project has 
received $2,000,000 in Federal funds. The Tidewater 
Transportation District Commission has completed a major 
investment study, and preliminary engineering and environmental 
impact statement work is nearing completion.
    Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail extension.--The 
Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Northern Indiana South 
Shore commuter rail extension project. The Northern Indiana 
Commuter Transportation District [NICTD] operates the South 
Shore Line passenger service between South Bend, IN, and the 
Randolph Street Station in Chicago, IL. In order to meet the 
growing demand for commuter rail service in northern Indiana, 
appropriated funds to be matched with local funds, will be used 
for the purchase of additional passenger train cars. This 
effort is currently in the system planning study phase. Through 
fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available $4,483,573 in 
appropriated funds.
    Old Saybrook-Hartford rail extension project.--The 
Committee recommends $500,000 out of available capital 
investment grant funds (sec. 340) for the Old Saybrook-Hartford 
rail extension project. These funds will be utilized for 
feasibility studies, planning, and development of a railroad 
right-of-way between Old Saybrook and Hartford, CT.
    Orlando Lynx-Central Florida light rail project.--The 
Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Orlando, FL, Lynx 
light rail project. The locally preferred alternative, selected 
in September 1995, includes highway improvements along a 75-
mile corridor and a light rail transit [LRT] component along a 
52-mile corridor at a capital cost of $2,700,000,000. A 25-mile 
minimum operating segment of the LRT is completing a 
preliminary engineering and draft impact statement [PE/DIS]. 
The proposed 26.8-mile, 27-station LRT project is estimated to 
have a capital cost total of $878,800,000. Through fiscal year 
1998, Congress has made available $33,683,196 in appropriated 
funds for this project.
    Philadelphia to Pittsburgh high-speed magnetic 
levitation.--The Committee recommends $500,000 for a major 
investment study for the proposed State of Pennsylvania high-
speed intercity magnetic levitation project between 
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, that will incorporate an 
Americanized version of the German Thyssen Transrapid System 
magnetic levitation train technology. The guideway for the 
system will be heavy steel plate, presenting the opportunity 
for market growth in the U.S. precision fabrication industry. 
The system will be developed for American operational 
conditions, using American manufacturing methods and materials. 
This project will also receive funds from the new TEA21 
magnetic levitation technology deployment program for the 
development of: intermodal transportation facilities on the 
system's right-of-way; right-of-way alignment finalization; a 
draft environmental impact statement; and magnetic levitation 
industry standards for communications, control, and power 
systems.
    Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley Metro.--The 
Committee recommends $6,500,000 for line engineering and 
initial construction on the 62-mile commuter rail service to be 
instituted between Philadelphia and Reading, PA. The system 
plans to incorporate 28 stops. A feasibility study for the 
Schuylkill Valley Metro has been completed, and local funding 
of $5,000,000 has been approved to commence a major investment 
study this summer.
    Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for the Cross County Metro corridor, 
which will extend approximately 48 miles from Glenloch, Chester 
County, PA, to Morrisville, Bucks County, along Conrail's 
existing Trenton cutoff freight rail-line. The project has 
received $2,400,000 in prior-year funding for preliminary 
engineering and design, and the feasibility study has been 
completed. A draft environmental impact statement is scheduled 
for completion in June 1988. The funds provided in this act are 
for further engineering and design work, and necessary right-
of-way improvements.
    Pittsburgh-Allegheny County stage II light rail.--The 
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for reconstruction costs 
associated with bringing the Overbrook, Library, and Drake 
trolley lines in Allegheny County up to light rail standards. 
This effort will complete the last 12 miles of a 25-mile rail 
system serving Pittsburgh's southern suburbs.
    Pittsburgh airborne shuttle system.--The Committee 
recommends $5,000,000 for the low-speed urban magnetic 
levitation system in downtown Pittsburgh, to serve the North 
Shore and Oakland sections of the city, with stops at the 
Pittsburgh Technology Center, Carnegie Mellon, and Magee and 
Mercy Hospitals. Private financing of the project will provide 
25 percent of the total cost of the project, which is estimated 
to be $498,400,000. The low-speed maglev technology is better 
suited to intracity transit service than many other alternative 
rail technologies because construction is not disruptive (the 
train runs along an elevated track of preform concrete and 
lightweight steel); the vehicle itself is lightweight, has 
tight turn capability; and can handle steep grades.
    Pittsburgh North Shore central business district MIS.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for a major investment study to 
assess potential improvements in North Shore's access and link 
with the central business district and to enhance and support 
the private and public development currently underway along the 
Allegheny River corridor.
    Portland Westside and south-north LRT projects.--The 
Committee recommends $26,700,000 for the Portland Westside LRT 
project. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of 
Oregon [Tri-Met] is a building light rail transit extension 
from downtown Portland, west through Beaverton, to a terminus 
in downtown Hillsboro. The total estimated cost of the project 
is $963,522,674. In downtown Portland, the 17.7-mile extension 
will connect to the existing Banfield LRT line [MAX] that 
operates between Portland and Gresham. In August 1997, 12 
vehicles went into service on the existing line. Construction 
is nearing completion along the entire alignment. Tri-Met 
initiated revenue service to the project's first stations in 
August 1997 with full service over the entire line scheduled 
for September 1998. The local share commitment to this project 
is 27 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $12 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 $515,990,000. The FFGA was 
amended in 1994 to add the 6.2-mile Hillsboro extension, 
bringing the total section 5309 share to $590,060,336. An 
additional $40,000,000 was added to the project in fiscal year 
1996. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available 
$593,471,931 in appropriated new start funds.
    The Portland south-north corridor is a bi-State light rail 
line between the Clackamas Regional Center, OR, and Vancouver, 
WA which is currently in preliminary engineering. The proposed 
20-mile light rail line would be broken into two operable 
segments, with the first segment connecting Clackamas to the 
Rose Quarter (12 miles). Capital costs for the complete south-
north LRT project are estimated to be $1,360,000,000. Metro, 
the Portland area metropolitan planning organization, is 
scheduled to complete a final environmental impact statement 
for this project in October 1998.
    Puget Sound RTA link light rail.--The Committee recommends 
$13,000,000 for preliminary engineering, environmental 
analyses, siting, and design of stations and maintenance 
facilities, and development of station area plans for the light 
rail component of the Puget Sound regional transit system plan. 
The link light rail will complement the sounder commuter rail 
system in the Tacoma to Everett Puget Sound corridor. The light 
rail will run from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to 
Northgate, utilizing an already-built downtown Seattle transit 
tunnel. A major investment study for the light rail project has 
already been performed. Total costs of the link light rail 
project are estimated to be $539,000,000.
    Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project.--The 
Committee recommends $47,000,000 for the Seattle-Tacoma-Sound 
Move light rail and commuter rail project. The three-county 
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority [RTA] Board has 
adopted a 10-year regional plan. The estimated capital cost of 
the project is $3,068,000 and will cover proposed 
transportation improvements, substantial commuter rail service 
in the region (principally between Seattle and Tacoma) as well 
as LRT, and expanded bus service. A major investment study was 
completed in March 1997. FTA approved the initiation of 
preliminary engineering for the Central LRT project in August 
1997. The draft environmental impact statement [DEIS] is 
scheduled to be completed in fall 1998. The local share 
commitment on the total project is 76 percent. FTA has rated 
both the financial plan and the operating plan as medium-high. 
Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available 
$20,920,851 in appropriated funds for this project.
    Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle Transit.--The Committee 
recommends $14,000,000 for the Research Triangle Park transit 
plan in Raleigh-Durham, NC. The phase 1 regional rail project 
is the proposed initial segment of a three-phased project that 
will link the three counties--Wake, Durham, and Orange--in the 
Triangle region of North Carolina in a 35-mile regional 
commuter rail system. In phase 1, the Triangle Transit 
Authority [TTA] intends to initiate regional rail service from 
Durham to downtown Raleigh and from downtown Raleigh to north 
Raleigh. TTA proposes to use diesel multiple unit rail vehicles 
to serve the 16 anticipated (phase 1) stations. The proposed 
project will use the existing North Carolina Railroad and CSX 
rail corridors to connect Duke University, downtown Durham, 
Research Triangle Park, RDU Airport, Morrisville, Cary, North 
Carolina State University, downtown, and north Raleigh. The 
capital cost estimate for phase 1 totals $250,000,000. The cost 
estimate includes: final design, acquisition of right-of-way 
and rail vehicles, station construction, park-and-ride lots, 
and construction of storage and maintenance facilities. TTA is 
currently in the preliminary engineering/environmental 
documentation phase. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has 
made available $13,947,234 in appropriated funds for the 
project.
    Sacramento south corridor LRT extension.--The Committee 
recommends $23,480,000 for the Sacramento south corridor 
project, the full amount for fiscal year 1999 under the 
project's FFGA. The Sacramento Regional Transit District [RT] 
is developing an 11.3-mile light rail project on the Union 
Pacific Railroad right-of-way. RT has elected to phase the 
project. Phase 1, known as the interim operable segment [IOS], 
consists of a 6.3-mile, $220,000,000 LRT extension in the south 
Sacramento corridor. Phase 2 is also expected to cost 
$220,000,000. The local share commitment to this project is 50 
percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $6 per new passenger 
trip. FTA has rated the capital financial plan for phase 1 as 
high. The administration signed an FFGA with Sacramento in June 
1997 to provide a commitment of $111,200,000 in new start funds 
for the 6.3-mile extension. Construction is expected to begin 
in late 1998. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made 
available $28,168,442 in appropriated funds for this project.
    Salt Lake City south LRT.--The Committee recommends 
$70,000,000 for the Salt Lake City south LRT project. Utah 
Transit Authority [UTA] is constructing a 15-mile light rail 
transit [LRT] line from downtown Salt Lake City to suburban 
areas to the south. The LRT line will 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. Construction is 
well underway and the project is expected to be completed by 
December 2000. The local share commitment to this project is 23 
percent. For fiscal years 1998-99, local match shall be 
determined according to section 3030(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21]. The 
cost-effectiveness index is $4 per new passenger trip. FTA has 
negotiated an FFGA with UTA committing $237,393,530 in new 
start funds to the project. Total cost of the project is 
$312,500,000. Through fiscal year 1998, a total of $129,986,471 
has been made available by Congress in appropriated funds for 
this project.
    Salt Lake City/airport to university (west-east) light 
rail.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for developing a 
final environmental impact statement and beginning preliminary 
engineering on the proposed 10-mile light rail corridor 
extending from the Salt Lake International Airport east through 
downtown Salt Lake City and terminating at the University of 
Utah. The project will also connect with the north-south LRT 
line in the downtown area. Light rail vehicles will operate at-
grade on tracks laid in existing city streets and on property 
owned by the airport and by the university. Total capital costs 
are estimated to be $374,000,000, with annual operating costs 
projected at $7,500,000. For fiscal year 1999, local match 
shall be determined according to section 3030(c)(2)(B)(ii) of 
TEA21.
    San Diego Mission Valley and midcoast corridors.--The 
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for design and engineering on 
the San Diego Mission Valley east light rail corridor project 
of which $4,000,000 is provided in section 340 of the bill. The 
Metropolitan Transit Development Board is planning to build a 
5.9-mile extension from east of Interstate 15 to the city of La 
Mesa where it would connect to the existing east light rail 
line, now referred to as the orange line, near Baltimore Drive. 
The line would serve four new stations, and would include 
elevated, at-grade and tunnel portions.
    Total project capital costs are expected to be 
$332,000,000. The project also includes the midcoast corridor, 
a 10.4-mile extension along Interstate 5 from Old Town to North 
University City where it would connect with the Mission Valley 
and south LRT lines, now referred to as the blue line, and the 
coaster line at the Old Town Transit Center. This extension 
would serve nine stations. The Committee understands that the 
combined project was authorized for $325,000,000 in Federal 
funds in TEA21, and the Committee regrets that further funding 
was not available in this appropriations bill. However, the 
Committee notes that this is the first request for major 
Federal construction funding for the San Diego trolley system 
and recognizes the commitment of Congress for the full 
authorization by the year 2003.
    San Juan Tren Urbano.--The Committee recommends $19,967,000 
for continuing construction on the 10.7-mile, 14-station rapid 
rail-line between Bayamon Centro and the Sagrado Corazon area 
of Santurce in the San Juan metropolitan area. The system 
consists of a double-track line operating over at-grade and 
elevated rights-of-way, with a short below-grade segment. The 
FTA issued a full funding grant agreement in March 1996 to 
provide a total of $307,410,000 to complete the project. To 
date, a total of $33,380,000 has been provided in Federal new 
starts appropriated funds.
    Santa Fe rail link.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 
for the rehabilitation and upgrade of existing track between 
the communities of Eldorado and Santa Fe, NM, (11 miles). These 
funds will provide for the acquisition and upgrade of track, 
and work on stations and stops along the route.
    Sioux City microrail trolley system.--The Committee 
recommends $250,000 for the initial planning and design of a 
Sioux City, IA, microrail trolley system, as included in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Existing track 
will be utilized in this downtown-riverfront light rail 
project.
    South DeKalb-Lindberg Corridor LRT.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for preliminary planning and a draft 
environmental impact statement design for a proposed 14.5-mile 
light rail system in the south DeKalb County to Lindbergh, GA, 
Emory University transportation corridor. The Metropolitan 
Atlanta Regional Transportation Authority [MARTA] is currently 
examining route alternatives for this corridor.
    Southeast Michigan commuter rail viability study.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for a Wayne County, MI, study 
to consider the viability of a commuter rail-line along the 
route from Detroit Metropolitan Airport to downtown.
    St. George terminal project, New York.--The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 for design and enhancements of the 
Staten Island Ferry terminal facility at St. George, Staten 
Island, and connecting intermodal areas. New York City has 
already spent nearly $5,000,000 on temporary repairs and slip 
work to keep the St. George facility operational, but the 
terminal remains in need of major new construction. The project 
received $2,500,000 in Federal transit funding in fiscal year 
1998.
    St. Louis Metrolink (St. Clair County, IL) extension 
project.--The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for the St. 
Clair County corridor LRT. The initial operating segment [IOS] 
is a 17.4-mile extension between downtown East St. Louis, IL, 
and the Belleville Community College in St. Clair County, IL. 
The selected full project alternative is a 26-mile LRT 
extension with a total cost of $426,700,000. The FFGA new 
starts amount, toward the IOS is $243,930,961. The total 
estimated cost of the IOS is $339,200,000. The local share 
commitment to this project is 28 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 1998, $69,610,663 has 
been made available from Congress in appropriated funds for 
this project.
    St. Louis-Jefferson City-Kansas City, MO, commuter rail.--
The Committee recommends $500,000 for a feasibility study on 
developing a commuter rail system between downtown Jefferson 
City to Kansas City, and downtown Jefferson City to St. Louis, 
MO. This study shall identify potential stops, ridership, and 
general viability of the project.
    Stamford, CT, fixed guideway connector.--The Committee 
recommends $2,700,000 for the city of Stamford for a major 
investment study of a mass transit connector in and out of the 
city's transportation center. Of this total, $1,700,000 is 
provided in section 340 of the bill.
    Tampa Bay regional rail project.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 toward the completion of preliminary engineering and 
environmental assessments for the proposed Tampa Bay regional 
rail system, which would be 73 miles in length and incorporate 
expanded bus, pedestrian, and freeway elements. There is 
existing rail right-of-way available for the project. The 
project has been provided $4,000,000 in previous 
appropriations, and the project has completed a major 
investment study.
    Whitehall ferry terminal, New York.--The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000 for construction of a new Staten Island 
ferry/Whitehall ferry terminal facility and connecting 
intermodal areas in Manhattan. The Whitehall ferry terminal 
suffered significant structural damage in a fire in 1991, and 
needs to be replaced. The new terminal will be ADA accessible 
and will enhance the safety and security for the 65,000 
passengers using the facility daily. The project will directly 
connect with the New York subway system, bus services, and 
highway users. The total cost of the project is expected to 
exceed $100,000,000. To date, the project has received 
$15,000,000 in Federal funds.

                       Mass Transit Capital Fund

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $2,350,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,900,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,805,600,000

    The bill includes $1,805,600,000 to liquidate obligations 
incurred under contract authority provided in section 5338(b) 
of 49 U.S.C.

                          discretionary grants

               (highway trust fund, mass transit account)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

1998 appropriation to date..............................................
1998 rescission request.................................................
Committee recommendation................................   -$392,000,000

    The Committee recommends a rescission of $392,000,000 in 
unobligated contract authority balances of ISTEA transit 
discretionary grants funds. These lapsed ISTEA funds could not 
be utilized under the new TEA21 authorization, because they 
would not be scored within the transit firewall.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Budget estimate, 1999 \1\.......................................  ..............    $100,000,000    $100,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................     $10,000,000      40,000,000      50,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Administration request includes job access funds within formula grants.                                     

    In the fiscal year 1999 budget, the administration 
requested $100,000,000 for a new Access to Jobs and Training 
Program. The administration's reauthorization proposal, NEXTEA, 
contained legislation to establish a new activity to help 
welfare reform efforts succeed by providing enhanced 
transportation services for low-income individuals, including 
former welfare recipients, traveling to jobs or training 
centers.
    Section 3037 of the Transportation Equity Act established a 
new program for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, the Job Access 
and Reverse Commute Grants Program. For fiscal year 1999, the 
program is funded at a total level of $50,000,000, with no more 
than $10,000,000 coming from general funds and $40,000,000 
coming from the ``Mass transit'' account of the highway trust 
funds. The program will make competitive grants to qualifying 
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental 
authorities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations in urbanized 
areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants may not be 
used for planning or coordination activities. No more than 
$10,000,000 of the total program may be released for reverse 
commute grants (urban to suburban employment opportunities). 
Within the funds provided for reverse commute grants, $500,000 
shall be reserved for applications from the city of 
Philadelphia, PA, and $500,000 shall be reserved for 
applications from the city of Pittsburgh, PA, or from local 
authorities, agencies, and organizations within these cities.
    At least $40,000,000 of the funds are to be used for grants 
that provide access to jobs, that is, the transportation of 
welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and 
from jobs and employment-related activities. Within the funds 
provided for job access grants, $500,000 shall be reserved for 
applications from cities within the State of South Dakota, or 
from local authorities, agencies, and organizations within that 
State.
    The Committee is concerned that many welfare recipients who 
need transportation assistance in order to take advantage of 
employment opportunities are in rural areas of the country 
where there is little or no public transportation. The 
Committee directs the Federal Transportation Administration to 
ensure that at least one-quarter of the available funds for 
access to jobs grants, $10,000,000, be competitively awarded as 
grants to entities (county governments, townships, public 
assistance organizations, rural transportation consortia, et 
cetera) who represent counties that currently have no public 
transportation. For many isolated and rural counties, the only 
hope that their residents have to access employment 
opportunities is through the provision of some form of public 
transportation. The very limited tax base of these counties may 
also preclude their providing significant levels of local 
funding to implement any form of public transportation system 
or service.
    The Committee recognizes that in certain urban areas, low-
income individuals, welfare recipients, and other workers may 
have easy access to a local transit system, but less access to 
rail transit that reaches into job-rich suburbs. The Committee 
urges local governments, public transit operators, and 
metropolitan planning organizations to work together to explore 
low-cost, innovative ways of increasing mobility and access to 
jobs for welfare recipients, low-income individuals and other 
workers. In particular, the Committee directs the Chicago area 
transportation study [CATS] to work with the Regional 
Transportation Authority, Metra, the Chicago Transit Authority, 
the Northeastern Illinois Regional Planning Commission and 
members of the public to study and report on the feasibility, 
costs, and benefits of building additional Metra stops at 
points where Metra train tracks either cross or are near 
Chicago Transit Authority tracks and where Metra stations can 
be better connected to each other or to urban passengers. The 
committee believes that creating additional Metra stops at 
locations that allow for easy transfer between the CTA and 
Metra systems would provide many low-income individuals, 
welfare recipients and other workers access to jobs in the 
suburbs and at the same time would provide suburbanites with 
access to businesses, cultural events and entertainment in 
urban areas in addition to the city center where Metra 
passenger terminals are concentrated.
    The FTA Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
Register, as part of the fiscal year 1999 apportionments, 
allocations, and program information notice, an allocation list 
for all job access and reverse commute grants. The grants shall 
be categorized into three groups: reverse commute grants; 
access to jobs grants; and access to jobs grants for rural 
areas with no current public transportation alternatives. The 
grant allocation list shall include the following information: 
the name of the grantee, city or county, State, and amount.

         Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999 (highway trust fund)..............      50,300,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

    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. In addition, 
the National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1990, Public 
Law 101-551, authorized another $1,300,000,000 in Federal 
capital assistance for a total authorized funding level of 
$3,000,000,000. Through fiscal year 1998, $2,949,700,000 has 
been appropriated, leaving a balance of $50,300,000. The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,000,000 in general 
funds for WMATA. This brings the total budget authority and 
obligation limitation level to $5,365,000,000, the authorized 
cap for the mass transit category. Providing the full request 
level would exceed the transit program cap specified in TEA21.

                           general provisions

    The Committee has included the following general provisions 
affecting transit programs:
    Sec. 311. This general provision gives FTA the authority to 
obligate previously provided funds above a particular fiscal 
year's obligation limitation. The provision has been broadened 
to include all FTA accounts, rather than just the discretionary 
grants program.
    Sec. 317. The term ``discretionary grants'' has been 
updated to ``capital investment grants'' in this general 
provision which provides that capital investment grant funds 
must be obligated within 3 years, or the associated funds will 
be available for expenditure and transfer to another capital 
investment project.
    Sec. 318. This general provision has been carried in the 
appropriations bill for many years. It allows FTA to update 
account names and transfer the associated funds to the new 
account structure. This bookkeeping authority will be 
necessary, given that the Transportation Equity Act has 
restructured the mass transit program.
    Sec. 347. This general provision directs that discretionary 
bus funds previously made available for the virtual transit 
enterprise information integration program may be used to fund 
any aspect of the project.
    Sec. 348. This general provision allows the State of 
Vermont to utilize the State's transit formula funds for Amtrak 
capital investment and operating support during the TEA21 
authorization period, consistent with the provision made for 
the State of Oklahoma in the authorizing legislation.

              ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the 
Corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation 
established by the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The 
Corporation is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and 
development of the United States portion of the St. Lawrence 
Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. The Corporation's major 
priorities include: safety, reliability, trade development, and 
management accountability.

                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $11,200,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\ (mandatory)...................................
Committee recommendation................................      11,496,000

\1\ Does not include reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of 
Public Law 105-66.
\2\ Assumes enactment of authorizing legislation to provide mandatory 
payment estimated at $12,646,000.

    During 1996, the administration proposed that selected 
Government agencies restructure themselves as performance-based 
organizations [PBO's]. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation [SLSDC] is one of the candidate agencies. (Others 
include Department of Commerce seafood inspection; Patent and 
Trademark Office; National Technical Information Service; 
Defense Commissary Agency; Federal Housing Administration 
mortgage insurance services; Government National Mortgage 
Association; the U.S. Mint; and Federal retirement benefit 
service.) Each candidate agency coordinates 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.
    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 relocate its offices, streamline its organization, 
personnel, and procurement rules; would retain authority to 
conduct routine negotiations directly with the Canadian Seaway 
Authority regarding seaway operations; would retain authority 
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 
administrations, such as the Transportation Administrative 
Service Center and reimbursable agreement costs.
    The administration did not request appropriated funds for 
the Corporation, as financing is proposed to be derived from a 
mandatory annual payment from the harbor maintenance trust fund 
[HMTF], based on 5-year average tonnage through the Seaway. The 
PBO proposal includes a formula-driven annual payment for 
fiscal year 1999 estimated at $12,646,000 from the HMTF. In 
addition to the trust fund revenue, the Corporation's fiscal 
year 1999 operating budget assumes $900,000 in non-Federal 
revenues. These other revenues include concession operations, 
reimbursable authority from the U.S. Coast Guard, shippers' 
payments for damage to locks, vessel towing services, pleasure 
craft/noncommercial tolls, and other miscellaneous revenues. 
This brings the total budgetary receipts to $13,546,000, of 
which the Corporation intends to transfer $1,809,000 to the 
reserve fund, leaving an operations and maintenance budget of 
$11,737,000. In addition, outside the operating budget, 
$1,040,000 in reserve funds will be utilized for capital 
replacements and improvements.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Authorizing legislation is necessary to establish the 
Corporation as a PBO and provide the financing mechanism that 
disburses the annual, formula-driven payment. Neither the 
Committee nor the Department is aware of any current or pending 
congressional action on PBO authorizing legislation. Therefore, 
the bill includes an appropriation of $11,496,000 from the 
HMTF, instead of the mandatory payment requested. This is 
$1,150,000 less than the amount the administration assumes 
would be provided as a mandatory payment from the HMTF for 
fiscal year 1999, and represents 2.6 percent growth over the 
enacted fiscal year 1998 funding level.
    The Committee recommendation includes the following 
reductions to the Corporation's budget:

Reduce the emergency reserve fund to target level of 
    $10,142,000.........................................       -$538,000
Reduce personnel compensation by amount associated with 
    transfer of four FTE's (pilotage function)..........        -392,000
Defer lower priority capital equipment purchases and 
    projects............................................        -205,000
Hold travel to enacted fiscal year 1998 level...........         -15,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total net change to budget........................      -1,150,000

    Emergency reserve account.--One of the Corporation's 
management accountability goals is to increase the emergency 
reserve account to ensure contingency funding for catastrophic 
emergencies and funding of critical capital outlay needs. The 
Corporation's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes to transfer 
$1,809,000 to the reserve fund, in order to meet a yearend 
balance target of $10,680,000. (The PBO financial plan 
establishes a commitment to make annual contributions to the 
reserve account over the 5-year period fiscal year 1999-2003, 
assuming funds are available.) The Committee is not satisfied 
that the target level of $10,680,000 is necessarily the right 
target. Even in a catastrophic emergency (a double-lock 
failure, for example), a number of possible responses could be 
made, including a supplemental funding request from the 
Department, or reprogramming other replacement and improvement 
funds within the program budget.
    Great Lakes pilotage functions transfer.--On March 5, 1998, 
the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation's authority to 
carry out the Great Lakes pilotage functions was revoked, and 
the functions were transferred back to the Coast Guard, where 
most pilotage functions were prior to late 1995. Four FTE's and 
associated personnel and benefit costs were attached to this 
function. The Corporation has stated that the total annual 
costs of these FTE's is $392,000. This function is no longer 
being performed by the Corporation, and the funds will not be 
required in fiscal year 1999.
    Capital projects and equipment/travel.--The Committee 
recommends a decrease of $205,000 in the Corporation's capital 
plan, providing a total of $835,000 for purchases of mechanical 
and electrical lock equipment, physical plant improvements, 
vessel traffic center upgrades, and navigational aids and 
channel maintenance equipment. The Corporation should fund its 
higher priority capital projects first and defer less pressing 
needs. Within the Corporation's operating budget, the Committee 
has also recommended $189,000 for travel, the same level as in 
fiscal year 1998.

              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 1998, resources are requested for the management and 
execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety, 
Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, program and 
administrative support. Funds are also requested for the 
emergency preparedness grants program. RSPA's two reimbursable 
programs--Transportation Safety Institute [TSI] and the Volpe 
National Transportation Systems Center [VNTSC]--support 
research safety and security programs for all modes of 
transportation.

                     Research and Special Programs

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $29,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      29,655,000
Committee recommendation................................      29,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of 
Public Law 105-66. Includes $1,000,000 supplemental funding pursuant to 
Public Law 105-174.

    The Committee has provided a total of $29,000,000 for the 
``Research and special programs'' account, which is $655,000 
below the administration's request, and is the same as the 
fiscal year 1998 enacted level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year                                 
                                                                   1998 enacted     Fiscal year      Committee  
                                                                        \1\        1999 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety......................................     $15,342,000     $15,863,000     $15,863,000
    (FTE).......................................................           (122)           (122)           (119)
Emergency transportation........................................      $1,993,000        $997,000        $997,000
    (FTE).......................................................             (7)             (7)             (7)
Research and technology.........................................      $3,446,000      $3,851,000      $3,651,000
    (FTE).......................................................            (13)            (13)            (13)
Program and administrative support..............................      $8,171,000      $8,944,000      $8,489,000
    (FTE).......................................................            (47)            (47)            (47)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, research and special programs......................     $28,952,000     $29,655,000     $29,000,000
          (FTE).................................................           (189)           (187)           (186)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $48,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66. Includes $450,000         
  reduction pursuant to President's line-item veto.                                                             

                       hazardous materials safety

    The Office of 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.
    The Committee recommends $15,863,000 for hazardous 
materials safety, which is the amount requested by the 
administration.
    Hazardous materials staff.--Since the beginning of fiscal 
year 1998, the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has hired 
five employees; however, as of April 22, 1998, the Office still 
had five vacancies. The Committee directs that the Office halt 
recruitment efforts for any unfilled vacancies and hold 
staffing to the current onboard strength. The Committee 
estimates that the associated savings will amount to 
approximately $400,000.
    Hazardous materials research and development.--The 
Committee is concerned that an emergency rule promulgated by 
RSPA on cargo tank vehicles carrying liquefied compressed gases 
(for example, propane and anhydrous ammonia) may have the 
unintended practical effect of requiring a second attendant on 
vehicles when unloading. To assist in the timely development of 
improved liquefied gas delivery safety equipment, the Committee 
has increased the HMS research and development activity to 
$1,400,000 ($400,000 above the requested level), and directs 
that improved performance criteria for both passive and remote 
controlled shutdown systems on cargo tank motor vehicles be 
developed and published in the Federal Register by July 31, 
1999. RSPA shall coordinate with interested industry members in 
a peer review of these performance criteria, and provide an 
interim progress report by letter to the Committee by April 30, 
1999, on these improved performance criteria, industry's 
response, and progress in developing a permanent solution to 
the emergency shutdown equipment problem.
    General provision (sec. 323).--Consistent with the February 
13, 1998, U.S. district court preliminary injunction, the 
Committee has included a general provision that prohibits funds 
from being used to promulgate or enforce regulations that have 
the effect of requiring a second attendant while unloading 
liquefied compressed gas, in order to allow RSPA and the 
industry to work together toward retrofitting the cargo tank 
vehicle fleet with remote control shutoff devices.

                        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. This program 
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 also coordinates civil 
emergency preparedness and response for transportation services 
during national and regional emergencies, across the entire 
continuum of crises, including natural catastrophes such as 
earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados, and international and 
domestic terrorism. The Office of Emergency Transportation 
develops crisis management plans to mitigate disasters and 
implements these plans nationally and regionally in an 
emergency.
    The Committee recommends $997,000 for emergency 
transportation, the amount requested by the administration.

                        Research and technology

    The Committee recommends $3,651,000 for the Office of 
Research and Technology, an increase of $205,000 over the 1998 
appropriated level and $200,000 less than the amount requested 
by the administration. The additional funds provided will help 
the Department coordinate and strengthen its responsibilities 
under the new surface transportation reauthorization. The 
Committee notes the improvements in departmental research and 
technology planning and urges those efforts to continue 
consistent with the research and technology performance goals 
expressed in the new authorization bill. The funds provided 
will help support the R&T corporate management strategy 
specified in the Department's strategic plan, allow RSPA to 
support the intergovernmental transportation research 
coordination responsibilities of the National Science and 
Technology Council, and support a limited intermodal research 
program.

                   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 $8,489,000 for program and 
administrative support, $455,000 less than the administration's 
request.

Electronic grant program...................................... -$100,000
Limit increase in information resource management contract 
    support...................................................  -155,000
Delete Garrett A. Morgan Program funding......................  -200,000

    The Committee directs that funds for the Electronic Grant 
Program be obtained within the agency's base program funding, 
and does not include additional funding for this purpose. The 
Committee has also limited the requested increase in 
information resource management contract support, and deletes 
the funding requested for the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and 
Transportation Futures Program. There are many national 
education programs already in place that encourage and enhance 
math, science, and technology literacy, and the Committee is 
unaware of an imminent shortage of engineers and other 
professionals in the transportation industries.

                            Pipeline Safety

                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)

                    (Oilspill Liability Trust Fund)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Pipeline                                   
                                                                    safety fund     Trust fund         Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998 \1\ \2\....................................     $29,465,000      $3,300,000     $32,765,000
Budget estimate, 1999...........................................      32,163,000       3,300,000      35,463,000
Committee recommendation........................................  \3\ 30,659,000       3,500,000      34,159,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66.                           
\2\ Includes $1,465,000 from reserve fund balances.                                                             
\3\ Includes $1,659,000 from reserve fund balances.                                                             

    The Research and Special Programs Administration is also 
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. This 
activity is largely financed by user fees assessed to the 
pipeline operators and by fees paid to the oilspill liability 
trust fund [OSLTF]. The Pipeline Safety Program promotes the 
safe, reliable, and environmentally sound transportation of 
natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. This national 
program regulates the design, construction, operation, 
maintenance, and emergency response procedures pertaining to 
gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and liquefied 
natural gas facilities. 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.
    Pipeline safety reserve fund.--The Committee recommends 
$1,659,000 to be derived from amounts previously collected in 
pipeline user fees from interstate liquid and natural gas 
transmission companies, which are maintained in a reserve fund 
by RSPA. The current balance of the pipeline safety reserve 
fund (as of March 30) is $28,300,000, but over the course of 
the year, some program costs will be warranted out. The fund 
takes in user fee collections, pays program costs, and also 
makes adjustments to collections due to over- or underpayments, 
so the balance varies over the course of each fiscal year. RSPA 
maintains that an end-of-year balance of at least $11,000,000 
is necessary to sustain operations until fees can be collected 
to replenish the fund. Over the last 10 years, the end-of-year 
balance has ranged from $17,179,709 at the end of fiscal year 
1988 to an estimated fiscal year 1998 end-year balance of 
$15,888,940. The Committee believes it is appropriate to 
drawdown against this balance as long as the $11,000,000 level 
is not broached. The Committee agrees with the authorizing 
committees and industry that the fiscal year 1999 cap on the 
portion of the OPS budget that can be raised through pipeline 
safety user fees--$29,000,000--should not be exceeded.
    Oilspill liability trust fund.--The Committee recommends 
$3,500,000 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], 
$200,000 more than the administration's request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year--                             
                                                            ---------------------------------      Committee    
                          Program                              1998 enacted                   recommendation \3\
                                                                 \1\ \2\       1999 estimate                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses.........................................     $11,608,000     $11,865,000       $11,865,000   
Information and analysis...................................       1,200,000       1,365,000         1,065,000   
Risk assessment/technical studies..........................       1,200,000       1,200,000         1,200,000   
Compliance.................................................         300,000         450,000           300,000   
Training and information dissemination.....................         820,000         921,000           921,000   
Emergency notification.....................................         100,000         100,000           100,000   
Public education...........................................         400,000         200,000           400,000   
Implement Oil Pollution Act................................       2,328,000       2,443,000         2,443,000   
Research and development...................................       1,165,000       1,919,000         1,365,000   
State grants...............................................      12,000,000      13,500,000        13,000,000   
Risk management grants.....................................         500,000         500,000           500,000   
One-call grants............................................       1,100,000       1,000,000         1,000,000   
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Totals...............................................      32,721,000      35,463,000        34,159,000   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $44,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66.                        
\2\ Includes $1,465,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.                                          
\3\ Includes $1,659,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.                                          

    Information and analysis.--The Committee recommends 
$1,065,000 for the information and analysis program, $300,000 
less than requested by the administration. This reflects a 
deletion of the proposed increase in information systems 
operations, bringing the activity to the fiscal year 1998 
current services level.
    Compliance.--The Committee maintains that sufficient field 
engineering support staff is available to monitor remediation 
activities in addition to overseeing regularly scheduled 
inspections, and has not included the $150,000 requested 
increase above the fiscal year 1998 current services level.
    Public education.--The Committee recommends $400,000 for 
damage prevention public education activities, to accelerate 
work on the evolving one-call systems public education 
campaign. This represents a $200,000 increase above the 
requested level. The additional funds will be used for two 
purposes: to provide moneys that will be leveraged with private 
sector funds to advance the national one-call campaign; and to 
conduct a new joint public meeting with the NTSB on one-call 
systems. The forthcoming public meeting will serve as a forum 
to expedite the national one-call campaign, discuss best 
practices learned in dealing with one-call challenges, help 
publicize the national 800 number for one-call systems, and 
develop an agenda for the future of OPS involvement in damage 
prevention.
    Research and development.--The Committee has held OPS to 
the fiscal year 1998 program level, with the exception of a 
$200,000 increase in the mapping initiative. The Committee 
asserts that this increase should be funded from the oilspill 
liability trust fund because the data depicted will assist in 
the protection of environmentally sensitive areas.
    State grants.--The National Gas Pipeline Safety Act and the 
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act authorizes OPS to 
reimburse up to 50 percent of States' pipeline safety costs. In 
return, States inspect about 90 percent of U.S. pipelines. It 
is in RSPA's interest to give the States enough financial 
incentive to stay in the Pipeline Safety Program. The 
administration has requested a 12.5-percent increase in the 
State Grant Program for fiscal year 1999, from $12,000,000 to 
$13,500,000. Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee cannot 
meet this increase, but supports the initiative to get as close 
as possible to a 50-percent reimbursement level. The Committee 
recommends a funding level of $13,000,000 for the State Grants 
Program.
    One-call grants to States.--The Committee recommends that 
$1,000,000 be made available for grants to States and other 
entities for the development and establishment of one-call 
notification systems. The Committee notes that each year the 
States request significantly increased amounts of funding that 
exceed the amounts that have previously been made available. 
The Committee maintains that these funds will be of critical 
importance to helping the States make many improvements in one-
call systems that they have judged to be of critical 
importance.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (Emergency Preparedness Fund)

Appropriations, 1998....................................        $200,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................         200,000
Committee recommendation................................         200,000

    The hazardous materials transportation law (title 49 U.S.C. 
5101 et seq.) 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, territories, 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. The hazardous materials 
transportation law provides permanent appropriations for the 
emergency preparedness fund for planning and training grants, 
monitoring and technical assistance, and for administrative 
expenses. Appropriations, also from the emergency preparedness 
fund, provide for the training curriculum for emergency 
responders.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The administration has proposed increasing the annual level 
of funding under the Hazmat Registration Program from 
$7,372,000 to $14,300,000. Under the current registration 
program, an annual flat fee of $300 is assessed on carriers 
that transport: radioactive materials (in any quantity); class 
A or class B explosives (over 25 kilograms); extremely toxic 
inhalants (more than 1 liter per package); hazardous material 
in bulk packaging over 3,500 gallons or 468 cubic feet; or 
placarded hazardous materials in shipments of over 5,000 
pounds. This affects approximately 26,000 shippers and carriers 
on the Nation's highways, railroads, waterways, and airways. 
Most of the fees collected under the registration program are 
used to make training and planning grants to States to improve 
emergency response to hazardous materials incidents.
    Under the administration's proposal, the overall funding 
for this program would be increased by $6,928,000. In order to 
pay for this increase, the administration proposes to raise the 
fee level and broaden the base of registrants. There are 
industry concerns, including issues of fairness relating to 
carriers in States that already impose registration fees for 
hazardous materials shippers, and concerning the use of up to 
25 percent of the grant funds for small business programs that 
may not be directly related to hazardous materials 
transportation and handling. The Committee favors a more 
gradual increase in the Emergency Preparedness Grants Program, 
in order to allow RSPA and industry to more fully consider 
these issues. An incremental program increase could be built 
into the rulemaking process.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000 for 
training curriculum activities, and directs that a ceiling of 
$11,000,000 be placed on fee collections, and a ceiling of 
$11,200,000 on the Emergency Preparedness Grants Program in 
fiscal year 1999. The bill includes a provision limiting the 
hazardous materials carriers' registration fees that are 
collected in fiscal year 1999 to $11,000,000.
    The following table details the activities of the fund 
based on the Committee's limitation on the registration fee 
collections.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--                              
                                                         ------------------------------------      Committee    
                                                                               1999 budget    recommendation \3\
                                                          1998 enacted \1\    estimate \2\                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants..................................................        $6,572,000       $12,800,000         $9,700,000 
Technical assistance....................................           300,000           300,000            300,000 
Administrative costs....................................           300,000           300,000            300,000 
Emergency response guidebook............................  ................           700,000            700,000 
Training curriculum.....................................           200,000           200,000            200,000 
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................................         7,372,000        14,300,000         11,200,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Levels based on fiscal year 1997 collections. Includes $7,172,000 permanent appropriations.                 
\2\ Estimated levels, includes $14,100,000 permanent appropriations.                                            
\3\ Estimated levels, includes $11,000,000 permanent appropriations.                                            

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      42,491,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,720,000

\1\ Does not include reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of 
Public Law 105-66.

    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; and (4) keep 
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding 
problems and deficiencies.
    OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office 
of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and the Office of 
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The assistant 
inspectors general for auditing and investigations are 
supported by headquarters and regional staff.
    The Committee recommends $42,720,000. The recommended level 
includes funding for the inspector general to conduct their 
oversight mission mandated under the Inspector General Act, 
support the Department's priorities in the areas of safety, 
strategic investment in transportation infrastructure, and 
commonsense government, to provide an objective and credible 
voice on other issues of Departmentwide concern and to respond 
to emerging issues of congressional concern.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Required           Allowed    
                                                              Appropriation      offsetting        offsetting   
                                                                                 collections       collecitons  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1998 \1\..................................       $13,853,000  ................        $2,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999.....................................  ................       $16,000,000  ................
Committee recommendation..................................        13,853,000  ................         2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $3,000 pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-66.                                  

    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 administration's fiscal year 1999 program request is 
$16,000,000 to perform key functions under the ICCTA, including 
rail rate reasonableness oversight; the processing of rail 
consolidations, abandonments, and other restructuring 
proposals; and the resolution of motor carrier undercharge 
matters. 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 is convinced that fully fee financing 
the STB is not a viable option for fiscal year 1999. 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. A possible 
legislative vehicle for such a user fee-based structure would 
be the reauthorization legislation which the authorizing 
committees may consider later this year.
    The Committee has provided $13,853,000 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 $2,000,000 
from these fees. Bill language has been included to assure that 
fees received in excess of $2,000,000 shall remain available to 
the Board but shall not be available for obligation until 
October 1, 1999.
    In addition to making available up to $2,000,000 in fees 
collected in fiscal year 1999, the Board anticipates utilizing 
approximately $265,000 in fees carried over from fiscal year 
1998, but not available until October 1, 1998. Combining the 
appropriated general funds, the anticipated 1999 user fees, and 
the carryover 1998 user fees, the Board will have a total 
budgetary resource level of $16,118,000. This exceeds the 
administration's request of $16,000,000, but is less than the 
funding request of $16,190,000 submitted by the Surface 
Transportation Board to the Office of Management and Budget. 
The Committee's recommendation will fund a total of 135 full-
time equivalent [FTE] positions, the same number of personnel 
as are currently employed at the Board.

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $3,642,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       3,847,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,847,000

    The Committee recommends $3,847,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
the same funding level requested by the administration.
    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 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.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1998 \1\................................     $48,371,000
Budget estimate, 1999 \2\...............................      47,200,000
Committee recommendation................................      53,473,000

\1\ Excludes $5,400,000 in emergency appropriations.
\2\ The President's budget request also included an appropriation of 
$6,000,000 in user fees.

    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 $53,473,000, which is 
$273,000 above the administration's budget request. The 
$273,000 increase is necessary to cover the annualized effect 
of the additional positions provided by Congress last year. The 
NTSB's salaries and expenses shall be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget    
                                           Staff (FTE)      authority   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction...................              91     $12,150,000 
Aviation safety........................             139      19,185,120 
Surface transportation safety..........              96      12,242,360 
Research and engineering...............              66       8,485,520 
Administrative law judges..............              10       1,410,000 
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................             402      53,473,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    User fees.--The Committee has denied the request to collect 
$6,000,000 in user fees. The Committee is opposed to such a fee 
because it makes certain transportation sectors (that is, the 
aviation industry) responsible for paying accident 
investigation costs while other sectors (that is, rail, 
highway, marine, et cetera) would not be responsible for these 
costs. In addition, such fees do not appear to meet existing 
definitions of user fees, and would essentially be new taxes.

                             Emergency Fund

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

    The bill includes an appropriation of $1,000,000 for the 
emergency fund to remain available until expended. Under Public 
Law 97-257 (Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1982), Congress 
provided a $1,000,000 emergency fund to be used for accident 
investigation expenses when investigations would otherwise have 
been hampered by lack of funding. The Committee notes that the 
Board has had to use the fund three times in the last 3 years. 
The fund was fully replenished in the fiscal year 1998 
Transportation appropriations bill, and the current balance is 
$1,000,000. The Committee's recommendation doubles the size of 
the emergency fund to $2,000,000. At this level, sufficient 
funds should be available for unanticipated or unusually 
expensive accident investigations. The Committee has also 
included language to expand the eligible uses of the fund to 
include expenses associated with the provision of services to 
families of victims of transportation disasters.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee concurs with the general provisions that 
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
as proposed in the budget, with some changes, deletions, and 
additions. These are noted below:
    Sec. 305. Modifies a requested provision to prohibit the 
use of funds for the salaries and expenses of more than 91 
political and Presidential appointees to the Department of 
Transportation.
    Sec. 310. This provision regarding the allocation of 
Federal-aid Highway Program funds is continued with 
modifications to reflect the passage of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21].
    Sec. 315. Deletes the requested provision allowing transfer 
authority between appropriated accounts, and includes provision 
prohibiting the use of funds to award multiyear contracts for 
production end items that include certain specified provisions.
    Sec. 316. Deletes the requested provision allowing expanded 
definition of capital in use of Federal transit funds, as it 
has been codified in TEA21, and includes provision allowing the 
State of Alaska to utilize allocated highway funds for projects 
of international origin or implications.
    Sec. 317. Modifies a requested provision to allow funds for 
capital investment grants, other than fixed guideway 
modernization projects, which are not obligated by September 
30, 2001, to be used for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
    Sec. 319. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted that caps the amount of funds that may be 
used to support the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems 
Development.
    Sec. 320. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted that reduces the funds provided for the 
Transportation Administrative Service Center.
    Sec. 322. Includes provision that prohibits the imposition 
of requirements, not authorized in law, on applicants for funds 
under this act.
    Sec. 323. Prohibits the use of funds to promulgate or 
enforce any regulation that has the effect of requiring two 
attendants during unloading of liquefied compressed gases.
    Sec. 325. Requires public disclosure of the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation's national average per passenger 
loss.
    Sec. 326. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted that prohibits the use of funds in this 
act for activities designed to influence Congress on 
legislation or appropriations except through proper, official 
channels.
    Sec. 327. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted that limits the amount available for 
advisory committees to $1,000,000.
    Sec. 328. Deletes unnecessary provision regarding odometer 
regulations, and adds provision that provides authority to 
mitigate leaking aboveground storage tanks in Alaska.
    Sec. 330. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted relating to compliance with the Buy 
American Act.
    Sec. 333. Modifies a requested provision regarding rebates, 
refunds, incentive payments, and minor fees received by the 
Department from travel management centers, charge card 
programs, and other sources, making such funds available until 
December 31, 1999.
    Sec. 334. Includes a provision which authorizes the 
conveyance of Coast Guard station property to the State of 
North Carolina.
    Sec. 335. Includes a provision that makes previously 
provided highway funds in Augusta, GA, available for a grade-
crossing project in Augusta, GA.
    Sec. 336. Includes a provision allowing States the option 
of licensing commercial motor vehicle operators who operate 
solely within the State.
    Sec. 337. Provides that no approval from the Secretary 
(other than review of the project final design) shall be 
required to construct additional entrances and exits between 
exits 57 and 58 of Interstate 495 in Suffolk County, NY, 
provided such entrances and exits are designed, constructed or 
otherwise authorized by the responsible State transportation 
agency through the appropriate State environmental process.
    Sec. 338. Provides that the Secretary of Transportation 
shall enter into agreements with the New York State Department 
of Transportation that would allow automotive service stations 
or other commercial establishments for serving motor vehicle 
users to be sited and constructed in the vicinity of exits 51 
and either exit 66, 67, or 68 of the Long Island Expressway 
(Interstate 495) in Suffolk County.
    Sec. 339. Includes a provision which harmonizes current 
safety statutes by bringing bumper standards within the scope 
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
exemption discretion for case-by-case determinations.
    Sec. 340. This general provision provides $30,000,000 out 
of available capital investment grant funds authorized under 49 
U.S.C. section 5338(b)(2)(A)(i) to be made available for 
specified transit fixed guideway projects.
    Sec. 341. Includes a provision relating to the 
transportation of edible oils which directs the Secretary to 
issue regulations to comply with requirements set forth in the 
Edible Oil Regulatory Reform act.
    Sec. 342. This provision clarifies existing law regarding 
the definition of airplane in Public Law 96-487, subject to 
reasonable regulation.
    Sec. 343. This provision clarifies the eligibility of a 
rail grade separation project.
    Sec. 344. This provision clarifies the eligibility of a 
highway construction project in New York.
    Sec. 345. This provision waives repayment of any Federal-
aid highway funds expended on the construction of high 
occupancy vehicle lanes or auxiliary lanes on I-287 in New 
Jersey.
    Sec. 346. This provision requires consultation with local 
officials during the construction process of a highway project 
in Milwaukee.
    Sec. 347. This general provision directs that discretionary 
bus funds previously made available for a transit information 
integration program may be used to fund any aspect of the 
project.
    Sec. 348. This general provision allows the State of 
Vermont to utilize the State's transit formula funds for Amtrak 
capital investment and operating support during the TEA21 
authorization period.

  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.''

United States Coast Guard:
    Operating expenses..................................  $2,761,603,000
    Acquisition, construction, and improvements.........     388,693,000
    Environmental compliance and restoration............      21,000,000
    Retired pay.........................................     684,000,000
    Reserve training....................................      67,000,000
    Research, development, test, and evaluation.........      17,461,000
    Boat safety.........................................................
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Operations..........................................   5,538,259,000
    Facilities and equipment............................   2,044,233,269
    Research, engineering, and development..............     173,627,000
    Grants-in-aid to airports...........................   2,100,000,000
Federal Railroad Administration: Railroad safety........      61,876,000

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered reported en bloc, S. 2307, an original Transportation 
and related agencies appropriations bill, 1999, and an S. 2312, 
an original Treasury and General Government appropriations 
bill, 1999, both subject to amendment and both subject to 
appropriate scorekeeping, by a recorded vote of 28-0, a quorum 
being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mr. Faircloth
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Boxer

 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.

                           TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS

                       CHAPTER 2--OTHER HIGHWAYS

Sec. 218. Alaska Highway

    (a) Recognizing the benefits that will accrue to the State 
of Alaska and to the United States from the reconstruction of 
the Alaska Highway from the Alaskan border to Haines Junction 
in Canada and the Haines Cutoff Highway from Haines Junction in 
Canada to [the south Alaskan border] Haines, the Secretary is 
authorized out of the funds appropriated for the purpose of 
this section to provide for necessary reconstruction of such 
highway. Such appropriations shall remain available until 
expended. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
addition to such funds, upon agreement with the State of 
Alaska, the Secretary is authorized to expend on such [highway] 
highway or the Alaska Marine Highway System any Federal-aid 
highway funds apportioned to the State of Alaska under this 
title at a Federal share of 100 per centum. Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, any obligation limitation enacted for 
fiscal year 1983 or for [any other fiscal year thereafter] any 
other fiscal year thereafter, including any portion of any 
other fiscal year thereafter, prior to the date of the 
enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
shall not apply to projects authorized by the preceding 
sentence. No expenditures shall be made for the [construction 
of such highways until an agreement] construction of the 
portion of such highways that are in Canada until an agreement 
has been reached by the Government of Canada and the Government 
of the United States which shall provide, in part, that the 
Canadian Government--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

             SUBTITLE VI--MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS

                            PART A--GENERAL

                   CHAPTER 301--MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

                SUBCHAPTER II--STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE

Sec. 30113. General exemptions

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


(b) Authority To Exempt and Procedures.

  (1) The Secretary of Transportation may exempt, on a 
temporary basis, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter or passenger motor 
vehicles from a bumper standard prescribed under chapter 325 of 
this title, on terms the Secretary considers appropriate. An 
exemption may be renewed. A renewal may be granted only on 
reapplication and must conform to the requirements of this 
subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) The Secretary may act under this subsection on finding 
that--
          (A) an exemption is consistent with the public 
        interest and this chapter or chapter 325 of this title 
        (as applicable); and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


(c) Contents of Applications.

  A manufacturer applying for an exemption under subsection (b) 
of this section shall include the following information in the 
application:
          (1) if the application is made under subsection 
        (b)(3)(B)(i) of this section, a complete financial 
        statement describing the economic hardship and a 
        complete description of the manufacturer's good faith 
        effort to comply with each motor vehicle safety 
        standard prescribed under this chapter, or a bumper 
        standard prescribed under chapter 325 of this title, 
        from which the manufacturer is requesting an exemption.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


(h) Permanent Label Requirement.

  The Secretary shall require a permanent label to be fixed to 
a motor vehicle granted an exemption under this section. The 
label shall either name or describe each motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter, or bumper standard 
prescribed under chapter 325 of this title from which the 
vehicle is exempt. The Secretary may require that written 
notice of an exemption be delivered by appropriate means to the 
dealer and the first purchaser of the vehicle other than for 
resale.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 32502. Bumper standards

(a) * * *

(c) Exemptions.

  For good cause, the Secretary may exempt from [any part of a 
standard] all or any part of a standard--
          (1) a multipurpose passenger vehicle;
          (2) a make, model, or class of a passenger motor 
        vehicle manufactured for a special use, if the standard 
        would interfere unreasonably with the special use of 
        the vehicle[.]; or
          (3) a passenger motor vehicle for which an 
        application for an exemption under section 30013(b) of 
        this title has been filed in accordance with the 
        requirements of that section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 32506. Prohibited acts

(a) General.

  Except as provided in this section and section 32502 of this 
title, a person may not--
          (1) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, 
        introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate 
        commerce, or import into the United States, a passenger 
        motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment 
        manufactured on or after the date an applicable 
        standard under section 32502 of this title takes 
        effect, unless it conforms to the standard;
          (2) fail to comply with an applicable regulation 
        prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under 
        this chapter;
          (3) fail to keep records, refuse access to or copying 
        of records, fail to make reports or provide items or 
        information, or fail or refuse to allow entry or 
        inspection, as required by this chapter or a regulation 
        prescribed under this chapter; or
          (4) fail to provide the certificate required by 
        section 32504 of this title, or provide a certificate 
        that the person knows, or in the exercise of reasonable 
        care has reason to know, is false or misleading in a 
        material respect.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           PART B--COMMERCIAL

            CHAPTER 313--COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS

Sec. 31305. General driver fitness and testing

(a) * * *

(b) Requirements for Operating Vehicles.

  (1) Except as provided in [paragraph (2)] paragraphs (2) and 
(3) of this subsection, an individual may operate a commercial 
motor vehicle only if the individual has passed written and 
driving tests to operate the vehicle that meet the minimum 
standards prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (a) of 
this section.
  (2) The Secretary may prescribe regulations providing that an 
individual may operate a commercial motor vehicle for not more 
than 90 days if the individual--
          (A) passes a driving test for operating a commercial 
        motor vehicle that meets the minimum standards 
        prescribed under subsection (a) of this section; and
          (B) has a driver's license that is not suspended, 
        revoked, or canceled.
  (3) Any individual may operate a commercial motor vehicle 
solely within the borders of a State if the individual--
          (A) has passed written and driving tests to operate 
        the vehicle that meet such minimum standards as may be 
        prescribed by the State; and
          (B) has a driver's license that is not suspended, 
        revoked, or canceled.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 31311. Requirements for State participation

(a) General.

  To avoid having amounts withheld from apportionment under 
section 31314 of this title, a State shall comply with the 
following requirements:
          (13) The State shall impose penalties the State 
        considers appropriate and the Secretary approves for an 
        individual operating a commercial motor vehicle when 
        the individual--
                  (A) does not have a commercial driver's 
                license, except as provided in paragraph (2) or 
                (3) of section 31305(b) of this title;
                  (B) has a driver's license revoked, 
                suspended, or canceled; or
                  (C) is disqualified from operating a 
                commercial motor vehicle.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Public Law 96-487, 94 
                               Stat. 2464

    Sec. 1110. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
Act or other law, the Secretary shall permit, on conservation 
system units, national recreation areas, and national 
conservation areas, and those public lands designated as 
wilderness study, the use of snowmachines (during periods of 
adequate snow cover, or frozen river conditions in the case of 
wild and scenic rivers), motorboats, [airplanes] aircraft, and 
nonmotorized surface transportation methods for traditional 
activities (where such activities are permitted by this Act or 
other law) and for travel to and from villages and homesites. 
Such use shall be subject to reasonable regulations by the 
Secretary to protect the natural and other values of the 
conservation system units, national recreation areas, and 
national conservation areas, and shall not be prohibited 
unless, after notice and hearing in the vicinity of the 
affected unit or area, the Secretary finds that such use would 
be detrimental to the resource values of the unit or area. 
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the 
use of other methods of transportation for such travel and 
activities on conservation system lands where such use is 
permitted by this Act or other law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 101-380

Sec. 8102 TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE LIABILITY FUND.

    (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (2) Disposition of fund balance.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Disposition of the balance.--After the 
                Comptroller General of the United States 
                certifies that the requirements of subparagraph 
                (A) have been met, the trustees of the TAPS 
                Fund shall dispose of the balance in the TAPS 
                Fund after the reservation of amounts are made 
                under subparagraph (A) by--
                          (i) rebating the pro rata share of 
                        the balance to the State of Alaska for 
                        its contributions as an owner of oil, 
                        which shall be used to repair and 
                        replace bulk fuel storage tanks in 
                        Alaska so that such tanks comply with 
                        this Act and with other applicable 
                        federal and state laws;
                          (ii) transferring and depositing the 
                        remainder of the balance into the Oil 
                        Spill Liability Trust Fund established 
                        under section 9509 of the Internal 
                        Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9509).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178

SEC. 1211. AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION LAWS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (n) * * *
  (o) Modification of Substitute Project in Wisconsin.--Section 
1045(a) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
of 1991 (as amended by subsection (n) of this section) is 
amended in paragraph (2)--
          (1) by inserting `after consultation with appropriate 
        local government officials,' after `Wisconsin,'; and
          (2) by striking `shall' and inserting `may'.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3021. PILOT PROGRAM FOR INTERCITY RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT 
                    FROM MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot 
program to determine the benefits of using funds from the Mass 
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for intercity 
passenger rail. Any assistance provided to the State of 
Oklahoma or the State of Vermont under sections 5307 and 5311 
of title 49, United States Code, during fiscal years 1998 
through 2003 may be used for capital improvements to, and 
operating assistance for, intercity passenger rail service.
  (b) Report.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2002, the 
        Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
        Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
        and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the pilot 
        program established under this section.
          (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph 
        (1) shall include--
                  (A) an evaluation of the effect of the pilot 
                program on alternative forms of transportation 
                within the State of Oklahoma and the State of 
                Vermont;
                  (B) an evaluation of the effect of the 
                program on operators of mass transportation and 
                their passengers;
                  (C) a calculation of the amount of Federal 
                assistance provided under this section 
                transferred for the provision of intercity 
                passenger rail service; and
                  (D) an estimate of the benefits to intercity 
                passenger rail service, including the number of 
                passengers served, the number of route miles 
                covered, and the number of localities served by 
                intercity passenger rail service.

                                            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 1999: Subcommittee on                                                       
 Transportation and Related Agencies:                                                                           
    Defense discretionary...................................          300          300          300          300
    Nondefense discretionary................................       11,639       11,597       13,347   \1\ 13,346
    Highways................................................  ...........  ...........       21,885       21,885
    Mass transit............................................  ...........  ...........        4,401        4,401
    Mandatory...............................................          682          682          678          678
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:                                                      
    1999....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 16,310
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       15,230
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,482
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,244
    2003 and future year....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,135
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 1999                                                    
 in bill....................................................           NA          725           NA        7,217
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1998 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL 
                                                                        YEAR 1999                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Senate Committee recommendation   
                                                                                                   Committee              compared with (+ or -)        
                        Item                          1998 appropriation    Budget estimate     recommendation   ---------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  1998 appropriation    Budget estimate 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
        TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
               Office of the Secretary                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................        $61,000,000         $61,930,000   ..................       -$61,000,000        -$61,930,000 
    Immediate Office of the Secretary...............  ..................  ..................         $1,768,600          +1,768,600          +1,768,600 
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary........  ..................  ..................            554,700            +554,700            +554,700 
    Office of the General Counsel...................  ..................  ..................          8,645,000          +8,645,000          +8,645,000 
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy....  ..................  ..................          2,479,500          +2,479,500          +2,479,500 
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation                                                                                                      
     and International Affairs......................  ..................  ..................          6,686,300          +6,686,300          +6,686,300 
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and                                                                                                    
     Programs.......................................  ..................  ..................          5,687,800          +5,687,800          +5,687,800 
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for                                                                                                               
     Governmental Affairs...........................  ..................  ..................          1,600,000          +1,600,000          +1,600,000 
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for                                                                                                               
     Administration.................................  ..................  ..................         19,570,200         +19,570,200         +19,570,200 
    Office of Public Affairs........................  ..................  ..................          1,656,600          +1,656,600          +1,656,600 
    Executive Secretariat...........................  ..................  ..................          1,088,500          +1,088,500          +1,088,500 
    Contract Appeals Board..........................  ..................  ..................            460,000            +460,000            +460,000 
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business......  ..................  ..................          1,000,000          +1,000,000          +1,000,000 
    Office of Intelligence and Security.............  ..................  ..................            935,000            +935,000            +935,000 
    Office of the Chief Information Officer.........  ..................  ..................          4,652,700          +4,652,700          +4,652,700 
    Office of Intermodalism.........................  ..................  ..................          1,000,000          +1,000,000          +1,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................................         61,000,000          61,930,000          57,784,900          -3,215,100          -4,145,100 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Office of Civil Rights..............................          5,574,000           6,966,000           5,562,000             -12,000          -1,404,000 
Transportation planning, research, and development..          4,400,000           4,710,000           8,328,400          +3,928,400          +3,618,400 
Transportation Administrative Service Center........       (121,800,000)  ..................       (165,215,000)       (+43,415,000)      (+165,215,000)
Payments to Air Carriers (rescission)...............        (-2,500,000)  ..................  ..................        (+2,500,000)  ..................
Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway Trust                                                                                                      
 Fund): Rescission of contract authorization........       (-41,600,000)  ..................  ..................       (+41,600,000)  ..................
Minority business resource center program account...          1,900,000           1,900,000           1,900,000   ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on direct loans)....................        (15,000,000)        (13,775,000)        (13,775,000)        (-1,225,000)  ..................
Minority business outreach..........................          2,900,000           2,900,000           2,900,000   ..................  ..................
Amtrak Reform Council...............................          2,450,000   ..................            450,000          -2,000,000            +450,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary................         78,224,000          78,406,000          76,925,300          -1,298,700          -1,480,700 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                     Coast Guard                                                                                                                        
Operating expenses..................................      2,415,400,000       2,462,705,000       2,461,603,000         +46,203,000          -1,102,000 
    Defense function (050)..........................        300,000,000         309,000,000         300,000,000   ..................         -9,000,000 
    (Transfer from DOD).............................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
Acquisition, construction, and improvements:                                                                                                            
    Offsetting collections..........................         -9,000,000   ..................  ..................         +9,000,000   ..................
    Vessels.........................................        212,100,000         234,573,000         215,473,000          +3,373,000         -19,100,000 
    Aircraft........................................         25,800,000          37,131,000          46,131,000         +20,331,000          +9,000,000 
    Other equipment.................................         44,650,000          33,969,000          35,389,000          -9,261,000          +1,420,000 
    Shore facilities and aids to navigation                                                                                                             
     facilities.....................................         68,300,000          53,650,000          43,250,000         -25,050,000         -10,400,000 
    Personnel and related support...................         47,000,000          48,450,000          48,450,000          +1,450,000   ..................
    User fees.......................................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, AC&I appropriations.................        388,850,000         407,773,000         388,693,000            -157,000         -19,080,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Environmental compliance and restoration............         21,000,000          21,000,000          21,000,000   ..................  ..................
Alteration of bridges (Highway Trust Fund)..........         17,000,000   ..................         20,000,000          +3,000,000         +20,000,000 
Retired pay.........................................        653,196,000         684,000,000         684,000,000         +30,804,000   ..................
Reserve training....................................         67,000,000          67,000,000          67,000,000   ..................  ..................
Research, development, test, and evaluation.........         19,000,000          18,300,000          17,461,000          -1,539,000            -839,000 
Boat safety (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund)..........         35,000,000   ..................  ..................        -35,000,000   ..................
    Mandatory program...............................  ..................         35,000,000   ..................  ..................        -35,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Coast Guard............................      3,916,446,000       4,004,778,000       3,959,757,000         +43,311,000         -45,021,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
           Federal Aviation Administration                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Operations..........................................      5,301,934,000       5,631,130,000       5,538,259,000        +236,325,000         -92,871,000 
    Appropriation of user fees......................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................  ..................
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust                                                                                                      
 Fund)..............................................      1,900,477,000       2,130,000,000       2,044,683,269        +144,206,269         -85,316,731 
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and                                                                                                     
 Airway Trust  Fund)................................        199,183,000         290,000,000         173,627,000         -25,556,000        -116,373,000 
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust                                                                                                    
 Fund):                                                                                                                                                 
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........     (1,600,000,000)     (1,600,000,000)     (1,600,000,000)  ..................  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations).....................     (1,700,000,000)     (1,700,000,000)     (2,100,000,000)      (+400,000,000)      (+400,000,000)
    Rescission of contract authorization............      (-707,000,000)  ..................  ..................      (+707,000,000)  ..................
Facilities, equipment and development...............           -500,000   ..................  ..................           +500,000   ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration........      7,401,094,000       8,051,130,000       7,756,569,269        +355,475,269        -294,560,731 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          (Limitations on obligations)..............     (1,700,000,000)     (1,700,000,000)     (2,100,000,000)      (+400,000,000)      (+400,000,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources.....................     (9,101,094,000)     (9,751,130,000)     (9,856,569,269)      (+755,475,269)      (+105,439,269)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
           Federal Highway Administration                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
Limitation on administrative expenses...............       (552,266,000)       (521,883,000)       (320,413,000)      (-231,853,000)      (-201,470,000)
Appalachian Development Highway system..............        300,000,000   ..................        200,000,000        -100,000,000        +200,000,000 
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                              
    (Limitation on obligations).....................    (21,500,000,000)    (21,500,000,000)    (25,511,000,000)    (+4,011,000,000)    (+4,011,000,000)
    (Exempt obligations) (sec. 310 a-d).............     (1,597,000,000)     (1,265,000,000)     (1,207,903,000)      (-389,097,000)       (-57,097,000)
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........    (20,800,000,000)    (23,000,000,000)    (24,000,000,000)    (+3,200,000,000)    (+1,000,000,000)
    Emergency relief program (emergency funding)....       (259,000,000)  ..................  ..................      (-259,000,000)  ..................
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                       
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........        (85,000,000)       (100,000,000)       (100,000,000)       (+15,000,000)  ..................
    (Limitation on obligations).....................        (84,825,000)       (100,000,000)       (100,000,000)       (+15,175,000)  ..................
State infrastructure banks (Highway Trust Fund).....  ..................        150,000,000   ..................  ..................       -150,000,000 
Transportation infrastructure credit enhancement                                                                                                        
 program (Highway Trust Fund).......................  ..................        100,000,000   ..................  ..................       -100,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Highway Administration.........        300,000,000         250,000,000         200,000,000        -100,000,000         -50,000,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          (Limitations on obligations)..............    (21,584,825,000)    (21,600,000,000)    (25,611,000,000)    (+4,026,175,000)    (+4,011,000,000)
          (Sec. 310 obligations)....................     (1,597,000,000)     (1,265,000,000)     (1,207,903,000)      (-389,097,000)       (-57,097,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources.....................    (23,481,825,000)    (23,115,000,000)    (27,018,903,000)    (+3,537,078,000)    (+3,903,903,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
   National Highway Traffic Safety Administration                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
Operations and research (highway trust fund)........         74,901,000   ..................         87,400,000         +12,499,000         +87,400,000 
Operations and research (highway trust fund)                                                                                                            
 (limitation on obliga-  tions).....................        (72,061,000)       (172,902,000)        (72,000,000)           (-61,000)      (-100,902,000)
National Driver Register (Sec. 402).................          2,300,000           2,300,000           2,000,000            -300,000            -300,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and research.............         77,201,000           2,300,000          89,400,000         +12,199,000         +87,100,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                     
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........       (186,000,000)       (197,000,000)       (200,000,000)       (+14,000,000)        (+3,000,000)
    (Limitation on obligations):                                                                                                                        
        Highway safety programs (Sec. 402)..........       (149,700,000)       (166,700,000)       (150,000,000)          (+300,000)       (-16,700,000)
        Occupant protection incentive grants........  ..................        (20,000,000)        (10,000,000)       (+10,000,000)       (-10,000,000)
        Drugged driving incentive grants............  ..................         (5,000,000)  ..................  ..................        (-5,000,000)
        State Highway safety data grants............  ..................  ..................         (5,000,000)        (+5,000,000)        (+5,000,000)
        Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures                                                                                                        
         grants (Sec 410)...........................        (34,500,000)        (39,000,000)        (35,000,000)          (+500,000)        (-4,000,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, National Highway Traffic Safety                                                                                                        
           Administration...........................         77,201,000           2,300,000          89,400,000         +12,199,000         +87,100,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
              (Limitations on obligations)..........       (256,261,000)       (403,602,000)       (272,000,000)       (+15,739,000)      (-131,602,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total budgetary resources.................       (333,462,000)       (405,902,000)       (361,400,000)       (+27,938,000)       (-44,502,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
           Federal Railroad Administration                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Office of the Administrator.........................         20,290,000          21,573,000          21,020,000            +730,000            -553,000 
Railroad safety.....................................         57,067,000          61,959,000          61,876,000          +4,809,000             -83,000 
Nationwide differential global positioning system...  ..................          3,000,000   ..................  ..................         -3,000,000 
Railroad research and development...................         20,758,000          20,757,000          25,760,000          +5,002,000          +5,003,000 
Northeast corridor improvement program..............        250,000,000   ..................  ..................       -250,000,000   ..................
    (Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project)....        (12,000,000)  ..................  ..................       (-12,000,000)  ..................
Next generation high-speed rail.....................         20,395,000          12,594,000          28,494,000          +8,099,000         +15,900,000 
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation......................         10,000,000   ..................         10,000,000   ..................        +10,000,000 
Rhode Island Rail Development.......................         10,000,000          10,000,000           5,000,000          -5,000,000          -5,000,000 
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger                                                                                                               
 Corporation:                                                                                                                                           
    Operations......................................        344,000,000   ..................  ..................       -344,000,000   ..................
    Capital.........................................        199,000,000   ..................        555,000,000        +356,000,000        +555,000,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Grants to Amtrak....................        543,000,000   ..................        555,000,000         +12,000,000        +555,000,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger                                                                                                       
 Corporation (Highway Trust Fund)...................  ..................        621,476,000   ..................  ..................       -621,476,000 
    (Northeast corridor improvements)...............  ..................       (200,000,000)  ..................  ..................      (-200,000,000)
    (Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project)....  ..................        (11,746,530)  ..................  ..................       (-11,746,530)
Emergency railroad rehab and repair (emergency                                                                                                          
 funding)...........................................         (9,800,000)  ..................  ..................        (-9,800,000)  ..................
Conrail Labor protection............................           -508,234   ..................  ..................           +508,234   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration........        931,001,766         751,359,000         707,150,000        -223,851,766         -44,209,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
           Federal Transit Administration                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
Administrative expenses.............................         45,738,000   ..................         10,800,000         -34,938,000         +10,800,000 
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass                                                                                                       
 Transit Account) (limitation on obligations).......  ..................        (48,142,000)        (43,200,000)       (+43,200,000)        (-4,942,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Administrative expenses.............        (45,738,000)        (48,142,000)        (54,000,000)        (+8,262,000)        (+5,858,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Formula grants......................................        240,000,000   ..................        570,000,000        +330,000,000        +570,000,000 
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund):                                                                                                                    
    (Limitation on obligations).....................     (2,260,000,000)  ..................     (2,280,000,000)       (+20,000,000)    (+2,280,000,000)
    Operating assistance grants.....................       (150,000,000)  ..................  ..................      (-150,000,000)  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Formula grants......................     (2,500,000,000)  ..................     (2,850,000,000)      (+350,000,000)    (+2,850,000,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Formula programs (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit                                                                                                      
 Account):                                                                                                                                              
    (Limitation on obligations).....................  ..................     (3,709,235,000)  ..................  ..................    (-3,709,235,000)
    (Liquidation of contract authorization).........  ..................     (1,500,000,000)  ..................  ..................    (-1,500,000,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
University transportation research..................          6,000,000   ..................          1,200,000          -4,800,000          +1,200,000 
University transportation research (Highway trust                                                                                                       
 fund, mass transit acct) (limitation on                                                                                                                
 obligations).......................................  ..................  ..................         (4,800,000)        (+4,800,000)        (+4,800,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, University Transportation research..         (6,000,000)  ..................         (6,000,000)  ..................        (+6,000,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Transit planning and research.......................         92,000,000   ..................         19,800,000         -72,200,000         +19,800,000 
Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund,                                                                                                      
 Mass transit account) (limitation on obligations)..  ..................        (91,900,000)        (78,200,000)       (+78,200,000)       (-13,700,000)
    Metropolitan planning...........................        (39,500,000)        (39,500,000)        (43,841,600)        (+4,341,600)        (+4,341,600)
    State planning and research.....................         (8,250,000)         (8,250,000)         (9,158,400)          (+908,400)          (+908,400)
    National planning and research..................        (36,750,000)        (26,900,000)        (27,500,000)        (-9,250,000)          (+600,000)
    Transit cooperative research....................  ..................         (8,250,000)         (8,250,000)        (+8,250,000)  ..................
    National transit institute......................         (3,000,000)         (3,000,000)         (4,000,000)        (+1,000,000)        (+1,000,000)
    Rural transportation assistance.................         (4,500,000)         (6,000,000)         (5,250,000)          (+750,000)          (-750,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Transit planning and research.......        (92,000,000)        (91,900,000)        (98,000,000)        (+6,000,000)        (+6,100,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund)                                                                                                       
 (liquidation of contract authorization)............     (2,210,000,000)  ..................     (2,446,200,000)      (+236,200,000)    (+2,446,200,000)
Capital investments grants..........................  ..................  ..................        451,400,000        +451,400,000        +451,400,000 
Capital Investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass                                                                                                     
 Transit Account) (limitation on obligations).......  ..................       (876,114,857)     (1,805,600,000)    (+1,805,600,000)      (+929,485,143)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Capital Investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass                                                                                                     
 Transit Account) (limitation on obligations):                                                                                                          
    Fixed guideway modernization....................       (800,000,000)  ..................       (902,800,000)      (+102,800,000)      (+902,800,000)
    Bus and bus-related facilities..................       (400,000,000)  ..................       (451,400,000)       (+51,400,000)      (+451,400,000)
    New starts......................................       (800,000,000)  ..................       (902,800,000)      (+102,800,000)      (+902,800,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Capital investment grants...........     (2,000,000,000)  ..................     (2,257,000,000)      (+257,000,000)    (+2,257,000,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Major capital investments (Highway Trust Fund, Mass                                                                                                     
 Transit Account) (liquidation of contract                                                                                                              
 authority).........................................  ..................     (1,900,000,000)  ..................  ..................    (-1,900,000,000)
Mass transit capital fund (Highway Trust Fund)                                                                                                          
 (liquidation of contract authorization)............     (2,350,000,000)  ..................     (1,805,600,000)      (-544,400,000)    (+1,805,600,000)
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass                                                                                                          
 Transit Account) (rescission of contract                                                                                                               
 authorization).....................................  ..................  ..................       -392,000,000        -392,000,000        -392,000,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Job access and reverse commute grants...............  ..................  ..................         10,000,000         +10,000,000         +10,000,000 
    (Highway trust fund, Mass transit account)                                                                                                          
     (limitation on obligations)....................  ..................  ..................        (40,000,000)       (+40,000,000)       (+40,000,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute                                                                                                        
         grants.....................................  ..................  ..................      (-342,000,000)      (-342,000,000)      (-342,000,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority......        200,000,000   ..................         50,000,000        -150,000,000         +50,000,000 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority                                                                                                          
 (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account).........  ..................         50,300,000   ..................  ..................        -50,300,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, Federal Transit Administration.........        583,738,000          50,300,000       1,113,200,000        +529,462,000      +1,062,900,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          (Limitations on obligations)..............     (2,260,000,000)     (4,725,391,857)     (4,251,800,000)    (+1,991,800,000)      (-473,591,857)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources.....................     (2,843,738,000)     (4,775,691,857)     (5,365,000,000)    (+2,521,262,000)      (+589,308,143)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust                                                                                                    
 Fund)..............................................         11,200,000   ..................         11,496,000            +296,000         +11,496,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
    Research and Special Programs Administration                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
Research and special programs.......................         29,000,000          29,655,000          29,000,000   ..................           -655,000 
    Hazardous materials safety......................        (15,342,000)        (15,863,000)        (15,863,000)          (+521,000)  ..................
    Emergency transportation........................         (2,443,000)           (997,000)           (997,000)        (-1,446,000)  ..................
    Research and technology.........................         (3,446,000)         (3,851,000)         (3,651,000)          (+205,000)          (-200,000)
    Program and administrative support..............         (8,219,000)         (8,944,000)         (8,489,000)          (+270,000)          (-455,000)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, research and special programs.......        (29,450,000)        (29,655,000)        (29,000,000)          (-450,000)          (-655,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Pipeline safety (Pipeline Safety Fund)..............         28,000,000          32,163,000          29,000,000          +1,000,000          -3,163,000 
Pipeline safety (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)....          3,300,000           3,300,000           3,500,000            +200,000            +200,000 
Pipeline safety reserve fund (Pipeline safety fund).  ..................  ..................          1,659,000          +1,659,000          +1,659,000 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pipeline safety.....................         31,300,000          35,463,000          34,159,000          +2,859,000          -1,304,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Emergency preparedness grants: Emergency                                                                                                                
 preparedness fund..................................            200,000             200,000             200,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Special Programs Admin....         60,500,000          65,318,000          63,359,000          +2,859,000          -1,959,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
             Office of Inspector General                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................         42,000,000          42,491,000          42,720,000            +720,000            +229,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
            Surface Transportation Board                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................         13,853,000          16,000,000          13,853,000   ..................         -2,147,000 
    Offsetting collections..........................  ..................        -16,000,000   ..................  ..................        +16,000,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
                 General Provisions                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
Transportation Administrative Service Center                                                                                                            
 reduction..........................................         -3,000,000   ..................        -10,500,000          -7,500,000         -10,500,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Net total, title I, Department of                                                                                                                 
       Transportation...............................     12,661,157,766      13,296,082,000      13,631,929,569        +970,771,803        +335,847,569 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Appropriations............................    (13,412,257,766)    (13,296,082,000)    (14,023,929,569)      (+611,671,803)      (+727,847,569)
          Rescissions...............................      (-751,100,000)  ..................  ..................      (+751,100,000)  ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
          Rescission of contract authorization......  ..................  ..................       -392,000,000        -392,000,000        -392,000,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      (Limitations on obligations)..................    (25,801,086,000)    (28,428,993,857)    (32,234,800,000)    (+6,433,714,000)    (+3,805,806,143)
      (Sec. 310 obligations)........................     (1,597,000,000)     (1,265,000,000)     (1,207,903,000)      (-389,097,000)       (-57,097,000)
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Net total budgetary resources.................    (40,059,243,766)    (42,990,075,857)    (47,074,632,569)    (+7,015,388,803)    (+4,084,556,712)
                                                                                                                                                        
             TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance                                                                                                    
                        Board                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................          3,640,000           3,847,000           3,847,000            +207,000   ..................
                                                     ===================================================================================================
        National Transportation Safety Board                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses...............................         53,771,000          47,200,000          53,473,000            -298,000          +6,273,000 
    Appropriation of user fees......................  ..................          6,000,000   ..................  ..................         -6,000,000 
Emergency fund......................................          1,000,000           1,000,000           1,000,000   ..................  ..................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Transportation Safety Board...         54,771,000          54,200,000          54,473,000            -298,000            +273,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Related Agencies.............         58,411,000          58,047,000          58,320,000             -91,000            +273,000 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Net total appropriations......................     12,719,568,766      13,354,129,000      13,690,249,569        +970,680,803        +336,120,569 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



