[House Report 106-180]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-180

======================================================================



 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  2000

                                _______
                                

  June 9, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2084]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action......................
                                                                      2
Program, project, and activity.............................
                                                                      4
Title I--Department of Transportation:
        Office of the Secretary............................     2
                                                                      5
        Coast Guard........................................     6
                                                                     19
        Federal Aviation Administration....................    10
                                                                     30
        Federal Highway Administration.....................    16
                                                                     72
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.....    18
                                                                     94
        Federal Railroad Administration....................    21
                                                                    102
        Federal Transit Administration.....................    23
                                                                    114
        Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation......    32
                                                                    179
        Research and Special Programs Administration.......    33
                                                                    180
        Office of Inspector General........................    35
                                                                    185
        Surface Transportation Board.......................    35
                                                                    186
Title II--Related Agencies:
        Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
            Compliance Board...............................    36
                                                                    187
        National Transportation Safety Board...............    36
                                                                    188
Title III--General Provisions..............................    37
                                                                    189
House Report Requirements:
        Appropriations not authorized by law...............
                                                                    199
        Changes in existing law............................
                                                                    194
        Comparison with budget resolution..................
                                                                    200
        Constitutional authority...........................
                                                                    191
        Financial assistance to state and local governments
                                                                    201
        Five-year projections of outlays...................
                                                                    200
        Ramseyer...........................................
                                                                    192
        Transfers of funds.................................
                                                                    192
Tabular summary of the bill................................
                                                                    202

             Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill

    The accompanying bill would provide $13,420,575,000 in new 
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies, $60,245,000 
less than the $13,480,820,000 requested in the budget. In 
total, the bill includes obligational authority (new budget 
authority, guaranteed obligations contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), 
limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations) of 
$50,699,141,000. This is $3,475,285,000 more than the 
comparable fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $541,055,000 more 
than the budget request.
    Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill 
are:
          (1) An appropriation of $8,298,000,000 for the 
        Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of 
        $685,442,000 above the fiscal year 1999 level;
          (2) A limitation of $2,250,000,000 for grants-in-aid 
        for airports, an increase of $300,000,000 above the 
        fiscal year 1999 level and $650,000,000 above the 
        budget request;
          (3) An appropriation of $2,791,000,000 for operating 
        expenses of the Coast Guard, including $521,000,000 for 
        drug interdiction activities, a forty percent increase 
        over last year's level;
          (4) An appropriation of $571,000,000 for grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), 
        to cover capital expenses;
          (5) A total of $60,602,000 for the office of the 
        secretary, $1,975,000 below the budget request;
          (6) Highway program obligation limitations of 
        $27,701,350,000, consistent with provisions of TEA21, 
        and $2,190,350,000 over fiscal year 1999;
          (7) Transit program obligations of $5,797,000,000, 
        consistent with provisions of TEA21, and $824,000,000 
        over fiscal year 1999; and
          (8) A total of $181,884,000 for motor carrier safety 
        operations, research, and grants, an increase of 
        $22,109,000 above fiscal year 1999.

The Effect and Implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
                              21st Century

    Last year, over the objections of the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations and the House and Senate Budget 
Committees, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two new 
additional spending categories or ``firewalls'', the highway 
category and the mass transit category. The highway category is 
comprised of all funding for federal-aid highways, motor 
carrier safety programs, highway safety grants, and highway 
safety research and development programs. The highway category 
obligations are capped at $28,085,150,000 and outlays 
(adjusted) are capped at $24,574,000,000 in fiscal year 2000. 
If appropriations action forces highway obligations or outlays 
to exceed these levels, the difference is charged against the 
non-defense discretionary spending category. Likewise, the 
transit category is comprised of funding for transit formula 
grants, transit capital projects, Federal Transit 
Administration administrative expenses, transit planning and 
research programs, and university transportation research. The 
mass transit category obligations are capped at $5,797,000,000 
and outlays are capped at $4,117,000,000 in fiscal year 2000. 
Any additional appropriated funding above the levels specified 
as guaranteed for each transit program in TEA21 (that which 
could be appropriated from general funds authorized under 
section 5338(h) of TEA21) is charged to the non-defense 
discretionary category.
    These ``firewalls'' make it virtually impossible for the 
Appropriations Committee to make downward adjustments to those 
funding levels in the annual appropriations process over the 
next four years. This Committee argued that providing large 
increases for those programs, and guaranteeing those amounts 
through firewall mechanisms and points of order in the House, 
essentially created mandatory appropriations within the 
discretionary caps, which would undermine Congressional 
flexibility to fund other equally important programs. As a 
result, of the $50,699,141,000 of budgetary resources provided 
in this bill, nearly 70 percent, is not controlled by annual 
appropriations Acts but is predetermined by TEA21. The 
remaining $12,700,000,000 includes appropriations and budgetary 
resources principally for the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation (Amtrak), the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the offices of the secretary, the 
Research and Special Programs Administration, and a number of 
smaller independent agencies. These appropriations are 
currently controlled by annual appropriations action.
    The Committee has worked hard in this new environment to 
produce a balanced bill, which provides adequately for all 
modes of transportation. The transportation subcommittee has 
been allocated an 8.5 percent increase ($3.5 billion) in 
outlays for the coming fiscal year, while the non-defense 
discretionary budget as a whole is at a hard freeze. Clearly, 
this increase will cause non-transportation programs all across 
the government to be under more severe budget pressures, in 
order to keep the overall budget in balance. However, the 
effect of the firewalls also leaves its mark on those 
transportation programs and activities not covered within the 
surface transportation guarantees--most notably the Coast Guard 
and the Federal Aviation Administration. Since the highway and 
transit guarantees consume three-quarters of the increase 
provided to the Subcommittee, other agencies in the bill must 
compete for leftover funding, which is essentially at a hard 
freeze. The FAA and the Coast Guard together requested an 
increase of almost $800,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 outlays. 
Although reasonable, this level of funding is simply not 
possible because of the firewalls, resulting in a Committee 
bill approximately $270,000,000 below the request for these 
safety-related agencies. Since the Subcommittee is required to 
allocate the majority of its increased resources to firewalled 
programs, these other agencies will continue to feel the 
budgetary pressures.
    The Committee has done the best it can considering the new 
firewalls. However, the Committee is concerned that TEA21 
continues to skew transportation priorities inappropriately, by 
providing a banquet of increases to highway and transit 
spending while leaving safety-related agencies such as the 
Coast Guard and FAA to scramble for the remaining crumbs. The 
Committee continues to believe that safety should remain the 
Federal Government's highest responsibility in the 
transportation area. Were it not for the firewalls, a portion 
of the generous 8.5 percent increase could have been allocated 
to improvements in aviation or maritime safety, and more could 
have been done to fight the menace of illegal drug trafficking, 
while still providing significant increases in highway and 
transit programs. The Committee has also been unable to 
consider increases above the guaranteed levels for highways and 
transit programs, because it would have required even further 
reductions in critical FAA and Coast Guard programs.

                            Tabular Summary

    A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 
1999 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 
2000 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end 
of this report.

                           Committee Hearings

    The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the 
programs and projects provided for in the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 
fiscal year 2000. These hearings are contained in seven 
published volumes. The Committee received testimony from 
officials of the executive branch, Members of Congress, 
officials of the General Accounting Office, officials of state 
and local governments, and private citizens.
    The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2000 have been 
developed after careful consideration of all the information 
available to the Committee.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2000, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions 
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or 
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory 
statements of the committee of conference. This definition 
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) 
authority is provided, as well as to capital investment grants, 
Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage 
reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds 
appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and 
improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each 
``budget item'' that is listed under said accounts in the 
budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent 
appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, 
conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the 
committee of conference.

                            Safety Programs

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

                                TITLE I


                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY


                         Salaries and Expenses





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................     ($60,490,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \2\..................        62,577,000
Recommended in the bill \1\...........................      (60,602,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +112,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................        -1,975,000


\1\ Total amount appropriated in separate accounts. Excludes $7,754,000
  in Y2K emergency funding.
\2\ Amount requested in this consolidated account.

    The bill provides a total program level of $60,602,000 for 
the salaries and expenses of the various offices comprising the 
Office of the Secretary. The Committee has not approved the 
consolidated appropriations request for the various offices 
within the office of the secretary and has continued to provide 
appropriations for each office within the office of the 
secretary. Specific program recommendations are discussed in 
this report under the individual appropriations accounts.
    Congressional justifications.--The Committee appreciates 
the timely submission of the department's fiscal year 2000 
congressional justifications. The Committee again directs the 
department to submit all of the department's fiscal year 
congressional justifications on the first Monday in February, 
concurrent with the official submission of the President's 
budget to Congress.
    The department is also directed to submit its fiscal year 
2001 congressional justification materials for the salaries and 
expenses of the office of the secretary at the same level of 
detail provided in the congressional justifications presented 
in fiscal year 2000.
    Staffing levels.--The offices comprising the office of the 
secretary are directed not to fill any positions in fiscal year 
1999 that are currently vacant if such vacancies are proposed 
in this Act for elimination in fiscal year 2000.
    Assessments.--The Committee directs that assessments 
charged by the office of the secretary to the modal 
administrations shall be for administrative activities, not 
policy initiatives.

                           General Provisions

    Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The 
Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), 
similar to provisions in past Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which limits the number 
of political and Presidential appointees within the Department 
of Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 2000 is 100 
personnel, which is the same level as enacted in fiscal year 
1999. The bill specifies that no political or presidential 
appointee may be detailed outside the Department of 
Transportation.
    Transfer authority.--The bill contains a general provision 
(sec. 331) that authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
transfer funds appropriated to any office of the Office of the 
Secretary to any other office of the Office of the Secretary, 
provided that no appropriation shall be increased or decreased 
by more than 12 percent by all such transfers. In addition, any 
transfer shall be submitted for approval to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $1,624,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (1,967,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,867,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +243,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................         -100,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary 
responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 
control of departmental affairs. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $1,867,000 for expenses of the immediate 
office of the secretary, which represents an increase of 
$243,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $100,000 
below the level assumed in the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes the elimination of the new counselor to 
the secretary position (-$100,000).
    Eliminate counselor to the secretary.--The Committee 
recommendation assumes the elimination of the counselor to the 
secretary position, a new position proposed in fiscal year 
2000. The Committee believes that current staffing levels in 
the immediate office of the secretary and the resources 
provided in the bill are sufficient to enable the secretary to 
carry out his legislative agenda, formulate national 
transportation policy, and to promote and foster an intermodal 
transportation system, economic growth and trade.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................          $585,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................         (612,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................           612,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................           +27,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................  ................

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the 
primary responsibility to assist the Secretary in the overall 
planning, direction and control of departmental affairs. The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $612,000 for expenses 
of the office of the deputy secretary, which represents an 
increase of $27,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level 
and the same level assumed in the budget request.

                     Office of the General Counsel





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $8,750,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (9,150,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         9,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +250,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................         -150,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services 
to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the 
legal work of the chief counsels' offices of the operating 
administrations.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,000,000 for 
expenses of the office of general counsel, which represents an 
increase of $250,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level 
and $150,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes the elimination of 1 attorney advisor 
(-$150,000).

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $2,808,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (2,924,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................  ................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        -2,808,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................       -2,924,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Committee recommendation deletes the appropriation for 
the office of the assistant secretary for policy. Funding to 
support the activities of this office are contained in an 
appropriation for a new office, the office of the assistant 
secretary for transportation policy and intermodalism, which is 
discussed later in this report.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $7,650,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (7,732,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         7,632,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................           -18,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................         -100,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs is responsible for administering 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 cooperative programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,632,000 for 
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for aviation 
and international affairs, which represents a reduction of 
$18,000 from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, and $100,000 
below the level assumed in the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes the elimination of one international 
transportation specialist. The bill includes a provision that 
permits the collection and crediting to this appropriation of 
up to $1,250,000 in user fees, as requested in the budget.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $6,349,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (6,790,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         6,770,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +421,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................          -20,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is 
responsible for developing, reviewing and presenting budget 
resource requirements for the department to the Secretary, 
Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,770,000 for 
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for budget 
and programs, which represents an increase of $421,000 above 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, and $20,000 below the level 
assumed in the budget request. The recommendation also 
disallows increases in reception and representation costs 
(-$20,000).

    Reception and representation costs.--The Committee has not 
provided an increase of $20,000 for additional representation 
and reception activities. This request has been rejected for 
the past several years. In light of staffing reductions and 
budget constraints, approving additional appropriations for 
reception and representation cannot be justified.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $1,941,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (2,039,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,039,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................           +98,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................  ................

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental 
Affairs is responsible for coordinating all Congressional, 
intergovernmental, and consumer activities of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,039,000 for 
this office, which represents an increase of $98,000 above the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level, and the same as the level 
assumed in the budget request.
    The Committee directs the department to notify the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three 
business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of 
intent, or full funding grant agreement in excess of $1,000,000 
is announced by the department or its modal administrations 
from: (1) any discretionary program of the Federal Highway 
Administration other than the emergency relief program; (2) the 
airport improvement program of the Federal Aviation 
Administration; and (3) any program of the Federal Transit 
Administration other than the formula grants and fixed guideway 
modernization programs. Such notification shall include the 
date on which the official announcement of the grant is to be 
made.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................       $19,722,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................      (18,847,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................        17,767,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        -1,955,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................       -1,080,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is 
responsible for coordinating, overseeing and conducting various 
accounting, procurement, personnel management, and ADP 
operations of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,767,000 
for expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for 
administration, which represents a reduction of $1,955,000 from 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, and $1,080,000 below the 
level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes 
the following reductions:




Eliminate funding for human resource information               -$250,000
 system...............................................
Eliminate 2 personnel management specialists..........          -150,000
Eliminate 3 program analysts..........................          -180,000
General reduction due to budget constraints...........          -500,000


    Human resource information system (HRIS).--The Committee 
recommendation deletes funding for the human resource 
information system and directs that none of the funds contained 
in this Act shall be available for the implementation of the 
system. By the department's own admission, HRIS is still in its 
very preliminary concept exploration phase and a total cost 
estimate and schedule for delivery cannot be developed until 
completion of certain decision points, which are not expected 
until the middle of fiscal year 2000. Any further funding for 
this activity is premature and unjustified at this time.
    Personnel reductions.--The Committee recommendation deletes 
funding requested for several positions, including two 
personnel management specialists and three program analysts. 
These positions are currently vacant.
    General reduction.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee recommendation reduces the budget request for the 
office of administration by $500,000. The Committee directs 
that such reductions be taken from non-personnel activities, 
such as contractor support, overhead and other related 
activities, to avoid personnel reductions not otherwise 
directed by the Committee.

                        Office of Public Affairs





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $1,565,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (1,836,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,836,000
Bill compared with:
  Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.....................          +271,000
  Budget request, fiscal year 2000....................  ................

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of Public Affairs is responsible for news 
releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, 
publications, and audio-visual materials of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,836,000 for 
expenses of the office of public affairs, which represents an 
increase of $271,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, 
and the same level assumed in the budget request.

                         Executive Secretariat





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $1,047,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (1,102,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,102,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................           +55,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................  ................

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary in carrying out their management functions and 
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and 
external written materials.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,102,000 for 
expenses of the office of the executive secretariat, which 
represents an increase of $55,000 over the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level, and the same level as assumed in the budget 
request.

                       Board of Contract Appeals





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................          $561,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................         (520,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................           520,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................           -41,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................  ................

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Board of Contract Appeals provides an independent forum 
for considering all contract-related claims by or against a 
contractor involving any element of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $520,000 for 
expenses of the board of contract appeals, which represents a 
decrease of $41,000 from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, 
and the same level assumed in the budget request.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $1,020,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (1,222,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,222,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +202,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................  ................

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
is responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business 
participation in the department's procurement and grants 
programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$1,222,000 for expenses of the office of small and 
disadvantaged business utilization, which represents an 
increase of $202,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, 
and the same level assumed in the budget request.
    The Committee understands that there are many qualified, 
willing and able minority-owned businesses, women-owned 
businesses, and small businesses that design and place 
advertising and advertising campaigns, which can assist the 
department in its efforts to better target ethnic and general 
audiences in the print, electronic, and radio media. The 
Committee urges the department to utilize those qualified 
minority-owned, women-owned, and small businesses in the 
initiation, design and placement of its advertising in the 
print, radio, and electronic media.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $1,036,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (1,574,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,454,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +418,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................         -120,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of Intelligence and Security was created during 
fiscal year 1990 to address transportation intelligence and 
security issues. The primary purposes of the office are to 
provide intelligence and security oversight of the operating 
administrations to increase the safety and security of the 
traveling public, and to provide the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary with current intelligence and security information, 
with special emphasis on potential or actual terrorist threats 
to transportation interests.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,454,000 for 
expenses of the office of intelligence and security, which 
represents an increase of $418,000 over the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level, and a decrease of $120,000 from the levels 
assumed in the budget request. The recommendation disallows 
funding for CIA support reimbursement (-$120,000).

    CIA support reimbursement.--The Committee recommendation 
deletes funds requested to reimburse the Department of Defense 
for a full-time liaison with elements of the intelligence 
community. The Committee expects that such support currently 
provided in fiscal year 1999 by the Department of Defense shall 
continue into fiscal year 2000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $4,875,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (5,075,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         5,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +125,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................          -75,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer serves as the 
principle advisor to the Secretary on matters involving 
information resources and information systems management, 
including responsibility over the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Year 2000 compliance efforts.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 
expenses of the office of the chief information officer, which 
represents an increase of $125,000 over the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level, and $75,000 below the level assumed in the 
budget request. The recommendation assumes a staffing level of 
20 full time equivalent positions. The recommendation includes 
$50,000 for information systems security activities. These 
funds are also supplemented by funds provided to the 
department's modal administrations for similar activities.

                        Office of Intermodalism





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................          $957,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................       (1,187,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................  ................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          -957,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................       -1,187,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Committee recommendation deletes the appropriation for 
the office of intermodalism. Funding to support the activities 
of this office are contained in an appropriation for a new 
office, the office of the assistant secretary for 
transportation policy and intermodalism, which is discussed 
later in this report.

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy and 
                             Intermodalism





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2000......................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................        $3,781,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +3,781,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................        +3,781,000


    The Committee recommends $3,781,000 for the office of the 
assistant secretary of transportation policy and intermodalism. 
This office is to encompass the activities previously performed 
by the office of the assistant secretary for policy and the 
office of intermodalism. The office shall be the chief domestic 
policy office for the department and shall be responsible for 
analysis, development, communication and review of policy and 
plans for domestic transportation issues, including intermodal 
initiatives involving the department's multiple operating 
administrations.
    To satisfy the requirement of Title V of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Committee 
directs that there be established within the office of the 
assistant secretary for transportation policy and intermodalism 
an office of intermodalism, of which the assistant secretary 
for transportation policy and intermodalism shall serve as the 
director. The recommendation assumes the following reductions 
from the budget requests for the office of the assistant 
secretary of policy and the office of intermodalism:




Eliminate associate deputy secretary and director,             -$150,000
 office of intermodalism position.....................
Reduce funds for website development..................           -80,000
Delete funds for radio navigation staff position......           -50,000
Delete funds for transportation industry analyst......           -50,000


    Intermodal trade.--The Committee recognizes that intermodal 
trade is increasingly dependent on air freight. As reliance on 
air cargo continues to grow in the years ahead, the impact of 
this burgeoning trade on the aviation system will increase as 
well. While significant resources have been expended to improve 
the connectivity of the truck and rail modes of freight 
movement, little attention has been paid to the growing need 
for better intermodal connections between air and surface modes 
of freight transportation. The Committee encourages the 
department to examine what steps should be undertaken to 
facilitate the seamless movement of goods between the air and 
surface modes: including infrastructure improvements at freight 
and reliever airports, that would improve connectivity among 
rail, truck, and air freight; reduce congestion at the borders 
and other international ports of entry; and facilitate the 
development of inland ports. These recommendations should 
support ongoing efforts by the Department of the Treasury to 
develop the automated commercial environment and international 
trade processing centers.
                         Office of Civil Rights





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $6,966,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000......................         7,742,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         7,742,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +776,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,742,000 for 
expenses of the office of civil rights, which represents an 
increase of $776,000 above fiscal year 1999 enacted level and 
the same level as the budget request.
    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and 
ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity 
precepts in all of the department's official actions and 
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and 
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated 
and federally assisted transportation programs. This office 
also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of 
Transportation employees.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $9,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000......................         6,275,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,950,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        -6,050,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................        -3,325,000


    This appropriation finances those research activities and 
studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information 
development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities 
in the formulation of national transportation policies. The 
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with 
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit 
research organizations, and private firms.
    The Committee recommends $2,950,000 for this appropriation, 
which represents a decrease of $6,030,000 below the fiscal year 
1999 enacted level and $3,325,000 below the budget request. The 
following table summarizes the Committee's recommendation for 
activities funded within this account:

Transportation policy and planning:
    Environmental, energy and safety policy...................  $100,000
    Transportation economic policy............................   164,000
    Radionavigation and positioning...........................   920,000
    Aviation and international policy.........................   200,000
Salaries and administrative costs:
    Personnel compensation and benefits....................... 1,216,000
    Other administrative costs................................    97,000
    TASC......................................................   153,000
Systems development...........................................   100,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, transportation, planning, research, and 
      development............................................. 2,950,000

    The Committee recommendation deletes funding for several 
new non-critical studies and initiatives, including funding for 
(1) the center on environmental analysis and forecasting; (2) 
an interagency personnel agreement for an engineer on the radio 
navigation and position staff; (3) modernization of aviation 
data systems; and (4) a freight tagging technology study. 
Funding of $750,000 is provided for hazard, threat and 
detection monitoring and shall be available to supplement 
funding provided elsewhere in the office of the secretary and 
the department's operating administrations for similar 
activities. Funding of $100,000 is provided for continuation 
activities of the electronic grants project, but funding is 
deferred for new automated rulemaking activities due to budget 
constraints. In addition, $100,000 is included within the funds 
provided for transportation economic policy studies to conduct 
a study of telecommuting (teleWork), clean air, and energy 
conservation in transportation policy, in conjunction with 
representatives from the high-technology business community, 
state and local governments, and relevant federal agencies.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 1....................     ($124,124,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 2...................      (229,953,000)
Recommended in the bill 3............................      (157,965,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999..................      (+33,841,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000.................     (-71,988,000)

1 In fiscal year 1999, the limitation on transportation administrative
  service center expenses was reduced by $15,000,000.
2 Proposed without limitation. Amount reflected is the estimated program
  level for fiscal year 2000.
3 In fiscal year 2000, the limitation on transportation administrative
  service center expenses is also reduced in a general provision (-
  $10,000,000).

    The transportation administrative service center was 
created in fiscal year 1997 to provide common administrative 
services to the various modes and outside entities that desire 
those services for economy and efficiency. The fund is financed 
through negotiated agreements with the department's operating 
administrations and other governmental elements requiring the 
center's capabilities.
    The Committee agreed to create the transportation 
administrative service center in fiscal year 1997 at the 
department's request. In agreeing to that request, the 
Committee limited (1) the activities that can be transferred to 
the transportation administrative service center to only those 
approved by the agency administrator, and (2) special 
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those 
assessments or reimbursable agreements and the basis for them 
are presented to and approved by the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are continued 
in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $157,965,000, an 
increase of $33,841,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level and $71,988,000 below the request. The recommended 
reductions from the budget request reflect the following 
adjustments:

Eliminate the transportation computer center............    -$15,600,000
Disallow transfer of the National Oceanic and 
    Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical 
    Charting and Cartography to the TASC................     -55,055,000
Disallow request for additional staffing increases......      -1,333,000

    Transportation computer center.--Last year in the House-
reported fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the House proposed to 
eliminate the transportation computer center. The Committee 
based its recommendation on an Inspector General (IG) report 
that found that several services offered by the transportation 
administrative service center raised substantive cost 
effectiveness issues. Based upon an evaluation by a DOT 
consultant and its own audit, the IG concluded that the 
``justification for continued operation of the computer center 
is in doubt.'' The House agreed at that time and proposed to 
eliminate the transportation computer center in fiscal year 
1999.
    In the conference agreement accompanying the fiscal year 
1999 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, the conferees restored funding for the 
transportation computer center, noting that the IG's findings 
may have been based on an out-dated analysis. At that time, the 
conferees directed the IG to review again the transportation 
computer center's cost effectiveness, utility and value added 
to the department. That new audit showed that the center is not 
competitive in the market place and that current rates for data 
processing and storage are approximately two and six times 
higher, respectively, than those quoted by another Government 
center providing comparable data processing and storage 
services. Moreover, the center was 31 percent less efficient 
than the average industry data processing center when compared 
to benchmarking data for 168 Government and commercial centers. 
Another February 1999 independent assessment of the center 
showed that its fiscal year 1998 costs were approximately 11 
percent higher than comparable Government computer centers, and 
15 percent higher than comparable industry computer centers. 
Finally, the IG audit recommended to the deputy secretary that 
the computer center discontinue offering its current services 
within two years.
    Consistent with the IG's report, the Committee's 
recommendation eliminates the transportation computer center in 
fiscal year 2000 within the transportation administrative 
service center and permits the operating administrations to 
procure similar services from other governmental or private 
providers.
    Disallow transfer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting and 
Cartography to the TASC.--The budget proposed that the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical 
Charting and Cartography (AC&C) be transferred from the 
Department of Commerce and placed within the TASC. While the 
department believes that the AC&C product offerings are closely 
aligned with the services provided by TASC, the Committee 
asserts that the aeronautical charting services ultimately 
support aviation safety missions within the FAA, and it is more 
logical that these services be performed within the FAA. The 
Committee recommendation includes funding for this activity 
within the FAA's appropriation for fiscal year 2000. 
Accordingly, the TASC obligation limitation has been reduced by 
$55,055,000 and staff reduced by 378 FTEs.
    General provision.--The Committee has included a general 
provision (sec. 318) which provides that amounts budgeted for 
the transportation administrative service center in this bill 
are reduced, on a pro-rata, basis to a limitation of 
$147,965,000. The Committee believes that this reduction is 
justified given the significant personnel reductions that have 
occurred within the department over the past several years. 
Common administrative expenses like copying, supplies, computer 
services, motor pool, parking and transit benefits, and 
telecommunications services should be declining and can be 
accommodated within the levels provided in this Act. Moreover, 
the Committee's recommendation for the program operating level 
of the transportation administrative service center in fiscal 
year 2000 represents an increase of over 35 percent compared to 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, well in excess of the rate 
of inflation for non-personnel activities.
    The Committee remains concerned that previous reductions in 
obligation authority have not been reflected in reduced 
billings to the modal administrations. As such, over the past 
several years, TASC charges have not been reduced to correspond 
to Congressional reductions and each year the modal 
administrations have had to absorb sizable shortfalls in TASC 
funding.
    Last year the Committee directed the administrator of the 
TASC to develop a mechanism to ensure that the budget approved 
for the TASC in the accompanying Act corresponded to the 
appropriations provided for the modes in the Act. The Committee 
is unaware of such a mechanism and therefore directs the 
director of the transportation administrative service center to 
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
plan to ensure that Congressionally-imposed reductions in 
obligation authority are reflected in reduced billings to the 
modes by December 1, 1999. In allocating the reductions 
recommended in this Act for the TASC, the administrator of the 
TASC shall not reduce funding provided to the modes for the 
transportation service center as these services are to be 
acquired from other sources in fiscal year 2000.

                        Payments to Air Carriers


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

    The essential air service program was originally created by 
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to 
continue air service to communities that had received federally 
mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program 
currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small 
communities that meet certain criteria. Subsidies, ranging from 
$5 to $320, currently support air service to 82 communities and 
serve about 700,000 passengers annually. This program was 
established to provide a smooth phaseout of federal subsidies 
to airlines that serve small airports.
    The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user fees for 
services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration to 
aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in the United 
States, commonly known as overflight fees. In addition, the Act 
permanently appropriated these fees for authorized expenses of 
the FAA.
    Consistent with the FAA reauthorization legislation enacted 
in 1996, this program became a mandatory program in fiscal year 
1998.
    General provision.--Over the years, Congress and the 
department have worked to streamline the essential air service 
program and to increase its efficiency by eliminating 
communities that are within an easy drive of a major hub 
airport or where the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. The 
bill includes a limitation (sec. 327), as requested by the 
administration, that continues the existing eligibility 
standards and will help preserve those efficiencies. 
Specifically, this limitation continues appropriations language 
that limits the number of communities that receive essential 
air service funding by excluding points in the 48 contiguous 
United States that are located fewer than seventy highway miles 
from the nearest large or medium hub airport, or that require a 
subsidy in excess of $200 per passenger, unless such point is 
more than 210 miles from the nearest large or medium airport.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program



                                                          Limitation on
                                         Appropriation     direct loans

Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......       $1,900,000      $13,775,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000......        1,900,000       13,775,000
Recommended in the bill...............        1,900,000       13,775,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...  ...............  ...............
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..  ...............  ...............


    The minority business resource center of the office of 
small and disadvantaged business utilization provides 
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding 
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The 
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime 
interest rates for transportation-related projects.
    Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were 
funded by the office of small and disadvantaged business 
utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made 
by the Credit Reform Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal year 
1993, a separate appropriation is provided only for the subsidy 
inherently assumed in those loans and the cost to administer 
the loan program.
    The recommendation fully funds the budget request, which 
provides a limitation on direct loans of $13,775,000 and 
subsidy and administrative costs totaling $1,900,000.

                       Minority Business Outreach





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $2,900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000......................         2,900,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,900,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................  ................


    This appropriation provides contractual support to assist 
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in 
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects 
that involve Federal spending. It also provides grants and 
contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and not just OST 
purposes. The Committee has provided $2,900,000, the same level 
as provided in fiscal year 1999 and included in the budget 
request.

                              COAST GUARD


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on 
January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter 
Service and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by 
transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse 
Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and 
Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary 
responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the 
high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding 
navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining 
a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of 
the Navy in time of war.
    Including funds for national security activities and 
retired pay accounts, the Committee recommends a total program 
level of $4,048,039,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in 
fiscal year 2000. This is $152,574,000 above the fiscal year 
1999 program level.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1999 program 
levels, the fiscal year 2000 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                        Program                         --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            1999 enacted      2000 estimate       recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses 1...................................     $3,048,073,000     $2,941,039,000     $2,791,000,000
Acquisition, construction and improvements 2...........        625,465,000        350,326,000        410,000,000
Environmental compliance and restoration...............         21,000,000         19,500,000         18,000,000
Alteration of bridges..................................         14,000,000  .................         15,000,000
Retired pay............................................        684,000,000        721,000,000        721,000,000
Reserve training 3.....................................         74,000,000         72,000,000         72,000,000
Research, development, test and evaluation 4...........         17,000,000         21,709,000         21,039,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      4,483,538,000      4,125,574,000     $4,048,039,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Fiscal year 1999 amount includes $2,400,000,000 in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
  Appropriations Act, 1999 and scored against budget function 400 (transportation); $300,000,000 in the
  Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 and scored against budget function
  050 (national security); $100,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations for readiness activities in
  title I of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1999; $16,300,000 in emergency supplemental
  appropriations for counter-drug activities in title IV of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1999;
  $31,773,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations distributed by the Office of Management and Budget to
  address Year 2000 date change compliance and provided in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1999;
  and $200,000,000 in operations and maintenance funds provided in the 1999 Emergency Supplemental
  Appropriations Act. Fiscal year 2000 estimate includes $334,000,000 scored against budget function 050. Fiscal
  year 2000 recommended amount includes $300,000,000 scored against budget function 050.
2 Fiscal year 1999 amount includes $230,000,000 in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1999 for counter-
  drug assets.
3 Fiscal year 1999 amount includes $5,000,000 in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1999 for counter-
  drug activities.
4 Fiscal year 1999 amount includes $5,000,000 in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1999.

                           Operating Expenses





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 1.....................   $ 3,048,073,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000 2...................     2,941,039,000
Recommended in the bill 3.............................     2,791,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................      -257,073,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................      -150,039,000

1 Includes $300,000,000 in funds for national security activities scored
  in budget function 050; $300,000,000 in emergency funding for
  readiness requirements; $16,300,000 in emergency funding for drug
  interdiction activities; and $31,773,000 in emergency funding for Year
  2000 date change compliance activities.
2 Includes $334,000,000 in funds for national security activities scored
  in budget function 050.
3 Includes $300,000,000 for national security activities scored in
  budget function 050.

    Including $300,000,000 for national security activities, 
the Committee recommends a total of $2,791,000,000 for 
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2000, a 
decrease of $257,073,000 below the fiscal year 1999 
appropriation and $150,039,000 below the budget request. The 
reduced amount is possible without harming Coast Guard 
readiness due to $200,000,000 in supplemental funding provided 
for fiscal year 1999 which will be available for obligation 
into fiscal year 2000. The following table compares the fiscal 
year 1999 enacted level, the fiscal year 2000 estimate, and the 
recommended level by program, project and activity:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Fiscal year--
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                Program, project and activity                                                    Recommended  in
                                                                 1999 enacted    2000 estimate       the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Personnel Resources.......................................       $1,757,945       $1,879,381       $1,879,381
    A. Military pay & allowances.............................        1,285,598        1,359,891        1,359,891
    B. Civilian pay & benefits...............................          202,972          220,631          220,631
    C. Military health care..................................          123,395          139,070          139,070
    D. Permanent change of station...........................           63,160           66,028           66,028
    E. Training & education..................................           65,634           71,793           71,793
    F. Recruiting............................................            6,095           10,877           10,877
    G. FECA/UCX..............................................           11,091           11,091           11,091
II. Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance...............          623,149          655,472          655,472
    A. Atlantic area command.................................          109,646          109,616          109,616
    B. Pacific area command..................................          110,057          117,990          117,990
    C. District commands:
        1. 1st district (Boston).............................           40,401           40,429           40,429
        2. 7th district (Miami)..............................           44,555           45,454           45,454
        3. 8th district (New Orleans)........................           28,020           28,483           28,483
        4. 9th district (Cleveland)..........................           17,580           17,418           17,418
        5. 13th district (Seattle)...........................           13,165           13,721           13,721
        6. 14th district (Honolulu)..........................            8,435            7,332            7,332
        7. 17th district (Juneau)............................           20,402           20,174           20,174
    D. Headquarters offices..................................          184,674          205,871          205,871
    E. Headquarters-managed units............................           39,360           42,096           42,096
    F. Other activities......................................            6,854            6,888            6,888
III. Depot-Level Maintenance.................................          390,611          406,186          406,186
    A. Aircraft maintenance..................................          150,337          156,862          156,862
    B. Electronic maintenance................................           35,783           38,079           38,079
    C. Shore maintenance.....................................          101,478          102,792          102,792
    D. Vessel maintenance....................................          103,013          108,453          108,453
IV. Account-Wide Adjustments.................................              ---              ---         -150,039
    A. Funding previously provided...........................              ---              ---         -150,039
Total base appropriation.....................................        2,771,705        2,941,039        2,791,000
Military readiness supplemental..............................           28,295              ---              ---
Military readiness supplemental..............................          200,000              ---              ---
Drug interdiction supplemental...............................           16,300              ---              ---
Y2K supplemental funding.....................................           31,773              ---              ---
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriations...................................        3,048,073        2,941,039        2,791,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Public Law 106-31, the Coast Guard received an 
additional $200,000,000 in supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal year 1999, the majority of which will be carried forward 
and made available by the service to offset fiscal year 2000 
budget requirements such as the military pay raise, pay parity, 
and readiness initiatives. The change to the budget estimate is 
recommended as a general reduction, to provide the service 
maximum operational flexibility in blending these funds with 
those provided in previous Acts.
    Drug interdiction funding.--The bill provides $521,000,000, 
as requested, for drug interdiction activities. This is an 
increase of $148,800,000 (40 percent) over the estimated 
expenses for fiscal year 1999.
    Ballast water management program.--Of the funds provided, 
$4,000,000 is only to continue and broaden the national ballast 
water management program. The current program allows Coast 
Guard boarding officers to monitor industry compliance with 
voluntary guidelines regarding the management of ballast water. 
The inadequate attention to proper ballast water handling 
procedures leads to the propagation of invasive aquatic 
species.
    Air facilities.--Of the funds provided, $3,133,000 is only 
to continue operations of the air facilities in Long Island, 
New York and Muskegon, Michigan, and $5,505,000 is only for 
operations of a new air facility to support Southern Lake 
Michigan. In fiscal year 1999, Congress directed the Coast 
Guard to establish an additional search and rescue facility on 
Southern Lake Michigan and to conduct a study recommending the 
optimal site for this new station. The Committee understands 
that the Coast Guard's analysis will recommend Waukegan, 
Illinois as the preferred site, and funds are provided based on 
this assumption.
    Commercial fishing vessel safety program.--Of the funds 
provided, $1,500,000 is only to support an expanded commercial 
fishing vessel safety program.
    St. Clair Shores Coast Guard Station, Michigan.--Of the 
funds provided in this bill, $100,000 is only for acquisition 
of rescue equipment, including airboats if determined to be 
necessary, at the St. Clair Shores Coast Guard Station in 
Michigan.

                             bill language

    Defense-related activities.--The bill specifies that 
$300,000,000 of the total amount provided is for defense-
related activities, the same as enacted for fiscal year 1999, 
and $34,000,000 below the budget estimate.
    Executive order 12839.--The bill specifies that the 
Commandant shall reduce both military and civilian employment 
for the purpose of complying with executive order 12839. This 
provision has been included in the bill for several years 
without change.
    User fees.--The Committee continues the provision, first 
enacted in fiscal year 1999, precluding the Coast Guard from 
using funds to plan, finalize, or implement any new user fees 
unless legislation signed into law after the date of enactment 
of this Act specifically authorizes them.

                           general provision

    Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San 
Francisco.--The bill continues as a general provision (sec. 
312) language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or 
implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic 
safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa 
Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic 
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the department published 
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the 
originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide 
fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil 
rigs could be built if Lease Sale 119 goes forward. Under this 
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to 
oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could 
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The 
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could 
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the 
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language 
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................      $625,465,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................       350,326,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       410,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................      -215,465,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................      +59,674,000

\1\ Includes $395,465,000 in the Department of Transportation and
  Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 and $230,000,000 in other
  titles of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1999.

    The bill includes $410,000,000 for the capital acquisition, 
construction, and improvement programs of the Coast Guard for 
vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and 
related administrative expenses, of which $25,000,000 is to be 
derived from the oil spill liability trust fund.
    Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes 
language distributing the total appropriation by budget 
activity and providing separate obligation availabilities 
appropriate for the type of activity being performed. The 
Committee continues to believe that these obligation 
availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term 
unobligated balances.

                        committee recommendation

    The following table compares the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 2000 estimate, and the recommended level 
by program, project and activity:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year--
                  Program name                   ------------------------------------------------   Change from
                                                   1999 enacted    2000 estimate    2000 House       estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels.........................................    $338,823,000    $165,760,000    $205,560,000     $39,800,000
    Survey and design--cutters and boats........         500,000         500,000         500,000             ---
    Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement......      72,600,000      77,000,000     108,000,000     +31,000,000
    Coastal buoy tender (WLM) replacement.......      27,000,000             ---             ---             ---
    47-foot motor lifeboat (MLB) replacement          20,800,000      24,360,000      24,360,000             ---
     project....................................
    Buoy boat replacement project (BUSL)........      11,773,000       5,000,000       5,000,000             ---
    Polar icebreaker--USCGC Healy...............       2,100,000       1,900,000       1,900,000             ---
    Configuration management....................       3,800,000       3,700,000       3,700,000             ---
    Surface search radar replacement project....       8,450,000       4,000,000       4,000,000             ---
    Polar class icebreaker reliability                       ---       4,100,000       4,100,000             ---
     improvement program........................
    Barracuda coastal patrol boat (CPB).........      37,600,000       1,000,000       1,000,000             ---
    Mackinaw replacement........................       5,300,000             ---      13,000,000     +13,000,000
    Deepwater capability concept exploration....      20,000,000      44,200,000      40,000,000      -4,200,000
    ATS-1 conversion............................      10,000,000             ---             ---             ---
    Drug interdiction support platforms               20,000,000             ---             ---             ---
     (emergency)................................
    Deployable pursuit boats (emergency)........       3,500,000             ---             ---             ---
    Barracuda coastal patrol boats (emergency)..      66,100,000             ---             ---             ---
    Cutter sensors and communications                 29,300,000             ---             ---             ---
     (emergency)................................
Aircraft........................................     134,200,000      22,110,000      38,310,000     +16,200,000
    HC-130 engine conversion....................       4,100,000             ---             ---             ---
    HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring...........       4,500,000       3,360,000       3,360,000             ---
    HH-65A helicopter mission computer..........       3,000,000       3,650,000       3,650,000             ---
    replacement.................................
    HH-65A engine control program...............       6,000,000             ---             ---             ---
    HH-65 conversion, AIRFAC Southern Lake......             ---             ---       8,000,000      +8,000,000
    Michigan....................................
    Long range search aircraft capability and                ---       5,900,000       5,900,000             ---
     preservation...............................
    HC-130 aircraft sensor upgrade..............      11,000,000             ---             ---             ---
    HU-25 SLAR radar upgrade....................       2,500,000             ---             ---             ---
    HU-25 A avionics improvements...............       3,500,000       2,900,000       2,900,000             ---
    HH-60J navigation upgrade...................       1,100,000       3,800,000       3,800,000             ---
    Maritime patrol aircraft (emergency)........      44,500,000             ---             ---             ---
    HU-25 jet reactivation (emergency)..........       7,500,000             ---             ---             ---
    Operational test, use of force from aircraft       2,500,000             ---             ---             ---
     (emergency)................................
    Aircraft sensors & C-130 engine upgrade.....      44,000,000             ---             ---             ---
    (emergency).................................
    SLAR upgrade................................             ---       2,500,000       2,500,000             ---
    C-130H oil debris detection/burnoff                      ---             ---       1,200,000      +1,200,000
     technology.................................
    HU-25 re-engining...........................             ---             ---       7,000,000      +7,000,000
Other Equipment.................................      36,569,000      53,726,000      59,400,000      +5,674,000
    Fleet logistics system......................       4,669,000       6,000,000       6,000,000             ---
    Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS)...       6,600,000       4,500,000       4,500,000             ---
    Marine information for safety and law              4,100,000      10,500,000      10,274,000        -226,000
     enforcement (MISLE)........................
    Aviation logistics management information          1,000,000       2,700,000       2,700,000             ---
     system (ALMIS).............................
    National distress system modernization......       3,000,000      16,000,000      18,000,000      +2,000,000
    Communication systems 2000..................       2,000,000             ---             ---             ---
    Personnel MIS/Jt uniform military pay system       1,900,000       4,400,000       4,400,000             ---
    Local notice to mariners automation.........       1,000,000             ---             ---             ---
    Defense message system implementation.......         800,000       3,477,000       3,477,000             ---
    Differential GPS............................       7,500,000             ---             ---             ---
    Commercial satellite communications.........       4,000,000       4,049,000       4,049,000             ---
    Human resources information system..........             ---       1,100,000             ---      -1,100,000
    Loran-C continuation........................             ---       1,000,000       6,000,000      +5,000,000
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation.........      67,423,000      55,800,000      55,800,000             ---
    Survey and design--shore projects...........       5,000,000       6,000,000       6,000,000             ---
    Minor AC&I shore construction projects......       6,000,000       6,000,000       6,000,000             ---
    Housing.....................................       9,000,000       7,800,000       7,800,000             ---
    Waterways ATON projects.....................       4,073,000       5,000,000       5,000,000             ---
    Group/Station New Orleans, LA--relocation...      4,000,000,             ---             ---             ---
    Air Station Cape Cod, MA--replace electric         1,500,000             ---             ---             ---
     distribution system........................
    Air Station Miami, FL--renovate fixed wing         3,600,000             ---             ---             ---
     hanger.....................................
    ISC Boston, MA--waterfront rehabilitation...       2,100,000             ---             ---             ---
    Station Oswego--47' MLB improvements........       1,450,000             ---             ---             ---
    Station Neah Bay--waterfront renovation.....       3,000,000             ---             ---             ---
    Station Cape Disappointment--47' MLB               1,700,000             ---             ---             ---
     improvements...............................
    Coast Guard training infrastructure--              2,200,000             ---             ---             ---
     optimize...................................
    Capitalizable projects......................       8,000,000             ---             ---             ---
    Station Dauphin Island......................       3,200,000             ---             ---             ---
    Hurricane Georges disaster supp (emergency).      12,600,000             ---             ---             ---
    Air Station Kodiak, AK--renovate hanger.....             ---       8,300,000       8,300,000             ---
    Air Station Elizabeth City, NC--ramp                     ---       3,800,000       3,800,000             ---
     improvements...............................
    Air Station Miami, FL--renovate fixed wing               ---       3,500,000       3,500,000             ---
     hanger.....................................
    Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT--educ.               ---       5,000,000       5,000,000             ---
     facilities.................................
    Base San Juan, PR--patrol boat maintenance               ---       3,100,000       3,100,000             ---
     facility...................................
    Station Shinnecock, NY--modernize...........             ---       3,500,000       3,500,000             ---
    MSO/Station Cleveland, OH--relocate.........             ---       1,000,000       1,000,000             ---
    Drug interdiction assets--homeporting.......             ---       2,800,000       2,800,000             ---
Personnel and Related Support...................      48,450,000      52,930,000      50,930,000      -2,000,000
    Direct personnel costs......................      47,700,000      51,180,000      50,180,000      -1,000,000
    Core acquisition costs......................         750,000       1,750,000         750,000      -1,000,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation.......................     625,465,000     350,326,000     410,000,000      59,674,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                VESSELS

    The Committee recommends $205,560,000 for vessels, a 
reduction of $133,263,000 below the amount provided for fiscal 
year 1999 and $39,800,000 above the administration's request. 
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained 
below.
    Seagoing buoy tender replacement.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $108,000,000 for the seagoing buoy 
tender (WLB) replacement program, an increase of $35,400,000 
above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $31,000,000 above 
the budget estimate. The Committee bill provides funding for 
acquisition of three WLBs compared to two in the budget 
estimate. The Coast Guard advises the Committee that the 
additional funding can be obligated in fiscal year 2000. The 
Committee believes this program should proceed at a faster pace 
given the age of the current vessels.
    Mackinaw replacement.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $13,000,000 for further design and acquisition of a 
replacement vessel for the cutter Mackinaw, which performs 
icebreaking missions on the Great Lakes. Funding of $5,300,000 
was provided for this program in fiscal year 1999. No funding 
was requested in fiscal year 2000.
    A general provision has been included (sec. 345) which 
specifies that $10,000,000 of this funding is to support a 
portion of the acquisition cost, and is available for 
obligation until September 30, 2005.
    Deepwater capability concept exploration.--The Committee 
recommends $40,000,000, an increase of 100 percent above the 
$20,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The budget 
estimate requested $44,200,000 for this project. The Committee 
believes this 9.5 percent reduction to the request will not 
cause harm to the deepwater program, given its early stage of 
development.

                                AIRCRAFT

    The Committee recommends $38,310,000 for aircraft, a 
reduction of $95,890,000 below the amount provided for fiscal 
year 1999 and $16,200,000 above the administration's request. 
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained 
below.
    HH-65 conversion, Air Facility Southern Lake Michigan.--The 
Committee recommends $8,000,000 for establishment of a seasonal 
air facility to serve Southern Lake Michigan, pursuant to 
direction provided in last year's appropriations conference 
report. The Coast Guard has recently determined that this 
facility is most cost-effectively sited at Waukegan, Illinois, 
and that approximately $8,000,000 in capital funding is 
required in fiscal year 2000. The House has authorized 
$8,100,000 for this project. The majority of these funds will 
be used to repair and rebuild two existing HH-65 helicopters 
and to construct an additional hanger facility to house these 
assets.
    C-130H oil debris detection and burnoff technology.--The 
Committee bill includes $1,200,000 for oil debris detection and 
burnoff technology. This project is expected to improve HC-130H 
aircrew and aircraft safety by automatically monitoring the 
aircraft's reduction gearbox assemblies for impending failure. 
The system provides early in-flight warning of excessive wear 
and tear in the gearbox, allowing the crew to take action to 
prevent catastrophic failure, which could otherwise result in 
loss of life or airframe.
    HU-25 re-engining.--In fiscal year 1999, the Coast Guard 
identified as a high priority for additional counter-drug 
funding the re-engining of their existing HU-25 (``Falcon'') 
jet aircraft. The service used $15,000,000 of the counter-drug 
funding for this purpose in fiscal year 1999, and has 
identified $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 and $15,000,000 in 
2002 to complete the project. Congress intended that the fiscal 
year 1999 counter-drug funding be focused on activities which 
could provide a near-term impact in the war on drugs. The Coast 
Guard's proposed one year gap in a project the agency requested 
funding for, and has already initiated, seems to undermine that 
goal. The Committee believes it makes little sense to begin a 
program in one year, discontinue it in the next, then initiate 
it again. For this reason, $7,000,000 is provided to fill the 
gap in funding for this program.

                            OTHER EQUIPMENT

    The Committee recommends $59,400,000 for other equipment, 
an increase of $22,831,000 above the amount provided for fiscal 
year 1999 and $5,674,000 above the administration's request. 
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained 
below.
    Marine information for safety and law enforcement 
(MISLE).--The Committee recommends $10,274,000, a reduction of 
$226,000 below the budget estimate. The reduction is due to 
budget constraints and the need to fund higher priority 
initiatives.
    National distress system modernization.--The Committee 
recommends $18,000,000, an increase of $2,000,000 above the 
budget estimate. The Committee believes this is an urgently-
needed upgrade. The additional funding is to accelerate the 
project.
    Human resources information system.--The Committee 
recommendation defers the $1,100,000 requested for this 
project. This is a department-wide initiative which does not 
appear to be justified at the present time. A more detailed 
discussion is found in this report under Office of the 
Secretary, ``Office of the assistant secretary for 
administration''.
    Loran-C upgrade.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for 
continued upgrade of the Loran-C navigation system. Although 
originally scheduled for decommissioning, due to delays in 
development of satellite navigation capability in the FAA, the 
most recent Loran-C schedule maintains its operational use for 
many more years. Upgrades of the system are necessary to 
maintain its effectiveness. The President's budget requested 
$1,000,000 for this effort, which is too little to be of 
meaningful use.

                SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

    The Committee recommends $55,800,000 for shore facilities 
and aids to navigation, a decrease of $11,623,000 below the 
amount provided for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the 
administration's request.

                     PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $50,930,000 for personnel and 
related support, an increase of $2,480,000 (5.1 percent) above 
the amount provided for fiscal year 1999 and $2,000,000 below 
the administration's request.
    Semiannual acquisition reports.--The Coast Guard is 
directed to continue submission of semiannual acquisition 
reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 
The Coast Guard is to continue including with each such report 
an up-to-date listing of unobligated balances by acquisition 
project and by fiscal year, a Congressional direction first 
implemented in fiscal year 1996. In 1998, the reporting 
requirement was adjusted from quarterly to semiannually to 
reduce paperwork requirements on the agency.

                             Bill Language

    Capital investment plan.--The Committee was disturbed this 
year to receive testimony from the General Accounting Office 
and the Coast Guard concerning outyear capital requirements 
which appear to be far in excess of the funding expected to be 
available. At the same time, the Coast Guard has not developed 
a long-range capital plan which sets priorities among those 
competing requirements and is restrained to the likely or 
historic level of funding. Given the Coast Guard's statements 
of an impending tidal wave of capital requirements and the 
advanced age of most of its ships and aircraft, it seems 
irresponsible for the service to continue to operate from a 
one-year plan. Likewise, Congress needs to see how all the 
pieces fit together in the Coast Guard's budget requests, and 
how they tie to future year funding requirements. The Committee 
believes the Coast Guard must have a credible, funding 
constrained, multiyear capital plan, and that this should be 
updated each year with submission of the President's budget. 
Therefore, the bill includes language requiring the Coast Guard 
to develop and submit to the Congressional appropriations and 
authorization committees a five-year capital investment plan 
which is constrained to the outyear funding levels provided by 
the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee intends to 
carry this language each year if necessary, requiring annual 
submission of an updated plan with the President's budget 
request. Similar language has been included for the Federal 
Aviation Administration, which also lacks such a plan.
    Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision 
first enacted in fiscal year 1996 crediting to this 
appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast 
Guard's surplus real property. This provision is included as 
requested in the President's budget.
    HU-25 asset sales.--The Committee bill deletes language 
pertaining to possible sales of HU-25 aircraft. Due to 
additional drug interdiction funding in fiscal year 1999 and in 
this bill, the Coast Guard will be re-activating the HU-25 
aircraft rather than selling them, making this language 
unnecessary.
    Navigation user fees.--The bill does not include proposed 
bill language regarding $41,000,000 in offsetting collections 
from new navigation user fees, contingent upon authorization by 
the Congress. These fees have not been authorized.
    Icebreaker support for arctic research.--As requested in 
the budget, the Committee bill includes language (sec. 333) 
amending the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 and the 
Arctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 regarding 
the coordination and review of budget requests for icebreaker-
related costs needed to support Arctic and Antarctic research.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................       $21,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................        19,500,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        18,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        -3,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................        -1,500,000


    This appropriation assists in bringing Coast Guard 
facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and 
environmental regulations; conducting facilities response 
plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization 
strategies; conducting environmental assessments; and 
conducting necessary program support. These funds permit the 
continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental 
problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks 
containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program 
focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes 
third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed 
to environmental problems.
    The Committee is pleased that the Coast Guard has made 
significant progress in reducing the backlog of environmental 
restoration projects. The estimated total cost to clean up the 
backlog of identified sites has decreased from $132,000,000 in 
fiscal year 1993 to $60,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 1998. 
Coast Guard currently estimates that the restoration backlog 
will decrease by about $11,000,000 each year. The Committee 
believes a lower level of funding reflects the good progress 
made in this area.
    The recommended funding level of $18,000,000 is a reduction 
of $1,500,000 below the budget request and $3,000,000 below the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The reduction is due to budget 
constraints and should be allocated to general training and 
education activities, not site-specific cleanup activities.
    With the funds provided, the Coast Guard should give 
consideration to a project for remediation of lead-contaminated 
soil at the former Coast Guard lighthouse facility in Cape May, 
New Jersey.

                         Alteration of Bridges





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................       $14,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................  ................
                                                               .........
Recommended in the bill...............................        15,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +1,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................       +15,000,000


    The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed 
a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. 
The Committee does not agree with the approach of the 
administration that obstructive highway bridges and combination 
rail/highway bridges should be funded out of the Federal 
Highway Administration's discretionary bridge account, and 
notes that this proposal was not included in the TEA21 
conference report. The purpose of altering these bridges is to 
improve the safety of marine navigation under the bridge, not 
to improve surface transportation on the bridge itself. Since 
in some cases, there are unsafe conditions on the waterway 
beneath a bridge which has an adequate surface or structural 
condition, Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to 
address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program.
    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for four bridges. The 
Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $8,000,000 shall 
be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, 
Georgia; $2,000,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile 
Bridge over the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $2,000,000 
shall be allocated to the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Bridge in 
Morris, Illinois; and $3,000,000 shall be allocated to the 
Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New 
Orleans, Louisiana.

                              Retired Pay





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................      $684,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 20001....................       721,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       721,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................       +37,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................  ................

\1\ The budget requested ``such sums as may be necessary''. The CBO
  estimate at the time of budget submission was $721,000,000.

    This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military 
personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also 
included are payments to members of the former Lighthouse 
Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman's 
family protection plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as 
payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act.
    The Committee does not agree to insert the requested 
appropriation of ``such sums as may be necessary'', because it 
is unclear why this appropriation should pose inherent and 
unresolvable difficulties in accurately estimating program 
requirements. The bill provides $721,000,000 which was CBO's 
estimate at the time the fiscal year 2000 budget was submitted. 
This compares to an appropriation of $684,000,000 for fiscal 
year 1999, an increase of 5.4 percent. This is scored as a 
mandatory appropriation in the Congressional budget process.

                            Reserve Training





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................       $74,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................        72,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        72,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        -2,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................  ................

\1\ Includes $5,000,000 in emergency supplemental funding for drug
  interdiction activities.

    This appropriation provides for the training of qualified 
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or 
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in 
the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall 
into the following categories:
    1. Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training 
for three categories of non-prior service trainees.
    2. Continued training.--The training of officer and 
enlisted personnel.
    3. Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The 
day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training 
facilities.
    4. Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve 
forces program.
    The bill includes $72,000,000 for reserve training, a 
decrease of $2,000,000 (2.7 percent) below the fiscal year 1999 
level and the same as the budget request.
    Reimbursement to ``Operating expenses''.--The 
recommendation continues, with modification, a provision which 
limits the amount of ``Reserve training'' funds which may be 
transferred to ``Operating expenses''. Given the small size of 
the reserve training appropriation, and the declining size of 
the selected reserve, the Committee wants to ensure the 
reserves are not assessed excessive charge-backs to the Coast 
Guard operating budget. Much progress has been made over the 
past year in resolving this issue, and the Committee is pleased 
to hear of the cooperation extended by the Coast Guard and the 
Reserve community to find a compromise. The Committee continues 
to believe that, absent any provision, the proposed level of 
reimbursement might be too high, given the substantial amount 
of augmentation workhours provided by the reserves. However, 
the Committee understands that raising the limitation from 
$20,000,000 to $23,000,000 will address the main concerns of 
the Coast Guard and will be satisfactory to the reserves. 
Therefore, the bill includes a limitation of $23,000,000, an 
increase of $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level. The bill maintains the provision relating to the 
assessment of ``direct charges'' which were not in effect 
during fiscal year 1997.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................       $17,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................        21,709,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        21,039,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +4,039,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................         -670,000

\1\ Includes $5,000,000 in emergency supplemental funding for drug
  interdiction activities in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
  Act, 1999.

    The bill includes $21,039,000 for applied scientific 
research and development, test and evaluation projects 
necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for 
the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this 
amount, $3,500,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund, as requested in the budget estimate. This 
is $670,000 (3.1 percent) below the budget request but 
$4,039,000 (23.8 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal 
year 1999. The reduction is due to budget constraints.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible 
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the 
evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the 
activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations 
in fiscal year 2000. The grants-in-aid for airports program, 
however, will be financed under contract authority with the 
program level established by a limitation on obligations 
contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes 
continuation of the aviation ticket tax and other related 
aviation excise taxes throughout fiscal year 2000 and assumes 
no new user fees.
    The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 
2000 totals $10,548,000,000, including a $2,250,000,000 
limitation on the use of contract authority. Excluding 
emergency funds, this is $985,442,000 (10.3 percent) above the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $417,000,000 (4.1 percent) 
above the President's request. The following table summarizes 
the fiscal year 1999 program levels, the fiscal year 2000 
program requests, and the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                        Program                         --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1999 enacted      2000 estimate     2000 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations \1\.........................................     $5,562,558,000     $6,039,000,000     $5,925,000,000
Facilities and equipment \2\...........................      1,900,000,000      2,319,000,000      2,200,000,000
Research, engineering and development..................        150,000,000        173,000,000        173,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) \3\...................      1,950,000,000      1,600,000,000      2,250,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      9,562,558,000     10,131,000,000     10,548,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount for fiscal year 1999 excludes $28,798,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations for Year 2000
  compliance activities.
\2\ Amount for fiscal year 1999 excludes $100,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations for counter-
  terrorism activities and $122,133,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations for Year 2000 compliance
  activities.
\3\ Limitation on obligations from contract authority.

                               Operations


                    (airport and airway trust fund)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................    $5,591,356,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................     6,039,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,925,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................      +333,644,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................     -114,000,000

\1\ Includes $28,798,000 in supplemental emergency funding for Year 2000
  compliance activities.

    This appropriation provides funds for the operation, 
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air 
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers 
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, 
airports, medical, engineering and development programs.
    The operations appropriation includes the following major 
activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a 
national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance 
of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment 
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in 
aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations 
governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the 
administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) 
administration of the acquisition, research and development 
programs; (6) administration of the civil aviation security 
program; (7) headquarters, administration and other staff 
offices; (8) publication and distribution of aeronautical 
charts; and (9) administration of the federal grants-in-aid 
program for airport construction.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $5,925,000,000 for FAA operations, 
an increase of $333,644,000 (6.5 percent) above the level 
provided for fiscal year 1999. Despite the severe budget 
constraints this year, the percentage increase in this bill is 
45 percent higher than that recommended by the Committee last 
year. The recommended level compares to $6,039,000 in the 
President's budget request.
    A breakdown of the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2000 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year--
                      Budget activity                      -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              1999 enacted      2000 estimate   2000 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services......................................    $4,353,191,000    $4,696,487,000    $4,660,892,000
Aviation regulation & certification                              630,418,000       667,631,000       667,416,000
Civil aviation security...................................       122,641,000       144,642,000       144,642,000
Administration of airports................................        48,554,000        50,608,000        50,608,000
Research and acquisition..................................        92,340,000       183,740,000       181,535,000
Commercial space transportation...........................         6,168,000         6,838,000         6,838,000
Administration............................................       257,514,000               ---               ---
Regional coordination.....................................               ---               ---        95,831,000
Human resources...........................................               ---               ---        47,436,000
Financial services........................................               ---               ---        35,790,000
Staff offices.............................................        76,193,000       289,054,000        77,669,000
Account-wide adjustments..................................       -24,461,000               ---       -43,657,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total base appropriation............................     5,562,558,000     6,039,000,000     5,925,000,000
Y2K supplemental appropriations...........................        28,798,000               ---               ---
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total available funding.............................     5,591,356,000     6,039,000,000     5,925,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommendation includes the following 
adjustments to the budget estimate:

        Budget activity                                           Change
Air Traffic Services:
    Runway incursion program enhancement................     +$2,500,000
    Host maintenance--reflect HOCSR deployment..........      -1,000,000
    Interim incentive pay--begin phaseout...............     -12,190,000
    Overtime--reflect new agreement's commitment to 
      savings...........................................      -5,000,000
    Controller in charge--defer.........................      -5,600,000
    Supervisors--add FTEs in lieu of controller in 
      charge positions..................................      +1,800,000
    Sick leave savings--reflect new agreement's 
      ``buyback'' provisions............................      -1,000,000
    WIGs/grade-to-grade increases (ATS).................      -4,425,000
    Airspace redesign...................................      -3,000,000
    RTCA support--allow $300,000 versus $435,000........        -135,000
    Federal contract tower cost-sharing--maintain fiscal 
      year 1999 level...................................      +5,000,000
    Flight service station staffing--maintain fiscal 
      year 1999 level...................................      +3,967,000
    NAS handoff.........................................     -12,122,000
    Terminal leave savings (extended from fiscal year 
      1999).............................................      -2,000,000
    Performance awards (extended from fiscal year 1999).        -770,000
    Air traffic travel (extended from fiscal year 1999).      -3,620,000
    Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium............      +2,000,000
Aviation Regulation and Certification:
    Aviation safety program--maintain fiscal year 1999 
      level.............................................        +500,000
    Rulemaking--hold to fiscal year 1999 level..........        -715,000
Research and Acquisition:
    ARA--delete ``human capital management'' project....      -2,205,000
Regional Coordination:
    Transfer from ``staff offices''.....................     +97,831,000
    FOB 10B--reflect slip in occupancy schedule.........      -2,000,000
Human Resources:
    Transfer from ``staff offices''.....................     +48,736,000
    Human resource management--reflect personnel reform.      -1,300,000
Financial Services:
    Transfer from ``staff offices''.....................     +42,054,000
    IPPS--defer pending stronger justification/
      alternatives analysis.............................      -6,264,000
Staff Offices:
    Resources maintained in other lines of business.....    -208,244,000
    Personnel compensation and benefits reduction.......      -1,500,000
    Public affairs--streamlining........................        -120,000
    AGC--allow 4 percent instead of 11 percent increase.      -2,021,000
    English language proficiency--maintain fiscal year 
      1999 level........................................        +500,000
Account-wide Adjustments:
    Fiscal year 1999 reductions extended into fiscal 
      year 2000:
        Freeze staffing for non-safety positions in 
          fiscal year 1999 levels.......................      -3,400,000
        Administrative contracts--IRM planning and 
          maintenance...................................      -3,100,000
        Administrative travel...........................      -4,200,000
        Computer-aided engineering graphics.............        -600,000
        Resources management contract...................        -410,000
        Conpuretix conferencing/voice switch 
          improvements..................................      -1,100,000
        Reduce teleconferencing/videoconferencing.......      -2,000,000
    Y2K program savings--reduction from base............      -8,960,000
    TASC--freeze at fiscal year 1999 level..............     -10,200,000
    GSA rent--allow 8 percent instead of 16.8 percent 
      increase..........................................      -6,600,000
    Contractual studies--hold to FY98/99 average........      -1,500,000
    TSC general working agreement--hold to 5 percent 
      instead of 21.1 percent increase..................      -1,587,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................    -114,000,000

                         faa funding situation

    Over the past few years, the Department of Transportation 
and the FAA have suggested that the Congressional budget 
process will be unable to provide funding for the FAA's true 
needs in the future. In response to this and other concerns, 
Congress established the National Civil Aviation Review 
Commission and called for an independent assessment of FAA's 
long-term finances. In 1997, the independent assessment 
concluded that significant opportunities for cost savings and 
efficiencies exist in the FAA, and should be taken advantage 
of. The independent assessment made a number of cost-saving 
recommendations, some of which were echoed by the National 
Civil Aviation Review Commission. In recommending increases in 
the agency's budget last year, the Committee encouraged the FAA 
to ``leverage this increase by making structural and process 
changes in the agency to improve productivity and reduce waste, 
as suggested in the independent assessment''.
    However, despite these warnings that the agency needs to 
get its operating costs under control, the FAA has implemented 
very few of these recommendations, and last year signed new 
employee pay agreements which provide even more upward pressure 
on the budget. In fiscal year 2000, the FAA's average budgeted 
staffyear cost is approximately $100,000, up 20 percent in the 
past three years alone. At the same time, productivity among 
the air traffic controller workforce declined in 1998 for the 
third year in a row.
    Furthermore, these increases are not limited to air traffic 
control. The fiscal year 2000 budget requests significant 
increases in most administrative accounts as well. In total, 
the agency requested operating increases of approximately 
$491,000,000 for the next fiscal year offset with less than 
$20,000,000 in savings from the implementation of new 
technology or management efficiencies.
    The Committee continues to believe that the federal budget 
process is inherently and structurally capable of providing 
adequate resources for the FAA. The resources in this bill 
confirm that fact by providing increases above fiscal year 1999 
in each of the four appropriations--and double digit increases 
in three. However, the agency must do more internally to 
control its rapidly increasing operating budget. As the 
Inspector General testified this year, these escalating 
increases threaten to choke off needed funding in capital 
programs for air traffic control modernization and airport 
development.

                  special budgetary treatment for faa

    The Committee continues to be strongly opposed to special 
budgetary treatment for the FAA. Such a change would undermine 
the unified federal budget process, where tradeoffs are made 
annually among all federal programs. This year, the General 
Accounting Office testified before the Subcommittee that ``when 
the [transportation] trust funds were created, Congress did not 
create them as automatic spending trust funds. It chose to 
retain annual oversight and control of spending from those 
funds in the appropriations committees.'' This is made clear by 
a statement on the Senate floor when the conference report 
establishing the aviation trust fund was considered in 1970. In 
addressing a concern of the Nixon administration that the new 
trust fund might establish funding priorities outside the 
annual budget process, the manager of the bill in the Senate 
(Senator Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire) clarified ``the use 
of trust fund moneys is subject to annual appropriations by the 
Congress. It, therefore, is for the Appropriations Committees 
of the respective Houses to review this program and through 
appropriations acts establish the necessary priorities.'' The 
Congress created the aviation trust fund based on this 
understanding. Special budgetary treatment, whether through 
off-budget accounting, firewalls, guarantees, or other 
mechanisms, fundamentally changes that principle to the 
detriment of the federal budget process.
    Secondly, such proposals unnecessarily shower billions of 
additional dollars on one federal agency while other agencies 
with equally important missions continue to feel severe 
pressure from government-wide budget caps. The introduced 
version of H.R. 1000 would raise FAA's funding by 57.4 percent 
over the five year period 1999 through 2004--from $9.8 billion 
to $15.4 billion. While the Committee remains supportive of the 
FAA's important programs, reckless funding increases should not 
be granted to one agency in isolation of the funding needs of 
other agencies. The accompanying bill represents a 10-percent 
increase for the FAA in fiscal year 2000, which is clearly 
sufficient for an agency with annual workload increases of 1 to 
3 percent. Within the total amount available, the Committee 
bill raises airport construction spending to the highest level 
in history, an increase of 15 percent over fiscal year 1999. 
The Department of Transportation advised the Committee this 
year that ``according to our airport master records, the 
condition of airport runways has improved slightly over the 
past decade. These records show that about 95 percent of the 
nation's runways are in good to fair condition.'' In air 
traffic control modernization, FAA accounting data indicate 
that the agency is having difficulty obligating even the 
current level of funding. For example, the President's budget 
proposal would raise budget authority by $212,388,000 in fiscal 
year 2000. However, at year's end, two-thirds of that funding 
would remain unobligated. This argues for cost control, annual 
Congressional oversight in the budget process and reasonable 
increases, which special budgetary treatment would destroy.
    Finally, the Committee reiterates that aviation users are 
actually getting more from the Federal Government than they are 
paying in taxes, due to a high rate of spending and the 
existence of large aviation subsidies from the general fund 
taxpayer. The FAA testified the following this year: ``In fact, 
since 1971 trust fund spending has exceeded trust fund 
receipts, and the balances primarily result from interest, 
including that on funds appropriated but not yet outlayed.'' In 
most years, the general fund taxpayer picks up about $3 billion 
of the FAA's expenses due to a cap on trust fund expenses 
historically mandated by the Congressional authorizing 
committees. In addition, at least $1 billion in other general 
fund appropriations are made solely for the benefit of aviation 
users. The Federal Government has more than kept faith with 
aviation system taxpayers. The citizens who have been 
shortchanged are general fund taxpayers, and this should be 
corrected.

                  general fund subsidy of faa's budget

    The Appropriations Committee has long opposed the trust 
fund cap and the associated general fund subsidy. The 
``historic'' general fund share has been provided in the 
Appropriations process only because the authorization process 
has compelled it, resulting in a buildup of the trust fund 
balance. This has perpetuated a fraud on the general fund 
taxpayer which has gone on for many years. As the Inspector 
General testified this year, ``an important reason why that 
balance is where it is today, and it is about $4.3 billion, is 
because the general fund, or non-aviation taxes, have covered 
an average of about 30 percent of FAA's budget.''
    The Committee continues to believe that the taxes paid by 
aviation users should be spent, and not allowed to build up in 
the trust fund. The Assistant Secretary of Transportation for 
Budget and Programs testified this year that the best way to 
lower the cash balance in the trust fund is ``to increase the 
share of operations that comes from the trust fund.'' In order 
to spend down the trust fund balance and keep faith with the 
general fund taxpayer, the bill reported by the Committee 
finances the FAA's operations entirely from the aviation trust 
fund--paid for by the users of FAA services. This is consistent 
with current law and supported by the President's budget 
request.

                               user fees

    The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees 
in fiscal year 2000 that were not Congressionally authorized 
for collection during fiscal year 1999 and includes a provision 
prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to plan or 
promulgate any regulation to institute any new user fee not 
specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of 
this Act. The Committee interprets this prohibition to include 
the proposed ``fees for providing production certification-
related services outside the United States'', promulgated by 
final rule on October 27, 1997. Although FAA issued a final 
rule on this matter days before enactment of the user fee 
prohibition, most of these fees have not been imposed or 
collected. The Committee believes that ``implementation'' of a 
new fee relates most directly to the charging and collection of 
the fee, and not the administrative requirement of issuing a 
final rule. Furthermore, unless fees have been routinely 
collected on a systematic, industry-wide basis, fee programs 
promulgated by the FAA shall not be deemed to have been 
implemented for purposes of satisfying the provisions in this 
Act.

                      aviation safety initiatives

    The Committee recommendation includes $61,363,000 in safety 
initiatives above the administration's budget request. The 
Committee continues to believe that aviation safety must be the 
agency's top priority, and should not fall behind capacity 
enhancement programs such as free flight phase one in the 
competition for limited budget resources. In several instances, 
the Committee has found safety programs which have lost needed 
funds in the agency's internal budget process, and others which 
are not deemed a top priority because they support general 
aviation. The Committee bill includes the following funds above 
those in the budget estimate:

        Activity                                                Increase
Operations:                                                  $13,267,000
    Runway incursion program............................       2,500,000
    Air traffic supervisors.............................         800,000
    Contract tower cost sharing.........................       5,000,000
    Flight service station staffing.....................       3,967,000
    Aviation safety program.............................         500,000
    English language proficiency........................         500,000
Facilities and Equipment:                                     35,642,000
    Weather and radar processor.........................       2,128,000
    Low-cost ASDE systems...............................       7,000,000
    AMASS systems.......................................       3,900,000
    OASIS system........................................      20,614,000
    Low level windshear alert system....................       2,000,000
Research and Development:                                     17,454,000
    Explosives and weapons detection....................       5,182,000
    Human factors research..............................       1,622,000
    Hazardous weather research..........................       5,650,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................       61,363,00

                             franchise fund

    The Committee does not approve FAA's proposal to 
significantly expand the range of activities performed by the 
agency's franchise fund, including the majority of the FAA's 
logistics activities. The Committee continues to believe that 
activities financed through the franchise fund lose visibility 
in the annual budget process and are not subject to the same 
scrutiny and budgetary competition as other activities within 
the agency. Until the agency can clearly show significant 
savings from this approach, the Committee believes the status 
quo should be maintained.

                          Air Traffic Services

    The Committee recommends $4,660,892,000 for air traffic 
services, an increase of $307,701,000 (7.1 percent) above the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. As the following chart 
indicates, this percentage increase is far above the 
anticipated workload indicators for fiscal year 2000. This is 
similar to past years. 


    Adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows:
    Runway incursion program enhancement.--Despite the FAA's 
activity in this area, the problem of runway incursions 
continues to worsen. Runway incursions rose in 1998 for the 
fifth year in a row, and now occur at the rate of almost one 
per day. Although the agency has developed an action plan, in 
testimony this year the Inspector General said, ``The challenge 
now, in our opinion, is to set aside the funds and to follow 
through on the plan * * * what we found * * * was that there 
was no specific set-aside funding to carry out the activities. 
As a result, FAA has made limited progress and milestones have 
been missed''. When this problem was brought to light eighteen 
months ago, the agency announced the establishment of airport-
specific ``runway incursion action teams'' to make 
recommendations at individual airports. At the time of the 
Committee's aviation safety hearing this year, only 5 of the 20 
teams had completed their work. The administrator testified 
that the implementation plan was still ``working through the 
process'' in the agency. The Committee does not intend to watch 
FAA repeat its actions of the early 1990's, where a runway 
incursion plan was developed but never implemented due to lack 
of resources and low management priority. The Committee 
recommendation provides an additional $2,500,000 for a more 
aggressive runway incursion program.
    Host maintenance.--The Committee recommendation reduces 
funding for maintenance of the Host computer system from 
$31,751,000 to $30,751,000 to reflect deployment of new 
technology in the Host and Oceanic System Capability 
Replacement (HOCSR) project. The fiscal year 2000 budget 
requested an increase over the previous year, failing to 
reflect the deployment of upgraded systems.
    Interim incentive pay (IIP).--Although the FAA's budget 
proposal includes $19,942,000 to continue interim incentive 
pay, the Committee believes this pay is no longer necessary due 
to provisions of the new controller pay agreement. When 
Congress mandated a phase-out of the original ``pay 
demonstration'' program a few years ago, the FAA 
administratively established an interim pay program to replace 
it on a temporary basis. The IIP was designed to provide 
additional funds for hard-to-staff facilities until positions 
could be ``reclassified'' as part of a new pay deal. 
Reclassification raises the base pay rates of controllers at 
difficult, hard-to-staff facilities by raising the grade levels 
in those facilities. Reclassification was included in the 1998 
NATCA pay agreement, making interim incentive pay obsolete and 
duplicative of the higher base pay. The recommendation begins a 
multiyear phaseout of these funds by reducing IIP from 
$19,142,000 to $6,952,000.
    Air traffic overtime.--The Committee recommendation allows 
approximately the same funding level for air traffic overtime 
as provided in fiscal year 1999. This level is 61.8 percent 
above the funding of two years ago. The Committee is pleased 
that the new controller contract contains provisions which are 
expected to reduce air traffic overtime. However, it does not 
appear that these productivity improvements have been 
appropriately reflected in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. 
FAA did not use all of the appropriated overtime amounts in 
fiscal year 1999, reprogramming them to other purposes. The 
recommendation provides $49,000,000 compared to $54,000,000 in 
the budget request.
    Controller-in-charge.--The Committee recommendation defers 
further implementation of the new controller-in-charge (CIC) 
position. Although FAA's 1992 study found that operational 
errors rose when the number of air traffic supervisors was 
decreased, the agency believes that, with adequate training and 
planning, this problem can be overcome. For this reason the 
agency began a phaseout of supervisors in fiscal year 1999, and 
the fiscal year 2000 budget assumes a further reduction in 
supervisors next year. However, the Inspector General has 
stated that certain steps must be taken before this transition 
can be safely accomplished, and the agency has not completed 
those steps. For example, the agency says that the selection 
process for determining which controllers are suitable to 
assume the role of CIC ``is being developed''. Likewise, the 
FAA has offered no schedule for implementing the four steps 
required under this program, even though they have already 
initiated the transition. Operational error rates were up 
across the board in 1998. Now is not the time to move too 
quickly in removing supervisors. The Committee recommendation 
freezes the number of new CIC positions at the fiscal year 1999 
level, and defers further expansion. This also requires 
restoration of the supervisor positions which were proposed for 
elimination in the budget request.
    Air traffic supervisor staffing.--This restores the air 
traffic supervisor positions which were proposed for 
elimination in the President's budget, as discussed above.
    Air traffic sick leave.--The new controller contract 
includes an innovative sick leave ``buy back'' provision which 
is expected to result in less sick leave over the coming years. 
Under this program, the FAA agrees to compensate a retiring 
controller for a portion of their accrued sick leave. In the 
private sector, such flexibility has resulted in program 
savings in the early years, when retirement buy backs are small 
and employees are ``banking'' their sick leave hours. In fiscal 
year 2000, this should result in less overtime requirements. 
However, the fiscal year 2000 budget request assumes no savings 
from the buyback provision. The Committee recommendation 
assumes savings of $1,000,000 from this improvement to the sick 
leave benefit.
    Within-grade and grade-to-grade increases.--The 
administration's budget requested $44,697,000 for within-grade 
and grade-to-grade increases in the air traffic services 
organization. However, the new pay agreement eliminated these 
automatic increases for air traffic controllers and replaced 
them with new ``organizational success increases'' (OSIs) and 
``quality step increases'' (QSIs). Since the new OSIs and QSIs 
are not automatic but based instead on superior performance, it 
seems certain that the FAA's costs will be reduced in this 
area. The Committee's recommendation assumes a reduction in 
budgeted funds, reflecting program savings from the new 
agreement.
    Airspace redesign.--The Committee recommends $6,622,000 for 
airspace redesign efforts, compared to $3,000,000 enacted for 
fiscal year 1999 and $9,622,000 in the budget estimate. The 
Committee believes a 121 percent increase in one year is 
sufficient to address high priority issues, especially since 
the FAA has been unable to explain how much funding would be 
utilized for each geographic location. Of the funds provided, 
$6,000,000 is to be allocated to redesign efforts in the New 
York/New Jersey metropolitan area.
    RTCA support.--A review of FAA's recent use of the Radio 
Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA, Inc.) indicates the 
agency is now using this advisory committee in some roles which 
go far beyond that of a traditional advisory committee. RTCA 
was established in 1935 to ensure coordination in the technical 
development of aeronautical radio aids. Over the past few 
years, however, RTCA has come more and more to be used as the 
FAA's ``consensus builder'' with industry--an activity more 
aligned with strategic planning or investment analysis than 
with a traditional advisory committee. FAA officially describes 
RTCA's advisory committee role as ``seeking solutions to 
problems involving the application of technology (e.g., 
electronics, computers, and telecommunications) to aeronautical 
operations that impact the future air traffic management 
system''. This objective is so broad as to encompass virtually 
all of the FAA's modernization program and many of its 
operating activities as well. Furthermore, given membership in 
this organization by firms in the electronics, aerospace, and 
airline industries, conflict of interest questions argue for a 
more limited role. For example, FAA is using this organization 
to set standards and specifications for new NAS systems, and to 
define tradeoffs among competing systems. Although the 
Committee values the work of RTCA, the FAA and Congress should 
maintain an appropriate relationship and not use RTCA simply 
out of convenience. In some instances, there are numerous 
consulting firms without a financial stake in particular NAS 
modernization programs which can perform these activities on a 
competitive basis. The Committee recommendation allows $300,000 
for RTCA support, a reduction of $135,000 from the budget 
estimate and 10 percent below the fiscal year 1999 level. This 
funding level is consistent with FAA Order 1110.77M, which 
estimated annual RTCA annual support at $300,000. The Committee 
passes no judgment about the work being performed by RTCA, 
Incorporated, but believes that RTCA should have a more limited 
role, and that a portion of the work should either be conducted 
in-house by the agency or solicited under a competitive 
procurement.
    General aviation safety initiative.--According to FAA 
statistics and projections, general aviation activity is 
increasing at a faster rate than commercial aviation, and 
accounts for many of the disturbing increases in aviation 
safety problems such as operational errors, pilot deviations, 
and runway incursions. Near mid-air collisions are remaining 
constant, but still occur in this country on a rate of one 
every other day. FAA explains that the inability to reduce near 
mid-air collisions is largely due to rising general aviation 
activity. Despite these trends, however, FAA budget initiatives 
for next year are inadequate to address the problem, and may 
worsen it. The Committee remains very supportive of general 
aviation, and therefore recommends additional funding for a new 
initiative to improve safety. These projects are described 
below:

          Contract tower cost-sharing program.--The 
        recommendation provides $5,000,000 to continue the 
        contract tower cost-sharing program, which provides a 
        federal cost share to establish new contract towers. 
        This program was initiated at Congressional direction 
        in fiscal year 1999. According to the FAA, the agency 
        did request funding to continue this program; however, 
        this funding was deleted at a later stage in the 
        administrative budget process. The recommended amount 
        is $1,000,000 below the level provided last year.
          Aviation safety program.--The bill provides an 
        additional $500,000 to the $150,000 requested for this 
        important safety program, which is funded under 
        ``Aviation regulation and certification''. This program 
        provides educational materials for general aviation 
        pilots. This is similar to the recommendation made by 
        the Committee in fiscal year 1999.
          Flight service station staffing.--FAA's budget 
        proposal to eliminate 90 flight service station 
        positions is predicated on increased voluntary use of 
        the direct user access terminal service (DUATS). 
        However, use of this service has remained nearly level 
        over the past four years. While towers and centers will 
        experience only slight increases in workload in fiscal 
        year 2000, the FAA is projecting a 25 percent increase 
        in workload at the flight service stations. The 
        Committee finds it highly unlikely that use of DUATS 
        will go up enough next year to handle the projected 
        volume, based on past history. Furthermore, DUATS is 
        being incorporated into the new OASIS system, which is 
        experiencing developmental delays. While the Committee 
        has been supportive in past years of consolidating the 
        flight service stations, the closing of stations was 
        completed in 1997. Since the number of stations has 
        been stable since that time and newer technology has 
        not yet been fielded, the Committee believes it would 
        be unsafe to contemplate further reductions. The 
        Committee recommendation restores the $3,967,000 
        proposed for elimination.
          OASIS.--An additional $20,614,000 above the budget 
        estimate is provided under ``Facilities and equipment'' 
        to maintain the schedule for the OASIS computer project 
        for the flight service stations. The current Model One 
        Full Capability system was obsolete when it was first 
        deployed in the early 1990s and must be replaced by 
        OASIS as soon as possible. In order to satisfy human 
        factors issues raised by air traffic controllers, 
        additional funding is required next year. The FAA must 
        keep this program on track to maintain the current 
        level of service and safety to general aviation pilots.

    NAS handoff.--The National Airspace System (NAS) handoff 
program provides operating and maintenance money for new NAS 
systems. Since development of the budget estimate, schedules 
for several new systems have slipped, and the recommendations 
in this bill will require adjustment in other schedules as 
well. Because the budget assumption is no longer valid, the 
recommendation reduces the $85,500,000 request for NAS handoff 
funding by $12,122,000.
    Reductions from fiscal year 1999 extended into 2000.--In 
fiscal year 1999, the FAA implemented a number of efficiencies 
in their operating account with no adverse effect on safety. 
Although the agency budgeted funds to restore 100 percent of 
those reductions in the coming year, the Committee believes 
that some of the administrative reductions can be extended into 
fiscal year 2000 with little or no effect on the agency's 
ability to carry out its missions. This is necessary given the 
huge increases in the agency's budget proposal and the 
inability to control costs in other areas. The Committee 
recommendation extends $20,430,000 of the fiscal year 1999 
reduction, or approximately 8 percent of the total. The 
specific reductions are shown in the table below.

Terminal leave savings..................................     -$2,000,000
Performance awards......................................        -770,000
Air traffic travel......................................      -3,620,000
Freeze staffing for non-safety positions at fiscal year 
    1999 levels.........................................      -3,400,000
Administrative contracts--IRM planning/maintenance......      -3,100,000
Administrative travel...................................      -4,200,000
Computer-aided engineering graphics.....................        -600,000
Resource management contract............................        -410,000
Conpuretix conferencing/voice switch improvements.......      -1,100,000
Reduce teleconferencing/videoconferencing...............      -2,000,000

    Administrative travel.--The Committee is especially 
concerned about one item shown in the above list. Despite the 
Committee's attempts to hold down administrative travel costs, 
FAA accounting data indicate those costs continue to rise. For 
example, in 1998 costs for site visits within the United States 
were up by 9.4 percent; costs of travel to deliver speeches in 
foreign countries were up 11.9 percent; and ``other travel'' 
within the United States was up 13.1 percent. To encourage 
stronger control, the Committee extends into fiscal year 2000 a 
reduction of $4,200,000 in administrative travel. If the agency 
cannot hold down these costs, deeper reductions will be 
considered in future years.
    MARC.--The recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue 
operating support for the Mid-America Aviation Resource 
Consortium (MARC) in Minnesota. This program has been funded 
for many years.

                 aviation regulation and certification

    The Committee recommends $667,416,000 for aviation 
regulation and certification, $215,000 below the budget request 
and an increase of $36,998,000 (5.9 percent) above the fiscal 
year 1999 enacted level.
    Aviation safety program.--FAA's flight standards service 
conducts a program known as the aviation safety program (ASP), 
which produces and distributes safety educational programs and 
materials for general aviation pilots. Since the large majority 
of aviation accidents in this country are general aviation 
accidents, the Committee believes that a small increase in this 
area could result in a large payoff. The bill includes an 
increase of $500,000 above the budget estimate.
    Rulemaking.--Given the ``Challenge 2000'' study and 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission recommendations that 
FAA's rulemaking process should be streamlined, as well as the 
view in Congress that regulations should be held at the minimum 
level necessary, the Committee does not find it justified to 
increase the rulemaking budget by 21.7 percent, as the fiscal 
year 2000 budget assumes. The Committee recommendation holds 
these costs to the fiscal year 1999 level, a reduction of 
$715,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation includes 
a deletion of $632,000 for three new staffyears requested (two 
for the office of general counsel and one for the office of 
policy and international aviation) to review new rulemaking 
actions.
    Ground tracking and reporting system.--Between 1993 and 
1997, runway incursions in this country increased nearly 72 
percent. The most common cause of incursion is a situation 
where pilots fail to hold short of the active runway, turn onto 
the wrong taxiway, and cross a runway without clearance. One of 
the emerging technologies to address this problem is based on 
in-pavement inductive loop sensors, a technology which this 
Committee has funded for several years. The ground tracking and 
reporting system (GSTARS) incorporates this type of loop 
technology and provides aircraft and ground vehicle detection, 
classification, and tracking in all weather and visibility 
conditions. GSTARS provides increased situational awareness and 
tracking of ground traffic to air traffic controllers and 
alerts controllers to potential runway and taxiway incursions. 
The Committee directs FAA to conduct the evaluations necessary 
to initiate the certification review process for the GSTARS 
inductive loop system. The Committee bill includes a 6 percent 
increase for certification and regulation activities, which is 
sufficient for the FAA to move this program forward in an 
aggressive manner.
    Helicopter noise, New York City, NY.--Residents in New York 
City and in other large urban districts have raised safety and 
noise concerns due to increased helicopter traffic. Since 1991, 
the volume of helicopter traffic in New York City has increased 
by 23 percent. Currently, there are between 200 and 400 
flights, mostly over Manhattan, every day. The FAA estimates 
that 50 percent of those flights are tourist-related. New York 
City had laws to restrict flights from heliports, but those 
laws were struck down by a federal court judge as 
unconstitutional. The court ruled that the Federal Government 
has sole power to regulate air traffic. However, the FAA 
believes Congress has never enacted a statute giving it the 
ability to regulate helicopter traffic for any reason other 
than safety. The Committee recommends that FAA develop plans to 
deal with public complaints regarding helicopter noise, 
traffic, and safety issues.

                        civil aviation security

    The Committee recommends $144,642,000 for civil aviation 
security, the same as the budget estimate and an increase of 
$22,001,000 (17.9 percent) above the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level.
    Certification of baggage screening firms.--The Committee is 
disturbed to learn that FAA's proposed rule regarding 
certification of baggage screening firms has been delayed by 
nine months over the past year, and is currently scheduled for 
issuance of a final rule in December 2000. The FAA testified 
this year that ``these standards and requirements are important 
because they would compel screening companies to hire and 
compensate qualified, skilled employees, train them 
effectively, and accept more responsibility for the 
effectiveness of their operations''. The Subcommittee held a 
special hearing this year on airport security operations, and 
discovered several holes in the security net--mostly relating 
to screener performance. FAA data indicate the turnover rate 
among screeners is much too high (110 percent a year, with some 
airports as high as 430 percent), and the wages remain too low 
to retain the best people. As FAA testified, ``there has to be 
a much greater concentration on retaining people and training 
them; and in order to retain them, they are going to have to be 
compensated better''. Particularly in light of the recent test 
results, the Committee believes the FAA needs to give this area 
urgent attention. Consequently, the Committee directs FAA to 
take all actions necessary to accelerate the screening company 
certification rulemaking in order to issue a final rule no 
later than March 31, 2000.
    Utilization of explosive detection systems.--The DOT and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 required the FAA to 
certify that air carriers had substantially increased the usage 
of bulk explosive detection systems procured for them by the 
Federal Government. This certification was provided by the FAA 
earlier this year. The Committee was disturbed to learn, 
however, that usage of the machines dropped significantly right 
after the certification was provided. The FAA's certification 
was based upon data between April and June 1998, which showed 
usage of 2,151 bags per machine per week. According to the DOT 
Inspector General, usage dropped in the third quarter of 1998 
and even further in the fourth quarter. In January and February 
1999, the usage rate was down to 1,630, negating the gains the 
Committee hoped to see sustained. The Inspector General 
testified: ``CAPS [computer assisted profiling system] . . . 
should not stand alone . . . The explosive detection equipment 
has demonstrated a capacity to screen significantly more bags 
per day than are being offered to it, and should be used more 
often''. The Committee reiterates its firm beliefs that these 
systems are not of much security value unless they are used, 
and that the taxpayers should not continue federal support for 
acquisition of these systems unless such support is predicated 
on maximum usage. The FAA is directed to work more effectively 
than it has to date with the airlines to ensure immediate 
improvements in the per system utilization rate. The Committee 
notes that one simple method of achieving this result is to 
raise the percentage of random selectees chosen by the CAPS 
system. The Committee intends to monitor this issue closely 
over the coming months.

                       administration of airports

    The Committee recommends $50,608,000 for the administration 
of airports program, no change from the budget estimate and 
$2,054,000 (4.2 percent) above the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level.

                        research and acquisition

    The Committee recommends $181,535,000 for research and 
acquisition, a reduction of $2,205,000 below the budget 
request. This activity finances the planning, management, and 
coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs.
    ``Human capital management'' project.--The recommendation 
deletes funding for the proposed ``human capital management'' 
project, a reduction of $2,205,000 from the budget estimate. 
When the Committee approved personnel and procurement reform in 
1995, it was assumed that these initiatives would result in 
cost savings and efficiencies in the agency. In this case, the 
FAA has established a new, costly administrative process which 
is only vaguely described in justification material. The 
Committee encourages the FAA to find ways to implement 
personnel management improvements out of existing funding 
levels, rather than requesting additional funds.

                    commercial space transportation

    The Committee recommends $6,838,000 for the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), the same as the budget 
request and $670,000 (10.9 percent) above the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level.

                             administration

    Due to elimination of the organization for the Associate 
Administrator for Administration in July 1998, FAA is proposing 
to distribute all their administrative costs, to other parts of 
the budget. Although the Committee supports the elimination of 
an unnecessary layer of management in the agency, it is still 
useful for budgetary purposes to differentiate between 
administrative and non-administrative costs. For this reason, 
the Committee recommends the replacement of the larger 
``administration'' budget activity with three new budget 
activities, for regional coordination, human resources, and 
financial services. This budget structure aligns appropriately 
with organizational elements established in 1998.
    In total, the FAA's fiscal year 2000 budget requested 
increases totaling 11 percent in administrative activities. 
Given budget constraints and the need to preserve large 
increases for other parts of FAA's organization, the Committee 
recommendation allows a 1.5 percent increase. This results in 
reductions from the budget estimate totaling $32,328,000. The 
Committee believes the agency can and should do more to find 
cost efficiencies in the administrative area, but leaves it to 
the management attention of the agency to determine the most 
cost-effective areas for restraint.

                         regional coordination

    The Committee recommends $95,831,000 for regional 
coordination, an increase of $4,563,000 (5 percent) above the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The President's budget included 
$101,441,000 under ``staff offices'' for these activities. A 
reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget estimate reflects a 
slip in the occupancy schedule for Federal Office Building 10-B 
since submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget.

                            Human Resources

    The Committee recommends $47,436,000 for human resources, 
an increase of $2,258,000 (5 percent) above the fiscal year 
1999 enacted level. The President's budget included $55,877,000 
under ``staff offices'' for these activities. The 
recommendation includes reduction of $1,300,000 in the budget 
estimate for ``operationalizing the flexibilities of personnel 
reform''. The Committee believes these flexibilities inherently 
provide resources to offset any new procedures through 
paperwork reduction, streamlining and other initiatives.
    Sexual harassment cases.--The Committee recognizes the FAA 
Administrator's prompt response to concerns regarding sexual 
harassment within the FAA in creating the FAA Sexual Harassment 
Accountability Board. The Committee expects that the FAA 
Administrator will investigate and resolve expeditiously the 
significant backlog of cases that are still pending. The 
Committee urges that this backlog of cases be eliminated by 
September 30, 2000.
    Safety-related training activities.--The Committee urges 
the FAA to fund implementation of the air safety and security 
training program developed by the George Washington University/
Virginia Campus Aviation Institute and the George Mason 
University Institute for Public Policy. The program will 
prepare the workforce for careers in aviation safety and 
security management and will train civil aviation personnel in 
category II and category III countries, as rated by FAA's 
International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program, to 
assist in raising the country's safety level to category I.

                           Financial Services

    The Committee recommends $35,790,000 for financial 
services, an increase of $1,705,000 (5 percent) above the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The President's budget included 
$50,926,000 under ``staff offices'' for these activities. 
Included in the recommendation is a deletion of the $6,264,000 
for development of the integrated personnel and payroll system 
(IPPS), pending further justification and evaluation of 
alternatives. The FAA has advised the Committee that an agency 
decision on the acquisition approach and evaluation of 
alternatives will be completed in July 1999. The Committee 
defers these funds until this important information can be 
reviewed.
    The Committee notes that the budget request for this 
activity included a 43.4 percent increase in personnel 
compensation and benefits, even though, at the time of this 
year's budget hearing, there were 11 vacant positions.

                             Staff Offices

    The Committee recommends $77,669,000 for certain 
headquarters staff offices funded in this budget activity, a 
reduction of $3,141,000 below the budget estimate.
    Resources maintained in other lines of business.--The 
recommendation does not agree with the budget proposal to 
transfer and raise funding from the now-defunct 
``administration'' budget activity to this location. The 
recommendation deletes the $208,244,000 included in the 
President's budget, and transfers funding for those activities, 
at reduced levels, to the three new budget activities discussed 
above.
    Personnel compensation and benefits reduction.--The 
Committee believes the requested funding for personnel 
compensation and benefits for staff offices is excessive given 
the staffing increases proposed for certain offices and the 
large number of current vacancies. The Committee recommends a 
reduction of $1,500,000 in this area. None of the reduction 
shall be allocated to the Office of International Aviation, 
including overseas offices, due to the importance of these 
offices in improving aviation safety, as discussed below.
    International aviation oversight.--The Committee is 
concerned over the growing number of fatalities of United 
States citizens traveling on foreign air carriers. Although 
travelers on domestic carriers enjoyed one of their safest 
years in 1998, fatalities of U.S. citizens on foreign airlines 
rose for the fourth consecutive year, from 2 in 1994 to 109 in 
1998. The magnitude of these fatalities appears to be rising as 
our airlines become more economically entwined with their 
foreign counterparts. Over the past ten years, 25 percent of 
the U.S. fatalities in commercial aviation accidents were on 
non-U.S. carriers, and approximately half of the people flying 
to and from this country now travel on foreign carriers. The 
economic success of code sharing and global airline alliances 
may push these numbers higher in future years unless action is 
taken. The Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board 
testified this year: ``Several years ago, the FAA acted on 
Safety Board recommendations regarding one level of safety 
between small commuter airlines and large air carriers. As code 
sharing agreements continue to increase, we plan to monitor 
this situation very closely.''
    In addition, since the hull loss accident rate in this 
country is many times lower than the worldwide average, the 
greatest leverage for improving aviation safety lies in 
improving regulatory oversight and infrastructure investment 
not in the U.S., but in foreign nations. The FAA can play a 
vital role in advising and assisting foreign governments and 
aviation authorities on how to improve their safety programs. 
Especially given internal budget decisions being made by the 
agency, the Committee is concerned that the safety trend could 
worsen unless the FAA steps up its safety oversight of foreign 
air carriers. The Committee directs the FAA to submit, not 
later than February 15, 2000, a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations which describes the actions being 
taken by the agency to improve international aviation safety, 
the resources allocated to those efforts over the preceding 
five years, and a detailed plan for future activities over the 
next five years.
    Public affairs streamlining.--The President's budget 
assumes staffing levels in fiscal year 2000 which are 1 
staffyear above the fiscal year 1999 level and 2 staffyears 
above the 1998 level. The Committee believes these 
administrative costs should be held to the lowest amount 
possible, and consequently recommends a reduction of $120,000, 
reflecting a reduction of 2 staffyears.
    Office of general counsel.--The FAA states that because 
this office has taken on more responsibilities than its budget 
will allow, the budget of the office must be raised--by 11 
percent in fiscal year 2000. The Committee believes this type 
of circular logic provides insufficient justification for a 
large budgetary increase, and demonstrates the lack of cost 
control at the FAA. The bill includes a 4 percent increase, 
which results in a reduction from the budget estimate of 
$2,021,000.
    English language proficiency.--The recommendation provides 
an additional $500,000 for the office of policy and 
international affairs to continue its important activities in 
the assessment and promotion of English language proficiency in 
air traffic control systems of foreign nations around the 
world. The Committee continues to support this work, which was 
initiated by the Committee two years ago. Funding of $350,000 
was appropriated for this activity in fiscal year 1999.
    Congressional reports.--Last July, the Committee directed 
FAA to submit, no later than December 31, 1998, a report 
detailing the costs of the new air traffic controller pay 
agreement and the extent to which those costs are offset by 
productivity improvements. This three page report was submitted 
on May 18, 1999--ten months after the request was made and 
almost five months late. The Committee does not ask for 
frivolous reports or set casually the reporting dates. The 
Committee expects the agency and the administration to take 
these requirements more seriously in the future. If not, the 
Committee will consider putting report requirements in bill 
language with penalties for noncompliance.

                        Accountwide Adjustments

    The Committee recommends accountwide adjustments resulting 
in a net decrease of $43,657,000 below the budget estimate. 
These adjustments are discussed below.
    Y2K program savings.--Through February 1999, the FAA 
received $14,946,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations 
to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem. Only $5,986,000 has 
been removed from the FAA's operating budget base in its fiscal 
year 2000 budget. Although other one-time costs were identified 
and subtracted, the Committee cannot identify the reduction of 
other Y2K funds from the budget base. These were one-time funds 
and will not be needed in fiscal year 2000. The recommendation 
deletes these funds, a reduction of $8,960,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    Transportation administrative service center.--The fiscal 
year 2000 budget requested $38,912,000 for FAA's contribution 
to the Transportation Administrative Service Center, which is 
managed by the office of the secretary. This is clearly 
excessive, given the need to control administrative costs 
department-wide. The Committee recommendation freezes these 
costs at the fiscal year 1999 level, and includes bill language 
limiting funding to this level. This results in a savings of 
$10,200,000 from the budget estimate.
    GSA rental payments.--The Committee bill provides an 
increase of 8 percent for GSA rental payments instead of the 
16.8 percent requested due to budget constraints and the need 
to restrain cost growth in administrative accounts. This 
results in a reduction of $6,600,000 below the budget estimate.
    Contractual studies.--Funding for contract studies rose in 
fiscal year 1999, despite the Committee's reduction last year, 
and is budgeted for another increase in fiscal year 2000. The 
Committee recommends $3,466,000, the average cost experienced 
over the two previous fiscal years, and a reduction of 
$1,500,000 from the budget estimate.
    General working agreement, Transportation Systems Center.--
Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommends holding 
costs for the general working agreement with the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center to a 5 percent increase instead 
of the 21.1 percent increase requested. This reduction is 
without prejudice to the work being done at that facility.
    Nassif building rental costs.--The Committee directs FAA to 
work with the Transportation Administrative Services Center and 
GSA to ensure that, during the transition of FAA employees out 
of the Nassif building, the FAA's GSA rental costs are reduced 
in a fair manner reflecting the reduced usage of that space. 
The Committee does not believe FAA should be charged for space 
which the agency no longer occupies.
    Senior executive service bonuses and workers compensation 
program costs.--The Committee encourages the FAA, especially in 
these tight budgetary times, to monitor carefully the agency's 
rising costs for the workers' compensation program and for 
bonuses paid to members of the senior executive service (SES). 
In 1998, workers' compensation costs were up 7.4 percent, after 
six years of virtually zero growth. This occurred with a 
caseload growth of only 1 percent, and with government-wide 
cost growth of only 2.9 percent. In particular, medical costs 
were up 20.3 percent compared to growth of 5.6 percent 
government-wide. In the case of SES bonuses, the agency's costs 
and number of awards have more than doubled over the past five 
years. The agency currently has approximatel1y 180 SES 
positions and a budget for SES bonuses of almost $400,000. The 
Committee encourages FAA to monitor this area carefully.

                             Bill Language

    Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee 
bill includes the limitation requested in the President's 
budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned 
auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United 
States. The FAA budget includes no funding to operate such 
stations during fiscal year 2000.
    Second career training program.--Once again this year, the 
Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for 
the second career training program. This prohibition has been 
in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included 
in the President's budget request.
    Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in 
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday 
premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually 
worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5 
U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work 
during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is 
not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a 
part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * 
premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic 
pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and 
previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v. 
United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that 
employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive 
premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back 
pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually 
worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this 
provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded 
liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating 
budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for 
fiscal years 1995 through 1999, and as requested by the 
administration in the fiscal year 2000 President's budget.
    O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill maintains the 
general provision (sec. 326) enacted beginning in fiscal year 
1995 which prohibits funding to implement or enforce 
regulations that would result in slot allocations for 
international operations to any carrier at O'Hare Airport in 
excess of the number of slots allocated to and scheduled by 
that carrier as of the first day of the 1993-1994 winter 
season, if that international slot is withdrawn from an air 
carrier under existing regulations for slot withdrawals.
    Restrictions on leases.--The bill maintains restrictions on 
multiyear leases and for satellite service leases for the wide 
area augmentation system, as enacted in fiscal year 1999.
    User fees.--The bill maintains a limitation on funds for 
activities to plan, develop, or implement new user fees not 
specifically authorized by the Congress after the date of 
enactment of this Act. This provision is identical to that 
enacted for fiscal year 1999. The Committee is concerned over 
FAA's statements that the User Fee Statute might provide 
blanket legislative authority to impose new fees. The Committee 
does not believe the Constitution envisions that agencies will 
augment their appropriations administratively using general 
statements of the Congress regarding fees. Such action, if 
adopted on a widescale basis, could seriously undermine the 
Constitutional ``power of the purse'' vested in the Congress. 
The Committee believes that any new fee not currently being 
imposed and collected should be reviewed on a case-by-case 
basis by the Congress and specifically authorized.
    Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill includes a 
provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used to 
conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities 
through the transportation administrative services center 
(TASC). The administration has proposed that these activities 
be transferred from FAA to the TASC, despite the wishes and 
recommendations of this Committee. The Committee believes this 
would be detrimental to the efficient conduct of the AC&C 
program and cannot fathom how TASC would perform this work more 
effectively than the FAA, which interacts regularly with the 
general aviation community and has responsibilities for 
oversight of general aviation safety.
    Centennial of Flight Commission.--The bill specifies that, 
out of the funds provided, $600,000 shall be for activities of 
the Centennial of Flight Commission. This compares to $250,000 
enacted for fiscal year 1999.

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 1.....................    $2,122,133,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................     2,319,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,200,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................       +77,867,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................     -119,000,000

1 Includes $100,000 in supplemental emergency funding for counter-
  terrorism activities and $122,133,000 in supplemental emergency
  funding for Year 2000 compliance activities.

    The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal 
means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and 
airway facilities. The appropriation also finances major 
capital investments required by other agency programs, 
experimental research and development facilities, and other 
improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace 
system.

         ATC Capital Needs and the Congressional Budget Process

    The Committee does not agree with those who suggest that 
the federal budget process will be unable to provide for the 
high-priority air traffic control modernization needs of the 
FAA. To the contrary, the current budget process does not 
impose fixed or immutable budget limits. As the GAO and the DOT 
Inspector General have repeatedly stated, FAA's modernization 
problems have not been the result of inadequate funding, but 
instead by weak management at the FAA and lack of priority-
setting. When additional needs are justified, they are provided 
in the current process--with a prime example being the 
increased funding provided in this bill. The 4.5 percent 
increase recommended is greater than the government-wide 
spending increases for next year under the discretionary caps, 
and greater than what will be approved for capital programs in 
many other federal agencies.

             Funding Responsibility for Navigation Systems

    For several years, the Committee has directed FAA not to 
shift funding responsibility for air traffic control equipment 
items which have historically been acquired and maintained by 
the Federal Government. The Committee reiterates that the 
procurement and maintenance of navigational aids, landing aids, 
and approach lighting systems are generally the responsibility 
of the government, as part of the ``contract'' that aviation 
passengers and general aviation pilots enter into through the 
payment of aviation excise taxes. The FAA has the 
responsibility to provide a national system of air traffic 
control equipment and services. The Committee believes that 
proposals to shift a subset of these responsibilities to 
airports is inappropriate and could result in the diminution of 
aviation safety, since airports are neither staffed nor funded 
to assume ownership, operation, or maintenance of such 
equipment. The procurement and maintenance of such equipment 
should remain a financial responsibility of the FAA, and the 
agency should not move forward on any proposal to transfer this 
responsibility without specific Congressional authorization.

                        Capital Investment Plan

    The bill includes a new provision requiring the FAA to 
submit a long-range capital plan which sets priorities among 
competing requirements and is restrained to the likely or 
historic level of funding. Although the FAA has both an 
``Aviation Capital Investment Plan'' and a ``NAS Architecture 
Plan'', neither of these documents show how the pieces of the 
modernization effort fit together in the FAA's budget requests, 
or how they fit into likely future year budgets. FAA's 
accounting of the costs of these approved projects are far in 
excess of likely budgets, indicating that the agency has done 
an inadequate job of setting priorities among the broad range 
of valid programs. Although these documents provide a starting 
point, the Committee believes the FAA must take the next step 
and develop a credible, funding constrained, multiyear capital 
plan which lists funding by each project. This could be 
developed as an annex to the existing planning documents, but 
it should be updated each year with submission of the 
President's budget. Therefore, the bill includes language 
requiring the FAA to develop and submit to the Congressional 
appropriations and authorization committees a five year capital 
investment plan which is constrained to the outyear funding 
levels provided by the Office of Management and Budget. The 
Committee intends to carry this language each year if 
necessary, requiring annual submission of an updated plan with 
the President's budget request. Similar language has been 
included for the U.S. Coast Guard, which also lacks such a 
plan.

                           acquisition reform

    In March 1996, the FAA announced that three programs had 
been selected, in the agency's words, to ``lead the fleet'' of 
acquisition reform. Subsequently, a fourth program was added. 
The FAA said that each team would be ``responsible for a 
program that has been specifically selected to demonstrate the 
benefits expected from acquisition reform over the next three 
years.'' According to the director of acquisition, the specific 
programs included to lead the fleet were chosen ``because we 
wanted to start carefully and make sure we got off on the right 
foot.'' These programs were OASIS, the Integrated Terminal 
Weather System (ITWS), the Oceanic Automation System, and the 
NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS). After the three 
years specified in the ``lead the fleet'' announcement, the 
Committee is disappointed that three of the programs have been 
restructured due to severe cost growth and schedule delay, and 
the fourth has also experienced difficulties. The Committee 
continues to encourage FAA to use acquisition reform principles 
to ensure that programs can be delivered on time and within the 
budgeted cost.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,200,000,000 
for this program, an increase of $77,867,000 (3.7 percent) 
above the level provided for fiscal year 1999 and $119,000,000 
below the budget estimate. The bill provides that of the total 
amount recommended, $1,917,000,000 is available for obligation 
until September 30, 2000, and $283,000,000 (the amount for 
personnel and related expenses) is available until September 
30, 2000. These obligation availabilities are consistent with 
past appropriations Acts and the same as the budget request. 
The bill does not include the requested advance appropriations, 
because the administration has done little to justify the 
requirement and because many of the systems are still in 
development, where advance appropriations are inappropriate.

                         top priority programs

    The recommended bill supports FAA's highest priority 
modernization programs, providing 92.2 percent of the amount 
requested. According to the FAA, the agency's five most 
important F&E programs are shown below, with the associated 
funding levels in this bill:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Program                      Request        Provided
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free flight phase one...................    $184,800,000    $179,625,000
Wide area augmentation system...........     108,100,000     102,700,000
Display system replacement..............      95,800,000      95,800,000
STARS...................................     195,240,000     158,900,000
Electric power systems sustainment......      17,500,000      17,500,000
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................     601,440,000     554,525,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill also provides $49.3 million in new or expanded 
safety-related programs, above the budget request, as shown 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Program                      Request        Provided
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low cost ASDE acquisition...............  ..............      $7,000,000
AMASS safety system.....................     $11,700,000      15,600,000
Weather and radar processor.............      12,872,000      15,000,000
DBRITE..................................  ..............       1,400,000
OASIS...................................      21,486,000      42,100,000
Low level windshear alert system........       2,200,000       4,200,000
Runway visual range (RVR)...............       2,000,000       6,300,000
Approach lighting system improvement           2,700,000       7,700,000
 (ALSIP)................................
Distance Measuring Equipment............       1,200,000       4,200,000
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................      54,158,000     103,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee believes that shifting 8 percent of the 
funding for FAA's top modernization programs--which are mostly 
oriented to capacity enhancement--to new safety initiatives is 
a good investment. These modest changes address some of the 
National Transportation Safety Board's concerns in areas such 
as runway incursion and hazardous weather without causing 
serious delay to existing modernization efforts.
    The following chart shows the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 2000 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this 
appropriation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                            Title                             ---------------------------------- Recommended  in
                                                                 1999 enacted    2000 estimated      the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Development, Test and Evaluation:
    Advanced technology development & prototyping............      $52,566,000      $33,166,100      $33,166,100
    Safe flight 21...........................................  ...............  ...............       16,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--Adv Dev/Prototyping..........................       52,566,000       33,166,100       49,166,100
                                                              ==================================================
    Aviation weather services improvements...................       26,300,000       23,862,000       23,862,000
    En route automation......................................  ...............       10,055,000  ...............
    Oceanic automation system................................  ...............       10,000,000        5,000,000
    Aeronautical data link (ADL) applications................       39,000,000       27,855,000       27,855,000
    Next generation VHF A/G communication system.............  ...............        9,640,000        9,640,000
    Air Traffic Management (ATM).............................       51,200,000  ...............  ...............
    Conflict probe...........................................       41,000,000  ...............  ...............
    Host replacement.........................................       20,000,000  ...............  ...............
    NAS Information Systems..................................  ...............          500,000  ...............
    Free Flight Phase One....................................  ...............      184,800,000      179,625,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--En route programs............................      177,500,000      266,712,000      245,982,000
                                                              ==================================================
    Terminal Automation (STARS)..............................       99,200,000       58,900,000      158,900,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--Terminal programs............................       99,200,000       58,900,000      158,900,000
                                                              ==================================================
    AFSS voice switch replacement............................  ...............        3,000,000        3,000,000
    Local Area Augmentation System for GPS (LAAS)............  ...............        4,000,000        2,000,000
    Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).....................  ...............       65,200,000       59,800,000
    Next Generation Navigation Systems.......................       92,000,000  ...............  ...............
    Next Generation Landing Systems..........................       34,175,000  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--Landing/NAVAIDS..............................      126,175,000       72,200,000       64,800,000
                                                              ==================================================
    FAA Technical Center Facility--building lease............        5,290,000        1,322,500        1,322,500
    NAS improvement of System Support Laboratory.............        2,000,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
    Technical Center facilities..............................        7,000,000        7,000,000        7,000,000
    Independent operational test support.....................        3,500,000        3,500,000        3,500,000
    Utility plant modifications..............................  ...............        2,477,500        2,477,500
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, RDT&E equipment and facilities...............       17,790,000       16,300,000       16,300,000
                                                              ==================================================
      Total Activity 1.......................................      473,231,000      447,278,100      535,148,100
                                                              ==================================================
Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:
    Long Range Radar (LRR) Program--replace/establish........        5,700,000  ...............  ...............
    En route automation......................................      194,692,400      198,055,000      196,055,000
    Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)...................        4,900,000        6,900,000        6,900,000
    Air Traffic Operations Management........................        1,000,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
    Weather and Radar Processor (WARP).......................       20,000,000       12,872,000       15,000,000
    Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) applications................          600,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
    ARTCC building improvement/plant improvements............       54,000,000       54,000,000       39,400,000
    Vocie Switching and Control System (VSCS)................       10,000,000       17,500,000       17,500,000
    Air traffic management...................................       35,000,000       42,000,000       42,000,000
    Critical communications support..........................        1,850,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
    DOD base closure--facility transfer......................        1,000,000        3,900,000        3,900,000
    Back-up emergency communications (BUEC)..................        8,500,000        4,500,000        4,500,000
    Air/ground communication RFI elimination.................        1,600,000        1,700,000        1,700,000
    Volcano monitor..........................................        2,000,000  ...............  ...............
    ATC beacon interrogator (ATCBI) replacement..............       14,800,000       45,400,000       36,806,600
    ATC en route radar facilities............................        4,100,000        3,700,000        3,700,000
    En route comms and control facilities improvement........        2,000,000        3,230,400        3,230,400
    RCF facilities--expand/relocate..........................  ...............        6,700,000        6,700,000
    FAA telecommunications infrastructure....................  ...............        6,100,000        6,100,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--en route programs............................      361,742,400      410,557,400      387,492,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)--provide...........        4,300,000        9,300,000        9,300,000
    Terminal automation (STARS)..............................      100,000,000      136,340,000  ...............
    Terminal air traffic control facilities--replace.........       63,625,000       76,000,000       64,346,000
    Control tower/tracon facilities--improve.................       17,722,200       21,982,700       27,082,500
    Terminal voice switch replacement (TVSR)/ETVS............       10,300,000        9,900,000        9,900,000
    Employee safety/OSHA and environmental compliance........       22,000,000       29,700,000       29,700,000
    Chicago Metroplex........................................  ...............        1,500,000        1,500,000
    New Austin Airport at Bergstrom..........................        2,500,000        1,500,000        1,500,000
    Potomac Metroplex........................................  ...............       17,100,000       17,100,000
    Northern California Metroplex............................       17,900,000       31,000,000       31,000,000
    Atlanta Metroplex........................................       15,000,000       13,000,000       13,000,000
    NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS)..............       20,000,000        8,900,000        1,539,500
    Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9).......................        5,000,000  ...............        2,200,000
    Airport surface detection equipment......................        5,600,000        2,400,000        9,400,000
    Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS)..............        9,800,000       11,700,000       15,600,000
    Voice Recorder Replacement Program.......................        3,000,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
    Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11)..........................       62,200,000      136,070,000       90,000,000
    Weather Systems Processor................................       11,900,000       24,000,000       24,000,000
    DOD/FAA ATC facilities transfer..........................        1,000,000        1,000,000        3,900,000
    Precision runway monitors................................        3,300,000        3,300,000        3,300,000
    Terminal radar (ASR)--improve............................        2,773,400        3,838,800        3,838,800
    Terminal communications improvements.....................        1,119,800        1,124,000        1,124,000
    RCE Equipment............................................  ...............        3,400,000        3,400,000
    DBRITE...................................................  ...............  ...............        1,400,000
                                                              ==================================================
      Subtotal--Terminal Programs............................      379,040,400      546,055,500      367,130,800
                                                              ==================================================
    Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)................        9,900,000        8,080,000        8,080,000
    Oasis....................................................       19,250,000       21,486,000       42,100,000
    Flight service facilities improvement....................        1,364,400        1,577,300        1,577,300
    Flight Service Station modernization.....................        2,000,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--flight service programs......................       32,514,400       33,143,300       53,757,300
                                                              ==================================================
    VOR......................................................        4,700,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
    Instrument Landing System (ILS)--establish/upgrade.......  ...............        8,200,000       20,000,000
    ILS--replace mark 1A, 1B, and 1C.........................        2,100,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
    Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS).................        3,000,000        2,200,000        4,200,000
    Runway visual range (RVR)................................        2,000,000        2,000,000        6,300,000
    Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program..........................        2,400,000  ...............  ...............
    Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).....................  ...............       42,900,000       42,900,000
    NDB sustain..............................................        1,000,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
    Navigational and landing aids--improve...................        2,761,800        3,146,800        3,146,800
    Approach lighting system improvement (ALSIP).............        5,000,000        2,700,000        7,700,000
    Precision approach path indicators (PAPI)................        2,500,000        1,000,000        3,500,000
    Distance measuring equipment (DME).......................        1,200,000        1,200,000        4,200,000
    Visual NAVAIDS...........................................          400,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
    Transponder Landing Systems..............................        3,000,000  ...............        3,000,000
    Instrument approach procedures automation (IAPA).........  ...............          900,000          900,000
    GPS aeronautical band....................................  ...............       17,000,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--landing and navigational aids................       30,061,800       86,246,800      100,846,800
                                                              ==================================================
    Alaskan NAS Interfacility Comm. System (ANICS)...........        3,500,000        3,600,000        3,600,000
    Fuel storage tank replacement and monitoring.............       10,600,000       10,500,000       10,500,000
    FAA buildings and equipment--improve/modernize...........        4,000,000        4,000,000        4,000,000
    Electrical Power Systems--sustain/support................       17,500,000       17,500,000       17,500,000
    Air NAVAIDS and ATC facilities (local projects)..........        2,000,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
    Aircraft Related Equipment Program.......................        2,000,000        5,000,000        5,000,000
    Computer aided eng graphics (CAEG) replacement...........        1,000,000        4,300,000        4,300,000
    Airpot Cable Loop Systems--sustain.......................  ...............        1,000,000        1,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--other ATC facilities.........................       40,600,000       47,900,000       47,900,000
                                                              ==================================================
      Total Activity 2.......................................      843,959,000    1,123,903,000      957,126,900
                                                              ==================================================
Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment:
    NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP)...............          800,000        1,100,000        1,100,000
    Hazardous materials management...........................       17,000,000       22,500,000       22,500,000
    Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS)...................       11,600,000       16,400,000       16,400,000
    Operational Data Management System (ODMS)................        1,000,000          600,000          600,000
    FAA employee housing--provide............................        8,000,000        8,000,000        8,000,000
    Logistics support system and facilities..................        2,300,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
    Test equipment--maintenance support......................          500,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
    Intergrated flight quality assurance.....................        3,000,000        5,000,000        5,000,000
    Safety Performance Analysis Subsystem (SPAS).............        3,500,000        5,200,000        5,200,000
    National Aviation Safety Data Center.....................        1,800,000        1,500,000        1,500,000
    Performance Enhancement System...........................        9,700,000        5,000,000        5,000,000
    Explosive Detection Systems..............................      100,000,000       97,500,000       97,500,000
    Facility Security Risk Management........................        1,000,000       11,500,000       11,500,000
    Information Security.....................................        4,000,000       10,325,000       10,325,000
    NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM).......................  ...............        1,000,000        1,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--Support Equipment............................      164,200,000      189,625,000      189,625,000
                                                              ==================================================
    Aeronautical Center Training and Support Facilities......       12,000,000        3,200,000        2,200,000
    National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities.......          400,000        1,500,000          700,000
    DSR Training Simulator (MARC)............................        4,000,000  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal--Training Equipment & Facilities..............       16,400,000        4,700,000        3,900,000
                                                              ==================================================
      Total Activity 3.......................................      180,600,000      194,325,000      193,525,000
                                                              ==================================================
Mission Support:
    System Engineering and Development Support...............       28,960,000       27,300,000       27,300,000
    Program Support Leases...................................       27,500,000       31,100,000       31,100,000
    Logistics Support Services...............................        5,600,000        5,600,000        5,600,000
    Mike Moroney Aeronautical Center--Lease..................       14,800,000       14,600,000       14,600,000
    In-Plant NAS Contract Support Services...................        2,000,000        2,800,000        2,800,000
    Transition Engineering Support...........................       41,800,000       40,900,000       40,900,000
    Frequency and Spectrum Engineering--Provide..............        1,500,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
    Permanent Change of Station Moves........................        2,500,000        3,200,000  ...............
    FAA System Architecture..................................        1,000,000        2,500,000        1,000,000
    Technical Services Support Contract (TSSC)...............       47,500,000       48,800,000       40,000,000
    Resource Tracking Program................................          500,000        1,500,000        1,500,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Dev. (MITRE).........       57,000,000       63,400,000       63,400,000
    Y2K Computer Issues......................................       25,000,000  ...............  ...............
    Y2K Computer Issues (Emergency)..........................      122,133,000  ...............  ...............
    Support Contracts--General...............................       -1,500,000  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total Activity 4.......................................      376,343,000      244,700,000      231,200,000
                                                              ==================================================
Personnel and Related Expenses:
    Personnel and Related Expenses...........................      248,000,000      308,793,900      283,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total Activity 5.......................................      248,000,000      308,793,900      283,000,000
                                                              ==================================================
      Total..................................................    2,122,133,000    2,319,000,000    2,200,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation

    The Committee recommends $535,148,100 for engineering, 
development, test and evaluation, an increase of $61,917,100 
(13.1 percent) above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. 
Adjustments from the budget request are explained below.
    Advanced technology development and prototyping.--Within 
the funds provided, the Committee expects FAA to continue 
evaluation of the phased array runway incursion radar at 
Norfolk International Airport. The Committee understands that 
FAA also intends to finance the continued evaluation of the 
pulse x-band radar in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Air traffic 
controllers in both locations support the continued use of 
these radar systems until the agency makes a production 
decision on further runway incursion technology.
    Safe flight 21.--This program was funded in the F&E 
appropriation in fiscal year 1999. Although the President's 
budget requested a transfer to the research budget next year, 
the Committee believes the program is more appropriately 
maintained in the F&E budget. The recommendation fully funds 
the program at the requested level of $16,000,000.
    En route automation.--FAA's budget request includes 
$10,100,000 for a new start project titled ``Eunomia'', which 
is designed to replace certain en route computer systems such 
as the Direct Access Radar Channel (DARC) and the Peripheral 
Adapter Module Replacement Item (PAMRI). According to the FAA, 
this project is still in the investment and analysis stage. 
Consequently, little is known about the specific equipment to 
be procured or the development work required in this 
$500,000,000 program. The Committee believes a few more details 
are needed before proceeding with such a substantial 
investment, and looks forward to receiving that information 
from the agency over the coming weeks. Until the program is 
sufficiently justified, the Committee believes funding should 
be deferred. This is without prejudice to the Eunomia program. 
If the agency can provide the necessary detail prior to 
conference action on this bill, the Committee will consider 
restoration of this funding.
    Oceanic automation system.--As of March 31, 1999, the 
oceanic automation program had over $11,000,000 in fiscal year 
1997 and fiscal year 1998 unobligated balances, and there was 
an additional balance from fiscal year 1999. The Committee now 
understands that the FAA has recently decided to complete this 
effort, which is likely to delay the program further. Although 
the Committee supports this development, given the unobligated 
balance, it appears that a lower level of new funding will be 
sufficient for next year. The Committee recommends $5,000,000, 
a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget estimate. The 
Committee directs the FAA not to acquire this system through a 
lease, but to take the more traditional contracting approach, 
due to the developmental nature of the work being performed.
    NAS information systems.--The Committee defers this minor 
new start project due to lack of justification, a reduction of 
$500,000 from the budget estimate. The Committee will 
reconsider funding when additional documentation is submitted 
about the need for the investment.
    Free flight phase one.--The Committee recommends 
$179,625,000 for free flight phase one, which is 97.2 percent 
of the $184,800,000 requested. The Committee continues to 
support this program. The recommended funding is almost twice 
the level provided for fiscal year 1999. The reduction of 
$3,175,000 from the $83,175,000 budgeted for the user request 
evaluation tool (URET) is due to budget constraints and the 
need to fund other high priority initiatives. Given the size of 
this effort, the Committee believes this modest reduction will 
not slow the project down materially. The $80,000,000 provided 
is still a huge increase over the $5,800,000 provided in fiscal 
year 1999, and is 96 percent of the amount requested. The 
reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget estimate for the 
surface movement advisor is due to budget constraints and the 
need to fund other high priority initiatives. This is largely a 
capacity enhancement tool for aircraft on the airport surface. 
The Committee is placing a higher priority on aviation safety 
programs.
    A comparison of the fiscal year 1999 enacted, the 
President's budget, and the recommended levels is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 1999   Fiscal year 2000   Recommended  in
                         Project                               enacted            budget            the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User request evaluation tool (URET).....................        $5,800,000        $83,175,000        $80,000,000
Conflict probe..........................................        41,000,000  .................  .................
Center/tracon automation system (CTAS)..................         3,700,000  .................  .................
Traffic management advisor (TMA)/passive final approach         30,500,000         59,825,000         59,825,000
 spacing tool (pFAST)...................................
Collaborative decision-making...........................        11,200,000         29,400,000         29,400,000
Surface movement advisor................................  ................          6,000,000          4,000,000
Free flight phase one integration.......................  ................          6,400,000          6,400,000
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        92,200,000        184,800,000        179,625,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated $92,200,000 for 
free flight phase one projects. The Committee is advised that 
FAA intends to execute below-threshold reprogrammings totaling 
$14,800,000 to augment this appropriation during fiscal year 
1999. This includes $8,300,000 in fiscal year 1999 funding and 
$6,500,000 in fiscal year 1998 funding. These funds would be 
used to raise the appropriation for the passive final approach 
spacing tool by 27.9 percent and provide $2,396,000 for 
integration costs when none were appropriated. The Committee 
believes this violates the spirit of current reprogramming 
rules, particularly in the use of prior year funding. The 
guidelines for Congressional notification should apply to all 
reprogrammed sources planned during the year without regard to 
the year of appropriation. Further, the department is to 
interpret ``items of Congressional interest'' as those programs 
or projects mentioned in explanatory paragraphs of reports 
accompanying DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
    Terminal automation (STARS).--In total, the bill includes 
$158,900,000 for the Standard terminal automation replacement 
system (STARS) program, all for further development. The 
Committee directs that the additional $100,000,000 in 
development funding be used to execute the new strategy 
employing ARTS color displays and the STARS early development 
capability (EDC) in El Paso, Texas and Syracuse, New York. 
Funds remaining after fully funding these efforts shall be used 
for other development and associated activities for the STARS 
program. The budget proposed $195,240,000 ($58,900,000 in 
development and $136,340,000 for procurement of 51 systems). 
Due to severe problems in requirements definition and software 
development, the FAA recently announced a restructuring of this 
program, including cost growth of approximately 50 percent, 
from $940,000,000 to $1,381,000,000. The agency conceded that 
the STARS system will not be ready for procurement next year, 
and has promised to submit revised estimates for next year's 
development program. At this time, however, the agency has not 
submitted these estimates for Congressional review. The 
Committee believes it would not be fiscally responsible to 
provide $136,340,000 for requirements which are clearly no 
longer valid, in the absence of detailed and verified 
substitute requirements. Therefore, the Committee defers a 
portion of these funds until the appropriate justification is 
submitted and reviewed.
    Local area augmentation system (LAAS).--The President's 
budget requested $4,000,000 to initiate phase two, full-scale 
development of a category III local area augmentation system 
(LAAS). This ``government-industry partnership'' was initiated 
at Congressional direction in fiscal year 1997 with a 
government investment of $1,000,000 annually. The Committee is 
concerned about the cost increase, the unclear industry share, 
and the unusual nature of the financial instruments to execute 
this project. Given these concerns, the Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for this program.
    Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).--The Committee 
recommendation freezes funding for this program at the fiscal 
year 1999 enacted level due to the uncertain state of the 
program and lack of justification. In July 1997, the Committee 
encouraged FAA to look carefully at the cost and capability 
tradeoffs between WAAS and various other systems. In 1998, the 
Committee expressed serious reservation about the cost-
effectiveness of the overall WAAS program, and suggested the 
FAA develop a comprehensive alternatives analysis for 
navigation and landing aids programs. Although this work was 
begun last year, the FAA is still working on the analysis, and 
it is unclear when this important justification material will 
be delivered to Congress for review. The Committee has little 
new information this year on which to base investment decisions 
except the 14 month schedule slip in phase one announced in 
January 1999. Until the agency can provide the necessary 
justification material, the Committee believes a slower pace 
for phase two is required. Likewise, the Committtee 
recommendation defers $17,000,000 funding for the GPS 
aeronautical band program for the same reason.

      Procurement of Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

    The bill includes $957,126,900 for the procurement of air 
traffic control facilities and equipment, an increase of 
$113,167,900 (13.4 percent) above the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level.
    En route automation.--The Committee understands that 
program savings from contract execution of the host and oceanic 
computer system replacement (HOCSR) program indicate less 
funding is needed in fiscal year 2000 than requested. The 
Committee recommends $196,055,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 
from the budget estimate.
    Weather and radar processor (WARP).--The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000, an increase of $2,128,000 above the 
budget estimate. According to the FAA, the additional funds are 
required due to budget re-estimates. The Committee continues to 
believe this is an important modernization program which 
potential to improve aviation safety.
    ARTCC building improvements.--Funding of $39,400,000 is 
recommended for ARTCC building improvements, a decrease of 
$14,600,000 from the budget estimate. Two reductions were made. 
First, the Committee recommends $34,000,000 for ARTCC projects, 
a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request. Due to the 
large unobligated balance of prior year funding from fiscal 
years 1998 and 1999, the Committee believes this program can be 
sustained with less new funding in fiscal year 2000. For 
example, as of March 31, 1999, there is an unobligated balance 
of approximately $10,700,000 from fiscal year 1998 funding. 
Second, the Committee recommends no funding to continue the 
Honolulu combined en route approach control (CERAP) project. 
While the Congress has funded this program over the years, the 
current estimates to complete the project now show significant 
cost growth. Facility size requirements have increased by 
15,000 square feet; construction bids exceeded the government 
cost estimates; ATC electronic and telecommunications equipment 
requirements have increased; and air traffic requirements for 
the number of controller consoles have increased. Total project 
costs are now estimated at $57,100,000. Given these cost 
problems, the Committee believes the project should either be 
rescoped to fit the original budget or terminated. The deferral 
of these funds results in a reduction of $9,600,000 from the 
budget estimate.
    Weather observation equipment plan.--The Committee remains 
concerned about the future of automated observation and 
reporting of aviation weather information to pilots. The FAA 
and National Weather Service ended their joint program for 
procurement of new weather observing and reporting systems in 
fiscal year 1998, yet the FAA has not defined a new program to 
address these critical requirements. Since the end of that 
program, existing and new requirements for such systems have 
gone unmet. Given the importance of timely and accurate weather 
information to preserving and improving aviation safety, the 
Committee directs FAA to develop a detailed plan for procuring, 
commissioning, and maintaining new, current generation weather 
observation and reporting systems. The plan should emphasize 
development of a cost effective program which uses commercial 
off the shelf equipment.
    ATC beacon interrogator (ATCBI) replacement.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $36,806,600, a reduction of $8,593,400 
for this new start acquisition project. Funding of $14,800,000 
was enacted for this project in fiscal year 1999. The reduction 
is due to budget constraints and the need to provide funding 
for other high priority project.
    Terminal automation (STARS).--The Committee believes the 
budget request of $136,340,000 to procure 51 STARS systems is 
premature due to development problems. The recommended bill 
would defer procurement funds, but provide a portion of those 
funds ($100,000,000) under engineering development to execute 
the new strategy employing ARTS color displays and the STARS 
early development capability (EDC) in El Paso, Texas and 
Syracuse, New York and for additional development work, as 
discussed earlier in this report.
    Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The 
Committee recommends $64,346,000 for this program, a reduction 
of $11,654,000 from the budget estimate. Changes to the budget 
estimate are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Change to
                        Location                             request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newark, NJ.............................................      -$2,200,000
North Las Vegas, NV....................................       -2,354,000
Boston tracon, MA......................................      -17,600,000
Phoenix, AZ............................................       +5,000,000
Richmond, VA...........................................       +3,500,000
Corpus Christi, TX.....................................       +2,000,000
                                                        ----------------
      Net adjustment to budget estimate................      -11,654,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Newark.--Due to delays in award of the construction 
contract, there is an unobligated balance of approximately 
$23,500,000 in this program from fiscal year 1998 funds. Due to 
the delay, the Committee believes there is ample funding to 
sustain this project throughout fiscal year 2000, and for this 
reason defers the additional $2,200,000 requested for this 
project.
    North Las Vegas.--Due to delays in award of the 
construction contract, there is an unobligated balance of 
approximately $6,400,000 in fiscal year 1998 funding. These 
funds will not be obligated until October 1999. The Committee 
believes there is ample funding to sustain this project 
throughout fiscal year 2000, and for this reason defers the 
additional $2,354,000 requested for this project.
    Boston Tracon relocation.--FAA has submitted little 
justification on the benefits of this $30,000,000 project. The 
Committee recommends deferral of these funds until stronger 
justification has been submitted and reviewed, a reduction of 
$17,600,000 from the budget estimate.
    Phoenix.--Funding of $5,000,000 has been added for a 
replacement tower and tracon at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport in 
Arizona.
    Richmond.--Funding of $3,500,000 has been added for a 
replacement tower at Richmond International Airport, Virginia.
    Corpus Christi.--Funding of $2,000,000 has been added for a 
replacement tower at Corpus Christi International Airport, 
Texas.
    Control tower/tracon facilities improvement.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $27,082,500, an increase of $5,099,800 
above the budget estimate. Of the funds provided, $2,500,000 is 
only for establishment of a final approach sector for runway 12 
at Dulles International Airport in Virginia. The Dulles Tracon 
is in need of an additional operating position to provide air 
traffic services to runway 12. This service is currently 
provided as additional duties by another controller; however, 
the current rate of air traffic growth makes continuation of 
this situation untenable. In addition, $2,600,000 is for the 
ATCT/tracon cable loop relocation activity at St. Louis Lambert 
International Airport.
    NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS).--Over the past 
year, the NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS) program 
has been restructured several times due to cost overruns and 
other problems. The contract was terminated last December and 
FAA decided to conduct the remaining work in-house. However, 
the program has continued to suffer delay and confusion within 
the agency. The recommendation allows $1,539,500 for further 
study by the FAA on how to meet NIMS requirements, a reduction 
of $7,360,500 below the budget estimate.
    Airport surveillance radar (ASR-9).--The recommendation 
includes additional funding of $2,200,000 to relocate the 
existing ASR-9 at St. Louis Lambert International Airport, 
Missouri.
    Airport surface detection equipment.--The Committee 
recommends $9,400,000, an increase of $7,000,000 above the 
budget estimate. The increase is specifically for acquisition 
of low-cost airport surface detection equipment (ASDE) systems, 
to be procured through competitive solicitation.
    Automated movement area safety system (AMASS).--Due to 
slippage and delay in this program, there is a shortfall of 
$3,900,000 to finish development and meet FAA's current 
operational readiness date of August 2000. The Committee 
continues to believe that the AMASS system will provide 
important safety benefits, especially given the alarming rise 
in the number of runway incursions. The Committee does not 
believe that further delay is in the best interest of aviation 
safety. The Committee recommends $15,600,000, an increase of 
$3,900,000.
    Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The budget request 
includes $136,070,000 for acquisition of 24 airport 
surveillance radar-11 (ASR-11) systems and associated costs. 
This digital radar is currently under development and 
acquisition by the Department of Defense for their needs and 
for the FAA. The timing of the acquisition is closely aligned 
with the schedule for the digital computer system STARS. Due to 
the uncertainty and significant delay in the STARS schedule, it 
is clear that the ASR-11 schedule can be slowed down as well. 
The recommendation provides $90,000,000, a reduction of 
$46,070,000 from the budget estimate, but a large increase over 
the $27,800,000 planned for fiscal year 1999.
    DoD ATC facilities transfer.--The Committee recommends 
$3,900,000 for this program, an increase of $2,900,000 above 
the budget estimate. The recommended funding is needed to 
maintain effective air traffic control service at several 
military facilities across the country. According to FAA 
documents, the budgeted funds are insufficient for this program 
in fiscal year 2000 and would result in serious impact on air 
traffic management in certain geographic areas. Of the total, 
$1,300,000 is for operation of the Fort Sill Army radar 
approach control at the Henry Post Airfield, Lawton, Oklahoma. 
The additional funds will also maintain air traffic service and 
provide transition funding for Marine Corps Air Station El 
Toro, California; McClellan Air Force Base; and Naval Facility 
Skaggs Island.
    DBRITE.--The Committee recommends $1,400,000 for digital 
bright radar indicator tower equipment (DBRITE), to fund 
installation of digital radar displays at the following 
locations: Gainesville Regional Airport, Florida; Sonoma County 
Airport, California; and Livermore Municipal Airport/Buchanan 
Field Airports, California.
    Flight service automation system (FSAS) operational and 
supportability implementation system (OASIS).--The Committee 
recommends $42,100,000 for the OASIS program, an increase of 
$20,614,000 above the budget estimate. According to the FAA, 
the OASIS system was originally designed with inadequate regard 
for human factors requirements. Belatedly recognizing those 
requirements, the FAA has determined that cost increases will 
be necessary to address them, much like the STARS situation. 
Unlike STARS, however, the FAA has made no commitment to 
include the necessary funding in the budget request. The 
Committee believes this replacement for outmoded flight service 
station computer systems has gone on far too long, and further 
delays are not acceptable. The Committee recommendation fully 
funds the FAA estimated shortfall.
    Instrument landing systems establishment.--The Committee 
recommends $20,000,000, to be distributed as follows:


                       Location                              Amount

Items included in President's budget..................        $8,200,000
Baton Rouge, LA.......................................         1,362,000
Louisville, KY........................................         3,500,000
St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL.........................         3,500,000
Dulles International, VA..............................         3,438,000
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................        20,000,000


    St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport.--Of the 
funds provided, $3,500,000 shall be to acquire and install a 
category I instrument landing system (ILS) for runway 35R and 
for upgrading the current category I ILS on runway 17L to 
category II status at the St. Petersburg-Clearwater 
International Airport in Florida.
    Dulles International Airport.--Of the funds provided, 
$3,438,000 shall be to install and commission a category III 
ILS for runway 19L at Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
    Low level windshear alert system (LLWAS).--The Committee 
recommends $4,200,000 for the low-level windshear alert system 
(LLWAS), which provides important safety benefits for civil 
aviation. The budget request of $2,200,000 would result in a 
shortfall and schedule delays for installation of this system 
at the following high volume airports: Atlanta, Chicago O'Hare, 
Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, New Orleans, New York LaGuardia, 
Orlando, St. Louis, and Tampa. The Committee believes it is 
important that this important safety equipment not be further 
delayed.
    Runway visual range (RVR).--The Committee recommends 
$6,300,000, including $4,000,000 for continued acquisition of a 
next generation runway visual range system. FAA's fiscal year 
2000 budget would terminate this project in the middle of the 
acquisition and close down the production line in December 
1999, although the agency has plans to restart the program one 
year later. The Committee believes it would not be a good 
business decision to close down the line this year, only to pay 
additional costs to restart it next year. In addition, the 
recommendation includes $300,000 to complete installation of 
RVR equipment at Dulles International Airport. Although most of 
the equipment to support the RVR has been in place for two 
years, the project has gone uncompleted because FAA has not 
budgeted for a cable to tie the elements together. This final 
installation work is essential for reduced departure minima for 
that runway. The budget request included $2,000,000 for the RVR 
program.
    Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).--The 
recommendation of $7,700,000 includes an additional $5,000,000 
for acquisition of additional approach lighting sequencing 
flasher-4 (ALSF-4) equipment.
    Precision approach path indicators (PAPI).--The Committee 
recommends $3,500,000 for precision approach path indicators 
(PAPI), including $2,500,000 for acquisition of additional 
systems, the same amount as enacted for fiscal year 1999.
    Distance measuring equipment (DME).--The Committee 
recommends $4,200,000 for distance measuring equipment (DME), 
including $3,000,000 for acquisition of additional systems.
    Transponder landing systems (TLS).--The recommendation 
includes $3,000,000 for further acquisition of transponder 
landing systems. This is the same level as enacted for fiscal 
year 1999.
    The Committee directs the Federal Aviation Administration 
to proceed immediately to install these systems, and is further 
directed to use the existing TLS system located in Watertown, 
WI, for it's in-service review validation and testing program, 
and to immediately develop protocols and approach procedures to 
be used by commercial and general aviation aircraft at TLS-
equipped airports.
    GPS aeronautical band.--The Committee recommends deferring 
FAA funding for development of additional frequencies for civil 
use of the global positioning system (GPS) due to uncertainties 
over the cost effectiveness of phases beyond phase one, and 
considering the current delay in reaching even the first phase. 
The Committee is not prejudicial to this project, but believes 
that these serious questions should be cleared up and 
experience gained from the phase one system prior to making 
such a huge investment in later phases. This results in a 
reduction of $17,000,000 from the budget estimate.
    Terminal doppler weather radar (TDWR).--The Committee 
remains concerned that FAA has not installed a TDWR system or 
otherwise provided adequate windshear protection for the New 
York City metropolitan area. The record of decision to site a 
TDWR at the former Brooklyn Coast Guard Air Station was issued 
earlier this year, and FAA officials testified before the 
Subcommittee that the system would be commissioned by the end 
of the year. However, the Committee understands that FAA has 
done little to move this project forward since approval of the 
record of decision. The Committee has watched year after year 
of delay go by in this program, and insists that FAA adhere to 
the current commitment to have this long-awaited system 
operational by the end of this year.

            Procurement of Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment

    The Committee recommends $193,525,000 for the acquisition 
of non-air traffic control facilities and equipment, an 
increase of $12,925,000 (7.2 percent) above the level enacted 
for fiscal year 1999. The Committee recommends a reduction of 
$800,000. The reduction would defer funds under ``NAS training 
facilities'' for refurbishment of classroom and simulation 
facilities due to low priority and budget constraints.

                            Mission Support

    The recommendation provides $231,200,000 for mission 
support activities. Funding of $376,343,000 was provided in 
fiscal year 1999, including $147,133,000 in funding for Year 
2000 compliance issues. Adjustments to the budget estimate are 
explained below.
    Permanent change of station moves.--As of March 31, 1999, 
this project had approximately $5,300,000 in unobligated 
funding from the fiscal year 1997 and 1998 appropriations. Some 
of this resulted from slippage in the contract tower program 
due to suspension of operations caused by a lawsuit filed by 
the air traffic controllers union. Given the plan to obligate 
most of these funds in fiscal year 2000, it is apparent that 
the additional funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget can be 
deferred. This results in a reduction to the budget estimate of 
$3,200,000.
    FAA corporate systems architecture.--Budgeted funds include 
$170,000 to support the chief scientist and for ``special 
projects as required'' and $180,000 to ``support NAS 
modernization, including FFP1 and apply evolutionary spiral 
process, enterprise architecture planning, and rapid 
application development''. It is unclear to the Committee what 
eventual product will come from this vaguely-worded effort. The 
recommendation would fund this project at the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level, a reduction of $1,500,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    Technical services support contract (TSSC).--In an ongoing 
audit, the OIG is finding serious cost control and contract 
administration problems in this cost plus fixed fee contract. 
The Committee recommendation would provide $40,000,000, which 
compares to $47,550,000 enacted in fiscal year 1999 and 
$48,800,000 in the President's budget.
    Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).--
The Committee recommends the $63,400,000 requested for the 
center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD) at 
Mitre Corporation, an increase of 11.2 percent above the fiscal 
year 1999 enacted level. According to the FAA, this funding 
level will support approximately 315 members of the technical 
staff (MTS). Consistent with this information, the limitation 
in the bill on staffing is set at the level of 320 MTS. Last 
year, the Committee took note of CAASD's assistance in the 
financial planning area, and encouraged the organization to 
continue and expand this work, especially in long-range 
planning and conceptualization for the operations budget. To 
date, the Committee has seen little result from this direction. 
Mitre is encouraged to use a portion of the increase in this 
bill to conduct additional work in this important area.

                     Personnel and Related Expenses

    The recommendation provides $283,000,000, an increase of 14 
percent above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level versus the 
24.5 percent increase requested. This results in a reduction 
from the budget estimate of $25,793,900. The Committee believes 
a greater increase is not justified.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (Airport And Airway Trust Fund)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................      $150,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................       173,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       173,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................       +23,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................  ................


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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $173,000,000, an increase of 
$23,000,000 (15.3 percent) above the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level and the same as the President's budget request.
    While still the safest airway system in the world, aviation 
accidents in this country in 1994 and 1996 highlight the need 
for more rapid implementation of advanced safety technologies, 
especially those related to forecasting and detection of 
hazardous weather conditions such as windshear, safety 
monitoring and oversight technologies, and aircraft 
technologies. The high percentage of accidents and incidents 
due to human error, deicing, and other hazardous weather 
problems call for sustained, high priority research programs to 
address these issues. In some cases, these priorities have 
necessitated reductions in other research programs.
    A table showing the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2000 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                                     RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
                                               [Fiscal year 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Fiscal year--
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                           Program                                                               Recommended  in
                                                                 1999 enacted    2000 estimate       the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure:                             $15,784,000      $17,269,000      $16,280,000
    System planning & resource management....................        1,164,000        1,294,000        1,164,000
    Technical laboratory facility............................        9,730,000       11,075,000       10,216,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development..........        4,890,000        4,900,000        4,900,000
Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology...............  ...............       16,000,000  ...............
    Safe Flight 21...........................................  ...............       16,000,000  ...............
Weather:                                                            18,684,000       15,300,000       20,950,000
    National laboratory program..............................        9,118,000        8,700,000       12,000,000
    In-house support.........................................        2,630,000        3,150,000        2,500,000
    Center for Wind, Ice & Fog...............................          336,000          350,000        1,000,000
    Juneau, AK...............................................        3,600,000        3,100,000        2,450,000
    SOCRATES.................................................        3,000,000  ...............        3,000,000
Aircraft Safety Technology:                                         34,886,000       39,639,000       44,639,000
    Aircraft systems fire safety.............................        4,750,000        5,528,000        5,528,000
    Advanced materials/structural safety.....................        1,734,000        2,338,000        2,338,000
    Propulsion and fuel systems..............................        2,831,000        3,126,000        3,126,000
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research...............        2,619,000        3,844,000        3,844,000
    Aging aircraft...........................................       14,694,000       15,998,000       20,998,000
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research........        1,787,000        1,981,000        1,981,000
    Aviation safety risk analysis............................        6,471,000        6,824,000        6,824,000
System Security Technology:                                         51,690,000       53,218,000       58,400,000
    Explosives and weapons detection.........................       41,700,000       40,676,000       45,858,000
    Airport security technology integration..................        2,708,000        2,285,000        2,285,000
    Aviation security human factors..........................        5,282,000        5,256,000        5,256,000
    Aircraft hardening.......................................        2,000,000        5,001,000        5,001,000
Human Factors & Aviation Medicine:                                  25,065,000       26,207,000       27,829,000
    Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors.       11,000,000       10,142,000       11,000,000
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors......       10,000,000       11,236,000       12,000,000
    Aeromedical research.....................................        4,065,000        4,829,000        4,829,000
Environment and Energy.......................................        2,891,000        3,481,000        3,481,000
Innovative/Cooperative Research..............................        1,000,000        1,421,000        1,421,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation....................................      150,000,000      172,535,000      173,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 System Development and Infrastructure

    The recommended level is $16,280,000 for system development 
and infrastructure, an increase of $496,000 (3.1 percent) above 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level.
    System planning and resource management.--The 
recommendation provides $1,164,000, the same as the fiscal year 
1999 enacted level. This results in a reduction of $130,000 
below the budget estimate.
    Technical laboratory facility.--The recommendation 
allocates $10,216,000, which is $486,000 (5 percent) above the 
fiscal year 1999 enacted level but $859,000 below the budget 
estimate. The reduction holds costs to a 5 percent increase 
instead of the 13.8 percent increase requested, and is 
necessary to fund higher priority activities in weather, safety 
and human factors research.

             Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology

    The Committee recommends no funding for this budget 
activity. The sole project proposed under this heading is 
transferred to the F&E appropriation, where it was funded in 
fiscal year 1999.

                                Weather

    The Committee recommends $20,950,000 to address the effects 
of hazardous weather on aviation, an increase of $2,266,000 
(12.1 percent) above the level enacted for fiscal year 1999 and 
$5,650,000 above the budget estimate. Within the funds 
provided, $3,000,000 is to continue development of Project 
Socrates. This is the same level provided for fiscal year 1999. 
Funding of $1,000,000 is included to continue activities of the 
Center for Wind, Ice and Fog at Mount Washington Observatory in 
New Hampshire under this program. In addition, funding of 
$12,000,000 is to be allocated to the National Laboratory 
Program. The Committee continues to strongly support this work, 
which is coordinated by the National Center for Atmospheric 
Research (NCAR) and performed jointly by several universities, 
federal laboratories, and non-profit organizations prominent in 
the field of weather research.

                       Aircraft Safety Technology

    The Committee recommends $44,639,000 for aircraft safety 
technology, $5,000,000 above the budget estimate and $9,753,000 
above the level provided last year.
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.--In fiscal year 
1999 appropriations action, Congress directed that FAA use 
$800,000 for wildlife hazard mitigation purposes. FAA's current 
plan is to use $200,000 for wildlife hazard mitigation and use 
the remaining $600,000 for other purposes. Wildlife strikes on 
aircraft are a growing threat to aviation safety which deserves 
much greater attention by regulators, airlines and airport 
operators. Since 1995, seventy-four people have been killed in 
collisions worldwide between aircraft and birds and four large 
aircraft have been destroyed. The FAA has estimated that bird 
and wildlife strikes cost the U.S. aviation industry more than 
500,000 hours of downtime and $327,000,000 in aircraft damage 
and related costs. Given the magnitude of this problem, the 
Committee is perplexed that the agency is spending only a 
fourth of the funding that Congress provided in this area. The 
Committee directs FAA to utilize $800,000 of fiscal year 1999 
funding to address wildlife hazard mitigation issues, 
reiterating last year's Congressional direction.
    National Institute for Aviation Research.--Of the amount 
provided for ``aging aircraft'', $5,000,000 is to continue and 
expand research activities at the National Institute for 
Aviation Research, a current FAA Center of Excellence.

                       System Security Technology

    The Committee recommendation provides $58,400,000 for 
system security technology, an increase of $5,182,000 above the 
budget estimate and $6,710,000 above the fiscal year 1999 
enacted level. The increase would provide additional funding 
for an expanded effort in explosive detection systems 
technology.

                  Human Factors and Aviation Medicine

    The Committee recommendation provides $27,829,000, an 
increase of $1,622,000 (6.2 percent) above the budget request 
and $2,764,000 (11 percent) above the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level.

                         Environment and Energy

    The recommendation provides $3,481,000, the same as the 
budget estimate and an increase of $590,000 (20.4 percent) 
above the level provided last year. This program researches 
ways to mitigate the impact of airport noise around the 
country.

                  Innovative and Cooperative Research

    The recommendation provides $1,421,000, the same as the 
budget estimate and an increase of $421,000 (42.1 percent) 
above the level provided last year. This program finances the 
FAA centers of excellence, the FAA fellows program, and other 
university-based research of long-term interest to aviation.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)


                                  (Liquidation of
                                      contract          (Limitation on
                                   authorization)        obligations)

Appropriation, fiscal year           $1,600,000,000     ($1,950,000,000)
 1999.........................
Budget estimate, fiscal year          1,750,000,000      (1,600,000,000)
 2000.........................
Recommended in the bill               1,867,000,000      (2,250,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year         +267,000,000       (+300,000,000)
 1999.........................
    Budget estimate, fiscal            +117,000,000      (+ 650,000,000)
 year 2000....................


    The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 
$1,867,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by 
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. 
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred 
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on 
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military 
airport program, reliever airports, and other authorized 
activities. This is $117,000,000 above the level requested in 
the President's budget, and is necessary to support the 
$650,000,000 in additional obligation authority supported by 
this bill.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$2,250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. This is $650,000,000 (40.6 
percent) above the President's budget request and $300,000,000 
(15.4 percent) above the fiscal year 1999 level.

                          Discretionary Grants

    Within the obligation level recommended, the Committee 
directs that priority be given to grant applications involving 
further development of the following airports:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                          Airport (project)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...............................  Dothan-Houston County,
                                         Haleyville Airport, Huntsville
                                         International (phase II
                                         expansion; noise mitigation
                                         land acquisition), Rankin-Fite
                                         Airport, Marion County,
                                         Montgomery Regional, Northwest
                                         Alabama Regional (security
                                         fencing), Pryor Field (runway
                                         extension), Russellville,
                                         Scottsboro, Shelby County.
California............................  Ft. Irwin Barstow Daggett
                                         Heliport, Crescent City, Del
                                         Norte County (terminal
                                         upgrade), Southern California
                                         International Airport (ground
                                         access roads), March Air
                                         Reserve Base (civilian
                                         refueling system), Meadows
                                         Field Airport, Bakersfield, San
                                         Bernardino International
                                         (military airport program),
                                         George AFB (military airport
                                         program), Stockton
                                         Metropolitan, Ells Field,
                                         Willits, Mendocino County
                                         (runway/taxiway), Los Angeles
                                         International.
Florida...............................  Miami International (letter of
                                         intent), Orlando International
                                         (letter of intent), Palm Beach
                                         International (noise abatement
                                         program), Tallahassee Regional
                                         (noise reduction).
Georgia...............................  McCollum Field, Cobb County.
Kansas................................  Kingman, Parson's City Airport,
                                         Manhattan.
Kentucky..............................  Louisville International.
Louisiana.............................  Ascension-St. James, Baton Rouge
                                         Metropolitan (sound insulation;
                                         sound easement; north side
                                         airport development), St. James
                                         Parish Airport, Houma-
                                         Terrebone.
Massachusetts.........................  Pittsfield Municipal (runway
                                         extension), Harriman-West
                                         Municipal (runway
                                         reconstruction).
Michigan..............................  Sawyer Airport (military airport
                                         program), Tulip City.
Mississippi...........................  Hawkins Field (runway
                                         extension), Jackson
                                         International (air cargo
                                         apron), John Bell Williams
                                         Airport, Hinds County (hangar
                                         taxiway).
Missouri..............................  Lee's Summit, Kansas City
                                         (runway extension).
Montana...............................  Anaconda-Deer Lodge Airport.
New York..............................  Adirondack Regional (snow
                                         removal equipment/
                                         infrastructure), Buffalo
                                         Niagara International (airport
                                         center acquisition/demolition/
                                         terminal/apron/access roads),
                                         Niagara Falls International
                                         Airport (taxiway ``D'').
North Carolina........................  Brunswick County (runway
                                         extension), Concord Regional,
                                         Duplin County (parallel
                                         taxiway), Harnett County
                                         (runway extension), Johnston
                                         County (taxiway/apron/
                                         midfield), Richmond County,
                                         Stanly County.
North Dakota..........................  Dickinson Municipal.
Ohio..................................  Akron-Canton Regional, Dayton
                                         International, Pickaway County,
                                         Rickenbacker International,
                                         Toledo Express (air traffic
                                         control tower), Cleveland
                                         Hopkins International.
Oregon................................  Newport Municipal (master plan;
                                         taxi lane and infrastructure;
                                         approach lighting system).
Pennsylvania..........................  Erie International, Hazleton
                                         Municipal Airport, Lehigh
                                         Valley International (noise
                                         monitoring system), Wilkes-
                                         Barre/Scranton International
                                         (terminal expansion).
South Carolina........................  Florence Regional (hangar), St.
                                         George Airport (EA/EIS; runway
                                         improvement design).
Texas.................................  Abilene Regional (terminal/
                                         taxiway/emergency response),
                                         Ft. Hood, Gray Army Airfield
                                         (military airport program),
                                         Houston International (letter
                                         of intent), Ellington Field
                                         (runway; taxiway; related ramp
                                         pavement reconstruction).
Tennessee.............................  Memphis International (noise
                                         monitoring equipment),
                                         Millington Municipal (access
                                         road); Upper Cumberland
                                         Regional (taxiway and related
                                         runway/taxiway safety work).
Utah..................................  Ogden-Hinckley, Salt Lake City
                                         International.
Wisconsin.............................  Dane County Regional (primary
                                         runway rehabilitation),
                                         LaCrosse Municipal (approach
                                         lighting system), Richard Bong
                                         Airport (perimeter fencing).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mammoth Lakes Airport, CA.--The Committee urges the FAA to 
give priority consideration to a request for discretionary 
funding for the extension of the existing runway by at least 
1,000 feet, widening of the runway by at least 50 feet, and for 
strengthening the runway to meet FAA standards for group III 
aircraft. In addition, funding will be necessary to increase 
the maneuvering space in the taxiway and ramp areas to 
accommodate group III aircraft. The Committee is pleased to 
note the previous assistance and encourages the FAA to provide 
continued technical assistance to the Mammoth Lakes Airport. 
Such assistance has helped the airport identify the upgrades 
necessary to provide full commercial jet service.
    Akron-Canton Regional Airport, OH.--The Committee urges the 
FAA to give priority consideration to requests for 
discretionary funding for the safety upgrades and extension of 
runway 1/19 at Akron-Canton Regional Airport in Ohio.
    Kingman Airport, KS.--The Committee urges the FAA to give 
priority consideration to requests for discretionary funding 
for phase one upgrades at Kingman Municipal Airport, including 
land acquisition reimbursement, runway paving, runway lights, 
and new navigation aids.
    Palm Beach International Airport, FL.--The Committee urges 
the FAA to give priority consideration for discretionary 
funding for noise abatement projects at the Palm Beach 
International Airport in Florida.
    Leesburg Municipal Airport, VA.--The Committee recognizes 
that as air traffic operations in the Washington, D.C., area 
continue to grow, regional reliever airports will be called 
upon to play increased safety and capacity roles. Therefore, 
the Committee urges the FAA to consider the discretionary grant 
application made by the Leesburg Municipal Airport to expand 
the runway safety area.
    Ellington Field, Houston, TX.--Last year, the Committee 
discussed the pending application of Houston's Ellington Field 
for readmission to the Military Airport Program. The Committee 
is extremely concerned that this application is still pending, 
and the FAA has not given any indication that it intends to 
move forward with its consideration. This airport is used by 
numerous federal agencies including NASA and the Coast Guard. 
Unfortunately, the main runway and related pavements at 
Ellington are deteriorating, putting NASA flight training 
activities in jeopardy. The Committee urges the FAA either to 
act favorably on Ellington's application for readmission to 
MAP, or to commit AIP discretionary funds to accomplish the 
main runway, taxiway, and related ramp pavement reconstruction 
necessary to assure future use of the airport by NASA and 
others.
    Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, LA.--The Committee urges 
the FAA to give priority consideration to discretionary funding 
for runway, taxiway, landing and lighting system, and equipment 
improvements, as well as ongoing noise mitigation needs, in and 
around the Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport in Louisiana. There 
are critical runway and taxiway upgrades that require immediate 
attention. Additionally, an accelerated effort to complete 
ongoing sound insulation and sound easements, begun in the 
1980's, is vital to maintain the integrity of surrounding 
neighborhoods.
    St. George Airport, SC.--The Committee encourages the FAA 
to give priority consideration to a request for discretionary 
funding for an environmental assessment and runway improvement 
design at the St. George Airport, South Carolina.
    Florence Regional Airport, SC.--The Committee urges the FAA 
to request discretionary funding for demolition and hangar 
construction at the Florence Regional Airport, South Carolina.
    Tallahassee Regional Airport, FL.--The Committee urges the 
FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for the Tallahassee, Florida Regional 
Airport noise reduction plan.
    Pryor Field, AL.--The Committee understands that Pryor 
Field, a general aviation airport in Decatur, Alabama has 
submitted an application to the FAA to fund the extension of 
its runway in order to accommodate larger jets. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of this runway extension project, 
especially given the significant increase in industrial 
development in the Decatur metropolitan area, and urges the FAA 
to give priority consideration to this request for 
discretionary funding.
    Huntsville International Airport, AL.--The Committee urges 
the FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for noise mitigation projects, 
particularly the acquisition of noise impacted property north 
of runway 18L-36R, at the Huntsville International Airport, 
Alabama.
    Northwest Alabama Regional Airport, Muscle Shoals, AL.--The 
Committee urges the FAA to give priority consideration to a 
request for discretionary funding for the placement of security 
fencing at the Northwest Alabama Regional Airport in Muscle 
Shoals, Alabama.
    Fort Hood, Gray Army Airfield, TX.--The Committee urges the 
FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding under the military airport program for 
design and construction of a new joint-use airport facility at 
Robert Gray Army Airfield of Fort Hood, Texas.
    Harnett County, NC.--The Committee urges the FAA to give 
priority consideration to a request for discretionary funding 
for a runway extension at Harnett County Airport, Erwin, North 
Carolina.
    Johnston County Airport, NC.--The Committee understands 
that runway improvements at Johnston County Airport, North 
Carolina are needed, and encourages the FAA to give priority 
consideration to a request for discretionary funding for 
taxiway, apron and midfield area improvements at the airport.
    Toledo Express Airport, OH.--The Committee urges the FAA to 
give priority consideration to a request for discretionary 
funding for preliminary design and engineering services for a 
new air traffic control tower at Toledo Express Airport, Ohio.
    Dane County Regional Airport, WI.--The Committee urges the 
FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding to rehabilitate the primary runway 
(runway 18/36) of the Dane County Regional Airport, Wisconsin. 
The Committee understands that the existing runway pavement is 
deteriorating rapidly and has a pavement condition index rating 
below the minimum service level.
    Richard Bong Municipal Airport, WI.--The Committee urges 
the FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for perimeter fencing at the Richard Bong 
Municipal Airport, Wisconsin.
    La Crosse Municipal Airport, WI.--The Committee encourages 
the FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for an approach lighting system at La 
Crosse Municipal Airport, Wisconsin.
    Pittsfield Municipal Airport, MA.--The Committee urges the 
FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for study and design of a runway 
extension at Pittsfield Municipal Airport, Massachusetts.
    Harriman-West Municipal Airport, MA.--The Committee urges 
the FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for runway reconstruction at the 
Harriman-West Municipal Airport in North Adams, Massachusetts
    Jackson International Airport, MS.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give priority consideration to a request 
for discretionary funding for final design and construction of 
the air cargo apron at the Jackson International Airport, 
Jackson, Mississippi.
    Hawkins Field, MS.--The Committee encourages the FAA to 
give priority consideration to a request for discretionary 
funding for a runway extension at Hawkins Field, Jackson, 
Mississippi. The Committee understands that extending the 
runway will make it possible for the airport to accommodate 
modern commercial jets and improve aviation access to the 
Jackson area.
    John Bell Williams Airport, MS.--The Committee encourages 
the FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for a hangar and access taxiway 
construction and other airport improvements at John Bell 
Williams Airport in Hinds County, Mississippi.
    Abilene Regional Airport, TX.--The Committee is aware of 
plans for essential infrastructure improvements to enhance 
competition, capacity and safety at the Abilene Regional 
Airport. Given the economic potential and immediate needs of 
this regional facility, the Committee encourages the FAA to 
give priority consideration to requests for discretionary 
funding that will assist the Abilene Regional Airport with 
various capital improvements such as terminal expansion, 
taxiway extension and emergency response vehicle procurement.
    Crescent City Airport, CA.--The Committee encourages the 
FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for expansion and upgrade of the terminal 
at Crescent City Municipal Airport, California.
    Ells Field, CA.--The Committee encourages the FAA to give 
priority consideration to a request for discretionary funding 
for runway and taxiway improvements at Ells Field in Willits, 
California.
    Orlando International Airport, FL.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give priority consideration to a request 
for a letter of intent for a fourth runway for Orlando 
International Airport, Florida.
    Miami International Airport, FL.--The Committee encourages 
the FAA to give priority consideration to a request for a 
letter of intent for a fourth runway at Miami International 
Airport, Florida.

                        military airport program

    The Committee directs FAA to fill any pending opening in 
the military airport program by December 1, 1999. The Committee 
is aware that the FAA has had one opening which could be 
filled, but the agency has been very slow in making the 
selection. The Committee does not wish to see further delay in 
this important program.

                           letters of intent

    The Committee is concerned about allegations made that the 
FAA subjects airports which want to obtain a letter of intent 
(LOI) to an informal requirement that they either impose a 
passenger facility charge (PFC) or commit to imposing one in 
the near future. The Committee has been assured both by the 
Department of Transportation and by the FAA that, in the view 
of those agencies, they do not have the legal authority to make 
PFCs a requirement for getting an LOI, and that there is no 
such requirement. The Committee agrees that neither the 
department nor the FAA have the legal authority to require PFCs 
as a condition to receiving an LOI. The Committee notes with 
some concern, however, that every airport which has an LOI and 
is eligible to impose a PFC either has a PFC or just recently 
received an LOI and is in the process of imposing a PFC. The 
Committee finds it hard to accept that this is simply a 
coincidence. The Committee urges FAA not merely to take the 
correct position on this issue, but to ensure that AIP staff 
actually carry out that position.

                           General Provisions

    Safford Airport, Arizona.--The bill includes a provision 
allowing the Secretary to waive terms of a 1956 deed of 
conveyance by which the United States conveyed lands to the 
city of Safford, Arizona for use by the city for airport 
purposes, provided that no such waiver may be granted if it 
would result in closure of an airport.
    Limitation on Secretarial notification process.--It has 
been customary for airport grant awards to be withheld until 
notification can be made to affected Members of Congress by the 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST). The Committee 
has no objection to this overall policy. However, a report of 
the GAO dated May 18, 1999 indicated that these notifications 
are taking an increasing amount of time. In 1996, notifications 
took an average of 31 days. By 1998, the average had increased 
to 47 days, and some notifications took several months. The 
Committee believes this amount of delay is unnecessary, and 
clearly counterproductive to the efficient conduct of the AIP 
program. Therefore, a provision has been included in the bill 
which limits the notification period to fifteen calendar days. 
After that time period, the FAA may proceed with grant 
announcement and award.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The Federal Highway Administration provides financial 
assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and 
highways, enforces federal standards related to motor carriers 
and the highway transport of hazardous materials, and provides 
technical assistance to other agencies and organizations 
involved in road building activities. Title 23 and other 
supporting legislation provide authority for the various 
activities of the Federal Highway Administration. Funding is 
provided by contract authority, with program levels established 
by annual limitations on obligations in appropriations Acts.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) 
amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional 
discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway 
category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid highway 
funding, motor carrier safety funding, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) highway safety grant funding and 
NHTSA highway safety research and development funding. The 
highway category obligations are capped at $28,085,150,000 and 
outlays are capped at $24,574,000,000 in fiscal year 2000. If 
appropriations action forces highway obligations or outlays to 
exceed these levels, the difference and the resulting outlays 
are charged to the non-defense discretionary spending category. 
If highway account receipts exceed levels specified in TEA21, 
automatic adjustments are made to increase or decrease 
obligations and outlays for the highway category accordingly, 
as is the case in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee's recommendation fully comports to and does 
not exceed the levels guaranteed by TEA21. The following table 
summarizes the program levels within the Federal Highway 
Administration for fiscal year 1999 enacted, the fiscal year 
2000 budget request and the Committee's recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year--
                     Program                      ------------------------------------------ Recommended  in the
                                                       1999 enacted         2000 request             bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways.............................      $25,511,000,000      $26,245,000,000      $26,245,000,000
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)..........  ...................        1,456,350,000        1,456,350,000
RABA transfer....................................  ...................         -502,120,000  ...................
Adjustment.......................................  ...................           63,000,000  ...................
Exempt obligations...............................        1,424,047,000        1,132,116,000        1,132,116,000
Motor carrier safety grants......................          100,000,000          105,000,000          105,000,000
Motor carrier safety grants (RABA)...............  ...................           50,000,000  ...................
Surface transportation programs..................          332,000,000  ...................  ...................
    Total........................................       27,367,047,000       28,549,346,000       28,938,466,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses





Limitation, fiscal year 1999.........................     ($327,413,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000.....................      (350,432,000)
Recommended in the bill..............................      (356,380,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1999.....................      (+28,967,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000.................       (+5,948,000)


    This limitation controls spending for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to 
conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and 
most other federal highway programs. In the past, this 
limitation included a number of contract programs, such as 
highway research, development and technology; however, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) created 
a separate limitation for transportation research. Accordingly, 
in fiscal year 2000, costs related to highway research, 
development and technology are included under a separate 
limitation.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $356,380,000. This 
amount is $28,967,000 above amounts provided for fiscal year 
1999 and $5,948,000 above the level requested in the budget. 
The recommendation will support an FTE level of 2,427 in the 
non-motor carrier program, the same level as enacted in fiscal 
year 1999. For motor carrier operations, the Committee 
recommendation includes $70,484,000, an increase of $17,109,000 
over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The recommended level 
assumes the following adjustments to the budget request:






Undistributed reduction in administrative expenses           -$6,000,000
Eliminate funding for the human resources information           -802,000
 system..............................................
Eliminate funding for community/federal information           -6,000,000
 partnership program.................................
Eliminate funding for national rural development                -500,000
 program support.....................................
Advanced vehicle technology consortia program                 +5,000,000
 (Section 5111 of TEA21).............................
Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake          +5,000,000
 City 2002 Winter Olympic Games (Section 1223 of
 TEA21)..............................................
Additional resources for federal inspectors and other         +9,250,000
 safety-related activities within the office of motor
 carriers............................................



    Undistributed reduction in administrative expenses.--The 
Committee recommendation includes a general reduction of 
$6,000,000 in administrative expenses and provides FHWA the 
flexibility to allocate that reduction among such expenses as 
ADP, permanent change of station, travel, transportation and 
non-mandatory bonuses and incentives. Overall, the budget 
represents an 11 percent increase. The Committee notes that 
common administrative expenses billed through the TASC increase 
by 17 percent, while inflation assumptions for non-pay items is 
1.3 percent. A reduction of $6,000,000 is a reduction of only 2 
percent of the budget estimate.
    Human resources information system (HRIS).--The Committee 
has deleted funding requested in each of the department's 
operating administrations for the human resources information 
system as systems development is premature. Further discussion 
of this recommendation can be found earlier in this report 
under the appropriation for the office of the assistant 
secretary for administration in the office of the secretary. 
FHWA's share of HRIS development in fiscal year 2000 is 
$802,000.
    Community/federal information partnership participation.--
No funds are provided for a new grant program, the community/
federal information partnership participation program, for 
which the budget request included $6,000,000. This grant 
program is not authorized. Moreover, the Committee believes 
that organizations such as the American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials can assist in the 
development of a standardized framework for the use and 
dissemination of geo-spatial information related to ground 
transportation infrastructure without cost to the Federal 
Government should state and local transportation agencies 
identify such a need.
    National rural development program support.--The Committee 
has deleted funding requested for the department's share of the 
national rural development program (-$500,000). This program is 
a government-wide initiative/partnership, led by the Department 
of Agriculture, and is a network of rural development leaders 
and officials committed to the vitality of rural areas. The 
Committee has deleted funds for this activity for several 
years.
    Advanced vehicle consortia program.--The Committee has 
included $5,000,000 within funds provided for the FHWA's 
administrative expenses for the advanced vehicle consortia 
program. The budget request had proposed to provide $20,000,000 
for the program to be diverted from funds provided in TEA21 for 
the magnetic levitation program. The department is directed to 
include with the fiscal year 2001 budget request a report that: 
delineates a detailed strategic spending plan outlining the 
scope and direction of each of the planned research, 
development, demonstration, and deployment projects expected to 
be funded as part of the program during the next five years; 
demonstrates that the activities to be conducted by the 
participating consortia will be coordinated and integrated into 
a cohesive program; provides documentation that the projects to 
be funded do not in any way overlap with other FTA, FRA, or DOE 
activities; and demonstrates the financial participation of 
other federal departments. The Committee insists that all 
development, demonstration and deployment projects funded under 
this initiative require at least fifty percent non-federal 
funds. None of the funds made available shall be used to 
advance magnetic levitation technology.
    Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake City 
2002 Winter Olympic Games.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 for transportation management planning for 
the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympic Games, as authorized by 
section 1223(c) of TEA21. These funds shall be available for 
planning activities and related transportation infrastructure 
investments based on the transportation management plan 
approved by the Secretary.
    Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center contracting.--In 
response to an audit requested by the House Committee on 
Appropriations because of concerns regarding weaknesses in the 
award and administration of contracts at the Turner-Fairbank 
Highway Research Center, the Inspector General identified 
systematic weaknesses in the Center's internal controls for 
monitoring interagency agreements and contracts. Recent fraud 
convictions have occurred and underscore the need for improved 
controls at the Center. The FHWA is therefore directed to 
identify and submit specific corrective actions it plans in 
response to the IG's recommendations and target dates for 
completion of these actions to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations by December 1, 1999.
    Motor carrier.--In 1997, 5,398 people died on America's 
highways in truck related accidents, an increase of 4.5 percent 
in fatalities over the previous year and the highest fatality 
level in the current decade. At the same time, more commercial 
motor vehicles are driving more miles on our roadways. Trucking 
vehicle miles have increased 40 percent over the last decade. 
Over 20 percent of these trucks--more than one in every five--
are operating with safety defects so serious that they should 
be placed out of service.
    Last year, the Committee began reviewing the effectiveness 
of the Office of Motor Carriers and Highway Safety (OMCHS). In 
February, the Committee held a comprehensive hearing on the 
subject. The results of our review and the hearing were 
disturbing.
    A common theme heard throughout testimony before the 
Committee was that OMCHS is not doing enough to prevent unsafe 
operators from traveling on our highways. For example, in 1997, 
the IG found that only 2.5 percent of interstate motor carriers 
were reviewed and 64 percent of the nation's carriers did not 
have a safety rating. Yet very little progress has been made 
since then to conduct safety ratings on motor carriers. The 
number of compliance reviews has fallen by 30 percent since 
1995. The amount of fines collected from unsafe trucking 
companies has fallen to the lowest level since 1992. Currently, 
the average settlement per enforcement case is $1,600. Without 
a more effective and aggressive program to improve truck 
safety, the General Accounting Office (GAO) predicts that 
fatalities could rise as high as 6,000 per year by 2000.
    This growth in trucking fatalities is alarming. It equates 
to a major airline accident every two weeks, with about 200 
fatalities. In comparison, other transportation modes have seen 
a decline in fatalities.
    The rising number of deaths and the poor oversight of the 
trucking industry are partially a result of OMCHS's placement 
within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FHWA's 
primary mission is to award over $25 billion in highway and 
construction funds to the states, not to improve highway 
safety. FHWA is skilled at building and maintaining roads, but 
has done a poor job at maintaining an effective and forceful 
monitoring program. Eclipsed by an agency of 2,427 FTE and 
fifty division offices and several regional resource centers, 
OMCHS and its safety mission lack a strong focus, and is 
subjugated to second-class status within FHWA. Based on a 
safety program of education and enforcement, some personnel 
within OMCHS have become too close to the trucking industry, 
which they are charged with regulating.
    Earlier this year, the IG completed an audit of OMCHS' ties 
to the trucking industry. The IG found that OMCHS leadership 
had engaged in a ``strategy * * * devised to solicit the 
trucking industry and third party communications to Congress in 
order to generate opposition to the OMCHS transfer provision'' 
contained in Congressional legislation. In short, OMCHS used 
the industry it is charged with regulating to solicit support 
to defeat a congressional proposal which was designed to 
improve trucking safety.
    In light of these findings the Committee believes that 
significant and fundamental changes are needed at the Office of 
Motor Carriers and Highway Safety. Although the department has 
changed its leadership and has begun to focus on enforcement 
actions, more needs to be done. No improvements to truck safety 
will occur if the regulators are unable to maintain an arms 
length relationship with the industry; if the office does not 
more effectively identify and target habitual violators of the 
federal safety regulations; if they do not adopt strong 
enforcement actions against the minority of carriers that 
repeatedly violate safety rules; and if OMCHS does not 
aggressively sanction the industry for safety violations. 
Without these types of changes, fatalities will continue to 
rise.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $70,484,000 for motor carrier 
safety operations, which is an increase of $9,250,000 over the 
amended budget request and $17,109,000 above the fiscal year 
1999 enacted level. Many of the activities contained in the 
amended budget request can be legitimately defined as 
administrative expenses and have been included in this account. 
The following increases were made:

Additional inspectors for compliance reviews............        $500,000
New staff to decrease the regulatory backlog............         250,000
Additional staff for border enforcement activities......         816,000
Crash data..............................................       4,000,000
Safety systems database.................................       3,000,000
Census information......................................       4,500,000
Critical incident management............................       2,000,000

    Inspectors for compliance reviews.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for the Office of Motor Carriers and Highway 
Safety to hire 10 additional inspectors to improve the vitality 
and vigor of its compliance program. Between 1995 and 1997, the 
number of federally conducted compliance reviews decreased from 
5 per month to less than 2 per month. Also, the number of 
compliance orders and consent orders issued to problem carriers 
declined significantly. Although the Committee is pleased that 
FHWA has issued a memorandum to its personnel requiring a more 
vigorous enforcement and compliance program to promote motor 
carrier safety, it is unclear if a more robust program can be 
accomplished without additional personnel. The Committee 
directs FHWA to adopt a strategy that would ensure all A and B 
carriers and at least 20 percent of the C carriers are reviewed 
within six months of being entered into the Safety Status 
Measurement System (Safestat). Also, the Committee expects 
OMCHS enforcement personnel to conduct at least 8,000 
compliance reviews per year on high risk carriers (both trucks 
and buses) that have violated the motor carrier safety or 
hazardous materials transportation regulations or have been 
involved in a reportable crash.
    Bus safety.--Between 1993 and 1997, 21 people died in 
charter bus accidents. In the past six months, there have been 
30 fatalities. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
has been reviewing motor coach safety, including the most 
recent accident in New Orleans. They found ``carriers that have 
repeatedly received conditional or unsatisfactory ratings in 
either the vehicle or driver factor of the compliance review 
continue to operate, placing school children and other 
passengers at risk.'' The NTSB concluded ``that OMCHS needs to 
increase its oversight of passenger carrier operations.'' As 
part of the increased enforcement effort, the Committee expects 
OMCHS to complete more compliance reviews on the motor coach 
industry and develop a separate Safestat program to identify 
problem motor coach carriers.
    Regulatory backlog.--To address more effectively the 
regulatory backlog facing this office, the Committee has 
included $250,000 to hire four additional personnel and to 
provide ample training for current and new regulatory staff. 
Both safety advocates and the trucking industry have criticized 
OMCHS for taking too long to issue safety rules. Two problems 
frequently cited were the delay in altering the current hours 
of service regulations and the eight years it took the agency 
to complete a rule on enhanced conspicuity for trailers. The 
Committee recognizes the complex nature of the rulemaking 
process; however, it believes that the OMCHS can be more timely 
in the issuance of its rules with additional staff to develop, 
write, and analyze proposed rules, and funding to better train 
its current regulatory staff.
    Border enforcement activities.--The Committee has provided 
$816,000 to hire additional federal inspectors to man border 
crossings in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. The 
Inspector General, in a review of the motor carrier safety 
program for commercial trucks at the southern U.S. borders, 
found that ``with the exception of California, far too few 
trucks are being inspected at the U.S.-Mexico border, and that 
too few inspected trucks comply with U.S. standards. For 
example, in fiscal year 1997, the truck out-of-service rate at 
border crossings in Texas was about 50 percent, compared to a 
U.S. truck out-of-service rate of about 25 percent, and a 
Canadian truck out-of-service rate of about 17 percent.'' To 
address this problem, the Inspector General recommended 
increasing the number of federal inspectors per work shift for 
all 28 border crossings during the hours they were open. The 
Committee has provided $816,000 to hire additional inspectors 
for these crossings. According to FHWA personnel and the 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, it takes between 6 and 9 
months to hire and train new inspectors. The Committee has 
taken this time lag into account when developing the funding 
recommendation for these new inspectors.
    To accommodate the additional inspector presence, the 
Committee has allocated $10,000,000 from FHWA's border program 
for border states to acquire portable scales, computers, and 
facilities and lease land necessary to conduct these 
inspections. These are eligible activities under the 
coordinated border infrastructure program.
    Crash data.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 to 
expand the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
(NHTSA's) fatal accident reporting system (FARS) to include all 
truck and bus crashes. Currently, there are about 150,000 
crashes (tow-away, injury, and fatal); however only 100,000 are 
reported to the department. Without an accurate picture, OMCHS 
has difficulty identifying all high-risk carriers. At this 
funding level, FHWA can identify what data to collect and the 
impediments to uploading accurate and timely data. Also, FHWA 
should reimburse NHTSA for its work to: (1) design and 
implement an expanded data system built on FARS; (2) negotiate 
contracts with the states to collect this data; (3) hire the 
necessary contractors to collect the data; and (4) train the 
contractors to assure uniform coding of this new data. The 
Committee recognizes that additional funds will be necessary in 
the future once this system is fully implemented.
    Safety systems database.--A total of $3,000,000 has been 
provided to establish a comprehensive database containing 
complete information on the predominant factors that contribute 
to large truck crashes. Information included in this database 
should enable OMCHS to address causal factors, preventing 
crashes in the future. GAO testified that ``the data base would 
take 2-3 years to complete, at a cost of $2,000,000-
$3,000,000.'' The American Automobile Association testified 
about the need for this type of system and stated that the 
results could be relevant for 15 years. The Committee urges 
OMCHS to include NHTSA, the trucking industry, and the safety 
community in developing this proposal.
    Census information.--The Committee has provided $4,500,000 
to improve census data in the Safestat system. Census data 
includes information on the number of trucks a company operates 
and the vehicle miles traveled. In the majority of states, 
interstate carriers are required to file census data with OMCHS 
once, when they initially go into business. After that, census 
data is only updated when OMCHS or the state conducts 
compliance reviews at the carriers' facilities. According to 
GAO, Safestat's ability to target high-risk carriers is limited 
by out-of-date census data. The Committee understands that this 
is a two-year program that is needed only until the unified 
carrier register becomes operational in 2001.
    Critical incident management.--A total of $2,000,000 has 
been allocated for critical incident management activities, 
which could include developing post-crash investigation 
training and working with states to collect driver citation 
data so that companies hiring problem drivers can be targeted 
for safety reviews.
    School transportation study.--Within the funds allocated to 
OMCHS, $200,000 shall be for the school transportation safety 
study required by section 4030 of TEA21.
    Operation respond.--Within the funds made available, 
$375,000 shall be available for Operation Respond.
    Loading weight.--There is no federal requirement for 
shippers to determine or estimate the weight of a load and 
record this weight on its ``straight bill of lading''. The 
argument has been made that without this basic and necessary 
weight information, the truck driver cannot determine whether 
the load is secured properly and/or whether his planned route 
is appropriate. As such, the department should examine whether 
regulations should require shippers to identify the exact 
weight or approximate load weights on all of their shipping 
papers and bills of lading.
    Bill language.--A general provision (sec. 335) is included 
in the bill that prohibits funds in this Act from being used to 
carry out the functions and operations of the Office of Motor 
Carriers and Highway Safety within the Federal Highway 
Administration. Numerous hearings have been held on the vigor 
and professionalism of OMCHS. The Inspector General, the 
Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, trucking 
representatives, the enforcement community, and safety 
advocates all believe that OMCHS should be moved from the 
Federal Highway Administration to a Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration or to NHTSA. Although there is not agreement on 
the best structure to improve commercial motor vehicle and 
motor coach safety, it clearly needs to be moved from FHWA, 
whose primary mission is to invest in highway and bridge 
improvements. Safety cannot have the necessary focus under 
FHWA. The Committee cannot continue recommending funds for such 
an ineffective program, and hopes that the appropriate 
authorizing committees, which also have conducted several 
hearings on motor carrier safety, will report legislation 
expeditiously that transfers OMCHS from FHWA. It is the desire 
of this Committee that inclusion of this provision should 
expedite such legislation before the end of this current 
legislative session.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research





Limitation, fiscal year 1999 \1\.....................               (--)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\.................               (--)
Recommended in the bill..............................     ($422,450,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1999.....................     (+422,450,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000.................    (+422,450,000)

\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 1999 and requested in fiscal year
  2000 are assumed within the federal-aid obligation limitation.

    This limitation controls spending for the transportation 
research and technology contract programs of the Federal 
Highway Administration. This limitation includes a number of 
contract programs including intelligent transportation systems, 
surface transportation research, technology deployment, 
training and education, and university transportation research. 
In the past, funding under this limitation was provided in part 
from the limitation on general operating expenses and from 
contract authority provided in permanent law. The Committee 
recommends a limitation of $422,450,000. This is the same level 
as is authorized by TEA21, and an increase of $18,800,000 over 
comparable fiscal year 1999 enacted levels.
    TEA21 authorizes $422,450,000 in fiscal year 2000 for the 
following transportation research programs:

Surface transportation research.........................     $97,000,000
Technology deployment program...........................      40,000,000
Training and education..................................      16,000,000
Bureau of transportation statistics.....................      31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests, and 
    development.........................................      98,200,000
ITS deployment..........................................     113,000,000
University transportation research......................      27,250,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................     422,450,000

    Within the funds provided for surface transportation 
research, the accompanying bill provides funding for the 
following activities in the specified amounts, consistent with 
the provisions of TEA21:

Technology assessment and deployment....................     $14,000,000
Long term pavement performance..........................      10,000,000
International outreach program..........................         500,000
Research and technology support.........................       7,500,000
Highway research and development........................      65,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      97,000,000

    Within the funds provided for highway research and 
development, the Committee recommends that $65,000,000 be 
allocated for the following activities in the specified 
amounts:

Highway research and development:
    Safety..............................................     $14,200,000
    Pavements...........................................      12,500,000
    Structures..........................................      14,500,000
    Environment.........................................       7,000,000
    Policy..............................................       4,700,000
    Planning............................................       4,000,000
    Motor carrier.......................................       6,400,000
    Advanced research...................................         900,000
    Highway operations..................................         800,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      65,000,000

    Safety.--The safety research and technology program 
develops engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment, 
roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information 
that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway 
fatalities and injuries. The Committee recommends $14,200,000 
for safety research and development activities, an increase of 
$2,200,000 over the budget request. FHWA shall implement a 
comprehensive research and technology program that will ensure 
that safety research and development activities receive at 
least the same amount of funds that were provided in fiscal 
year 1999. The Committee is pleased with the progress made 
since last year to advance technology combining the use of UV 
lights and flourescent materials to improve night time 
visibility (e.g., to help delineate lane markings). Because of 
the substantial benefits that may be realized as a result of 
this technology, FHWA should ensure that this initiative is 
pursued as expeditiously as possible.
    The Committee encourages FHWA and the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration to work diligently to address the 
traffic safety issue of speeding--especially in rural 
communities where speed limits are higher than in urban areas. 
In recent years, close to half of the Nation's traffic 
fatalities occurred in rural areas. In addition, about 55 
percent of all work zone fatalities occur in rural areas. One 
promising technology to address the challenge of increased 
speeds is variable speed limit (VSL) systems, which 
automatically adjust the speed limit to weather and/or traffic 
conditions. FHWA, working in cooperation with NHTSA, shall 
conduct a focused review of VSL enforcement, including 
consideration of legal, liability, and social issues; prepare 
guidelines for the type of evidence required for a VSL system 
to be enforceable and upheld in court; develop model statute 
language that would ensure successful implementation of the 
technology; and conduct a test to evaluate a VSL system. The 
results of this activity shall be contained in a report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Pavements research.--The pavement research and technology 
program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools, 
equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public 
information that will significantly contribute to the reduction 
of highway fatalities and injuries. For fiscal year 2000, the 
Committee recommends $12,500,000. The FHWA is encouraged to 
support research in silica fume technology, next generation 
pavement design, hot climate asphalt technology, and 
geosynthetic pavement systems.
    Structures.--The structures research and technology program 
develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to 
efficiently maintain and renew the aging transportation 
infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance, 
and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery 
after major disasters. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee 
recommends $14,500,000. The FHWA is encouraged to support 
research into advanced wood deposits and lithium technology to 
mitigate the damage from alkali silica reaction.
    Environment research.--The environment research and 
technology program develops improved tools for assessing 
highway impacts on the environment; techniques for the 
avoidance, detection, and mitigation of those impacts and for 
enhancement of the environment; and expertise on environmental 
concerns within FHWA and state and local transportation 
agencies. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$7,000,000 for research on environmental issues affecting 
highway operations and construction, an increase of $1,000,000 
over the budget request. The additional funds shall be 
available to support research to examine the levels and types 
of fine particulate matter produced by highway sources, and to 
develop improved tools to predict truck travel and resulting 
emissions of nitrous oxides (NOX). These studies 
will help assist state and local transportation agencies in 
demonstrating conformity with air quality plans and in 
attaining federal air quality standards. Further, within the 
funds provided for highway research and development, the 
department shall make available $100,000 for continuation of 
the PM-10 study.
    Policy research.--The policy research and technology 
program supports FHWA policy analysis and development, 
strategic planning, and technology development through research 
in data collection, management and dissemination; highway 
financing, investment analysis, and performance measurement; 
and enhancement of highway program contributions to economic 
productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. The 
Committee recommends $4,700,000 for policy research in fiscal 
year 2000. The Committee notes that substantial concerns have 
been raised regarding the department's ongoing truck size and 
weight study. FHWA's management should ensure that future 
policy-oriented studies are based on more realistic assumptions 
and are completed in a timely manner. The Committee maintains 
that the authorization caps and legislated set-asides in TEA21 
do not allow for the initiation of a new research funding 
category to conduct freight research. Furthermore, research to 
better understand freight movements should be conducted with 
private sector funds, rather than public funds as requested by 
the department. Consequently, the Committee does not recommend 
any funds for freight research from any surface transportation 
research subaccount.
    Planning.--The planning research and technology program 
advances cost effective methods to evaluate transportation 
strategies and investments; develops and disseminates improved 
planning methods; develops more effective planning and data 
collection techniques for intermodal passenger and freight 
planning and programming; improves financial planning tools for 
use in developing transportation plans and programs; evaluates 
the characteristics of the National Highway System; and 
develops improved analytical tools to support metropolitan and 
statewide planning and for information and data sharing with 
state and local governments. The Committee recommendation 
includes $4,000,000 for planning research. Funds for real 
estate services are included within the planning subaccount. No 
funds are provided in any surface transportation subaccount for 
research into sustainability as contract funds specified in 
section 1221 of TEA21 can be used to support such research.
    Motor carrier research.--The Committee has provided 
$6,400,000 for motor carrier research, which is the same level 
as requested. The Executive Director of FHWA is directed to 
improve the budget justification for this research area. Future 
budget requests should delineate the specific projects that 
will be funded and the exact amount for each project, similar 
to the format used by the Federal Railroad Administration's 
next generation high-speed rail program. As part of this 
improved format, FHWA should also include an analysis of the 
possible impacts of the proposed research on motor carrier 
safety and crash reduction.
    Advanced research.--The advanced research program addresses 
longer-term, higher-risk research that shows potential benefits 
for improving the durability, efficiency, environmental impact, 
productivity, and safety of highway systems. The Committee 
provides $900,000 for advanced research.
    Highway operations.--The highway operations research 
program is designed to develop, deliver and deploy advanced 
technologies and administrative methods to provide pavement and 
bridge durability, and to reduce construction and maintenance-
related user delays. The Committee recommendation includes 
$800,000.
    Technology assessment and deployment.--The technology 
assessment and deployment program identifies and assesses 
innovative research results, technology, and products, and 
promotes the application of those advances that are determined 
to be of potential benefit to the highway community through 
increased productivity, safety, and operations. Within the 
funds provided for surface transportation research, the 
Committee recommends $14,000,000 for technology assessment and 
deployment activities, which represents an increase of $500,000 
over the budget request. The recent reorganization of FHWA, 
both at headquarters and in the field, has changed how new 
technology is delivered to states and local governments. The 
additional funds are to assist in the deployment of technology 
in the field.
    The Committee requests that by December 1, 1999, FHWA 
respond to each of the recommendations presented in the 
Transportation Research Board report on technology deployment 
and report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
how FHWA will improve its mechanisms of technology transfer and 
evaluations.
    Research and technology support.--Within the funds provided 
for surface transportation research, the Committee recommends 
$7,500,000 for research and technology support. Sufficient 
funds are provided to ensure continued support of the Research 
and Technology Coordinating Committee of the Transportation 
Research Board. This senior level group provides useful 
guidance and recommendations intended to improve FHWA's 
research, development, and technology-related programs.
    The Committee recognizes that the funding environment 
established by Title V of TEA21 has created challenges for the 
FHWA in fully supporting priority programs at previously 
planned levels. To meet that challenge, the Committee notes 
that FHWA has vigorously pursued a national research and 
technology partnership in conjunction with key partners 
including the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials, the Transportation Research Board, 
academia, numerous safety and surface transportation 
organizations, and the private sector. The Committee supports 
those efforts to strengthen coalitions and partnerships to work 
together on strategic R&T priorities, leverage federal funds, 
and ensure that federal research investments meet the needs of 
the user community.
    ITS standards, research, operational tests and 
development.--The Committee recommends the $98,200,000 provided 
in TEA21 for ITS research be allocated in the following manner:

Research and development................................     $47,450,000
Operational tests.......................................       6,650,000
Evaluations.............................................       6,400,000
Architecture and standards..............................      17,000,000
Integration.............................................      11,700,000
Program support.........................................       9,000,000
                                                            ____________
    Total...............................................      98,200,000

    Research and development.--The research and development 
program supports the research and development of new ITS 
technologies to improve the safety, mobility, and productivity 
of the surface transportation system. In total, the Committee 
recommends $47,450,000 for research and development activities. 
Within these funds, the Committee has allocated $7,300,000 for 
commercial vehicle operations research, or $800,000 more than 
requested. These additional funds shall help advance critical 
safety data systems, such as SAFER/CVIEW and ASPEN, and further 
test the Safer Data mailbox project that allows for the 
electronic retrieval of information on prior inspections of 
commercial motor vehicles and drivers. The mailbox technology 
provides a valuable tool used by enforcement officers to reduce 
highway crashes and fatalities involving trucks and buses. 
Using the information provided, state safety personnel 
concentrate inspections on previously identified high-risk 
carriers and drivers, especially those who do not correct out-
of-service defects identified in previous inspections.
    The Safer Data mailbox project allows state enforcement 
officials working at the roadside to gain access to near real-
time inspection information. One of the greatest needs for that 
information is to assist officers working in the border states 
who are ensuring that safety requirements are met as specified 
in NAFTA. Historical safety information is lacking on carriers 
from adjoining countries, making quick retrieval of safety 
information most critical. Past inspection records in the 
mailbox system may be the only information available for making 
critical safety and inspection decisions at the border. The 
Committee expects FHWA to continue to advance this program and 
ensure that it is made available to all states, especially 
border states. FHWA shall work with a border state to serve as 
a lead technology distribution agent to provide technical 
assistance to all states in advancing and deploying the Safer 
Data mailbox system.
    Operational tests.--The operational tests program provides 
a bridge between research and development and large-scale 
deployment through the technical testing of ITS technologies 
and by addressing institutional barriers.
    Intelligent vehicle initiative (IVI).--The Committee 
encourages the director of the joint program office to continue 
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, 
operational tests of crash avoidance technologies, integration 
of information systems, and cost/benefit assessment work that 
remains to be completed, an IVI program focused on this 
critical safety area is of foremost importance.
    Evaluations program.--The Committee recommends $6,400,000 
for program evaluation studies and recognizes the importance of 
continuing to evaluate the benefits and costs of various ITS 
projects and to track their progress.
    Architecture and standards.--The architecture and standards 
program provides for the maintenance, enhancement and 
application of the national ITS architecture and the 
development and testing of ITS standards. The Committee 
recommends $17,000,000 for architecture and standards work, 
which is $3,000,000 more than requested in the budget. The 
Committee recognizes the progress made to date on ITS standards 
and expects that any provisional standards, if needed, will be 
issued within the time frame specified in TEA21. It is 
essential to achieve a nationally interoperable ITS network. 
During the last several years, FHWA has been working diligently 
with the states, toll authorities, and commercial vehicle 
carriers that must deal with continuing challenges to 
interoperability, such as different payment procedures and 
divergent business models. There remain many barriers to 
achieving national interoperability. The Committee supports 
FHWA's continuing efforts to eliminate or reduce those 
barriers, explore whether facilitated resolutions can be 
achieved, and use the authorities provided in TEA21 to ensure 
an interoperable ITS network.
    Integration.--The integration program supports training and 
technical guidance for federal, state, and local professionals 
charged with implementing integrated ITS systems. The Committee 
is pleased that the department has changed the scope and nature 
of the mainstreaming activity and supports initiatives to 
provide direct technical and procurement assistance to states 
and other governmental entities planning, evaluating, or 
deploying ITS.
    National ITS program plan.--The Committee looks forward to 
receiving as soon as possible an update of the National ITS 
Program Plan, which is to be prepared in a manner consistent 
with requirements of section 5205 of TEA21.
    ITS deployment projects.--It is the intent of the Committee 
that the following projects contribute to the integration and 
interoperability of intelligent transportation systems in 
metropolitan and rural areas as provided under section 5208 of 
the TEA21 and promote deployment of the commercial vehicle 
intelligent transportation system infrastructure as provided 
under section 5209 of TEA21. These projects shall conform to 
the requirements set forth in these sections, including the 
project selection criteria contained in section 5208(b) and the 
priority areas outlined in section 5209(c), respectively. Funds 
provided in TEA21 for ITS deployment activities are to be made 
available as follows:

        Project                                                   Amount

Albuquerque, New Mexico.................................      $3,000,000
Central Pennsylvania....................................       2,000,000
Chicago, Illinois.......................................       1,000,000
City of Superior and Douglas County, Wisconsin..........       1,000,000
Clay County, Missouri...................................         300,000
Clearwater, Florida.....................................       5,000,000
College Station, Texas..................................       2,000,000
Commonwealth of Virginia................................      12,000,000
Fairfield, California...................................         750,000
Florida Bay County, Florida.............................       2,000,000
Fort Worth, Texas.......................................       5,000,000
Houma, Louisiana........................................       1,000,000
Houston, Texas..........................................       3,000,000
Huntsville, Alabama.....................................         200,000
Inglewood, California...................................       1,000,000
Jefferson County, Colorado..............................       2,500,000
Kansas City, Missouri...................................       1,000,000
Los Angeles, California.................................       1,800,000
Las Vegas, Nevada.......................................       2,790,000
Miami, Florida..........................................       2,000,000
Mission Viejo, California...............................       1,000,000
Monroe County, New York.................................       1,000,000
Northeast Florida.......................................       1,000,000
Oakland County, Michigan................................       3,000,000
Orlando, Florida........................................       1,000,000
Oxford, Mississippi.....................................       3,000,000
Pueblo, Colorado........................................       2,000,000
Rensselaer County, New York.............................       1,000,000
Sacramento, California..................................       1,000,000
San Francisco, California...............................       1,000,000
Santa Clara, California.................................       1,000,000
Seattle, Washington.....................................       5,700,000
Shreveport, Louisiana...................................       1,000,000
State of Delaware.......................................       3,000,000
State of Idaho..........................................       2,000,000
State of Maryland.......................................       2,000,000
State of Minnesota......................................      12,000,000
State of North Dakota...................................         950,000
State of Oregon.........................................       2,000,000
State of Utah...........................................       3,500,000
States of New Jersey and New York.......................       1,500,000
Thurston, Washington....................................       1,000,000
Tuscon, Arizona.........................................       1,000,000
Wausau-Stevens Point-Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin........       3,000,000
Washington, DC..........................................       8,000,000
Wayne County, Michigan..................................       1,000,000

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................     ($24,000,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................      (26,000,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...........................      (26,125,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...............        +2,125,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..............          +125,000,000


    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $26,125,000,000. This is an increase of $2,125,000,000 over 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and is needed to pay the 
outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at 
levels provided in TEA21. This appropriation is mandatory and 
has no scoring effect.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

    Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a 
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain 
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new 
construction of roads. State highway departments have the 
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA 
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The 
Federal Government provides financial support for construction 
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary 
with the type of road.
    There are almost four million miles of public roads in the 
United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The Federal 
Government provides grants to states to assist in financing the 
construction and preservation of about 945,000 miles (24 
percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive 
interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes. 
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of 
total U.S. highway traffic.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) 
reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other 
surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. The 
TEA21 builds on programs and other initiatives established in 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 
1991, the previous major authorizing legislation for surface 
transportation programs.
    Under the TEA21, Federal-aid highways funds are made 
available through the following major programs:
    National highway system.--The ISTEA of 1991 authorized--and 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS). 
This 163,000-mile road system serving major population centers, 
international border crossings, intermodal transportation 
facilities and major travel destinations, is the culmination of 
years of effort by many organizations, both public and private, 
to identify routes of national significance. It includes all 
Interstate routes, other urban and rural principal arterials, 
the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic 
highway connectors, and is estimated to carry up to 75 percent 
of commercial truck traffic and 40 percent of all vehicular 
traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its 
NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If 
the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The 
federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability 
period of 4 years.
    Interstate maintenance.--The 46,000-mile Dwight D. 
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program 
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and 
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges, 
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate 
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity 
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
    All remaining federal funding to complete the initial 
construction of the Interstate system has been provided through 
previous highway legislation. TEA21 provides flexibility to 
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of 
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no 
remaining work to complete the Interstate system may transfer 
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their Interstate 
maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on 
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish 
Interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and 
transfer the federal share of the cost to their Interstate 
maintenance program.
    Surface transportation program.--The Surface Transportation 
Program (STP) is a very flexible program that may be used by 
the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that 
are not functionally classified as local or rural minor 
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as 
Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are 
not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public 
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this 
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the 
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee 
funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds. 
Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used 
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety 
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50 
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and 
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of 
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an 
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts 
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor 
collectors. The federal share for the STP program is 80 percent 
with a 4-year availability period.
    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This 
program is continued by TEA21 to provide assistance for bridges 
on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for high 
cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges. Fifty 
percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS 
or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is deducted 
from the national bridge needs used in the program's 
apportionment formula for the following year.
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air 
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range 
of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT, 
after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help 
meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides 
greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and 
expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to 
reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate 
matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state 
has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be 
used as if they were STP funds.
    Federal lands highways.--This program provides 
authorizations through three major categories--Indian 
reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands 
highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways 
category)--as well as a new category for federally-owned public 
roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife 
Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for 
improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.
    Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year 
2000 shall be available for the following activities:
        Project                                                   Amount

Austin Junction-Baker County Line section of US 26, 
    Oregon..............................................      $6,500,000
Blackstone Valley National Heritage Corridor, Rhode 
    Island..............................................       2,000,000
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia.........       1,000,000
Daniel Boone Parkway, Kentucky..........................       2,000,000
Historic Columbia River Highway state trail, Oregon.....         500,000
Lemhi Pass Road, west of Clark Canyon dam, Montana......       2,000,000
Highway 117 feasibility study, Louisiana................         500,000
North Fork Road in Columbia Falls, Montana..............       2,400,000
Soldier Hollow improvements, Utah.......................       4,000,000
SR 248, Utah............................................       4,000,000
Timucuan Preserve Road, Florida.........................       1,000,000

    Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, after the computation of 
funds for major Federal-aid programs has been completed, 
additional funds are distributed to ensure that each State 
receives an additional amount based on equity considerations. 
This minimum guarantee provision ensures that each State will 
have a return of 90.5 percent on its share of contributions to 
the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the 
minimum guarantee each fiscal year, $2.8 billion nationally is 
available to the States as though they are STP funds (except 
that requirements related to set-asides for transportation 
enhancements, safety, and sub-State allocations do not apply), 
and any remaining amounts are distributed among core highway 
programs.
    Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and 
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned 
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of 
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA21 restates the 
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds 
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential 
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting 
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect 
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds 
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds 
from other highway programs.
    High priority projects.--TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority 
projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects 
totals $9.5 billion over the 6 year period with a specified 
percentage of the project funds made available each year. 
Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA21 
high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid 
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated 
with the projects does not expire.
    Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes 
funds available to construct highways and access roads under 
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
1965. Under TEA21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 1999-2003; is available until expended and 
distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete 
estimate.
    National corridor planning and border infrastructure 
programs.--TEA21 established a new national corridor planning 
and development program that provides funds for the coordinated 
planning, design, and construction of corridors of national 
significance, economic growth, and international or 
interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors 
identified in section 1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors 
using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated 
border infrastructure program is established to improve the 
safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./
Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders. The Committee directs that 
$10,000,000 shall be available to Arizona, California, New 
Mexico and Texas to procure portable scales, facilities and 
equipment and to lease land necessary to house additional OMCHS 
inspectors.
    Transportation and community and system preservation pilot 
program.--TEA21 established a new transportation and community 
and system preservation program that provides grants to states 
and local governments for planning, developing, and 
implementing strategies to integrate transportation and 
community and system preservation plans and practices. These 
grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the 
transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on 
the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments 
in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, 
services, and centers of trade.
    Funds provided for the transportation and community and 
system preservation pilot program in fiscal year 2000 shall be 
available for the following activities:
        Project                                                   Amount
Arlington County, Virginia pedestrian, bicycle access 
    and other transit improvements......................      $1,000,000
City of New Haven, Connecticut trolley cars.............         500,000
Community and environmental transportation acceptability 
    program of southern California......................       1,000,000
Florence, Alabama pedestrian and other transportation 
    improvements........................................       1,500,000
Fort Worth, Texas corridor redevelopment and transit 
    linkages............................................       3,000,000
Green Bay, Wisconsin pedestrian improvements and livable 
    communities projects................................       1,000,000
DuPage County, Illinois transportation alternatives 
    development.........................................       1,000,000
Houston, Texas Main Street corridor livable communities.       1,000,000
Knoxville, Tennessee electric transit project...........       1,000,000
Metrowest regional transportation study, Massachusetts..         500,000
Monmouth County, New Jersey pedestrian improvements.....         300,000
Montclair, New Jersey connection transit livable 
    communities.........................................         500,000
New Rochelle, New York intermodal center................       1,000,000
Northwest Michigan transportation use initiative........         250,000
Potomac River ferry.....................................         500,000
Richmond, Virginia Main Street intermodal facility......       4,000,000
River Market/College Station, Arkansas livable 
    communities.........................................       1,000,000
San Francisco, California civic center plaza............       1,700,000
Savannah, Georgia water taxi............................       1,000,000
Seattle, Washington water taxi..........................         750,000
South Amboy, New Jersey regional multimodal 
    transportation initiative...........................         500,000
White Plains, New York TRANSCENTER pedestrian 
    improvements........................................       2,000,000

                          Federal-aid Highways


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)




Limitation, fiscal year 1999......................     ($25,511,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \1\..............      (27,262,230,000)
Recommended in the bill \2\.......................      (27,701,350,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1999..................      (+2,190,350,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..............       (+439,120,000)

\1\ The budget request includes new obligations of $1,519,350,000
  associated with revenue aligned budget authority, of which
  $502,120,000 is transferred to other modal administrations.
\2\ The Committee recommendation includes $26,245,000,000 in guaranteed
  obligations and $1,456,350,000 in obligations resulting from revenue
  aligned budget authority.

    The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 2000 federal-aid highways obligations to $27,701,350,000, 
an increase of $2,190,350,000 over the 1999 enacted level and 
$439,120,000 over the budget request. The recommended level is 
the level assumed in TEA21. These funds are guaranteed under 
the highway category.
    The obligation limitation for the federal-aid highways 
program contained in this bill includes $1,456,350,000 in 
obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority. 
TEA21 provides for an automatic increase in the federal-aid 
highway program budget authority and obligation authority in 
any budget year in which projected income to the highway 
account of the highway trust fund exceeds estimates of income 
to the trust fund that were made at the time TEA21 was enacted. 
By law, a determination of the size of this increase in so-
called ``firewall'' spending levels is made in the President's 
budget submission. TEA21 calls for any such increases in budget 
authority to be distributed proportionately among federal-aid 
highways appportioned and allocated programs, and for the 
overall federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an 
equal amount. The estimate of increased income, and therefore, 
budget authority and obligations, for fiscal year 2000 is 
$1,456,350,000.
    The budget request--in contravention of TEA21 provisions 
proposed to allocate this additional obligational authority in 
fiscal year 2000 to other programs, including NHTSA's 
operations and research program; FTA's formula grants and 
national research programs; FHWA's research and technology, 
congestion mitigation, and motor carrier safety grants 
programs; and FRA's rail program. The accompanying bill 
allocates the additional obligational authority consistent with 
the provisions of TEA21.
    Although the following table reflects an estimated 
distribution of obligations by program category, the bill 
includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain 
federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated 
obligations by program within the $27,701,350,000 provided by 
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent 
law:

                                   FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    FY 2000
                                                                   FY 1999          estimate         FY 2000
                  Programs                     FY 1998 actual      estimate      (Presidential       estimate
                                                                                    budget)       (current law)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
    Surface transportation program..........       $5,936,062       $5,818,830       $5,993,039        6,286,764
    National highway system.................        3,744,113        4,983,080        5,123,041        5,381,707
    Interstate maintenance..................        2,931,668        4,134,904        4,266,189        4,474,670
    Bridge program..........................        2,259,083        3,547,135        3,699,144        3,830,660
    Congestion mitigation and air quality             699,754        1,407,709        1,792,874        1,525,303
     improvement............................
    Minimum guarantee.......................        1,238,278        1,763,685        1,905,474        2,000,000
    Safety incentive grants for use of seat   ...............           72,406           84,111           86,523
     belts..................................
    Safety incentive to prevent operation of           18,187           57,395           72,000           70,960
     motor carrier by intoxicated persons...
    ITS standards, research and development.           80,872           87,658          159,600           92,354
    ITS deployment..........................           85,876           96,830          114,611          106,272
    Transportation research.................          121,351          246,148          404,260          202,176
    Federal lands highways..................          492,342          614,047          636,104          654,340
    National corridor planning and            ...............          123,620          127,995          131,665
     coordinated border infrastructure......
    Administration..........................          332,912          324,767          344,616          344,616
    Other programs..........................        1,574,176          293,129          329,263          304,463
    High priority projects..................           55,062          904,804        1,535,531        1,584,468
    Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge..........  ...............           88,500          137,138          141,070
    Transportation infrastructure finance     ...............           70,640           82,283           84,642
     and innovation.........................
    Appalachian development highway system..  ...............          387,350          405,000          393,362
    Emergency relief........................  ...............  ...............            1,425            5,346
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total subject to obligation limitation       19,569,736   \1\ 25,031,637       27,213,698   \2\ 27,701,350
                                             ===================================================================
Emergency relief program....................           83,040          140,016          100,000          100,000
Minimum allocation/guarantee................          555,159          833,684          716,874          716,874
Demonstration projects......................          405,379          450,346          315,242          315,242
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total exempt programs.................        1,043,578        1,424,046        1,132,116        1,132,116
Emergency relief supplemental...............          362,822          115,956  ...............  ...............
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total, Federal-aid highways            20,976,136       26,571,639       28,345,814      28,833,466
       (direct).............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects estimated obligation which is less than the obligation limitation ($25,511 billion) as provided by
  TEA21.
\2\ At this level of obligation limitation, an estimated $27,603 billion will be obligated in fiscal year 2000.

    The following table reflects the estimated distribution of 
the federal-aid limitation by state:

                                                         ESTIMATED FY 2000 OBLIGATION LIMITATION
                                                                [in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Estimated FY                      Appalachian
                               State                                   2000 formula   FY 2000 minimum    development         Total        Change from FY
                                                                        limitation       guarantee         highways                            1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................................         $386,926          $35,581          $43,312         $465,819         +$31,311
Alaska.............................................................          207,839           65,797  ...............          273,636          +19,609
Arizona............................................................          344,238           44,183  ...............          388,421          +28,431
Arkansas...........................................................          273,370           27,763  ...............          301,133          +20,123
California.........................................................        1,988,217          130,113  ...............        2,118,330         +143,128
Colorado...........................................................          260,070           16,332  ...............          276,402          +19,728
Connecticut........................................................          299,269           48,383  ...............          347,652          +23,867
Delaware...........................................................           99,133            7,877  ...............          107,011           +7,988
District of Columbia...............................................           92,574              311  ...............           92,885           +6,393
Florida............................................................          926,486          156,463  ...............        1,082,949          +76,911
Georgia............................................................          710,515          103,261           17,309          831,085          +57,434
Hawaii.............................................................          107,743           10,512  ...............          118,255           +7,934
Idaho..............................................................          149,414           20,109  ...............          169,524          +10,535
Illinois...........................................................          733,062           37,820  ...............          770,882          +50,695
Indiana............................................................          510,511           68,518  ...............          579,029          +39,751
Iowa...............................................................          266,318           11,720  ...............          278,037          +18,819
Kansas.............................................................          264,786            6,284  ...............          271,069          +18,223
Kentucky...........................................................          329,643           31,309           39,732          400,683          +27,167
Louisiana..........................................................          350,742           34,749  ...............          385,491          +25,617
Maine..............................................................          113,767            9,155  ...............          122,922           +8,589
Maryland...........................................................          337,686           23,363            6,773          367,823          +25,204
Massachusetts......................................................          402,108           23,737  ...............          425,845          +28,221
Michigan...........................................................          664,606           73,186  ...............          737,793          +49,727
Minnesota..........................................................          319,401           19,612  ...............          339,013          +21,983
Mississippi........................................................          258,031           17,426            4,857          280,314          +18,873
Missouri...........................................................          521,290           39,839  ...............          561,130          +37,478
Montana............................................................          204,715           33,010  ...............          237,726          +17,805
Nebraska...........................................................          181,468            5,836  ...............          187,304          +13,701
Nevada.............................................................          151,536           18,618  ...............          170,154          +12,158
New Hampshire......................................................          106,292            9,737  ...............          116,030           +7,500
New Jersey.........................................................          551,013           35,326  ...............          586,340          +38,422
New Mexico.........................................................          205,869           22,440  ...............          228,309          +15,732
New York...........................................................        1,070,227           87,815            9,335        1,167,378          +76,141
North Carolina.....................................................          558,308           69,988           25,500          653,796          +45,093
North Dakota.......................................................          146,177           11,157  ...............          157,334          +11,573
Ohio...............................................................          765,190           70,447           19,531          855,168          +57,973
Oklahoma...........................................................          337,812           23,040  ...............          360,852          +25,059
Oregon.............................................................          266,215           11,364  ...............          277,579          +18,038
Pennsylvania.......................................................          940,620           64,758          105,903        1,111,281          +69,174
Rhode Island.......................................................          125,966           15,404  ...............          141,370          +10,309
South Carolina.....................................................          327,550           43,633            2,122          373,305          +26,703
South Dakota.......................................................          152,054           13,262  ...............          165,316          +11,342
Tennessee..........................................................          442,633           38,969           48,558          530,159          +35,665
Texas..............................................................        1,556,806          202,277  ...............        1,759,084         +124,253
Utah...............................................................          167,905           11,118  ...............          179,022          +11,909
Vermont............................................................          102,097            6,719  ...............          108,815           +7,850
Virginia...........................................................          533,386           51,248           10,206          594,840          +41,165
Washington.........................................................          395,973           20,047  ...............          416,020          +27,400
West Virginia......................................................          181,279            8,108           60,224          249,611          +14,850
Wisconsin..........................................................          408,157           50,594  ...............          458,751          +31,563
Wyoming............................................................          154,882           11,681  ...............          166,563          +12,206
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal.......................................................       20,951,876        2,000,000          393,362       23,345,238        1,587,319
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Limitation:
    High Priority Projects.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............        1,584,468          344,756
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge..........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............          141,070           74,845
    Allocation Reserves............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............        2,630,573          183,429
                                                                    ====================================================================================
        Total limitation...........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............       27,701,350        2,190,349
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................      $100,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................       155,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       105,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +5,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................       -50,000,000


    The motor carrier safety assistance grants program (MCSAP) 
is intended to assist states in developing or implementing 
national programs for the uniform enforcement of federal and 
state rules and regulations concerning motor carrier safety. 
The major objective of this program is to reduce the number and 
severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. 
Grants are made to qualified states for the development of 
programs to enforce the federal motor carrier safety and 
hazardous materials regulations and the Commercial Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program is targeted at 
roadside vehicle safety inspections of both interstate and 
intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic.
    On May 14, 1999, the department submitted an amended budget 
request that raised the motor carrier safety grants program 
from $105,000,000 to $155,000,000. The proposed $50,000,000 to 
be derived from revenue aligned budget authority is in 
contravention to existing law. Such a request does not indicate 
a true commitment to safety, as revenue aligned budget 
authority must be allocated to the states under existing law. 
Moreover, such a funding mechanism may not be sustained as 
revenue aligned budget authority is subject to annual 
fluctuations in highway trust fund collections.
    The Committee recommends $105,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for this program. This is an increase of $5,000,000 above the 
level enacted in fiscal year 1999.

                       Limitations on Obligations

    The Committee recommends a $105,000,000 limitation on 
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level 
guaranteed within the highway category of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century. None of this funding is to be 
derived from revenue aligned budget authority.
    The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as 
follows:

Motor carrier safety assistance program:                     $95,000,000
Basic motor carrier safety grants.......................      75,881,250
Performance-based incentive grant program...............       8,431,250
Border assistance.......................................       4,750,000
High-priority activities................................       4,750,000
Training................................................       1,187,500
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives:         10,000,000
Information systems.....................................       3,200,000
Motor carrier analysis..................................       1,100,000
Implementation of PRISM.................................       4,875,000
Driver programs.........................................         825,000

    Performance-based incentive grant program.--Numerous 
experts have testified to the Committee about the poor data 
collected by the states on the number of fatal truck accidents. 
The General Accounting Office found that ``states did not 
report an estimated 38 percent of all crashes and 30 percent of 
the fatal crashes involving large trucks in 1997. Of the total 
number of states, 10 reported fewer than 50 percent of the 
fatal crashes occurring within their border and 4 reported 
fewer than 10 percent.'' OMCHS uses this data to identify high-
risk carriers for compliance reviews, safety actions and 
improvements. Without accurate and timely data, OMCHS is likely 
to miss carriers that are involved in a substantial number of 
crashes on our nation's highways.
    The Committee urges OMCHS to allocate a significant portion 
of this funding to help states improve the accuracy, quality 
and timeliness of their data. Small incentive grants have 
proven to be very successful in the past. For example, in 1997, 
the State of Mississippi only reported 1 of 99 fatal crashes. 
After receiving a one-time incentive grant, Mississippi 
reported over 1,500 crashes.
    Commercial drivers license program.--Recent accidents, such 
as Bourbonnais, Illinois and New Orleans, Louisiana, have 
brought serious problems with the commercial drivers license 
(CDL) program to light. It has been reported that the drivers 
in these two accidents each had been ticketed or cited 
repeatedly for serious traffic violations yet they continued to 
hold a CDL. More needs to be done to ensure that states have 
the most up-to-date conviction data on CDL holders and that 
this information can be transferred from state to state easily. 
OMCHS should work with the states on resolving this issue and 
report to the House Committee on Appropriations by May 1, 2000, 
on the office's efforts and results.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the 
National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had 
administered traffic and highway safety functions as an 
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
    The administration's current statutes and programs are 
authorized in four major laws: (1) the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.); 
(2) the Highway Safety Act, (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); 
(3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings (MVCIS) Act, 
(Part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); and (4) the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21).
    The first law provides for the establishment and 
enforcement of safety standards for vehicles and associated 
equipment and the conduct of supporting research, including the 
acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of 
the national driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations 
were subsequently established for the NDR under the National 
Driver Register Act of 1982.
    The second law provides for coordinated national highway 
safety programs (section 402) to be carried out by the states 
and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration 
programs (section 403). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public 
Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program 
(section 410) to make grants to states to implement and enforce 
drunk driving prevention programs.
    The third law (MVICS) provides for the establishment of 
low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information 
activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects, 
automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. An 
amendment to this law established the Secretary's 
responsibility, which was delegated to NHTSA, for the 
administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards. 
A 1992 amendment to the MVICS established automobile content 
labeling requirements.
    The fourth law (TEA21) reauthorizes the full range of NHTSA 
programs and enacts a number of new initiatives. These include: 
safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by 
intoxicated persons (section 163 of title 23 U.S.C.); seat belt 
incentive grants (section 157 of title 23 U.S.C.); occupant 
protection incentive grants (section 405); and highway safety 
data improvement incentive grant program (section 411). TEA21 
also reauthorized highway safety research, development and 
demonstration programs (section 403) to include research 
measures that may deter drugged driving, educate the motoring 
public on how to share the road safely with commercial motor 
vehicles, and provide vehicle pursuit training for police. 
Finally, TEA21 adopts a number of new motor vehicle safety and 
information provisions, including rulemaking directions for 
improving air bag crash protection systems, lobbying 
restrictions, exemptions from the odometer requirements for 
classes or categories of vehicles the Secretary deems 
appropriate, and adjustments to the automobile domestic content 
labeling requirements.

                         Traffic Safety Trends

    In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest number of 
highway fatalities since 1962--39,250--despite an increasing 
amount of travel on the roadways. This trend has reversed 
itself since then. However, it appears that fatalities may be 
leveling off. The latest NHTSA data indicates fatalities in 
1998 were 41,480, which is a decrease from 42,013 fatalities in 
1997. In comparing 1998 to 1997, there was a 3.9 percent 
decrease in the number of police-reported traffic crashes and a 
4.4 percent decrease in reported injuries caused by those 
accidents.
    The fatality rate has remained constant, 1.6 deaths per 100 
million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), where it stood for the 
first time in 1997. In 1998, this rate continued even with an 
estimated increase of 2 percent VMT from 1997. The following 
charts show these safety trends.


    The percentage of traffic crashes involving alcohol 
decreased in 1998. An estimated 15,936 people (38 percent) were 
killed in alcohol-related crashes, down from 39 percent in 
1997. This is the lowest rate since recordkeeping began in 
1975.

                        Operations and Research



                                                        (Highway trust
                                   (General fund)           fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year                      ---         $161,400,000
 1999 \1\.....................
Budget request, fiscal year                     ---          199,450,000
 2000.........................
Recommended in the bill.......          $87,400,000           74,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year          +87,400,000          -87,400,000
 1999.........................
    Budget request, fiscal              +87,400,000        -125,450,000
 year 2000....................

\1\ Amount for fiscal year 1999 excludes $752,000 in supplemental
  emergency appropriations for Year 2000 activities.

    TEA21 authorized a total appropriation level of 
$161,400,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities in 
fiscal year 2000. This total consists of three separate 
authorizations. First, the bill includes $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 an 
appropriation. Second, TEA-21 includes an authorization, 
subject to appropriation, of $87,400,000 for operations and 
research activities under section 30102 and 30104 of title 49 
U.S.C. Third, the bill includes an authorization from the 
Highway Trust Fund of $2,000,000 for the National Driver 
Register. This funding is subject to appropriations.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Administration requested a total 
of $199,450,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities. 
Funding was to be allocated as follows: $72,000,000 in 
guaranteed funds for activities eligible under title 23 U.S.C.; 
$2,000,000 for the National Driver Register; and $125,450,000 
from revenue aligned budget authority (RABA).
    The Committee is greatly disappointed in the fiscal year 
2000 budget request for NHTSA. Safety is purported to be the 
department's guiding principle, or ``North star''. However, 
under its budget proposal, RABA funding supplants general 
revenues for approximately 55 percent of NHTSA's operations and 
research account unlike other elements of the department's 
budget request in which RABA funds supplement existing program 
levels. Such budget gimmickery does not indicate a sincere 
commitment to safety. Further, by submitting this request to 
Congress, the department is shortchanging safety by not 
continuing a reliable funding source for safety programs. The 
higher than anticipated increase in gasoline tax receipts, that 
is used to fund NHTSA's safety programs, is not assured in 
future years.
    The Committee recommends new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for a total program level of 
$161,400,000, the same level as enacted in fiscal year 1999. 
None of this funding is from revenue aligned budget authority.
    The Committee has worked with NHTSA to identify program 
reductions in its fiscal year 2000 budget request to comply 
with the levels authorized under TEA21 and recommends that the 
funding provided in this Act for operations and research be 
distributed as follows:




Salaries and benefits.................................       $53,152,000
Travel................................................         1,501,000
Operating expenses....................................        18,986,000
Contract programs:
    Safety performance................................         3,429,000
    Safety assurance..................................         9,045,000
    Highway safety programs...........................        36,298,000
    Research and analysis.............................        48,317,000
    General administration............................           645,000
Grant administration reimbursements...................        -9,973,000
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................      $161,400,000


    Between now and the time for conference action on this 
bill, NHTSA shall provide its recommendations to the House 
Committee on Appropriations as to how reductions from the 
budget request shall be distributed.
    New staff positions.--The Committee has approved half-year 
funding for 12 of the 14 new positions requested in the budget. 
Funding for these positions is provided for one-half year 
because NHTSA will need to complete an extensive recruitment 
effort before hiring several of these positions. The Committee 
recommendation does not include funding for two general 
administration positions. NHTSA is unable to justify the need 
to hire technical support for Y2K issues after January 1, 2000 
(-$381,000).
    Safe communities.--The Committee has denied funding for the 
safe communities program (-$2,250,000). In fiscal year 1999, 
funding for this initiative was deleted because the program had 
concluded its initial three-year effort. The Committee sees no 
merit in continuing to fund this program beyond its original 
three-year pilot period when there are over 500 safe 
communities projects throughout the United States today.
    Driver license identification.--The Committee continues to 
carry a general provision (sec. 332) that prohibits NHTSA from 
finalizing its rule on driver license identification. As such, 
the Committee has deleted funding for this initiative 
(-$325,000).
    Biomechanics.--At a minimum, NHTSA shall continue to 
support the biomechanics program at the 1999 level. The 
Committee continues to support the work conducted by the crash 
injury research and engineering network at the University of 
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey; the Charles McMathias 
National Study Center for Trauma and EMS; the William Lehman 
Injury Research Center; the Children's National Medical Center; 
the University of Michigan Medical Center; the University of 
California Medical School; and the Harborview Medical Center. 
It is important that these centers receive a consistent stream 
of funding from year to year.
    Human resource information center.--The Committee has not 
provided any funding for the human resource information center 
throughout the department. Further discussion can be found 
earlier in this report under the office of the secretary, 
office of the assistant secretary for administration. 
(-$223,000).
    National driver register.--Within the $2,000,000 provided 
for the national driver register, up to $250,000 can be used 
for the technology assessment authorized under section 2006 of 
TEA21.
    Bill language.--The Committee has included a provision 
prohibiting any agency funded in this Act from planning, 
finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking which would require 
passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling 
resistance. Also, the bill contains a general provision (sec. 
320) that prohibits funds from being used to prepare, 
prescribe, or promulgate corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 
standards for automobiles that differ from those previously 
enacted. The limitation does not preclude the Secretary of 
Transportation, in order to meet lead time requirements of the 
law, from preparing, proposing, and issuing a CAFE standard for 
model year 2002 automobiles that is identical to the CAFE 
standard established for such automobiles for model year 2001.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................      $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................       206,800,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       206,800,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +6,800,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................  ................
                                                               .........


    TEA21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway 
safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 
grant program, the occupant protection incentive grant program, 
and the state highway safety data improvement grant program. 
The Committee recommends $206,800,000 for the liquidation of 
contract authorization, which is a 3.4 percent increase over 
the 1999 enacted level. This funding is mandatory and has no 
scoring implications.

                       Limitation on Obligations

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year  1999  Fiscal year  2000   Recommended  in
                                                              enacted            estimate           the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety grants..................................       $150,000,000       $152,800,000       $152,800,000
Occupant protection grants.............................         10,000,000         10,000,000         10,000,000
Alcohol incentive grants...............................         35,000,000         36,000,000         36,000,000
State highway safety data improvements.................          5,000,000          8,000,000          8,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................        200,000,000        206,800,000        206,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Highway safety grants.--These grants are awarded to states 
for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and 
injuries. The states may use the grants to implement programs 
to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed 
limits; encourage proper use of occupant protection devices; 
reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes 
between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce school bus 
crashes; improve police traffic services; improve emergency 
medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian 
and bicyclist safety; increase safety among older and younger 
drivers; and improve roadway safety. The grants also provide 
additional support for state data collection and reporting of 
traffic deaths and injuries.
    An obligation limitation of $152,800,000 is included in the 
bill, which is the same amount as requested. The national 
occupant protection survey shall be funded within this total. 
Also, language is included in the bill that limits funding 
available for federal grants administration from this program 
to $7,500,000 for NHTSA.
    The bill continues to carry language that prohibits the use 
of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs 
or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or 
private buildings or structures.
    Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.--These grants 
will offer two-tiered basic and supplemental grants to reward 
states that pass new laws and start more effective programs to 
attack drunk and impaired driving. States may qualify for basic 
grants in two ways. First, they can implement 5 of the 
following 7 laws and programs: (1) administrative license 
revocation; (2) programs to prevent drivers under age 21 from 
obtaining alcoholic beverages; (3) intensive impaired driving 
law enforcement; (4) graduated licensing law with nighttime 
driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) drivers with high 
blood-alcohol-content (BAC); (6) young adult programs to reduce 
impaired driving by individuals ages 21-34; (7) an effective 
system for increasing the rate of testing for BAC of drivers in 
fatal crashes. Second, they can demonstrate a reduction in 
alcohol involved fatality rates in each of the last three years 
and demonstrate rates lower than the national average for each 
of the last three years. Supplemental grants are provided to 
states that adopt additional measures, including videotaping of 
drunk drivers by police; self-sustaining impaired driving 
programs; laws to reduce driving with suspended licenses; use 
of passive alcohol sensors by police; a system for tracking 
information on drunk drivers; and other innovative programs. 
The Committee has provided $36,000,000 for these grants in 
fiscal year 2000. Language is included in the bill that limits 
funding available for federal grants administration from this 
program to $1,750,000.
    In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant 
program, TEA21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six years 
for states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC law 
(section 163). For each fiscal year a state meets this 
criterion, it will receive a grant in the same ratio in which 
they receive section 402 funds. The states may use these funds 
for any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g. 
highway construction, bridge repair, etc.). This grant program, 
combined with the alcohol impaired driving incentive grant 
program will significantly increase the resources the 
department has to encourage states to adopt and enforce anti-
drunk driving legislation.
    Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has 
fully funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at 
$10,000,000. States may qualify for this new grant program by 
implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law 
requiring safety belt use by all front seat passengers; (2) a 
safety belt use law providing for primary enforcement; (3) 
minimum fines or penalty points for seat belt and child seat 
use law violations; (4) special traffic enforcement programs 
for occupant protection; (5) a child passenger protection 
education program; and (6) a child passenger protection law 
which requires minors to be properly secured. Language is 
included in the bill that limits funding available for federal 
grants administration from this program to $500,000.
    In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant 
program, TEA21 established a safety incentive grant program 
(section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage. 
The grant program totals $500,000,000 over six years. 
Allocations of federal grants require determinations of (1) 
seat belt use rates and improvements and (2) federal medical 
cost savings attributable to increased seat belt use. States 
that meet the section 157 requirements can use funds for any 
purpose under title 23, including highway construction and 
intelligent transportation systems. NHTSA and FHWA are jointly 
administering this program. NHTSA will collect the state data 
and determine the allocation of funds.
    State highway safety data improvements.--The Committee has 
provided $8,000,000 for the state highway safety data 
improvement grants program. To receive first year grants, a 
state has three options. Option 1: establish a multi-
disciplinary highway safety data and traffic records 
coordinating committee; complete a highway safety data and 
traffic records assessment or audit within the last five years; 
and initiate development of a multi-year highway safety data 
and traffic records strategic plan. Option 2: a state must 
certify that it has met the first two criteria in Option 1; 
submit a data and traffic records multi-year plan; and certify 
that the coordinating committee continues to operate and 
support the plan. Option 3: the Secretary may award grants of 
up to $25,000 for one year to any state that does not meet the 
criteria for Option 1. States that receive first year grants 
then would be eligible for subsequent grants by: submitting or 
updating a data and traffic multi-year plan; certifying that 
the coordinating committee continues to support the multi-year 
plan; and reporting annually on the progress made to implement 
the plan. Language is included in the bill that limits funding 
available for federal grants administration from this program 
to $223,000.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry, as well as managing the high speed ground 
transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance 
programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's 
physical plant are also administered by the FRA.
    The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal 
year 2000 is $718,724,000, which is $60,847,000 more than 
requested. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1999 
program levels, the fiscal year 2000 program requests and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year  1999  Fiscal year  2000   Recommended  in
                        Program                            enacted level         request            the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator............................        $21,215,000                ---                ---
Railroad safety........................................         61,488,000                ---                ---
Safety and operations \1\..............................       (85,574,000)        $95,462,000        $94,448,000
Safety and operations user fees........................                ---        -66,461,000                ---
Railroad research and development......................         22,364,000         21,800,000         21,300,000
Railroad research and development user fees............                ---        -21,300,000                ---
Next generation high speed rail........................         20,494,000         12,000,000         22,000,000
Alaska railroad........................................         38,000,000                ---                ---
Rhode Island rail development..........................          5,000,000         10,000,000         10,000,000
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation......        609,230,000        570,976,000        570,976,000
Rail initiative (limitation on obligations)............                ---       (35,400,000)                ---
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................       $777,791,000       $657,877,000      $718,724,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shown for comparability purposes; includes funding appropriated in the office of the administrator, railroad
  safety, a portion of the research and development account, and a portion of the next generation high-speed
  rail account.

                      Office of the Administrator





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................       $21,215,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................               ---
Recommended in the bill...............................               ---
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................       -21,215,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................               ---


    This account provides funds for executive direction and 
administration, policy support, passenger and freight services, 
salaries and expenses, and contractual support. The Committee 
recommends combining the office of the administrator with FRA's 
railroad safety program, and personnel from the railroad 
research and development and next generation high-speed rail 
programs, as described below.

                            Railroad Safety





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................       $61,488,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................               ---
Recommended in the bill...............................               ---
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................       -61,488,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................               ---


    The federal role in the railroad safety program is to 
protect railroad employees and the public by ensuring the safe 
operation of passenger and freight trains. The authority to 
accomplish this role is found in the Federal Railroad Safety 
Act of 1970 (as amended), the Department of Transportation Act, 
and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Greatly 
expanded railroad safety authority was granted the FRA under 
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988. The Committee 
recommends combining the office of the administrator with FRA's 
railroad safety program, and personnel from the railroad 
research and development and next generation high-speed rail 
programs, as described below.

                         Safety and Operations





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................     ($85,574,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000 \2\.................        95,462,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        94,448,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +8,874,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................       -1,014,000

\1\ Shown for comparability purposes; includes funding appropriated in
  the office of the administrator, railroad safety, a portion of the
  research and development account, and a portion of the next generation
  high-speed rail account.
\2\ Of this total, $66,461,000 was to be offset from new rail safety
  user fees.

    The administration's fiscal year 2000 request restructured 
FRA's salaries and expense accounts into one new account--
safety and operations. The restructuring consolidates the 
entire office of the administrator and railroad safety with 
personnel from the railroad research and development and next 
generation high-speed rail programs. The safety and operations 
account will provide support for FRA's rail safety activities 
and all other administrative and operating activities related 
to staff and programs. The presentation of all staffing and 
operations into a single account is consistent with account 
structures in other modal administrations.
    A total of $94,448,000 has been allocated for the new 
safety and operations account. The Committee is very supportive 
of this new structure. It should provide FRA more flexibility 
with its personnel and program costs. For example, under the 
new structure, FRA will have centralized costs for the entire 
administration instead of allocating costs within four 
different appropriations accounts. This will allow FRA to 
better track safety, administrative and program costs (such as 
rent, travel, and information technology), and reallocate 
funding or personnel to those programs that have immediate 
needs.
    The following adjustments have been made to the budget 
request:

Reduce funding for new positions........................       -$411,000
Deny funding for new human resource information system..        -253,000
Other support...........................................        -500,000
Credit availability study...............................        +150,000

    New positions.--The Committee has approved the new 
positions requested to support ongoing programs; however, it 
has reduced the funding available for these positions 
(-$411,000). The budget requested a total of $726,000 for 6.5 
new positions, which is over $113,000 per position. These costs 
are excessive, particularly for half-year funding. Funding has 
been reduced to $50,000 per position, which is the same funding 
level FRA hired its new safety inspectors in fiscal year 1999.
    Human resource information system.--The Committee has not 
provided any funding for the human resource information center 
throughout the department (-$253,000). Further discussion can 
be found earlier in this report under the office of the 
secretary, office of the assistant secretary for 
administration.
    Other support.--The administration requested $1,000,000 for 
other support costs; however, the budget documentation was only 
able to justify half of these costs. The Committee has denied 
the remainder (-$500,000).
    Credit availability study.--A total of $150,000 has been 
provided to study the availability of private sector credit to 
shortline and regional railroads. This study should include: 
(1) a review of the financial institutions that have provided 
credit to small railroads during the last 5 years, the general 
terms of the financing and the financial performance of the 
borrowers; (2) an assessment of the key financial measures of 
profitability, stability, and financial strength used by the 
financial institutions in evaluating the creditworthiness of 
the shortline and regional railroads that have received credit; 
and (3) an evaluation of the appropriateness to the small 
railroad industry of the financial performance ratios used by 
the financial institutions that have provided credit.
    Training.--Sufficient funding is included within the 
Committee's recommendation to provide for peer training. The 
safety assurance and compliance program initiatives have 
identified training as a significant systemic issue directly 
impacting safety. Comprehensive safety training is an essential 
element of any effective railroad safety program affecting 
every railroad safety craft. Despite significant efforts, there 
is widespread inconsistent interpretations and understanding of 
railroad safety rules and federal safety standards throughout 
the industry. To reduce these misunderstandings, it is 
essential that the rail work force be adequately and 
consistently trained. Peer training is one possible means to 
achieve this goal.
    Valley trains and trails.--The Committee remains interested 
in the successful development of scenic passenger train service 
in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley between Strasburg and New 
Market on track provided by Norfolk Southern Corporation. The 
Committee encourages the Administrator to continue working with 
the Commonwealth of Virginia, Valley Trains and Trails, and 
Norfolk Southern to fund a service and financing plan for the 
project.
    User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's 
request to collect $66,461,000 in user fees for railroad safety 
activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such 
authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund 
railroad safety activities in the traditional manner.

                   Railroad Research and Development





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................       $22,364,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000 1...................        21,800,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        21,300,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        -1,064,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................         -500,000

\1\ Of this total, $21,300,000 was to be offset from new railroad
  research and development user fees.

    The railroad research and development appropriation 
finances technical support for rail safety rulemaking and 
enforcement activities and contract research activities to 
reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents. The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,300,000 for fiscal 
year 2000, which is $500,000 less than requested. Funding to 
replace or upgrade FRA's T-6 track research vehicle has been 
denied. The Committee provided an appropriation for this effort 
in fiscal year 1999. It is unclear why this funding is needed 
again in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee has denied the request to collect $21,300,000 
in user fees from the railroad industry to fund research and 
development activities. Non-federal entities have been cost-
sharing with FRA on research and development projects since at 
least 1995. For example, within the track and vehicle track 
interaction program, the industry contributed 40 percent of the 
total program costs in 1999. To impose user fees on the same 
entities that are contributing research and development funds, 
equipment, or expertise could greatly diminish the benefits FRA 
already receives under this program. The Committee is concerned 
that these new user fees would, in essence, charge the 
community twice.
    Railcar Weight Study.--The Committee encourages the Federal 
Railroad Administrator to conduct a study regarding the track 
and bridge requirements for handling 286,000-pound rail cars. 
As higher capacity 286,000 rail cars are phased into the 
industry to increase the railroads' productivity and improve 
equipment utilization there is a need for additional 
information on the economic impact of handling larger cars on 
light density rail lines. Recognizing that the investments 
needed to upgrade a line to handle heavier cars are very site-
specific, the study should develop the unit costs that would 
enable such calculations to be made. An increasing number of 
individual shippers in rural areas stand to lose their rail 
service without this information. Accordingly, the Committee 
encourages that research funds be dedicated to such a study.

       Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program

    TEA21 establishes a railroad rehabilitation and improvement 
financing loan and loan guarantee program. The aggregate unpaid 
principal amounts of the obligations may not exceed $3.5 
billion at any one time. Not less than $1 billion is reserved 
for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads other than 
Class I carriers. The funding may be used (1) to acquire, 
improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or 
facilities, including track, components of track bridges, 
yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or 
(3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad 
facilities. No federal appropriation is required since a non-
federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy 
amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of 
a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established 
investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals 
and necessary determinations and findings.
    The Committee has included bill language specifying that no 
new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments can be made 
using federal funds for the payment of any credit premium 
amount during fiscal year 2000, as requested.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................       $20,494,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................        12,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        22,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +1,506,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................       +10,000,000


    The next generation high-speed rail program funds the 
development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed 
rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the 
program authorized in TEA-21.
    The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the next 
generation high-speed rail program. This is $10,000,000 more 
than requested. Total program funding is allocated as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------   Recommendation
                                                            1999 enacted       2000 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train control systems..................................         $4,300,000                ---        $10,000,000
    Illinois project...................................        (1,300,000)                ---        (7,000,000)
    Alaska railroad....................................        (3,000,000)                ---              (---)
    Michigan project...................................              (---)                ---        (3,000,000)
Non-electric locomotives...............................          9,800,000          6,800,000          6,800,000
    ALPS...............................................        (2,800,000)        (3,800,000)        (3,800,000)
    Prototype locomotive...............................        (7,000,000)        (3,000,000)        (3,000,000)
Grade crossings & Innovative technologies..............          4,600,000          4,000,000          4,000,000
    N.C. sealed corridor...............................        (1,000,000)          (400,000)          (400,000)
    Mitigating hazards.................................        (2,500,000)        (2,500,000)        (2,500,000)
    Low-cost technologies..............................        (1,100,000)        (1,100,000)        (1,100,000)
Track and structures...................................          1,200,000          1,200,000          1,200,000
Administration.........................................            594,000                ---                ---
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total..........................................         20,494,000         12,000,000         22,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Train control systems.--The Committee has provided 
$10,000,000 for two train control demonstration projects in the 
midwest. Both of these projects are critical to the development 
of safe, high-speed passenger rail service.
    In the past, funding for train control projects in the 
states of Illinois and Michigan has been provided under the 
next generation high-speed rail account. However, for fiscal 
year 2000, the administration requested that these projects be 
funded under a new rail initiative account, solely funded from 
revenue aligned budget authority. The Committee recommendation 
allocates revenue aligned budget authority consistent with 
existing law.
    Of the $10,000,000 appropriated for train control systems, 
$7,000,000 shall be provided to develop positive train control 
technology between Springfield and Chicago, Illinois. This 
project is estimated to cost $60,000,000, of which $22,900,000 
has already been committed. The $7,000,000 provided in this Act 
will be the second federal installment of this four-year 
project. The Committee expects that the Association of American 
Railroads and the State of Illinois will continue their 
commitments to the project as well, by contributing $15,000,000 
and $6,000,000, respectively, through fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee has also provided $3,000,000 for the Michigan 
incremental train control project in fiscal year 2000, the last 
year of federal funding for this project. According to FRA, the 
total cost to complete the demonstration and to enter into 
daily high-speed revenue service is $4,200,000. The state, 
Amtrak, and the manufacturers are expected to contribute the 
remaining $1,200,000 necessary to complete this project.
    Rail-highway crossings hazard eliminations.--Under section 
1103 of TEA21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is 
made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing 
hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are eligible for 
these funds. Of these set-aside funds, $1,000,000 shall be used 
to mitigate grade crossing hazards along North Carolina's 
sealed corridor; $1,000,000 shall be used between Washington 
D.C. and Richmond, Virginia; $1,000,000 shall be used between 
Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana; $750,000 shall be 
used between Schenectady and New York City, New York; and 
$750,000 shall be used along Oregon's high-speed rail corridor 
in Linn and Multnomah counties.
    Grade crossing program.--A general provision (sec. 337) is 
included in the bill that deletes the 10 percent non-federal 
match for the section 130 grade crossing program. Many states 
have difficulty expending section 130 funds, and as a result, 
some states have several years of unobligated balances. For 
example, the State of Wisconsin has $13,033,337 in unobligated 
balances, which equates to approximately four years of 
apportionments. Similarly the State of Oregon has $6,888,681 in 
unobligated balances, which approximates three years of 
apportionments. The Committee anticipates that by deleting the 
non-federal match, States should be able to reduce these 
unobligated balances and eliminate a greater number of grade 
crossing hazards than previously planned. The table below 
indicates the current unobligated balances by State and 
anticipated fiscal year 2000 section 130 apportionments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Rail/Highway Crossings
                                            ----------------------------
                   State                                     Unobligated
                                              Est. FY 2000   as of 9/30/
                                             Apportionment       98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................      3,220,384     2,081,282
Alaska.....................................      2,439,186     7,656,630
Arizona....................................      1,576,081     6,110,115
Arkansas...................................      2,457,429     2,764,038
California.................................     10,182,716     1,336,239
Colorado...................................      2,202,728     1,369,523
Connecticut................................      1,047,610       505,288
Delaware...................................        504,776       853,836
District of Columbia.......................        210,728       737,547
Florida....................................      4,686,707     6,590,786
Georgia....................................      4,696,264     7,661,114
Hawaii.....................................        391,793       783,586
Idaho......................................      1,429,320       731,748
Illinois...................................      7,926,261     5,798,777
Indiana....................................      4,962,375     6,376,330
Iowa.......................................      3,795,673     2,597,008
Kansas.....................................      4,870,650     1,080,910
Kentucky...................................      2,535,034     3,101,098
Louisiana..................................      3,176,113     1,980,187
Maine......................................        938,057     2,416,913
Maryland...................................      1,427,286     2,388,232
Massachusetts..............................      2,011,267     1,477,143
Michigan...................................      5,352,187     4,308,852
Minnesota..................................      4,041,936     4,616,218
Mississippi................................      2,240,007       989,401
Missouri...................................      3,998,022       309,740
Montana....................................      1,613,367     3,982,993
Nebraska...................................      2,661,323     5,584,417
Nevada.....................................        783,990        72,978
New Hampshire..............................        612,960        96,567
New Jersey.................................      2,691,259     1,390,033
New Mexico.................................      1,205,846       652,454
New York...................................      6,020,444     2,510,910
North Carolina.............................      3,981,325     3,994,275
North Dakota...............................      2,242,521       538,346
Ohio.......................................      6,301,744       758,151
Oklahoma...................................      3,300,832       171,391
Oregon.....................................      2,194,099     6,888,681
Pennsylvania...............................      5,804,391     1,085,639
Rhode Island...............................        445,013       776,895
South Carolina.............................      2,584,926     1,306,066
South Dakota...............................      1,654,832     3,803,916
Tennessee..................................      3,267,384     1,495,863
Texas......................................     10,906,280     5,771,981
Utah.......................................      1,152,999     2,936,055
Vermont....................................        618,631     3,962,126
Virginia...................................      2,731,204     2,448,246
Washington.................................      2,717,360     6,852,891
West Virginia..............................      1,708,309       896,187
Wisconsin..................................      3,929,021    13,033,337
Wyoming....................................        912,318       343,914
                                            ----------------------------
    Total..................................    154,362,968   147,976,853
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) shall 
work with the states to identify the ten most deadly crossings 
in each state and identify ways in which those crossings could 
be closed or reconfigured to reduce or mitigate the inherent 
dangers. The Committee believes that focusing on the most 
dangerous crossings in each state will greatly reduce the 
likelihood of fatal accidents. FRA and FHWA shall identify 
those crossings and the mitigations under consideration in a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 
May 1, 2000.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $5,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................        10,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        10,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +5,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................               ---


    The Rhode Island rail development project will construct a 
third track along portions of the Northeast Corridor between 
Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island. This third track 
will prevent mixing freight and high-speed passenger rail 
service and will provide sufficient clearance to accommodate 
double-stack freight cars.
    The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the Rhode Island 
rail development project, as requested. Between fiscal years 
1995 and 1999, a total of $28,000,000 in federal funds was 
appropriated to construct a third track. Of this total, 
$23,000,000 remains available for obligation. This funding is 
matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the state.
    The state has been slow to obligate previously appropriated 
funds. Although the state plans to begin the construction phase 
of the project in the spring of 1999, there has yet to be an 
increase in expenditures for the project. Currently the state 
is projecting a federal cash expenditure of $20,500,000 in 
fiscal year 2000, which is within the unobligated balances. 
Should the state accelerate construction on this project, 
additional funding will be available at the $10,000,000 level 
for this work in fiscal year 2000.

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................      $609,230,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................       570,976,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       570,976,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................       -38,254,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................             (---)


    The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a 
private/public corporation created by the Rail Passenger 
Service Act of 1970 and incorporated under the laws of the 
District of Columbia to operate a national rail passenger 
system. Amtrak started operation on May 1, 1971.

                            Status of Amtrak

    Over the past four years, Amtrak has undergone a remarkable 
change. Escalating expenses had been widening the gap between 
total revenues and expenses to such a point that Amtrak was 
concerned that it would not be able to borrow enough to cover 
these costs. Only two years ago, the President of Amtrak was 
discussing the possibility of bankruptcy. Within the last few 
years, Amtrak has been able to turn these numbers around. In 
1998, it achieved record passenger revenues, topping $1 
billion, and the largest ridership increase (4.5 percent) in a 
decade. Also, expenses were less than projected.
    In March, the Committee heard testimony from Amtrak, the 
Federal Railroad Administration, and the Department of 
Transportation's Inspector General about Amtrak's ability to 
achieve operational self-sufficiency. All three testified that, 
while possible, it would be difficult. For example, the 
Inspector General (IG) stated, ``overall assessment [of Amtrak] 
is that with strong leadership, intense management, and 
continued favorable economic conditions, it will be possible--
albeit difficult--for Amtrak to meet its Congressional mandate 
to become operationally self-sufficient by 2003.''
    To meet operational self-sufficiency, a number of crucial 
items must occur. These include: (1) enacting high-speed rail 
on a timely basis on the Northeast Corridor, (2) increasing 
capital investments, (3) meeting growth targets in the 
Intercity and on the West Coast, (4) completing the market-
based network analysis and implementing its results, and (5) 
continuing to grow mail and express opportunities.
    The first key element to reaching operating self-
sufficiency by 2003 will be Amtrak's ability to implement its 
high-speed rail program between New York and Boston at the 
beginning of fiscal year 2000. Amtrak and the IG testified that 
revenue from this new service is key to reaching self-
sufficiency. The high-speed rail program has experienced 
repeated delays and is on a very tight schedule. In March 1999, 
full system testing was scheduled for October, the same month 
that electrified service was scheduled to begin. More recently, 
Amtrak has stated that high-speed rail service will begin in 
November or December, yet another delay in the program.
    The second key element is for Amtrak to realize additional 
capital investments between fiscal years 2000 and 2003. The IG 
testified that while ``there is a good chance that Amtrak will 
be able to sustain operating self-sufficiency beyond 2002 . . . 
because of revenues from the Northeast Corridor . . . a caveat 
to this statement is needed.'' The IG estimated that Amtrak's 
``minimum capital investment level is $2.7 billion, which is 
$125,000,000 per year more than current projected federal 
appropriations. This minimum level would be enough to keep 
Amtrak operating in a steady state through 2003, but would make 
Amtrak vulnerable to equipment deterioration and schedule 
reliability problems after that date. If Amtrak cannot continue 
to invest in its capital needs at a sustainable level ($3 
billion), this could negatively impact its reliability and its 
ability to maintain operational self-sufficiency''.
    Third, operational self-sufficiency depends on continued 
growth in the Intercity and West Coast passenger revenues. The 
IG's November assessment of Amtrak's financial needs through 
fiscal year 2002, concluded both the Intercity and West Coast 
revenue estimates were overly optimistic. In addition, states 
must continue to support state services. It has come to the 
Committee's attention that certain states in these two business 
units may be reluctant to support their Amtrak services to the 
same level as in previous years, which may precipitate Amtrak 
to raise fares faster than anticipated in those areas, causing 
a decrease in ridership and passenger revenues to flatten or 
decline. This could be detrimental to Amtrak's self-
sufficiency.
    Fourth, Amtrak is undertaking a market-based network 
analysis that will help the railroad determine where 
adjustments are needed in the system. As part of this analysis, 
Amtrak must consider a full range of options, including route 
elimination and rationalization. Once the analysis is 
completed, Amtrak must have the fortitude to undertake the 
adjustments necessary to increase revenues and decrease 
expenses; however, without considering route elimination, the 
railroad may not have the capital necessary (e.g. locomotives, 
express cars, etc.) to assure the long-term success of these 
adjustments.
    Fifth, with the recent Surface Transportation Board ruling 
that allows Amtrak to operate express service with some 
limitation, Amtrak has an opportunity to increase its revenues. 
For the first five months of this year, express revenues 
increased 500 percent. In total, Amtrak hopes to collect 
$138,000,000 from the expansion of mail and express services by 
2002. Results to date make this a promising possibility.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The budget request sought $570,976,000 in capital funds and 
an expanded definition of ``capital'' to allow use of the 
capital appropriation for preventive maintenance. This level is 
the third installment of a five-year, $5 billion plan to re-
energize and recapitalize Amtrak. The Committee recommendation 
fully funds this request.
    Expanded capital definition.--The Administration and Amtrak 
requested a more flexible definition of the term ``capital'' 
arguing that Amtrak should be able to use its federal capital 
appropriations on maintenance of equipment, infrastructure, and 
facilities. Amtrak has indicated that as much as $481,000,000 
of the requested $570,976,000 may pay for preventive 
maintenance activities. Specifically, $304,000,000 is necessary 
for maintenance of equipment and $177,000,000 is needed for 
maintenance of way. The remainder will be used for long-term 
capital investments and debt service.
    With the passage of the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA) and 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999, Amtrak was permitted to use its TRA 
funds and its capital grant appropriation to finance 
maintenance of equipment. In 1999, this equated to 
$353,000,000.
    Amtrak's fiscal year 2000 grant request states that if the 
expanded definition ``were not provided, Amtrak will not be 
able to remain on the glidepath to operational self-
sufficiency, nor will the corporation make it, on a cash basis, 
through fiscal year 2000.'' In the Committee hearing on 
Amtrak's viability, the Inspector General concurred noting, 
``if Amtrak does not receive the expanded capital definition, 
it will not be able to cover its operating losses and could be 
forced to default on current obligations. This could occur even 
though Amtrak is likely to have $1 billion in Taxpayer Relief 
Act (TRA) funds in the bank''. Because TRA and the 1999 
appropriations Act permitted Amtrak to use its capital funding 
for maintenance of equipment only, when Amtrak's annual federal 
appropriation is used to fully fund the maintenance of 
equipment, no TRA funds can legally be used to cover additional 
operating expenses. Amtrak estimates that this shortfall will 
be $47,000,000.
    Amtrak, the Administration, and the Inspector General all 
support greater flexibility. Restricting Amtrak's permissible 
uses for its federal appropriation in fiscal year 2000 would be 
shortsighted. It could force Amtrak to default on its current 
obligations at a time when many are cautiously optimistic that 
the railroad may become operationally self-sufficient two years 
later. The Committee concurs and approves the request of Amtrak 
and the Administration to use Amtrak's capital appropriations 
for preventive maintenance.
    Bill language.--The Committee has included bill language 
that prohibits Amtrak from obligating more than $228,400,000 
prior to September 30, 2000. Last year, Amtrak's Board of 
Directors agreed to hold its capital expenditures to 40 
percent. At the time the Board made this commitment, Amtrak 
hoped to use the expanded capital definition to cover what had 
previously been defined as operating costs, such as maintenance 
of equipment and way without increasing the spend-out rate for 
its capital programs. Since the Committee has permitted Amtrak 
to use capital appropriations for previously defined operating 
expenses in fiscal year 2000, the Committee must continue to 
hold Amtrak to the 40 percent obligation limitation that the 
Board adopted last year.
    Fencing along the Northeast Corridor.--The Committee 
recognizes that Amtrak has made progress in enhancing safety 
along the tracks where high-speed rail will be operating. 
Amtrak should continue to work closely with northeast corridor 
communities, as well as state transit officials and owners of 
the track, to identify dangerous locations and install 
perimeter fencing along the Corridor, wherever needed. In 
particular, Amtrak should continue to focus on increased 
community coordination in urbanized areas where there have been 
problems or community concerns have been expressed, such as 
near Attleboro, Foxboro, Mansfield, and Sharon, Massachusetts. 
Amtrak should ensure that fencing improvements for these areas 
is completed before high-speed rail is operational.
    Beech Grove maintenance facility.--The Committee recognizes 
that Amtrak's heavy overhaul facility in Beech Grove, Indiana 
is in need of capital investment. The Committee is also aware 
that Amtrak's investment needs are greater than its available 
funds. Amtrak shall submit a report to the Committee within 90 
days of enactment of this Act, detailing its plans, including a 
proposed timeline and a list of priorities, for capital 
improvements at its Beech Grove facility, should capital funds 
be available.

                            Rail Initiatives


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................               ---
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................       $35,400,000
Recommended in the bill...............................               ---
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................               ---
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................       -35,400,000


    The Administration has proposed a new rail initiative 
program that would be funded from revenue aligned budget 
authority. This new program would fund three rail initiatives: 
grade crossings in high-speed rail corridors ($15,000,000), two 
train control systems ($10,000,000), and a nationwide 
differential global positioning system ($10,400,000).
    Funding for the rail initiatives under this new account 
structure has been denied. The Committee opposes altering the 
distribution of revenue aligned budget authority to any program 
outside of those authorized under TEA21. The rail initiative is 
one of many diversions proposed by the administration, which 
propose higher spending levels contingent upon passage of 
legislation and user fees that the administration knows are 
highly unlikely.
    The Committee has deferred consideration of further 
increases in funding for grade crossings beyond those 
guaranteed levels contained in TEA21 and available through the 
highway formula, until the Committee sees the results of a 
general provision deleting the 10 percent non-federal match 
required for the section 130 hazard elimination program. This 
program provides roughly $155,000,000 per year to the states. 
Eliminating the non-federal match should allow states to 
address grade crossing hazards on a more expeditious basis and 
defer any current requirements for additional resources.
    The Committee has provided $10,000,000 in the next 
generation high-speed rail account to fund two positive train 
control demonstration projects in the states of Illinois and 
Michigan. The Committee has funded these two projects for 
several years which are a key component of a partnership forged 
by Amtrak, FRA and nine midwestern States to bring high-speed 
rail to Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin, as part of the midwest regional 
rail initiative.
    The Committee has denied any funding for the nationwide 
differential global positioning system (-$10,400,000). 
Seventeen federal agencies and private entities will be the 
beneficiaries of this system. Last year, the department stated 
that these agencies, particularly Agriculture, would be the 
primary beneficiaries of this information. Since the Department 
of Transportation is not the principal beneficiary, the 
Committee believes that it should not be the only source of 
funding for this system in fiscal year 2000 or beyond. Last 
year, the Committee urged the department to finalize plans to 
collect contributions for this network from the other federal 
agencies and private sources to fund the conversion of GWEN 
sites to a DGPS network and to provide such a proposal to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. This report has 
not been delivered to the committees yet.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as 
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal 
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were 
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation 
Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit 
Administration administers federal financial assistance 
programs for planning, developing and improving comprehensive 
mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
    Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration 
is provided by annual limitations on obligations provided in 
appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are 
required for every accounts.
    The current authorization for the programs funded by the 
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). TEA21 
also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two 
additional discretionary spending categories, the highway 
category and the mass transit category. The mass transit 
category is comprised of transit formula grants, transit 
capital, investments funding, Federal Transit Administration 
administrative expenses, transit planning and research, job 
access and reverse commute grants, and university 
transportation research center funding. The mass transit 
category obligations are capped at $5,797,000,000 and outlays 
are capped at $4,761,000,000 in fiscal year 2000. Any 
additional appropriated funding above the levels specified as 
guaranteed for each transit program in TEA21 (that which could 
be appropriated from general funds authorized under section 
5338(h)) is scored against the non-defense discretionary 
category.
    The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 2000 is 
$5,797,000,000, including $1,159,000,000 direct appropriations 
and $4,638,000,000 limitations on contract authority. The total 
recommended is $407,000,000 over the 1999 enacted level, 
$291,270,000 below the fiscal year 2000 budget request, and the 
same level as guaranteed in TEA21. The following table 
summarizes the fiscal year 1999 program levels, the fiscal year 
2000 budget request, and the fiscal year 2000 program levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Recommended  in
                        Program                             1999 enacted       2000 request         the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................        $54,000,000        $60,000,000        $60,000,000
Formula grants \1\.....................................      2,850,000,000      3,310,270,000      3,098,000,000
University transportation research.....................          6,000,000          6,000,000          6,000,000
Transit planning and research \1\......................         98,000,000        111,000,000        107,000,000
Capital investment grants..............................      2,257,000,000      2,451,000,000      2,451,000,000
Job access and reverse commute grants \1\..............         75,000,000        150,000,000         75,000,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.........         50,000,000                ---                ---
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................      5,390,000,000      6,088,270,000     5,797,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The budget request included a proposal to transfer a total of $291,270,000 in obligational authority
  resulting from revenue aligned budget authority, of which $212,270,000 was to be transferred to formula
  grants; $4,000,000 to the national program of the transit planning and research account; and $75,000,000 to
  the job access and reverse commute grants program.

                        Administrative Expenses



                                                        Limitation on
                                   Appropriation      obligations (Trust
                                   (General fund)           fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year              $10,800,000        ($43,200,000)
 1999 \1\.....................
Budget request, fiscal year              12,000,000         (48,000,000)
 2000.........................
Recommended in the bill.......           12,000,000         (48,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year           +1,200,000         (+4,800,000)
 1999.........................
    Budget request, fiscal                      ---                (---)
 year 2000....................

\1\ Excludes reductions of $912,000 for TASC.

    The bill provides a total appropriation of $60,000,000 for 
FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $6,000,000 
above the 1999 enacted level and the same level as the budget 
request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit 
funding category. The recommended appropriation of $60,000,000 
is comprised of an appropriation of $12,000,000 from the 
general fund and $48,000,000 from limitations on obligations 
from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
    Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee 
observes that TEA21 has imposed additional duties on the FTA 
and approves the budget request to increase staffing at the FTA 
by 10 FTE. The Committee directs that the FTE level in fiscal 
year 2000 not rise in excess of 495 FTE.
    Information technology activities.--The Committee 
recommendation deletes funds for the human resources 
information system (-$200,000) as systems development is 
premature. Further discussion is included under the 
appropriation for the office of the assistant secretary for 
administration in the office of the secretary.
    In addition, the Committee has deferred consideration of 
several information technology activities (-$2,500,000), since 
the FTA is unable to inform the Committee of the out-year 
financial requirements to complete systems review, development 
and acquisition. Funding for development of several new major 
information technology systems cannot be fully justified until 
such time as future annual and total costs for such systems are 
fully developed and submitted to the Committee for 
consideration. The Committee will reconsider the request for 
information technology activities when FTA submits complete 
cost estimates. The Committee encourages the FTA to submit such 
documentation and justification before final consideration of 
the fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act.
    Project management oversight activities.--The Committee 
directs the FTA to increase its financial management oversight 
activities within the funds provided under the project 
management oversight program, section 23. The Committee 
believes it is imperative that the FTA understand more fully 
the financing proposals of major transit projects authorized in 
TEA21 before entering into full funding grant agreements and to 
identify critical funding deficiencies or inadequate financing 
plans before such funding shortfalls materialize. The 
experience to date with several projects in FTA's current 
portfolio suggests a more aggressive approach by the FTA is 
needed. The Committee directs that not less than $4,500,000 
shall be available in fiscal year 2000 for the conduct of such 
financial management oversight reviews.
    The Committee has included bill language requiring the FTA 
to transfer to the Inspector General $800,000 for reimbursement 
of audits and reviews of major transit projects, continuing a 
provision contained in the fiscal year 1999 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Over 
the past several years, the IG has provided critical oversight 
of several major transit projects, which the Committee has 
found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that such oversight 
activities will be continued by the Inspector General in fiscal 
year 2000.
    Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--The Committee 
observes that cost increases on several projects with existing 
FFGAs suggest that the FFGAs for those projects may have been 
executed too early during the conceptual design phase. As a 
result, the project's scope and design were not substantially 
complete and total costs to construct the project were not 
reliably identified at the time the full funding grant 
agreement was executed. To more fully anticipate the federal 
and local financial requirements necessary to undertake such 
large transportation investments, the FTA is directed not to 
execute any full funding grant agreements for projects that 
have not completed at least eighty percent of the design phase.
    The FTA is directed to notify in writing the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 60 days 
before issuing a new full funding grant agreement. Such 
correspondence shall include: (1) a copy of the proposed FFGA; 
(2) the total and annual federal appropriations required for 
the project; (3) yearly and total federal appropriations that 
can be reasonably planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for 
each fiscal year through 2003; and (4) a detailed analysis of 
annual commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs against 
the program authorization. The Committee further directs that 
such correspondence include a financial analysis of the 
project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance, which shall be 
conducted by an independent examiner. This independent 
evaluation shall contain pertinent information, including an 
assessment of the capital cost estimate and the finance plan; 
the source and security of all public- and private-sector 
financial instruments; the project's operating plan which 
enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership 
forecasts; and planned contingencies and risks associated with 
the project.
    The Committee directs the FTA to be judicious in the 
development and execution of new full funding grant agreements 
in fiscal year 2000 in order to preserve a sufficient level of 
new starts contract authority to allow other new fixed guideway 
projects to participate in the capital new starts program 
during the balance of the TEA21 authorization period.

                             Formula Grants



                                                        Limitation on
                                   Appropriation      obligations (Trust
                                   (General fund)           fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year             $570,000,000     ($2,280,000,000)
 1999.........................
Budget request, fiscal year             619,600,000      (2,690,670,000)
 2000 \1\.....................
Recommended in the bill.......          619,600,000      (2,478,400,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year          +49,600,000       (+198,400,000)
 1999.........................
    Budget request, fiscal      ...................       (-212,270,000)
 year 2000....................

\1\ Includes $212,270,000 in obligations proposed to be transferred from
  revenue aligned budget authority.

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,098,000,000 
for transit formula grants. This level is $248,000,000 above 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level of $2,850,000,000 and is 
guaranteed under the transit category.
    The recommended program level of $3,098,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $619,600,000 from the general 
fund and $2,478,400,000 from limitations on obligations from 
the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. 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 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 $3,098,000,000, the new 
statutory distribution of formula grants is allocated among the 
following activities:




Urbanized areas (sec. 5307)...........................    $2,772,890,281
Clean fuels (sec. 5308)...............................        50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)......................        72,946,801
Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311).......................       193,612,968
Rural transportation accessibility incentive program..         3,700,000
Alaska Railroad.......................................         4,849,950


    Section 3007 of TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized 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 to fund capital projects, and to finance planning and 
preventive maintenance of equipment, facilities, and vehicles 
used in mass transportation. All urbanized areas greater than 
200,000 in population are statutorily required to use one 
percent of their annual formula grants on enhancements, which 
include landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and 
connections to parks.
    Major project preliminary engineering and design (PE&D).--
The accompanying bill provides appreciable increases in formula 
funds allocated to transit authorities. These funds can be 
used, among other activities, for preliminary engineering and 
design of new rail extensions or busways. The Committee asserts 
that local project sponsors of new rail extensions or busways 
should use these funds for PE&D activities rather than seek 
section 5309 discretionary set-asides. The numerous 
authorizations for new fixed guideway projects contained in 
TEA21 and the limited funding available annually for 
preliminary engineering and design of such new systems will 
necessitate local sponsors to use their formula apportionment 
and other local funds for preliminary engineering and design 
activities. Moreover, the Committee expects the FTA, when 
evaluating the local financial commitment of a given project, 
to consider the extent to which the project's sponsors have 
used the appreciable increases in the formula grants 
apportionments for preliminary engineering and design 
activities of proposed new systems.
    Clean fuels program.--TEA21 requires that $50,000,000 be 
set aside from funds made available under the formula grants 
program to fund a new clean fuels program. The clean fuels 
program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the 
major capital investment's bus program and 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. The Committee has identified designated 
recipients of these funds within the projects listed under the 
bus program of the capital investment grants account.
    Requested set-asides.--The Committee has not earmarked 
funding requested for several projects from amounts made 
available for the section 5307 formula program. The budget 
proposed to set aside $20,000,000 for the Long Island East Side 
Access project; $25,000,000 for Salt Lake City 2002 Winter 
Olympic Games transportation-related activities; and a total of 
$5,000,000 (of which $3,700,000 is guaranteed and $1,300,000 is 
derived from revenue aligned budget authority) for the over-
the-road accessibility program. These set-asides were to be 
derived from additional budget resources transferred to the 
section 5307 formula program from revenue aligned budget 
authority. The Committee has not approved the transfer of 
revenue aligned budget authority and therefore additional 
resources above the guaranteed level are not available for 
these specific purposes.
    The following table displays the state-by-state 
distribution of the formula funds within each of the program 
categories:


                   University Transportation Research



                                                         Limitation on
                                      Appropriation       obligations
                                      (General fund)      (Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...         $1,200,000       ($4,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000..          1,200,000        (4,800,000)
Recommended in the bill...........          1,200,000        (4,800,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year                    ---              (---)
 1999.............................
    Budget request, fiscal year                   ---              (---)
 2000.............................


    The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for 
university transportation research. The recommendation is the 
same level as provided in fiscal year 1999. This appropriation 
is guaranteed under the transit funding category.
    The recommended program level of $6,000,000 is comprised of 
an appropriation of $1,200,000 from the general fund and 
$4,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund.

                     Transit Planning and Research



                                                         Limitation on
                                      Appropriation       obligations
                                      (General fund)      (Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...        $19,800,000      ($78,200,000)
Budget request, fiscal year                21,000,000       (90,000,000)
 2000\1\..........................
Recommended in the bill...........         21,000,000       (86,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year             +1,200,000       (+7,800,000)
 1999.............................
    Budget request, fiscal year                    --       (-4,000,000)
 2000.............................

\1\ Includes $4,000,000 in obligations proposed to be transferred from
  revenue aligned budget authority.

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $107,000,000 for 
transit planning and research. The recommendation is $9,000,000 
more than provided in fiscal year 1999 and $4,000,000 less than 
the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the 
transit funding category. The Committee has not approved an 
additional $4,000,000 in obligations for the national program 
to be derived from revenue aligned budget authority.
    The recommended program level of $107,000,000 is comprised 
of an appropriation of $21,000,000 from the general fund and 
$86,000,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund.
    The bill contains language specifying that $49,632,000 
shall be available for metropolitan planning; $10,368,000 shall 
be available for state planning; $29,500,000 shall be available 
for national planning and research; $8,250,000 shall be 
available for transit cooperative research; $4,000,000 shall be 
available for the National Transit Institute; and $5,250,000 
shall be available for rural transportation assistance.
    TEA21 earmarks the following projects within the funds 
provided for the national program in fiscal year 2000:

Washoe County, Nevada transit technology................      $1,250,000
MBTA, Massachusetts advanced electric transit buses and 
    related infrastructure..............................       1,500,000
Palm Springs, California fuel cell buses................       1,000,000
Gloucester, Massachusetts intermodal technology center..       1,500,000
SEPTA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania advanced propulsion 
    control system (TEA21)..............................       3,000,000
Project ACTION..........................................       3,000,000

    Support in fiscal year 2000 is provided for a number of 
important initiatives including:

Advanced transportation and alternative fueled vehicle 
    technology consortium...............................      $2,750,000
Safety and security programs............................       5,450,000
International program...................................       1,000,000
Santa Barbara Electric Transit Institute................       1,750,000
Hennepin County community transportation, Minnesota.....       1,000,000
Pittsfield economic development authority electric bus 
    program.............................................       1,500,000
Independent transportation network, Portland, Maine.....         500,000
Citizens for Modern Transit, Missouri...................         300,000

    In addition, the FTA is directed to undertake a project, in 
partnership with the transit industry, to identify the common 
accident causal factors, how to collect data on those factors, 
and how such information collection might be incorporated into 
the National Transit Database safety data collection process. 
Such an effort shall address the concerns raised by the 
National Transportation Safety Board. The recommendation also 
includes sufficient funding to conduct an assessment of the 
benefits of new transit investments compared with investments 
to maintaining existing infrastructure. To offset funding 
necessary for these activities, the Committee has deleted 
funding for several low priority activities, including $200,000 
for an information data outreach project.
    Fuel cell bus program.--The Committee directs that none of 
the funds available under this heading shall be available to 
supplement funding provided under section 3015(b) of TEA21 for 
the fuel cell bus and bus facilities program. To the extent 
that supplemental funding is believed necessary above the 
$29,100,000 provided in TEA21, the Committee directs the FTA 
and Georgetown University to obtain additional funding support 
from transit agencies that have expressed interest in fuel cell 
transit buses and other corporate sponsors to finance such 
perceived program shortfalls.
    Advanced transportation and alternative fueled vehicle.--
The Committee has included $2,750,000 for the advanced 
transportation and alternative fueled vehicle program. Within 
the funds provided, $500,000 shall be made available to WESTART 
and $2,250,000 shall be made available to CALSTART.
    The Committee has deleted funds for several lower priority 
activities, including $200,000 for an information data outreach 
project.
    Within the funds provided for safety activities, the FTA is 
directed to undertake a project, in partnership with the 
transit industry, to identify the common accident causal 
factors, how to collect data on those factors, and how much 
information collection might be incorporated into the National 
Transit Database safety collection process. Such an effort 
shall address the concerns raised by the National 
Transportation Safety Board.
    The FTA is further directed to conduct an assessment of the 
benefits of new transit investments compared with investments 
to maintaining existing infrastructure.

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999....................     ($4,251,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000...................      (4,929,270,000)
Recommended in the bill............................      (4,638,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999................       (+386,200,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000...............       (-291,270,000)


    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee has provided 
$4,638,000,000 for liquidation of contract authorization. The 
increase over last year is necessary to pay outstanding 
obligations of the various transit programs at the levels 
contained in TEA21. This appropriation is mandatory and has no 
scoring effect.

                       Capital Investment Grants



                                                         Limitation on
                                       Appropriation  obligations (Trust
                                      (General fund)         fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.....    $451,400,000    ($1,805,600,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000....     490,200,000     (1,960,800,000)
Recommended in the bill.............     490,200,000     (1,960,800,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.     +38,800,000        +155,200,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000             ---                 ---


    The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,451,000,000 to 
be available for capital investment grants. The recommendation 
is $194,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 1999 and the 
same level as the budget request. This appropriation is 
guaranteed under the transit category.
    The recommended program level of $2,451,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $490,200,000 from the general 
fund and $1,960,800,000 from limitations on obligations from 
the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
    Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be 
distributed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Recommended  in
                                                            1999 enacted       2000 request         the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed guideway modernization...........................       $902,800,000       $980,400,000       $980,400,000
New starts.............................................        902,800,000        980,400,000        980,400,000
Bus and bus facilities.................................        451,400,000        490,200,000        490,200,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................      2,257,000,000      2,451,000,000      2,451,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three-year availability of section 5309 funds.--The 
Committee has included bill language that permits the 
administrator to reallocate discretionary new start and buses 
and bus facilities funds from projects which remain unobligated 
after three years. Funds made available in the fiscal year 1997 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act and previous Acts are available for 
reallocation in fiscal year 2000 as availability for these 
discretionary projects is limited to three years. The Committee 
directs the FTA to reprogram funds from recoveries and previous 
appropriations that remain available after three years and are 
available for reallocation to only those section 3 new starts 
that have full funding grant agreements in place on the date of 
enactment of this Act, and with respect to bus and bus 
facilities, only to those bus and bus facilities projects 
identified in the accompanying reports of the fiscal year 2000 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. The FTA shall notify the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations 15 business days prior to any such 
reallocation, consistent with the department's reprogramming 
guidelines.
    The Committee, however, directs the FTA not to reallocate 
funds provided in the fiscal year 1997 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the 
Houston regional bus plan, the New Orleans Streetcar project, 
the Buffalo intermodal center, and the Jackson, Mississippi 
intermodal corridor and bus projects. The FTA informs the 
Committee that these funds are likely to be awarded in the 
fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999 or soon thereafter.

                        BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

    The accompanying bill provides $490,200,000 for bus 
purchases and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and 
intermodal facilities. Bus systems are expected to play a vital 
role in the mass transportation systems of virtually all 
cities. FTA estimates that 95 percent of the areas that provide 
mass transit service do so through bus transit only and over 60 
percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus.
    TEA21 requires that funding of $100,000,000 be made 
available for a new clean fuels grant program. This funding is 
derived from $50,000,000 from the formula grants account and 
$50,000,000 from funds allocated for buses under this account. 
Designated recipients of the clean fuels grant program--funding 
for which is derived in part from the formula grants program--
are identified in the lists below (to the extent funding is 
allocated for the purchase of eligible alternative-fuel 
vehicles, related facilities and other eligible activities).
    TEA21 requires that the funds provided for buses and bus 
facilities be allocated as follows:


                   State and project                         Amount

State of Alabama: Birmingham-Jefferson County buses...        $1,250,000
State of Arkansas:
    Arkansas Highway and Transit Department buses.....         2,000,000
    Fayetteville, University of Arkansas Transit                 500,000
     System buses.....................................
    Hot Springs Transportation Depot and Plaza........           560,000
    Little Rock Central Arkansas Transit buses........           300,000
State of California:
    Culver City, CA CityBus buses.....................         1,250,000
    Davis, CA Unitrans transit maintenance facility...           625,000
    Healdsburg Intermodal Facility....................         1,000,000
    Livermore automatic vehicle locator...............         1,000,000
    Los Angeles Union Station Gateway Intermodal               1,250,000
     Transit Center...................................
    Modesto bus maintenance facility..................           625,000
    Monterey-Salinas transit buses....................           625,000
    Perris bus maintenance facility...................         1,250,000
    Sacramento CNG buses..............................         1,250,000
    Santa Clarita buses...............................         1,250,000
    Santa Cruz bus facility...........................           625,000
    San Francisco, Islais Creek bus maintenance                1,250,000
     facility.........................................
    Santa Rosa/Cotati Intermodal Transportation                  750,000
     Facilities.......................................
    Windsor Intermodal Facility.......................           750,000
    Woodland Hills Warner Center Transportation Hub...           625,000
State of Colorado:
    Boulder/Denver, CO RTD buses......................           625,000
    Denver Stapleton Intermodal Center................         1,250,000
State of Connecticut:
    New Haven bus facility............................         2,250,000
    Norwich buses.....................................         2,250,000
    Waterbury bus facility............................         2,250,000
District of Columbia: Washington, D.C. intermodal              2,500,000
 transportation center................................
State of Florida:
    Daytona Beach intermodal center...................         2,500,000
    Lakeland, FL Citrus Connection transit vehicles            1,250,000
     and related equipment............................
    Miami Beach Electric Shuttle Service..............           750,000
    Miami-Dade buses..................................         2,250,000
    Orlando downtown intermodal facility..............         2,500,000
State of Georgia: Atlanta MARTA buses.................        13,500,000
State of Hawaii: Honolulu bus facility and buses......         2,250,000
State of Iowa:
    Fort Dodge Intermodal Facility (Phase II).........           885,000
    Iowa/Illinois Transit Consortium bus safety and            1,000,000
     security.........................................
State of Illinois: statewide buses and bus-related             8,200,000
 equipment............................................
State of Indiana:
    Gary Transit Consortium buses.....................         1,250,000
    Indianapolis buses................................         5,000,000
    South Bend Urban Intermodal Transportation                 1,250,000
     Facility.........................................
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
    Springfield Union Station.........................         1,250,000
    Worcester Union Station intermodal transportation          2,500,000
     center...........................................
State of Maryland: statewide bus facilities and buses.        11,500,000
State of Michigan: statewide buses....................        13,500,000
State of Minnesota:
    Duluth Transit Authority community circulation             1,000,000
     vehicles.........................................
    Duluth Transit Authority intelligent                         500,000
     transportation systems...........................
    Duluth Transit Authority Transit Hub..............           500,000
    Northstar Corridor Intermodal Facilities and buses        10,000,000
State of Missouri: St. Louis Bi-state Intermodal               1,250,000
 Center...............................................
State of North Carolina:
    Greensboro multimodal center......................         3,339,000
    Greensboro Transit Authority buses................         1,500,000
State of New Jersey:
    New Jersey Transit jitney shuttle buses...........         1,750,000
    Newark, NJ Morris & Essex Station access and buses         1,250,000
    South Amboy regional intermodal transportation             1,250,000
     initiative.......................................
State of New Mexico:
    Albuquerque, NM buses.............................         1,250,000
    Washoe County transit improvements................         2,250,000
State of New York:
    Babylon intermodal center.........................         1,250,000
    Buffalo Auditorium Intermodal Center..............         2,000,000
    Dutchess County Loop System buses.................           521,000
    Ithaca TCAT bus technology improvements...........         1,250,000
    Long Island CNG transit vehicles and facilities...         1,250,000
    Mineola/Hicksville LIRR Intermodal Centers........         1,250,000
    New York West 72nd St. Intermodal Station.........         1,750,000
    Rensselaer intermodal bus facility................         6,000,000
    Utica Union Station...............................         2,100,000
    Westchester County Bee-Line transit system                   979,000
     fareboxes........................................
    Westchester County Bee-Line transit system shuttle         1,000,000
     buses............................................
    Westchester County DOT articulated buses..........         1,250,000
State of Ohio:
    Dayton Multimodal Transportation Center...........           625,000
    Cleveland, Triskett garage bus maintenance                   625,000
     facility.........................................
State of Oklahoma: statewide bus facilities and buses.         5,000,000
State of Oregon:
    Lane County, bus rapid transit....................         4,400,000
    Portland Tri-Met buses............................         1,750,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
    Allegheny County, buses...........................         1,500,000
    Altoona Metro Transit Authority buses and transit            842,000
     system improvements..............................
    Armstrong Mid-County transit authority bus                   150,000
     facilities and buses.............................
    Cambria County bus facilities and buses...........           575,000
    Centre Area Transportation Authority buses........         1,250,000
    Chester County Paoli Transportation Center........         1,000,000
    Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority buses.........         1,000,000
    Fayette County intermodal facilities and buses....         1,270,000
    Lackawanna County Transit System buses............           600,000
    Philadelphia Frankford Transportation Center......         5,000,000
    Philadelphia Intermodal 30th Street Station.......         1,250,000
    Reading, BARTA intermodal transportation facility.         1,750,000
    Robinson Towne Center Intermodal Facility.........         1,500,000
    Somerset County transportation bus facilities and            175,000
     buses............................................
    Towamencin Township Intermodal Bus Transportation          1,500,000
     Center...........................................
    Washington County intermodal facilities...........           630,000
    Westmoreland County intermodal facility...........           200,000
    Wilkes-Barre intermodal facility..................         1,250,000
    Williamsport Bus Facility.........................         1,200,000
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: San Juan intermodal                 600,000
 access...............................................
State of Rhode Island: Providence buses and bus                3,294,000
 maintenance facility.................................
State of South Carolina: statewide Virtual Transit             1,220,000
 Enterprise...........................................
State of South Dakota: statewide bus facilities and            1,500,000
 buses................................................
State of Texas:
    Austin buses......................................         1,250,000
    Texas statewide small urban and rural buses.......         4,500,000
State of Utah:
    Ogden Intermodal Center...........................           800,000
    Utah Transit Authority Intermodal Facilities......         1,500,000
    Utah Transit Authority/Park City Transit buses....         6,500,000
Commonwealth of Virginia:
    Alexandria bus maintenance facility...............         1,000,000
    Richmond GRTC bus maintenance facility............         1,250,000
State of Washington:
    Everett multimodal transportation center..........         1,950,000
    Mount Vernon Multimodal Center....................         1,750,000
    Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal........         1,250,000
State of Wisconsin:
    Milwaukee County buses............................         6,000,000
    Wisconsin statewide buses and bus facilities......        12,000,000
State of West Virginia:
    Huntington Intermodal Facility....................        12,000,000
    Statewide Intermodal Facility and buses...........         5,000,000
Other legislated set-asides:
    Altoona, Pennsylvania, bus testing................         3,000,000
    Fuel cell bus project (Georgetown University).....         4,850,000


    In addition, federal support is provided for the following 
projects:



                   State and Project                         Amount

State of Alabama:
    Cullman, AL, buses................................          $500,000
    Guntersville, AL, buses...........................           500,000
    Huntsville, AL, intermodal facility...............         2,500,000
    Jefferson State Community College/University of              200,000
     Montevallo pedestrian walkway....................
    Valley, AL, buses.................................           110,000
State of Arizona:
    Phoenix South Central Avenue transit facility.....         1,000,000
    Phoenix, AZ, buses................................         6,500,000
    San Luis, AZ, buses...............................           140,000
    Tucson, AZ, buses and intermodal facility.........         5,235,000
    Yuma, AZ, special needs buses.....................           125,000
State of California:
    California Mountain Area Regional Transit                     80,000
     Authority fueling stations.......................
    Interstate 5 corridor transit centers.............         2,500,000
    Lodi, CA, multimodal facility.....................         1,700,000
    Los Angeles County Foothill Transit buses and HEV          3,000,000
     vehicles.........................................
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation             7,000,000
     Authority buses and bus-related facilities.......
    Los Angeles municipal transit operators coalition          5,000,000
     buses............................................
    Maywood, Commerce, Bell, and Cudahy, California            1,600,000
     buses and bus facilities.........................
    Orange County, LA, bus and bus facilities.........         4,000,000
    Redlands, CA, trolley project.....................           800,000
    San Bernardino Valley, CA, CNG buses and bus               1,000,000
     facilities.......................................
    San Bernardino train station......................         4,000,000
    San Diego North County CNG buses and bus                   6,000,000
     facilities.......................................
    San Francisco county connection buses.............           500,000
    Santa Barbara, buses and bus facility.............         2,000,000
    Santa Cruz, buses and bus facilities..............         2,260,000
    Santa Maria Valley/Santa Barbara County, CA, buses           480,000
    Westminster, CA, vans.............................           300,000
State of Delaware:
    Delaware buses and bus facilities.................         1,000,000
State of Florida:
    Gainesville hybrid-electric buses and facilities..         1,000,000
    Jacksonville buses and bus-related facilities.....         1,000,000
    Miami-Dade buses..................................         1,000,000
    Palm Beach, FL, buses.............................         2,000,000
    Tampa, HARTline buses.............................         1,000,000
State of Georgia:
    Chatham Area transit bus transfer center and buses         7,000,000
State of Iowa:
    Iowa City intermodal facility.....................         3,000,000
    Iowa statewide buses and bus facilities...........         5,000,000
    North Iowa, Mason City, Region 2 transit facility.           160,000
State of Indiana:
    West Lafayette, IN, buses and bus facilities......         3,500,000
State of Kansas:
    Girard, KS, buses and vans........................           700,000
    Johnson County, KS, farebox equipment.............           250,000
    Kansas City, KS, buses............................         2,250,000
    Southeast Kansas Community Action Agency                     480,000
     maintenance facility (Girard, KS)................
    Topeka, KS, downtown transfer facility............         1,200,000
    Wichita, KS, buses and bus facilities.............         5,000,000
State of Kentucky:
    Kentucky (southern and eastern) transit vehicles..         2,000,000
    Lexington (LexTran), KY maintenance facility......         2,000,000
    River City, KY, buses.............................         3,000,000
State of Louisiana:
    Louisiana statewide buses and bus facilities......        10,000,000
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
    Attleboro intermodal mixed-use garage facility....         1,000,000
    Berkshire, MA buses and equipment.................         2,000,000
    Greenfield Montague, MA buses.....................           600,000
    Merrimack Valley regional transit authority buses          1,000,000
     and bus facilities...............................
    Montachusett, MA, bus and park-and-ride facilities         2,500,000
    Pioneer Valley, MA, alternative fuel and                     900,000
     paratransit vehicles.............................
    Pittsfield, MA, intermodal facility...............         6,000,000
    Swampscott, MA, buses.............................            65,000
    Westfield, MA, intermodal transportation facility.         1,000,000
State of Michigan:
    Detroit, transfer terminal facilities.............         9,713,000
    Detroit, EZ Ride program..........................           287,000
    Port Huron, CNG fueling station...................           500,000
State of Minnesota:
    Twin Cities metropolitan buses and bus facilities.        16,000,000
    Greater Minnesota transit authorities buses, bus           1,000,000
     facilities and bus equipment.....................
State of Missouri:
    Missouri (eighth congressional district) buses and         2,500,000
     bus facilities...................................
    St. Louis, Missouri buses.........................         2,000,000
    Southwest Missouri State University park and ride          2,000,000
     facility.........................................
State of Mississippi:
    North Delta planning and development district,               200,000
     buses and bus facilities.........................
    Jackson, MS, maintenance and administration                1,000,000
     facility project.................................
State of Montana:
    Missoula urban transportation district buses......         1,200,000
State of North Dakota:
    North Dakota statewide buses and bus facilities...         1,000,000
State of Nebraska:
    Lincoln, Nebraska, bus maintenance facility.......         1,000,000
State of New Mexico:
    Albuquerque, NM, West Side transit facility.......         4,000,000
    Las Cruces, NM, buses.............................           500,000
    Santa Fe, NM, buses and bus facilities............         2,000,000
State of New York:
    Ithaca, NY, intermodal facility...................         2,250,000
    Putnam County, NY, vans...........................           470,000
    Rochester Central bus facility....................         1,000,000
    Syracuse, NY buses................................         6,000,000
State of North Carolina:
    Statewide buses and bus facilities................         4,884,000
State of Ohio:
    Ohio statewide buses and bus facilities...........        15,000,000
    Dayton, multimodal transportation center..........         4,000,000
State of Oregon:
    Salem Area Mass Transit District natural gas buses         1,000,000
    Sunset Empire transit facility....................           600,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
    Bethlehem, PA, intermodal facility................         2,000,000
    Norristown, PA, parking garage (SEPTA)............         2,000,000
    Lackawanna County, PA, intermodal bus facility....         1,000,000
    Mid-Mon Valley buses and bus facilities...........           500,000
State of South Carolina:
    Central Midlands COG/Columbia transit system               5,800,000
     buses, bus facilities and bus equipment..........
    Charleston Area regional transportation authority,         4,000,000
     buses and bus facilities.........................
    Clemson Area Transit buses and bus equipment......         1,100,000
    Greenville transit authority, buses and bus                1,000,000
     facilities.......................................
    Pee Dee regional transportation authority, buses..         2,000,000
    Santee-Wateree regional transportation authority,          1,000,000
     buses, bus facilities and bus equipment..........
    Transit Management of Spartanburg, Incorporated            1,200,000
     (SPARTA), bus and bus facilities.................
State of Tennessee:
    Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation             7,000,000
     (SCAT) (TN, GA, FL, AL) electric buses...........
State of Texas:
    Austin buses......................................         1,000,000
    Brazos transit district buses and facilities......         2,000,000
    Fort Worth bus replacement (including CNG                  7,000,000
     vehicles) and paratransit vehicles...............
    Galveston, Texas, buses and bus facilities........         1,000,000
    Texas statewide small urban and rural buses and            1,000,000
     bus facilities...................................
State of Virginia:
    Statewide buses and bus facilities................        14,750,000
State of Washington:
    Bremerton transportation multimodal facility......         1,500,000
    Grant Transit Authority (Grant County, WA) buses..         1,000,000
    Grays Harbor County, WA, buses and equipment......         2,500,000
    King County Metro park and ride facilities........         4,000,000
    Sequim, WA, multimodal facility...................         1,000,000
    Snohomish County, WA, buses, bus facilities and            2,500,000
     bus equipment....................................
    Spokane, WA, HEV buses............................         3,000,000
    Tacoma Dome Station...............................         1,500,000
State of Wisconsin:
    Wisconsin statewide buses and bus facilities......         5,000,000
State of West Virginia:
    Parkersburg, WV, intermodal transportation                 2,200,000
     facility.........................................


    Detroit, Michigan.--The Committee recommendation includes a 
total of $10,000,000 for buses and bus related facilities in 
Detroit, Michigan. Of this amount, $287,000 shall be used 
solely for the improvement of the EZ ride transportation 
program, which provides transportation in Detroit for senior 
citizens who are unable to use traditional forms of bus 
transit.

                      FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

    The accompanying bill provides $980,400,000 from the 
capital investment grants program to modernize existing rail 
transit systems. These funds are to be redistributed, 
consistent with the provisions of TEA21, shown below.

                            SECTION 5309 FIXED GUDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPRORTIONMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                         STATE                          --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                1999               2000         Change from 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona................................................         $1,276,627         $1,714,915           $438,288
California.............................................         86,293,374         97,447,440         11,154,066
Colorado...............................................          1,072,768          1,276,142            203,374
Connecticut............................................         34,538,688         35,613,122          1,074,434
Delaware...............................................            661,929            900,963            239,034
District of Columbia...................................         31,797,959         41,405,152          9,607,193
Forida.................................................         11,011,678         14,894,671          3,882,993
Georgia................................................         14,855,414         20,056,733          5,201,319
Hawaii.................................................            528,313            717,140            188,827
Illinois...............................................        105,900,396        109,835,226          3,934,830
Indiana................................................          7,108,243          7,372,357            264,114
Louisiana..............................................          2,305,868          2,719,194            413,326
Maryland...............................................         19,801,081         21,651,851          1,850,770
Massachusetts..........................................         59,763,228         63,230,944          3,467,716
Michigan...............................................            318,620            449,343            130,723
Minnesota..............................................          2,433,932          2,844,835            410,903
Missouri...............................................          1,516,420          1,632,113            115,693
New Jersey.............................................         81,715,296         87,109,545          5,394,249
New York...............................................        301,682,929        320,395,319         18,712,390
Ohio...................................................         14,805,733         16,007,175          1,201,442
Pennsylvania...........................................         93,529,903         95,594,209          2,064,306
Puerto Rico............................................          1,326,488          1,777,215            450,727
Oregon.................................................          2,267,470          3,059,860            792,390
Rhode Island...........................................          1,800,384          2,412,069            611,865
Tennessee..............................................             58,594             79,754             21,160
Texas..................................................          4,455,080          5,696,889          1,241,809
Virginia...............................................            464,097            464,097                  0
Washington.............................................         12,227,786         15,992,245          3,764,459
Wisconsin..............................................            510,702            696,482            185,780
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................        896,029,000        973,047,000         77,018,000
\3/4\ percent oversight................................          6,771,000          7,353,000            582,000
                                                        ========================================================
    Total appropriation................................        902,800,000        980,400,000         77,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               NEW STARTS

    The accompanying bill provides $980,400,000 of new 
authority for new starts. These funds are available for 
preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project 
management, oversight, and construction of new systems and 
extensions. TEA21 requires that no more than eight percent of 
the funding provided for new starts be available for 
preliminary engineering and design activities. The funds are to 
be distributed as follows:

        Project                                                   Amount

Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects.........................     $10,400,000
Atlanta, Georgia, North line extension project..........      45,142,000
Baltimore central LRT double track project..............       5,000,000
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project............       4,000,000
Charlotte, North Carolina, north-south corridor 
    transitway project..................................       3,000,000
Chicago METRA commuter rail project.....................      25,000,000
Chicago Transit Authority Douglas branch line project...       2,000,000
Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood branch line project       2,000,000
Cincinnati northeast/northern Kentucky corridor project.       2,000,000
Clark County, Nevada, fixed guideway project............       2,000,000
Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement project...........       1,000,000
Colorado Roaring Fork Valley project....................       1,000,000
Dallas north central light rail extension project.......      35,000,000
Dayton, Ohio, light rail study..........................       1,000,000
Denver Southwest corridor project.......................      35,000,000
Dulles corridor project.................................      25,000,000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-County commuter rail 
    project.............................................      12,000,000
Houston advanced transit program........................       4,000,000
Houston regional bus project............................      52,770,000
Johnson County, Kansas, I-35 commuter rail project......       1,000,000
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension project.........       1,000,000
Long Island Railroad East Side access project...........       4,000,000
Los Angeles Mid-City and East Side corridors projects...       5,000,000
Los Angeles North Hollywood extension project...........      50,000,000
Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN corridor project...........       1,000,000
MARC commuter rail project..............................         703,000
Massachusetts North Shore corridor project..............       1,000,000
Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail extension 
    project.............................................       5,000,000
Miami-Dade Transit east-west multimodal corridor project       3,000,000
Miami-Dade Transit North 27th corridor project..........       3,000,000
Nashville, Tennessee commuter rail project..............       1,000,000
New Jersey Hudson Bergen project........................      99,000,000
New Orleans Canal Street corridor project...............       2,000,000
Newark rail link MOS-1 project..........................       6,000,000
Norfolk-Virginia Beach corridor project.................       1,000,000
Northern Indiana south shore commuter rail project......       4,000,000
Oceanside-Escondido, California light rail system.......       2,000,000
Olympic transportation infrastructure investments.......       5,000,000
Orange County, California, transitway project...........       1,000,000
Orlando Lynx light rail (phase 1) project...............      20,000,000
Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley metro 
    project.............................................       1,000,000
Phoenix metropolitan area transit project...............       7,000,000
Pinellas County, Florida, mobility initiative project...       3,000,000
Portland Westside light rail transit project............      11,062,000
Puget Sound RTA Link light rail project.................       2,000,000
Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project...........      12,000,000
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill triangle transit project.....      12,000,000
Sacramento south corridor LRT project...................      25,000,000
San Bernardino, California, Metrolink project...........       1,000,000
San Diego Mid Coast corridor project....................       7,000,000
San Diego Mission Valley East light rail transit project      23,000,000
San Fransciso BART extension to the airport project.....      84,000,000
San Jose Tasman West light rail project.................      20,000,000
San Juan Tren Urbano project............................      82,000,000
South Boston piers transitway...........................      53,962,000
South DeKalb-Lindbergh, Georgia, corridor project.......       1,000,000
Spokane, Washington, South Valley corridor light rail 
    project.............................................       3,000,000
St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink cross county corridor 
    project.............................................       3,000,000
St. Louis-St. Clair County MetroLink light rail (phase 
    II) extension project...............................      50,000,000
Tampa Bay regional rail project.........................       1,000,000
Twin Cities Transitways projects........................       5,433,000
Twin Cities Transitways projects--Hiawatha corridor 
    project.............................................      46,000,000
Utah north/south light rail project.....................      37,928,000
Virginia Railway Express Woodbridge station improvements 
    project.............................................       2,000,000
West Trenton, New Jersey, rail project..................       1,000,000
Whitehall terminal reconstruction project...............       3,000,000

    Atlanta, Georgia north line extension.--The Metropolitan 
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is constructing a 1.9 
mile, 2-station extension of the North Line from the Dunwoody 
station to North Springs. When completed, this extension will 
serve the rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which includes 
Perimeter Center and north Fulton County, and will connect this 
area with the rest of the region by providing better transit 
service for both commuters and inner-city residents traveling 
to expanding job opportunities. On December 20, 1994, FTA 
issued a full funding grant agreement committing a total of 
$305,010,000 in new starts funding to this project. Of this 
commitment, a total of $249,870,000 has been appropriated 
through fiscal year 1999. For fiscal year 2000, the 
accompanying bill provides $45,142,000.
    Baltimore central light rail double tracking project.--The 
Maryland Mass Transit Administration proposes to construct 9.4 
miles of track to upgrade designated areas of the Baltimore 
central light rail line (CLRL) that are currently single track. 
The CLRL is 29 miles long and operates from Hunt Valley in the 
north to Cromwell/Glen Burnie in the south, serving Baltimore 
City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, with extensions 
providing service to Amtrak at Penn Station and the Baltimore-
Washington International Airport. The proposed project will 
double track eight sections of the CLRL between Timonium and 
Cromwell Station/Glen Burnie. Although no new stations are 
required, the addition of a second track will require 
construction of second station platforms at four stations where 
side boarding platforms are now in use. Other elements included 
in the double track project are bridge and crossing 
improvements, bi-directional signal system with traffic signal 
preemption on Howard Street, and catenary and other equipment 
and systems. The double tracking will be constructed almost 
entirely in existing right-of-way. The MTA estimates the total 
cost of these improvements at $150,000,000. To date, $1,000,000 
has been appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2000, the 
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for final design activities 
related to this project.
    Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project.--The METRO 
Regional Transit Authority (METRO), in cooperation with local 
metropolitan planning organizations, regional transit 
authorities, and the Ohio Department of Transportation, is 
conducting a major investment study to assess the costs and 
benefits of new passenger rail service, transportation system 
management, and/or capacity improvements for the Canton-Akron-
Cleveland corridor. The 70-mile corridor follows a path along 
Interstate 77 between Canton and Akron. Between Akron and 
Cleveland, the corridor widens to include both I-77 and State 
Route 8. The SR-8 alignment utilizes interstate 270 and 
interstate 480, returning to I-77 and continues into the 
central business district of Cleveland. The corridor frequently 
experiences traffic congestion and related safety problems. The 
study is currently in the primary scoping stage. The proposed 
project is included in the Akron metropolitan area 
transportation study's long range needs plan. In addition, 
several miles of rail right-of-way have been purchased for 
passenger rail use. Federal, state and local sources have 
allocated nearly $15,000,000 to the project. Through fiscal 
year 1999, Congress has appropriated $12,844,142 in section 
5309 funds for this effort. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 
in fiscal year 2000.
    Charlotte, North Carolina north-south corridor transitway 
project.--In Charlotte, North Carolina, the north-south 
corridor extends approximately 36.4 miles from Davidson in 
North Mecklenburg County through Center City Charlotte to 
Pineville in southern Mecklenburg. This corridor was identified 
in the centers and corridors plan adopted by the Charlotte 
Council and Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners in 1994 
and reaffirmed through inclusion in the approved 2015 long 
range transportation plan. Several alternatives will be 
considered, and include: no-build; transportation systems 
management; bus rapid transit; light rail transit; high 
occupancy vehicle/bus lanes on interstate 77 and widening of I-
77. The City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and six other 
municipalities in the county have developed a countywide 
transit/land use plan for 2025. Transit operations and possible 
land use actions for the north-south corridor were analyzed. 
The 2025 plan built upon earlier transit studies and land use 
plans for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area. The plan was also the 
basis for obtaining support for the recently approved county-
wide referendum for a 1/2 cent sales and use tax dedicated to 
public transportation. The tax, which is anticipated to yield 
$50 million during the first year, will provide local capital 
and operating funds to support a county-wide public 
transportation system. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated nearly $4,000,000 in section 5309 funds for this 
effort. In fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$3,000,000.
    Chicago Metra commuter rail project.--Metra, the commuter 
rail division of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of 
northeastern Illinois, is proposing several extensions: the 
central Kane corridor, which would extend trackage west to 
Elburn, Illinois; the Wisconsin central limited corridor, which 
extends from downtown Chicago to Antioch on the Illinois-
Wisconsin border, traversing suburban Lake County; and the 
southwest corridor, which would extend commuter rail service 
from Orchard Park southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. The 
accompanying bill provides $25,000,000 for final design 
activities for fiscal year 2000.
    Chicago Transit Authority Douglas Branch line project.--The 
Douglas Branch project is a complete reconstruction of the 
Douglas Branch of the Chicago Transit Authority's blue line. 
The line runs for six miles from a point just west of downtown 
Chicago to the terminus of the line at Cermak Avenue. The 
Douglas Branch includes 11 stations. CTA has completed the 
necessary planning and engineering work. The Douglas Branch was 
built between 1912 and 1915. The line currently carries 
approximately 27,000 daily riders. Because of its age, the line 
is seriously deteriorated and has resulted in high maintenance 
and operating costs. The Douglas Branch serves one of the most 
economically disadvantaged, distressed areas in Chicago. Total 
project costs are currently estimated at $394,000,000. Through 
fiscal year 1999, Congress has appropriated $1,490,000 in 
section 5309 new start funds for the project. The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
    Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood Branch line project.--
The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is proposing to lengthen 
existing platforms and expand stations on the existing CTA 
Brown Line to accommodate 8-car trains. The Brown Line runs for 
9.2 miles from the north side of Chicago to the Loop elevated 
in downtown Chicago and includes 19 stations. Most of the line 
is operated on elevated structure except for a portion near the 
northern end of the line, which operates at grade. The Brown 
Line was built between 1900 and 1907. The Line currently 
carries approximately 104,000 daily riders. Ridership has been 
steadily increasing and current station and platform size 
prohibits CTA from increasing capacity of the line to handle 
increased demand. Selected yard improvements would also be 
undertaken. CTA has completed the necessary planning and 
engineering work. Total project costs are currently estimated 
at $310,000,000. Through fiscal year 1999, $1,490,000 in 
section 5309 new starts funds for this project. The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for final design and construction during 
fiscal year 2000.
    Cincinnati northeast/northern Kentucky corridor project.--
The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana (OKI) Regional Council of Governments 
is proposing to design and construct a 43-mile light rail 
transit line in a corridor extending north from the Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky International Airport and Florence, Kentucky 
to the city of Mason, Ohio. The proposed alignment will use an 
existing right-of-way and active right-of-way along a portion 
of the Indiana and Ohio railroad, owned by the Southwest Ohio 
Regional Transit Authority. OKI has initiated preliminary 
engineering and the preparation of a draft environment impact 
statement for the first minimum operable segment (MOS-1) 
extending approximately 16.5 miles. The MOS-1 begins at 12th 
Street in Covington, Kentucky and terminates at Pfieffer Road 
in Blue Ash, Ohio. The MOS-1 includes a proposed 18 stations. 
Capital cost estimates for MOS-1 total $675.8 million. OKI 
estimates that 19,821 average weekday riders will use the MOS-1 
in the year 2020. The total capital cost estimate for the 
entire 43-mile LRT, including 30 proposed stations, for the I-
71 corridor, is $1,157,000,000. Through fiscal year 1999, 
Congress has appropriated $8,780,000. For fiscal year 2000, the 
bill includes $2,000,000.
    Clark County, Nevada fixed guideway project.--The Regional 
Transportation Commission (RTC) of Clark County (Las Vegas), 
Nevada, is the designated metropolitan planning organization 
(MPO) and regional governmental entity responsible for 
providing public transportation within Clark County. In the 
Fall of 1997, RTC selected a locally preferred alternative for 
the Las Vegas resort corridor which includes a combination of 
fixed guideway transit, significant expansion of the bus fleet, 
implementation of TSM/TDM strategies, and some roadway 
improvements. The core system includes a dual direction, 
elevated fixed guideway rail system along Las Vegas Boulevard 
with a link to downtown Las Vegas, an interim maintenance and 
control facility, and the acquisition of 30 vehicles. The 
resort corridor project will be completed in two phases, with a 
Phase 1 minimum operable segment (MOS), located in the 
northernmost portion of the system. The MOS consists of 5.2 
miles of double track, all elevated, with an automated guideway 
and ten stations. A major facility at the northern terminus 
will include a guideway station, a 28- to 30-by bus terminal, a 
2,000 vehicle park and ride lot, and a maintenance and 
operating facility. The MOS is estimated to cost $500.3 
million, and serve 93,000 daily riders in the year 2020. The 
full build-out of the complete project includes up to 18.4 
miles of elevated double-track, with an automated guideway and 
27 stations extending to the McCarren International Airport, 
and is estimated to cost $2,180,000,000. Through fiscal year 
1999, Congress has appropriated $8,954,000 for the project. The 
accompanying bill includes $2,000,000 for the project in fiscal 
year 2000.
    Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement project.--The Greater 
Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), in partnership 
with the City of Cleveland, is proposing to design and 
construct a 5.6 mile transit corridor incorporating exclusive 
bus rapid transit 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). GCRTA also proposes that 
three stations along the existing Red Line be relocated and 
three stations be renovated in order to spur economic 
development and improve access between the stations, 
surrounding neighborhoods, and employment centers. The total 
capital cost estimate for the ECIP is $327,000,000. Through 
fiscal year 1999, Congress has appropriated $8,500,000. For 
fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends $1,000,000.
    Colorado Roaring Fork Valley project.--In 1995, the 
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) completed a 
feasibility study of rail transit in the 40-mile Aspen to 
Glenwood Springs Corridor in the Roaring Fork Valley, about 160 
miles west of Denver. The study estimated that a valley-wide 
rail system would cost approximately $129,000,000. As a result, 
the City of Aspen is considering a locally-funded light rail 
transit (LRT) line in a four-mile segment of the corridor 
connecting Pitkin County Airport with downtown Aspen. This 
segment is dependent on the outcome of a local ballot 
initiative that is expected in November 1999. CDOT, meanwhile, 
is conducting a major investment study/draft environmental 
impact statement (MIS/DEIS) to analyze transportation 
alternatives, alignments, and costs in the remainder of the 
valley, the 35-mile corridor to Glenwood Springs. The MIS/DEIS 
is scheduled for completion in June 1999. Through fiscal year 
1999, Congress has appropriated $1,993,000,000 in section 5309 
new starts funds for this effort. The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2000.
    Dallas north central light rail project.--Dallas Area Rapid 
Transit (DART) plans to build an extension of its existing 
light rail system, which opened in phases from June 1996 to May 
1997, north to the City of Plano. The 12.5-mile extension would 
connect with the existing system at the Park Lane Station, 
adding nine new stations. DART estimates that approximately 
17,000 riders will use this extension by 2020. The total cost 
of this project is estimated at $517,200,000. This extension is 
nearing completion of the final design phase of project 
development. It is included in the regionally adopted 
metropolitan transportation plan and transportation improvement 
program, which are in conformance with the state implementation 
plan for air quality. DART began contracting for construction 
and purchasing vehicles and necessary right-of-way in May 1998. 
The North Central Extension is authorized for final design and 
construction by section 3030(a)(20) of TEA21. A total of 
$43,200,000 in section 5309 new starts funds has been 
appropriated for this project through fiscal year 1999. For 
fiscal year 2000, the Committee has included an appropriation 
of $35,000,000 for final design and construction.
    Dayton, Ohio light rail study.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an appropriation of $993,000 for a 
light rail feasibility study in Dayton, Ohio. The Congress has 
previously provided $1,000,000 for this project.
    Denver southwest corridor project.--The Regional Transit 
District (RTD) in Denver is constructing an 8.7-mile light rail 
extension between Denver and Littleton. The line extends from 
the I-25/Broadway station on the existing Central Corridor line 
south to Mineral Avenue in Littleton, running parallel to Santa 
Fe Drive over an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way. This 
extension is expected to serve 8,400 daily passengers when it 
opens for revenue service in July 2000, with an estimated 
22,000 daily riders by 2015. FTA issued an FFGA for this 
project on May 9, 1996, which will provide a total of 
$120,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal 
year 1998, a total of $25.76 million has been provided to this 
project, with an additional $39.70 million appropriated in 
fiscal year 1999. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee 
recommends $35,000,000.
    Dulles corridor project.--In June 1997, the Virginia 
Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) completed 
a major investment study which evaluated several transportation 
options in the Dulles Corridor. The corridor extends from the 
West Falls Church Metrorail Station to Dulles International 
Airport and continues into Loudon County. The study recommended 
that a 23-mile, $1.45 billion rail system be constructed to 
alleviate congestion and facilitate future growth in the 
corridor. The study also called for the development of a 
funding plan and the implementation of enhanced bus service. In 
July 1998, the Virginia Secretary of Transportation assembled 
the Dulles Task Force to determine the steps necessary for 
phased implementation of rail service along the Dulles 
Corridor. This includes a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that 
will operate similar to a rail system with stations built in 
the median and access provided through pedestrian overpasses. 
These stations will be designed for conversion into rail 
stations during the next phase of the project. Through fiscal 
year 1999, Congress has appropriated $16,870,000 in section 
5309 new starts funds for this effort. The accompanying bill 
provides $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to be available for 
final design activities.
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-county commuter rail 
project.--The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) is 
proposing a number of system improvements to the 71.7-mile 
regional transportation system it operates within Palm Beach, 
Broward and Dade Counties in South Florida. This area has a 
population of over four million, nearly one-third of the total 
population of Florida. The planned improvements include 
construction of a second mainline track, rehabilitation of the 
signal system, station and parking improvements, acquisition of 
new rolling stock, improvements to the Hialeah maintenance yard 
facility and construction of a new, northern layover facility. 
The proposed double-tracking is intended to allow for 15 minute 
headways during peak commuter hours, as opposed to the current 
one-hour headways. Tri-Rail estimates that these improvements 
will serve an average of 68,348 daily riders by 2015. To date, 
9.6 miles of the double track corridor improvement project have 
been completed, including a station at Miami International 
Airport, which will be the cornerstone of the future Miami 
Intermodal Center. An additional 7.0 miles are scheduled to be 
completed in early 2000. The Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Upgrade 
(described as the Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach-Miami Tri-
County Commuter Rail) is authorized for final design and 
construction by Section 3030(a)(27) of TEA21. Congress 
appropriated a total of $55,250,000 in section 5309 new starts 
funding for this project through fiscal year 1999. For fiscal 
year 2000, the Committee recommends $12,000,000 for final 
design and construction.
    Houston advanced transit program.--The Metropolitan Transit 
Authority of Harris County (METRO) is conducting a major 
investment study (MIS) to examine high capacity bus transit 
alternatives in the 7-mile central business district to (CBD) 
Astrodome Corridor. The proposed corridor extends south through 
Houston's growing CBD, the rapidly redeveloping midtown area, 
and a major museum/park/zoo/university area, the Texas Medical 
Center and to the Astrodome event complex. The corridor 
experiences some of METRO's highest ridership levels in the 
region. Improvements are needed to improve mobility in the 
corridor to serve a wide range of travel needs, including 
employment, school, shopping, medical, recreational and special 
events. METRO is seeking to develop a transit improvement that 
will connect significant and diverse activity centers and 
redevelopment within the corridor and to reinforce the transit/
development linkages. The MIS was initiated in September 1998, 
and is scheduled to be completed in September 1999. The 
region's 2020 metropolitan transportation plan includes high 
capacity transit within the proposed corridor.
    The metropolitan transit authority of Harris County (METRO) 
is also conducting a major investment study (MIS) focusing on 
Interstate 610 from the Interstate 10 interchange on the north 
(with connections to the Katy High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane 
and Northwest Transit Center) to the vicinity of Westpark Drive 
on the south. The corridor exhibits congestion as a result of 
high demand, limited road capacity, and difficult freeway 
interchanges. The focus of the study is the identification and 
evaluation of transit and HOV modes and strategies to serve 
corridor needs. METRO is working closely with the Texas 
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to ensure that any 
recommendation from the West Loop MIS is compatible with 
TxDOT's planned maintenance improvements to the West Loop. 
Preliminary alternatives include a no-build, low-cost 
alternative, a north-south connection alternative, diamond HOV 
lane, and a barrier separated HOV lane alternative. Public 
involvement contributed to the range of alternatives being 
considered in the MIS. The study is scheduled for completion in 
December 1999. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated $2,980,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for 
this effort. The accompanying bill provides $4,000,000 for this 
activity in fiscal year 1999.
    Houston regional bus project.--Houston Metro's $1 billion 
Regional Bus Plan consists of a package of improvements to its 
existing bus system. The package includes service expansions in 
most of the region, new and extended HOV (high-occupancy 
vehicle, or ``carpool'') facilities and ramps, new buses, 
several transit centers and park-and-ride lots, and supporting 
facilities. This collection of projects was selected as the 
locally-preferred alternative over a proposed rail project in 
1992. A full funding grant agreement was issued on December 30, 
1994, to provide a total of $500,000,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds. A total of $437,480,000 has been provided through 
fiscal year 1999. The Committee recommendation includes 
$52,770,000 for fiscal year.
    Johnson County, Kansas I-35 commuter rail project.--Johnson 
County, Kansas, in conjunction with the Mid-America Regional 
Council--the local Metropolitan Planning Organization for the 
Kansas City region--is evaluating the feasibility of 
implementing commuter rail service along a proposed corridor 
extending from the Olathe, Kansas area to downtown Kansas City. 
The proposed project has been adopted in the area's Long Range 
Transportation Plan. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated about $1,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funds 
for this effort. The accompanying bill provides $1,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2000.
    Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension project.--The 
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)--a 
local metropolitan planning organization--plans to conduct a 
major investment study (MIS) to examine the feasibility of 
extending Chicago-based Metra commuter rail service from 
Kenosha to Racine and Milwaukee. The study will focus on a 
proposed 33-mile corridor connecting the central business 
districts of Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee in southeastern 
Wisconsin. SEWRPC has recently completed a feasibility study, 
funded entirely with local funds, that concluded the extension 
is feasible. The SEWRPC has adopted the project into the 
region's long range transportation plan. Through fiscal year 
1999, Congress has appropriated nearly $500,000 in section 5309 
new starts funds for this effort. To continue the project in 
fiscal year 2000, the accompanying bill provides $1,000,000.
    Long Island Railroad, East Side access project.--The 
proposed Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) East Side Access would 
provide increased capacity for the commuter rail lines of the 
Long Island Rail Road and diect access between suburban Long 
Island and Queens and a new passenger terminal in Grant Central 
Terminal in east Midtown Manhattan. The Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority (MTA) is the lead agency for this 
project. The East Side Access (ESA) connection would be 
achieved by constructing a 4,600-foot tunnel from the LIRR Main 
Line in Sunnyside, Queens to the existing tunnel under the East 
River at 63rd Street. LIRR trains would use the lower level of 
this bi-level structure. A second 5,000-foot tunnel would carry 
LIRR trains from the 63rd Street Tunnel under Park Avenue and 
into a new LIRR terminal in the lower level of Grand Central 
Terminal. As part of this project, a passenger station would be 
constructed at Sunnyside Yard to provide access to the growing 
Long Island City business district; this station would not 
provide a direct connection to Grand Central Terminal. Overall, 
more than 178,000 daily customers would benefit directly from 
the LIRR ESA project by the year 2020. There would be 172,000 
daily trips to and from the new LIRR Grand Central Terminal; 
6,000 daily trips to the proposed Sunnyside Yard Station; and 
56,200 trips by Penn Station-bound LIRR passengers who will no 
longer have to travel in overcrowded train conditions during 
the morning and evening peak hours. Total capital costs are 
projected to be approximately $4,300,000,000 (escalated 
dollars). This sum includes $2,700,000,000 for construction and 
right-of-way and $0.8 billion for rolling stock (1997 dollars). 
Construction is scheduled to begin in 2000 and to be completed 
in 2010. A major investment study (MIS) on the Long Island Rail 
Road East Side Access was completed in March 1998. In June 
1998, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), 
the Metropolitan Planning Organization, passed a resolution 
endorsing the recommended extension of the LIRR into Grand 
Central Station. In September 1998, FTA approved preliminary 
engineering and preparation of an Enviroinmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for the project. MTA has designated $42,000,000 
for the LIRR ESA preliminary engineering and draft EIS. Through 
fiscal year 1999, Congress has appropriated $43,760,000. For 
fiscal year 2000, the accompanying bill provides $4,000,000.
    Los Angeles Mid-City and East Side corridors projects.--The 
Metro Rail Red Line Project in Los Angeles is being planned, 
programmed and constructed in phases through a series of 
``minimum operable segments'' (MOSs). The 4.4-mile, 5-station 
segment called MOS-1 opened for revenue service in January 
1993. A 2.1-mile, three-station segment of MOS-2 opened along 
Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996. An additional 4.6-mile, 5-
station segment in MOS-2 is currently under construction. ISTEA 
section 3034 authorized three extensions to the Metro Rail Red 
Line:
    1. The North Hollywood Extension is 6.3 miles in length 
with three stations, all in subway. It extends the Hollywood 
branch of MOS-2 generally to the north through the Santa Monica 
mountains into North Hollywood in the San Fernando Valley. The 
estimated cost is $1,300,000,000 (escalated dollars). Ridership 
for this extension is estimated to be 26,000 daily boardings in 
2010.
    2. The East Side Extension is 3.7 miles in length with four 
stations, originally designed as subway. It would extend MOS-1 
from Union Station into neighborhoods east of downtown. The 
estimated cost was $1,050,000 (escalated dollars). Ridership 
for this extension was estimated at 12,000 daily boardings by 
2010.
    3. The Mid-City Extension would extend the Wilshire 
Boulevard branch generally to the west beyond the current MOS-2 
terminus at Western Avenue. It would add 2.3 miles, originally 
designed as subway, and two stations to the system. The 
estimated cost was $683,000,000 (escalated dollars). Ridership 
for this extension was estimated at 13,000 daily boardings in 
2010.
    LACMTA and FTA signed an FFGA for MOS-3 in May 1993 which 
provided $1,230,000,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the 
three extensions of MOS-3. Subsequently, the FFGA was amended 
on December 28, 1994 to provide an additional $186,490,000 for 
a total commitment of $1,416,490,000 in section 5309 new start 
funding. A restated FFGA for the North Hollywood extension 
(Phase I-A) of MOS-3 was signed on June 9, 1997. In January 
1997, FTA requested that the MTA submit a recovery plan to 
demonstrate its ability to complete MOS-2 and MOS-3, while 
maintaining and operating the existing bus system. On January 
14, 1998, the LACMTA board of directors voted to suspend and 
demobilize rail construction on all rail projects other than 
the MOS-2 and MOS-3 North Hollywood Extension. The MTA 
subsequently submitted a Recovery Plan to FTA on May 15, 1998; 
FTA approved the Plan on July 2, 1998. In 1998, the MTA 
undertook a regional transit alternatives analysis (RTAA) to 
analyze and evaluate feasible alternatives for the East Side 
and Mid-City corridors. The RTAA addressed system investment 
priorities, allocation of resources to operate existing transit 
services at a reliable standard, assessment and management of 
financial risk, countywide bus service expansion, and a process 
for finalizing corridor investments. On November 9, 1998, the 
LACMTA board reviewed the RTAA and directed staff to reprogram 
state and local resources previously allocated to the East Side 
and Mid-City Extensions to the implementation of RTAA 
recommendations, including the LACMTA accelerated bus 
procurement Plan. The MTA plans to conduct further studies of 
transit investment options in the East Side and Mid-City 
corridors. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has appropriated 
$7,940,000 in new start funds for the RTAA. For fiscal year 
2000, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 for continued 
planning and analysis in the Mid-City and East Side corridors.
    Los Angeles North Hollywood extension project.--The Metro 
Rail Red Line Project in Los Angeles is being planned, 
programmed and constructed in phases, through a series of 
``minimum operable segments'' (MOSs). The first of these 
segments (MOS-1), a 4.4-mile, 5-station segment, opened for 
revenue service in January 1993. A 2.1-mile, three-station 
segment of MOS-2 opened along Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996; 
an additional 4.6-mile, 5-station segment of MOS-2 is currently 
under construction, and the Federal funding commitment has been 
fulfilled. On May 14, 1993, an FFGA was issued to the Los 
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) 
for the third construction phase, MOS-3. MOS-3 was defined 
under ISTEA (section 3034) to include three segments: the North 
Hollywood segment, a 6.3-mile, three-station subway extension 
of the Hollywood branch of MOS-2 to North Hollywood through the 
Santa Monica mountains; the Mid-City segment, a 2.3-mile, two-
station western extension of the Wilshire Boulevard branch; and 
an undefined segment of the Eastside project, to the east from 
the existing Red Line terminus at Union Station. LACMTA later 
defined this eastern segment as a 3.7-mile, four-station 
extension under the Los Angeles River to First and Lorena in 
East Los Angeles. On December 28, 1994, the FFGA for MOS-3 was 
amended to include this definition of the eastern segment, 
bringing the total commitment of Federal new starts funds for 
MOS-3 to $1,416,490,000. On June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA 
negotiated a revised FFGA covering the North Hollywood segment 
(Phase 1-A) of MOS-3, which is proceeding as scheduled. In 
January 1997, FTA requested that the MTA submit a recovery plan 
to demonstrate its ability to complete MOS-2 and MOS-3. On 
January 14, 1998, the LACMTA board of directors voted to 
suspend and demobilize construction on all rail projects other 
than MOS-2 and MOS-3 North Hollywood Extension. The MTA 
submitted a recovery plan to FTA on May 15, 1998, which was 
approved by FTA on July 2, 1998. A total of $532,765,000 has 
been appropriated for North Hollywood. A total of $617,185,000 
has been appropriated for MOS-3 to date. The Committee 
recommends that $50,000,000 be provided to the North Hollywood 
project in fiscal year 2000.
    Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN corridor project.--The Los 
Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN), a Joint Powers 
Authority operating in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego 
counties, was created to improve the rail system between San 
Diego and Los Angeles, along a 126-mile corridor with 21 
stations (11 joint commuter rail/intercity stations and 10 
commuter rail only stations). This rail corridor is used by 
both passenger (intercity and commuter rail) and freight 
service. LOSSAN is implementing a long-range plan to improve 
the safety, capacity and speed of inter-city rail service 
between Los Angeles and San Diego. The proposed five-element 
rail improvement program would provide intercity rail capital 
enhancements to the terminal facility at Los Angeles Union 
Station; expand parking supply at the Irvine, Oceanside, and 
Solana Beach Amtrak stations; and stabilize the railway roadbed 
in the City of Del Mar. An earlier project implemented grade-
separation improvements at three sites (Commerce in Los Angeles 
County, Fullerton in Orange County, and Solana Beach in San 
Diego County). Total project costs for the program of 
improvements in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor equal $60,600,000 
(escalated dollars). Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated $19,890,000 for related improvements. For fiscal 
year 2000, the Committee recommends $1,000,000.
    MARC commuter rail project.--The Mass Transit 
Administration of Maryland (MTA) is extending the Maryland 
Commuter Rail (MARC) system from Point of Rocks to Frederick, 
Maryland. This extension will provide service from suburban 
Montgomery and Frederick counties to Baltimore, Maryland and 
Washington, D.C. The project involves track, signal, and 
station and yard improvements along an existing freight line. 
In addition, MTA is embarking on a major procurement of 
additional commuter rail coaches and locomotives needed to meet 
anticipated systemwide demand on the MARC system and provide 
service on this extension. Manufacturing of the coaches is 
underway, and delivery has begun. The locomotive procurement is 
being undertaken jointly with Amtrak; delivery is expected to 
begin by 2000. Protracted negotiations with CSXT over right-of-
way purchase terms have resulted in project delays; MTA now 
expects to begin MARC service on the Frederick extension by 
2001. Section 3030(g)(2) of TEA21 authorizes an amendment to 
the FFGA for this project to include capacity and efficiency 
improvements through construction of a Penn-Camden Connection, 
maintenance and storage facilities and other capacity-related 
improvements, and the Silver Spring Intermodal Center. An FFGA 
was issued on June 19, 1995, committing a total of $105,250,000 
to complete the project. This does not include $33,260,000 in 
fiscal year 1994 and prior year funding appropriated before the 
FFGA, which brings total Federal funding for this project to 
$138,510,000. Through 1999, a total of $137,800,000 has been 
appropriated for this project, leaving $703,300 needed to 
fulfill the FFGA. The Committee recommends that these remaining 
funds be provided in fiscal year 2000 to complete the current 
FFGA.
    Massachusetts North Shore corridor project.--The 
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) has 
previously conducted a series of feasibility studies for 
improvements to the North Shore transportation system. These 
studies evaluated extensions of the Blue Line; improved 
commuter rail and express bus services; and the connection of 
the Blue Line and North Shore commuter rail service in Revere. 
Area officials now intend to further evaluate these 
alternatives for the corridor by focusing on operational 
impacts to the MBTA system, ridership analysis, capital and 
operating costs, community impacts, environmental impacts and 
cost/benefit analyses. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated nearly $1,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funds 
for this effort. The accompanying bill provides $1,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2000.
    Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center rail extension project.--
The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in cooperation with 
the City of Memphis, is proposing to build a 2.5-mile extension 
to its light rail system, from the current terminus at the Main 
Street Mall in the central business district to a new transit 
center near Cleveland and Claybrook Streets on the east 
(Medical Center). The proposed project would operate on-street 
in mixed traffic and would connect with the Main Street 
Trolley. Sixteen stops would be located along the route. The 
line will be designed to accommodate light rail vehicles but 
vintage rail cars would be used until a proposed regional LRT 
line is implemented and a fleet of modern LRT vehicles is 
acquired. This project is proposed to be the last segment of 
the downtown rail circulation system as well as the first 
segment of a regional light rail line. MATA estimates that this 
project will serve 4,200 riders daily by 2020. This project is 
included in the City of Memphis' capital improvement program, 
the Memphis MPO transportation improvement program, and the 
state transportation improvement program. A major investment 
study/environmental assessment was completed in May 1997. FTA 
approved entry into preliminary engineering in March 1998. The 
total capital cost of the project is estimated at $35,900,000. 
MATA estimates that the daily ridership of the proposed project 
would be 2,100 when it opens in 2002, and would increase to 
4,200 by 2020. The Memphis Corridor was authorized for final 
design and construction by section 3030(a)(43) of TEA21. A 
total of $7,930,000 in section 5309 new starts funds has been 
appropriated for this project through fiscal year 1999. For 
fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for final design and construction.
    Miami-Dade Transit east-west corridor project.--The Miami-
Dade Transit Agency is proposing a locally preferred 
alternative (LPA) including a set of multimodal improvements in 
the Route (SR 836) East-West corridor that will link the 
suburban area west of the Palmetto Expressway (SR 836) with the 
Miami International Airport (MIA), downtown Miami, and the Port 
of Miami seaport. The LPA includes an 11.2-mile minimum-
operable-segment (MOS) of a heavy rail transit alignment that 
runs from just east of the Palmetto Expressway (SR 836) to the 
Port of Miami. There is an additional (0.7-mile) branch from 
MIA to the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC). The heavy rail line 
includes 8.2 miles of aerial guideway and 3.6 miles of bored 
tunnel with ten stations (six aerial and four underground). The 
LPA includes two buffer-separated HOV lanes, one in each 
direction, in the median of SR 836 from NW 107th Avenue to the 
SR 836/SR 112 Interconnector/(MIC). Capital costs estimates for 
the LPA (transit and roadway improvements) total $1,580,000,000 
(1995 dollars). The rail portion of the project is estimated to 
cost $1,480,000,000 (1995 dollars) and $2,150,000,000 in 
escalated dollars. The new rail line is expected to carry 
27,300 average weekday boardings on opening day and 31,400 
average weekday boardings by the year 2020. Congress has 
appropriated $9,450,000 for this project through fiscal year 
1999. For fiscal year 2000, the accompanying bill provides 
$3,000,000 for final design activities related to the project.
    Miami-Dade Transit North 27th Avenue corridor project.--The 
Miami-Dade Transit Agency (MDTA) is proposing a locally 
preferred alternative that will extend existing Metrorail 
service into north-central Miami-Dade County. The Miami-Dade 
County metropolitan planning organization (MPO) has selected a 
locally-preferred alternative (LPA), identifying a new heavy 
rail line along a 9.5-mile section of NW 27th Avenue between an 
existing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Metrorail station and the 
Broward County line. Park-n-ride lots would be provided to 
intercept commuters in the corridor. The proposed heavy rail 
line along the Northwest 27th Avenue corridor would provide 
direct service to the Miami CBD and Medical Center as well as 
provide service to Miami Dade Community College--North Campus 
and the Pro Player Stadium. MDTA has estimated total project 
costs in year of expenditure (YOE) at $595,700,000; based on 
the assumed Federal/local share, the YOE section 5309 share is 
$405,400,000. Congress has appropriated $923,000 for the 
project to date. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$3,000,000 for final design activities related to this project.
    Nashville, Tennessee commuter rail project.--The Nashville 
Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the local Metropolitan 
Planning Organization (MPO) are examining the feasibility of 
implementing a commuter rail system connecting the Downtown 
Nashville area with other areas in the Southeast Tennessee 
region. The Nashville Chamber of Commerce has created a task 
force to evaluate the prospect of commuter rail deployment. The 
MPO has also created a commuter rail task force. The Northeast 
Corridor to Hendersonville and the East Corridor to Mt. Juliet, 
with a spur to Opryland, have emerged in both processes as 
leading candidates for commuter rail. Early planning for eight 
intermodal commuter rail stations is beginning. Through fiscal 
year 1999, Congress has appropriated nearly $1,000,000 in 
section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 
2000, the Committee recommends $1,000,000.
    New Jersey Hudson-Bergen project.--The New Jersey Transit 
Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing a 9.6-mile, 16-station 
light rail line along the Hudson River Waterfront in Hudson 
County, from the Hoboken Terminal to 34th Street in Bayonne and 
Westside Avenue in Jersey City. This line is intended as the 
first minimum operable segment (MOS) of a larger 21-mile, 30-
station line extending from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride 
lot in Bergen County to Bayonne, passing through Port Imperial 
in Weehauken, Hoboken, and Jersey City. The core of the 
completed system will serve the high-density commercial centers 
in Jersey City and Hoboken, and provide connections with NJ 
Transit commuter rail service, PATH trains to Newark and 
Manhattan, and the Port Imperial ferry from Weehauken to 
Manhattan. The initial operating segment is being constructed 
under a turnkey contract to design, build, operate, and 
maintain the system, which was awarded in October 1996. 
Construction began on the MOS in December 1996. This project is 
a major component of the Urban Core program of interrelated 
projects defined in ISTEA and TEA21, designed to enhance 
mobility significantly in the Northeastern New Jersey area. 
These projects were specifically exempt from the FTA New Starts 
evaluation criteria by ISTEA, and again by TEA21. The 
Department issued an FFGA on October 15, 1996 that commits 
$604,090,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for the MOS. 
Through fiscal year 1999, $228,304,000 has been appropriated 
for the project. The Committee recommends $99,000,000 that be 
provided in fiscal year 2000.
    New Orleans Canal Street corridor project.--The Regional 
Transit Authority (RTA) is developing a 4.7-mile streetcar 
project in downtown New Orleans. The Canal Streetcar Spine 
would extend along the median of Canal Street from the Canal 
Ferry at the Mississippi River in the Central Business District 
through the Mid-City neighborhood to two outer termini at the 
Cemeteries and City Park/Beauregard Circle. The capital cost 
estimate is $154,000,000 (escalated dollars). Ridership is 
estimated to be 31,600 passengers per day for the forecast year 
(2015). RTA completed a major investment study/alternatives 
analysis of the Canal Street corridor in March 1995. The 
regional planning commission, the metropolitan planning 
organization for New Orleans, has included the Canal Spine and 
Carrolton Spur to City Park in the transportation plan and 
transportation improvement program. The FTA approved the 
initiation of preliminary engineering and the preparation of a 
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) in September 1995. 
The DEIS was published in March 1997 and the final 
environmental impact statement was published in July 1997. FTA 
issued a record of decision for the project on August 28, 1997. 
The RTA initiated final design on the Canal Streetcar Spine in 
September 1997. TEA21 section 3030(a)(51) authorizes the New 
Orleans Canal Streetcar project for final design and 
construction. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated $54,199,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for 
this project. For fiscal year 2000, the accompanying bill 
provides $2,000,000 for final design and construction.
    Newark rail link MOS-1 project.--The New Jersey Transit 
Corporation (NJ Transit) is planning an 8.8-mile, 16-station 
light rail system linking the cities of Newark and Elizabeth, 
New Jersey. The project will be advanced in threestages. The 
first Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) is a one-mile, five-
station extension of the existing 4.3-mile Newark City Subway 
light rail line, running from Broad Street Station in Newark to 
Newark Penn Station. The second stage is a planned one-mile 
segment from Newark Penn Station to Camp Street in downtown 
Newark, and the third is the planned remaining 7-mile segment 
to Elizabeth, which includes a station serving Newark 
International Airport. The total capital cost of the MOS is 
estimated at $150,000,000, including associated stations, 
vehicles and a vehicle maintenance facility. The capital cost 
of the entire 8.8-mile project is estimated to be $694,000,000 
($1995). NJ Transit projects that the entire line will carry 
24,900 riders per day in 2015. The draft environmental impact 
statement (DEIS) for all three stages of the full build 
alternative was completed in January 1997. The final 
environmental impact statement (FEIS), which addressed only the 
MOS, was completed in October 1998. The Federal Transit 
Administration signed a record of decision (ROD) for the MOS in 
November 1998. Environmental work on the other segments of the 
Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link awaits completion of an additional 
planning study. Section 3030(a)(57) of TEA21 authorized the New 
Jersey Urban Core Project, which consists of eight separate 
elements, including the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, for final 
design and construction. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated $17,635,000 in section 5309 funds for the New 
Jersey Urban Core Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link Project. The Urban 
Core project, including the Newark Rail Link, was exempt from 
evaluation under the statutory project justification criteria 
by section 3031(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). This exemption continues under 
TEA21. However, NJ Transit has provided data to FTA for 
evaluation, which provides a basis for supporting a federal 
commitment and a funding recommendation for fiscal year 2000, 
the Committee recommends $6,000,000 for final design and 
construction
    Norfolk-Virginia Beach corridor project.--The Tidewater 
Transportation District Commission (TTDC) is planning an 18.3-
mile double track light rail transit (LRT) line from the 
Oceanfront area in Virginia Beach to Downtown Norfolk. The 
proposed LRT alignment generally follows 14 miles of existing 
Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way. The project is the 
first phase of a 30-mile alignment that includes an extension 
to the Norfolk Naval Base and the cities off Chesapeake and 
Portsmouth. This corridor serves an area of significant growth 
for the region including a large number of people who commute 
into Norfolk and Virginia Beach from outside those communities. 
Virginia Beach Boulevard and Route 44/I-264 are at or over 
capacity at many locations. In addition to capacity concerns, 
there are other important issues within the corridor, such as 
potential economic development opportunities and increased 
mobility for the residents of Hampton Roads. TTDC estimates 
that the LRT will cost $524,600,000 (escalated dollars) to 
construct, and will carry 14,740 new riders in the year 2018. 
The TTDC completed a major investment study (MIS) to evaluate 
transit/transportation improvements in the 30-mile corridor 
extending from Virginia Beach to Downtown Norfolk and the 
Norfolk Naval Base. TTDC selected the Light Rail Transit 
Alternative for the 18.3-mile segment from Virginia to Downtown 
Norfolk as the locally preferred alternative (LPA), which was 
endorsed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization on January 
15, 1997. Development of the segment connecting to the Norfolk 
Naval Base will be considered in a later phase. Approval from 
the Federal Transit Administration to enter preliminary 
engineering/environmental impact statement (PE/EIS) was granted 
in April 1997. TTDC anticipates that the PE/EIS will be 
completed in February 1999. TEA21 Section 3030(a)(58) 
authorizes the Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor for final design 
and construction. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated $9,933,000 in section 5309 new start funds to this 
project. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$1,000,000.
    Northern Indiana south shore commuter rail project.--The 
Committee recommends $4,000,000 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, Indiana, and 
the Randolph Street Station in Chicago, Illinois. In order to 
meet the growing demand for commuter rail service in northern 
Indiana, appropriated funds to be matched local funds will be 
used for the purchase of additional passenger train cars. 
Through fiscal year 1999, the Congress has appropriated 
$7,461,000 for this project.
    Oceanside-Escondido passenger rail project.--The North 
County Transit District (NCTD) is planning the conversion of an 
existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a commuter rail 
transit system running east from the coastal City of Oceanside, 
through the Cities of Vista, San Marcos, and unincorporated 
portions of San Diego County, to the City of Escondido. A 
proposed new alignment will serve the California State 
University San Marcos (CSUSM), including an additional 1.7 
miles of new rail right-of-way. The proposed project is 
situated along the State Route 78 corridor, which connects 
Interstate Highways 5 and 15, the principal east-west corridor 
in Northern San Diego County. The proposed rail system would 
serve fifteen stations; four of these stations would be located 
at existing transit centers. Average daily weekday ridership in 
the year 2015 is projected to total 15,100 and daily new riders 
are projected to be 8,590. An environmental impact report (EIR) 
for the Oceanside-Escondido rail project and an EIR for the 
CSUSM alignment were published and certified in 1990 and 1991 
respectively. A major investment study was not required based 
on concurrence from FTA, FHWA, the San Diego Association of 
Governments (SANDAG), Caltrans, the City of San Marcos, and 
NCTD. Advanced planning for the Oceanside-Escondido Rail 
Project, which resulted in 30 percent design, was completed in 
December 1995. The environmental assessment/subsequent 
environmental impact report (EA/SEIR), was completed in early 
1997. The San Diego County Transit Development Board certified 
the SEIR in March 1997. FTA issued a finding of no significant 
impact in October 1997. Section 3030 (a)(77) authorizes the 
Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor for final design and 
construction. Through fiscal year 1999 Congress has 
appropriated $5,968,000 in section 5309 new start funds and for 
this project. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for final design and construction activities related 
to this project.
    Olympic transportation investments.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for transportation 
infrastructure investments related to the Salt Lake City 2002 
Winter Olympic Games. These funds are to be allocated by the 
Secretary consistent with the approved transportation 
management plan for the Salt Lake City Olympic Games. The 
Committee directs, however, that none of these funds shall be 
available for planning or construction related to the Salk Lake 
City west-east light rail project, any segment thereof, or a 
downtown connector in Salt Lake City. The Committee's 
recommendation also includes a general provision, (section 
344), which prohibits the use of funds in this Act to execute a 
letter of intent, letter of no prejudice or full funding grant 
agreement for the west-west light rail system, any portion 
thereof, or a downtown connector.
    Orange County, California transitway project.--The Orange 
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is developing a 28-mile 
Transitway Corridor in central Orange County between Fullerton 
and Irvine. The proposed Transitway will connect major activity 
centers within the Corridor, including downtown Fullerton and 
the Fullerton Transportation Center, downtown Anaheim, the 
Anaheim Resort Area (including Disneyland, the Anaheim 
Convention Center, Edison Stadium and the Arrowhead Pond) 
downtown Santa Ana (and the county government center), John 
Wayne Airport, El Toro Marine Base (which is being converted to 
civilian use), and several hospitals and regional shopping, 
employment, cultural, and entertainment centers. The diversity 
of attractions throughout the corridor is expected to generate 
a significant number of bi-directional and non-peak trips. A 
preferred rail technology has not yet been specified. Several 
alternatives are being examined in preliminary engineering. 
Assuming a rail system which is 94 percent at-grade and 6 
percent elevated, the project is estimated to cost 
$1,920,000,000 (escalated dollars) and to carry 55,800 riders 
per day. OCTA completed a major investment study (MIS) for the 
corridor in June 1997. The MIS led to the selection of a rail/
bus project consisting of a 28-mile transitway and a 49% 
increase in bus service. The Transitway is included in the 
financially constrained and conforming regional transportation 
plan and transportation improvement program. In February 1998, 
FTA approved entry into the preliminary engineering (PE)/draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS) phase of project 
development. The DEIS effort is expected to conclude in 
December 1999 with the selection of a locally preferred 
alternative (LPA), at which point OCTA will focus its remaining 
PE effort on the LPA. The Transitway project is included in the 
metropolitan planning organization's financially constrained 
and conforming regional transportation plan and transportation 
improvement program. TEA21 section 3030(a)(59) authorizes the 
Fullerton-Irvine Corridor for final design and construction. 
Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has appropriated $7,450,000 
in section 5309 new starts funds. For fiscal year 2000, the 
Committee recommends $1,000,000.
    Orlando/Lynx light rail (phase 1) project.--The Central 
Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) in Orlando is 
proposing to construct a 16.3-mile, 20-station light rail 
system in the Interstate 4 (I-4) corridor between the Loch 
Haven/Princeton area in the north to the Central Florida 
Parkway in the south. LYNX plans to implement the system in two 
phases. The first minimum operable segment (MOS) is a 14.6-mile 
line along I-4 and a CSX railroad line, between downtown 
Orlando and a station to be located near the interchange 
between I-4 and the Central Florida Parkway. This line will 
connect the CBD and the International Drive tourist area, both 
of which are major trip generators. The total capital costs for 
the MOS are estimated at $600,100,000, with estimated daily 
ridership totaling 103,700 passengers in 2020. In addition to 
the light rail system, LYNX proposes to expand local bus and 
feeder bus service in the corridor. The Central Florida LRT 
project was included in a major investment study for the I-4 
corridor, which was completed by the Florida Department of 
Transportation (FDOT) in the Fall of 1995. In December 1995, 
the Orlando and Volusia County MPOs adopted the I-4 MIS design 
concept and scope improvements as part of the Year 2020 long 
range transportation plans. LYNX and FDOT have completed 
preliminary engineering for the Central Florida LRT MOS. The 
final environmental impact statement (FEIS) has been signed, 
the record of decision (ROD) has been issued and FTA has 
approved entrance into final design. Section 3030(a)(60) of 
TEA21 authorizes the Orlando/I-4 central Florida light rail 
system for final design and construction. Through fiscal year 
1999, Congress has appropriated $51,060,000 in new starts funds 
for this project. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee 
recommends $20,000,000.
    Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuykill Valley metro 
project.--The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 
Authority (SEPTA) and the Berks Area Reading Transportation 
Authority (BARTA) are conducting an alternatives analysis 
study/draft environmental impact statement (AA/DEIS) for the 
Schuykill Valley Corridor. The proposed corridor extends 
approximately 62 miles and includes the City of Philadelphia, 
smaller cities of Reading, Norristown, Pottstown and 
Phoenixville. The corridor also includes suburban centers of 
King of Prussia and Great Valley, as well as regional activity 
centers and attractions including Center City, Art Museum, 
Philadelphia Zoo, King of Prussia Malls, Valley Forge National 
Park and Reading outlets. The proposed corridor also 
encompasses three transit authorities: SEPTA, BARTA and 
Pottstown Urban Transit (PUT) and two metropolitan planning 
regions: Delaware Valley and Berks County. The corridor is 
located along existing rail freight or commuter rail right-of-
way and parallels major congested expressways: the Schuykill 
Expressway (Interstate 76), the US 422 Expressway and US Route 
202. Alternatives currently under consideration include light 
rail and commuter rail. Total capital costs for the 
alternatives are estimated between $401,000,000 and 
$717,000,000. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has provided 
$2,978,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the proposed 
Schuykill Valley Corridor. The accompanying bill provides 
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
    Phoenix metropolitan area transit project.--The Regional 
Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) is planning a 22-mile 
at-grade light rail system to connect the cities of Phoenix, 
Tempe, and Mesa. A 13-mile minimum operating segment (MOS) from 
downtown Phoenix to the east side of Tempe including a 1.75-
mile spur to serve the Rio Salado development along the Salt 
River in Tempe is proposed to be built first. The locally 
preferred alternative also includes an expanded bus and park-
and-ride system. The MOS LRT is estimated to cost approximately 
$390,000,000 (escalated) and serve 18,600 daily riders. The 
improved regional bus system portion of the project includes a 
doubling of the RPTA's current bus revenue miles and is 
estimated to cost approximately $480,000,000 ($1998). The RPTA 
completed the Central Phoenix/East Valley major investment 
study (MIS) in the Spring of 1998. In September 1998, FTA 
granted RPTA permission to enter the preliminary engineering/
environmental impact statement (PE/EIS) phase on 20 miles of 
the corridor. It is anticipated that PE/EIS will be completed 
in November 2000. The Maricopa Association of Governments 
(local MPO) adopted the CP/EV Corridor as a fixed guideway 
corridor and included the CP/EV LRT project in the long range 
transportation plan and the current regional transportation 
improvement plan. Section 3030(a)(62) of TEA21 authorizes the 
Phoenix fixed guideway project for final design and 
construction. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated $8,950,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2000, 
the Committee recommends $7,000,000.
    Pinellas County, Florida mobility initiative project.--The 
Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is 
currently engaged in the conduct of a major investment study, 
titled the Mobility Initiative, to identify multi-modal travel 
demands, needs and recommendations to develop solutions to the 
region's transportation needs. This effort is identified in the 
metropolitan planning organization's 2020 long range 
transportation plan. However, the Mobility Initiative will 
provide substantially more detailed analysis as to a specific 
transportation solution than is possible within the framework 
of the long range transportation plan. The accompanying bill 
provides $3,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2000.
    Portland Westside light rail transit project.--On September 
12, 1998 the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District 
(Tri-Met) in Portland, Oregon officially opened the 17.7-mile 
extension of the MAX light rail system between downtown 
Portland and downtown Hillsboro. This line includes 20 new 
stations and nine park-and-ride lots. The route includes a 3-
mile twin-tube tunnel under the West Hills, essentially 
paralleling the Sunset Highway. Service is provided by 42 low-
floor light rail vehicles, the first to be placed in service in 
the United States. The original FFGA for this project was 
issued in September 1992, for a segment to S.W. 185th Avenue in 
Washington County, and was amended in December 1994 to include 
the remaining segment to Hillsboro. Consistent with 
Congressional authorization, it was amended again on November 
1, 1996 to commit a total of $630,060,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funding to the entire ``Westside-Hillsboro'' project. Of 
this, $619,000,000 has been provided through fiscal year 1999. 
The Committee recommends that this final funding increment of 
$11,062,000 be provided in fiscal year 2000.
    Puget Sound RTA Link light rail project.--Sound Transit 
(Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) is planning a 
24-mile Central Link light rail transit (LRT) project running 
north to south from Northgate, through downtown Seattle, 
Southeast Seattle and the cities of Tukwila and SeaTac. At 
least 21 stations are planned, with six additional stations 
along the corridor under consideration. The system would 
utilize new right-of-way, except in the existing 1.6 mile 
Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel. Sound Transit estimates a 
total of 155,200 daily riders, including 57,000 daily new 
riders, on the 24-mile system in 2020. Capital costs for the 
entire project are $2,900,000,000 (escalated dollars), with 
annual operating costs estimated at $44,400,000 (1997 dollars). 
Sound Transit is requesting a 50% section 5309 share of project 
costs. Sound Transit will break the system into a series of 
minimum operable segments as a means of implementing the 
project. The Link LRT system is one element of Sound Transit's 
voter-approved ten year, $3,914,000,000 Sound Move regional 
transit plan, which also includes implementation of a 2-mile 
LRT line in downtown Tacoma; an 82-mile Sounder commuter rail 
system operating between Lakewood and Everett; 20 new regional 
express bus routes; 14 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) direct 
access ramps (providing access to over 100 miles of existing 
HOV lanes); 14 new park and ride lots and 9 transit centers; 
and other service improvements. The RTA Board adopted the Sound 
Move regional transit plan in May, 1996. Voters approved 
$3,914,000,000 in local funding for implementation of the plan 
in November, 1996. A major investment study of Sound Move's 
services was completed in March 1997. Sound Move is included in 
the Puget Sound Regional Council's (the area's MPO) 
transportation plan and regional transportation improvement 
program (TIP). FTA approved initiation of preliminary 
engineering on the Link LRT in July 1997. A draft environmental 
impact statement was scheduled for publication in December 
1998. Sound Transit will examine minimum operable segments 
(MOS) of the project in the preliminary engineering phase of 
project development. TEA21 section 3030(a)(85) authorizes the 
Seattle Sound Move Corridor, of which Link is one element, for 
final design and construction. Through fiscal year 1999, 
Congress has appropriated $16,910,000 for the Link light rail 
project. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for final design and construction.
    Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project.--Sound 
Transit (Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) plans 
to implement an 8-station 40-mile Sounder commuter rail line 
between Tacoma and Seattle, Washington. The project would 
provide peak-period, bi-directional commuter rail service 
between downtown Tacoma and Seattle on existing Burlington 
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. Planned improvements along the 
BNSF line will allow increased passenger rail speed and 
minimize conflicts with existing freight and Amtrak traffic. 
Express and local feeder bus service will provide access 
between commuter rail stations and other regional 
transportation facilities, including light rail, monorail, and 
ferry terminals. Sound Transit estimates approximately 12,300 
average weekday riders on the Seattle-Tacoma Sounder line in 
2020. Capital costs are estimated at approximately $401,000,000 
(escalated dollars), and annual operating costs are estimated 
to total $11,400,000 (escalated dollars). The Tacoma-to-Seattle 
line is Phase 1 of what Sound Transit proposes to be a 14-
station, 82-mile commuter rail system. Phase 2 would extend the 
system south from Tacoma to Lakewood (8.2 miles) and north from 
Seattle to Everett (34.5 miles). Sound Transit estimates 18,800 
riders on the full system in 2020. Commuter rail itself is only 
one element of Sound Transit's voter-approved ten year, 
$3,914,000,000 (1995 dollars) Sound Move regional transit plan, 
which also includes implementation of a 23-mile light rail 
transit line between Seattle and SeaTac Airport; a 2-mile LRT 
line in downtown Tacoma; 20 new regional express bus routes; 14 
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) direct access ramps (providing 
access to over 100 miles of existing HOV lanes); 14 new park 
and ride lots and 9 transit centers; and other service 
improvements. The RTA Board adopted the Sound Move regional 
transit plan in May 1996. Voters approved $3,914,000,000 in 
local funding for implementation of the plan in November, 1996. 
A major investment study of Sound Move's services was completed 
in March 1997. Sound Move is included in the Puget Sound 
Regional Council's (the area's MPO) transportation plan and 
transportation improvement program (TIP). Sound Transit's 
request to enter into preliminary engineering on the full 82-
mile Everett-to-Lakewood commuter rail corridor was approved by 
FTA in March 1998. In 1993, the Regional Transit Authority (now 
known as Sound Transit) received a $1,900,000 grant to conduct 
an environmental assessment (EA) on the 40-mile Tacoma-to-
Seattle segment (Phase 1) of the line. The EA was completed and 
FTA issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) in June 
1998. Sound Transit received FTA approval to enter final design 
in December 1998. Sound Transit is currently in the process of 
procuring locomotives and passenger coaches. Sound Transit 
plans to initiate revenue service on the Sounder Tacoma-to-
Seattle line in late 1999. Sound Transit is continuing PE and 
undertaking a final environmental impact statement on the 
Lakewood-Tacoma and Seattle-Everett segments of the Sounder 
commuter rail project Sound Transit is anticipating a record of 
decision on these segments in the fall of 1999. TEA21 section 
3030(a)(85) authorizes the Seattle Sound Move Corridor, of 
which Sounder is one element, for final design and 
construction. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated $55,490,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for 
this project. For fiscal year 2000, the accompanying bill 
provides $12,000,000 for final design activities related to the 
project.
    Railtran (Trinity Railway Express), Fort Worth, Texas.--The 
Committee remains supportive of the planned Trinity Railway 
Express, formerly Railtran, commuter rail service between 
Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas. However, the Committee has become 
aware of the City of Fort Worth's desire to further review the 
suitability of the current, planned location for the downtown 
bus transfer center at 9th and Jones Streets. Accordingly, the 
Committee directs the Federal Transit Administration to suspend 
approval of any funding for the construction of the 9th Street 
bus transfer center until the City of Fort Worth has reviewed 
and considered the final recommendations of the Lancaster 
Steering Committee. The Committee also directs the Federal 
Transit Administration to permit, without penalty, the use of 
additional federal funding for bus center and rail station 
design, should the City approve a change of location.
    Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill triangle transit project.--The 
Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) in Raleigh, North Carolina is 
planning a regional commuter rail system that will link the 
three counties--Wake, Durham, and Orange--in the Triangle 
Region of North Carolina. TTA plans to implement this system in 
three phases. Phase I is a 35-mile, 16-station line between the 
cities of Raleigh and Durham, which will follow 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 Raleigh, and North Raleigh. TTA proposes to use diesel 
multiple unit (DMU) rail vehicles to provide service on this 
corridor. Projected ridership for Phase I is estimated at 
14,000 riders a day by the year 2020. The capital cost estimate 
for Phase I totals $284,000,000; this includes final design 
activities, acquisition of right-of-way and rail vehicles, 
station construction, park and ride lots, and construction of 
storage and maintenance facilities. The Regional Rail system 
emerged from the local planning process as the result of TTA's 
Triangle Fixed Guideway Study, which was completed in 1995. The 
Authority's Board of Trustees has adopted the study's 
recommendations to put into place a regional rail system, and 
resolutions of support have been received from all major units 
of local government, chambers of commerce, universities, and 
major employers in the Triangle. The two metropolitan planning 
organizations within whose jurisdiction the rail service will 
operate have incorporated the study recommendations into their 
fiscally constrained long-range plans. Phase I of the regional 
rail project is included in the two local 1998-2004 TIPs and 
the STIP. FTA approved Phase I for entry into preliminary 
engineering in January 1998, and TTA initiated the preparation 
of an environmental impact statement. Negotiations with the 
railroads for access and station location planning are 
underway. TTA expects to complete preliminary engineering and 
obtain a record of decision on the EIS by January 2000. Section 
3030(a)(68) of TEA21 authorized the ``Raleigh-Durham regional 
transit plan'' for final design and construction. Through 
fiscal year 1999, Congress has appropriated $23,880,000 in 
section 5309 new starts funds for this project. To continue 
this project, the Committee recommends $12,000,000 to be 
available for final design activities.
    Sacramento south corridor LRT project.--The Sacramento 
Regional Transit District (RT) is developing an 11.3-mile light 
rail project in the South Sacramento Corridor. The system will 
follow existing Union Pacific right-of-way from downtown 
Sacramento to Calvine/Auberry. To maximize the use of available 
State and local capital funds, RT will implement this project 
in several phases. The first phase, a 6.3-mile minimum operable 
segment (MOS), would operate between downtown Sacramento and 
Meadowview Road. Population and employment in this corridor are 
expected to grow at rates faster than the regional average, 
resulting in severe congestion on the two major highways in the 
corridor. Final design activities commenced on July 1, 1997, 
and construction is expected to begin in late 1999. The project 
is projected to open for revenue service by September 2003. On 
June 20, 1997, an FFGA was issued for the 6.3-mile MOS, 
committing a total of $111,200,000 in federal new starts 
funding. This does not include $1,980,000 in prior year funds 
that were obligated before the FFGA was issued, which brings 
the total amount of section 5309 new starts funding to 
$113,180,000. A total of $53,459,000 has been appropriated 
through fiscal year 1999. The Committee recommends $25,000,000 
in fiscal year 2000, as specified in the FFGA, for this 
project.
    San Bernardino, California Metrolink project.--The 
Committee provides $1,000,000 for the San Bernardino Metrolink 
project in fiscal year 2000. The Southern California Regional 
Rail Authority (SCRRA) is proposing a series of improvements to 
its commuter rail service within an existing railroad right-of-
way. These improvements include the construction of sidings in 
the Interstate 10 Corridor, an upgrade of siding at Marengo and 
the double tracking of a line between the existing Pomona and 
Montclair stations. These improvements will result in an 
increase in service frequency, a reduction of commuter rail 
train delays, and an improvement to the schedules of counter-
flow trains on the San Bernardino Line. The San Bernardino Line 
has the highest ridership of all Metrolink lines. There are 
currently 26 daily train trips in the corridor serving 8,200 
daily commuter rail trips. The estimated capital cost for the 
proposed project is $31,400,000. Through fiscal year 1999, 
Congress has appropriated $1,989,000 in section 5309 funds for 
this project.
    San Diego Mid-Coast corridor project.--The Metropolitan 
Transit Development Board (MTDB) is planning to construct a 
10.7-mile light rail line and improve two commuter rail 
stations in the Mid-Coast Corridor. The corridor extends 
approximately 12 miles along I-5, from I-8 near Old Town, north 
to the vicinity of the University of California at San Diego, 
University City, and Carmel Valley. The proposed light rail 
extension includes 9 stations. The line would connect the 
existing Blue LRT line serving Mission Valley, Downtown San 
Diego, South Bay communities and the border with Mexico, as 
well as with the Coaster Commuter Rail line at the Old Town 
Transit Center. MTDB is pursuing section 5309 new starts 
funding on an initial 3.4-mile phase, the Balboa Extension from 
Old Town to Balboa A Avenue. The estimated project cost is 
$104,60,000 (escalated). The commuter rail improvements consist 
of the construction of a new station and the implementation of 
pedestrian enhancements to the existing Sorrento Coaster 
Commuter Rail Station. The Mid Coast locally preferred 
alternative was selected in October 1995. FTA approved the 
MTDB's request to enter preliminary engineering (PE) for the 
3.4-mile initial phase of the LRT extension in September 1996 
and for the Coaster commuter rail station improvements in May 
1997. The Mid Coast projects were included in the long range 
plan and transportation improvement plan in 1996. The Coaster 
stations and the Phase I Balboa Light Rail Transit Extension 
are being combined into one initial project, and are proceeding 
through PE and the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) 
together, scheduled to be completed in January 1999. An 
environmental assessment is being prepared for the addition of 
parking to the existing commuter rail station and is also 
scheduled for completion in January 1999. TEA 21 section 
3030(a)(75) authorizes the Mid Coast LRT Corridor for final 
design and construction. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated $6,418,000 in section 5309 new start funds to the 
project. For fiscal year 2000, the accompanying bill provides 
$7,000,000 for final design activities.
    San Diego Mission Valley East light rail line.--The 
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is planning a 
5.9-mile light rail extension from east of Interstate 15 to the 
City of La Mesa, where it would connect to the existing East 
LRT Line (now referred to as the Orange Line) near Baltimore 
Drive. The Mission Valley East line will serve four new and two 
existing stations, and would include elevated, at-grade, and 
tunnel portions. The project includes two park and ride lots 
and a new access road between Waring Road and the Grantville 
Station. The total project capital cost is $361,000,000. The 
system is expected to serve approximately 10,800 daily riders 
in the corridor by 2015. The major investment study/draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed in May 
1997. The locally preferred alternative was selected by the 
metropolitan transit development board in October 1997 with 
concurrence from the San Diego Association of Governments 
(SANDAG). FTA approved entry into preliminary engineering in 
March 1998, and preliminary engineering was completed in July 
1998. This abbreviated schedule was made possible by the 
extensive public involvement and detailed analyses undertaken 
during the planning stages, streamlining much of the work that 
would traditionally be undertaken during preliminary 
engineering and preparation of the final environmental impact 
statement (FEIS). The FEIS is complete, the record of decision 
(ROD) was issued in August 1998, and approval to enter final 
design was granted by FTA in October 1998. This project was 
authorized for final design and construction by section 
3030(a)(76) of TEA 21. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has 
appropriated $2,490,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for 
this project. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$23,000,000.
    San Francisco BART extension to the airport project.--Bay 
Area Rapid Transit (BART) in San Francisco and the San Mateo 
County Transit District (SamTrans) are implementing an 8.2-
mile, 4-station extension of the BART rapid transit system to 
serve San Francisco International Airport. The project consists 
of a 7.4-mile mainline extension from the existing BART station 
at Colma, through Colma, south San Francisco, and San Bruno, 
terminating at the Millbrae Avenue BART/CalTrain Station. An 
additional 0.8-mile spur from the main line north of Millbrae 
will take BART trains directly into the airport, to a station 
adjoining the new international terminal. The San Francisco 
International Airport is a major partner in this project. All 
structures and facilities to be constructed on airport 
property, and installation of related equipment, are being 
funded, designed and constructed by the airport for BART. This 
project is also participating in the FTA turnkey demonstration 
program to determine if the design/build approach will reduce 
implementation time and cost. On July 24, 1997, the first 
contract was awarded for site preparation and utility 
relocation associated with this project. Bids for the main 
contract for construction of the line, trackwork and related 
systems were opened on November 25, 1997. On June 30, 1997, FTA 
entered into an FFGA for the BART-SFO extension, committing a 
total of $750,000,000 in Federal new starts funds to the 
project. Through fiscal year 1999, a total of $153,429,000 has 
been allocated to this project. The Committee recommends that 
$84,000,000 be available for this project in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee is concerned about continuing schedule 
slippages and cost increases on the San Francisco BART to the 
airport project. While the current FFGA calls for a September 
2001 opening date, the project management oversight consultant 
review indicates that it could be as late as July 2002. 
Originally estimated to cost $1,167,000,000, the sponsor 
suggests that costs may rise to $1,483,000,000, an increase of 
27 percent. Of this amount, BART attributes $109,000,000 to (1) 
higher than expected bids on three contracts caused by a 
``superheated'' Bay area economy (these claims are more 
anecdotal than substantiated); (2) added contingencies to 
address potential high bids on other contracts; and (3) a 
variety of scope changes, low initial estimates for systems 
work, change orders due to unexpected conditions, and 
additional finance costs. This cost estimate may still rise by 
as much as another $83,000,000 to reflect cost increases 
associated with station work at the San Francisco International 
Airport and additional contingency amounts. BART has also 
proposed to delete a $100,000,000 purchase of 28 train cars and 
replace it with $70,000,000 worth of shop improvements at four 
of its maintenance facilities. These changes, BART suggests, 
would enable BART to expand the capacity of its maintenance 
shops and thus allow BART to reduce the amount of time cars are 
out of service. With these improvements, BART believes that it 
can use its existing fleet to provide the vehicles needed to 
operate on the new extension, thereby foregoing any new train 
cars for the extension that were assumed in the full funding 
grant agreement. BART then plans to use the $30,000,000 left 
over from the vehicles budget to cover construction cost 
increases. The Committee is skeptical of such a proposal and 
fears that costs-to-complete continue to be underestimated.
    Therefore, the Committee directs that none of the funds 
provided in this Act shall be available until (1) the project 
sponsor produces a finance plan that clearly delineates the 
full costs-to-complete as identified by the project management 
oversight contractor and the manner in which the sponsor 
expects to pay those costs; (2) the FTA conducts a final review 
and accepts the plan and certifies to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations that the fiscal management of the 
project meets or exceeds accepted U.S. government standards; 
(3) the General Accounting Office and the Department of 
Transportation's Inspector General conduct an independent 
analysis of the plans and provide such analysis to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of FTA 
accepting the plan; and (4) the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations have concluded their review of the analysis 
within 60 days of the transmittal of the analysis to the 
Committees. Lastly, the Committee directs the FTA to conduct 
ongoing, continual financial management reviews of this 
project.
    San Jose Tasman West light rail project.--The Santa Clara 
County Transit District (SCCTD) is planning a 12.4-mile light 
rail system from northeast San Jose to downtown Mountain View, 
connecting with both the Guadalupe LRT in northern Santa Clara 
County and the Caltrain commuter rail system. The project is 
proceeding in two phases: the Phase 1 West Extension will 
connect the northern terminus of the Guadalupe Light Rail 
System in Santa Clara with the Caltrain Commuter Rail station 
in downtown Mountain View, a distance of 7.6 miles; the future 
Phase 2 East Extension will complete the remaining 4.8 miles. 
An FFGA was issued for Phase 1 of this project on July 2, 1996, 
providing a total of $182,750,000 in section 5309 new starts 
funding. A total of $150,880,000 has been provided through 
fiscal year 1999. The Committee recommendation includes 
$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
    San Juan Tren Urbano project.--The Puerto Rico Department 
of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) is constructing a 
10.7-mile, 16-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, and a maintenance facility. When complete, 
this system is expected to carry 113,300 riders per day by 
2010. This project has been selected as one of FTA's turnkey 
demonstration projects, which incorporates contracts to design, 
build, operate, and maintain the system. This type of 
procurement is expected to expedite the implementation of the 
project and develop the institutional capability needed to 
operate the system. During 1996 and 1997, seven contracts were 
awarded under the turnkey procurement. On March 13, 1996, FTA 
entered into an FFGA committing $307,410,000 in section 5309 
new starts funds to this project, out of a total project cost 
of $1,250,000,000. This did not include $4,960,000 in federal 
new starts funding provided prior to fiscal year 1996, which 
brings total federal new starts funding for this project to 
$312,370,000. A total of $53,233,000 has been allocated to the 
Tren Urbano project through fiscal year 1999. In accordance 
with the FFGA, the Committee recommends $82,000,000 be provided 
to this project in fiscal year 2000.
    As of May 1999, the current cost to complete the Tren 
Urbano project is estimated to be $1,676,000,000, an increase 
of $426,000,000, or 34 percent, over the original estimate of 
$1,250,000,000 contained in the March 1996 full funding grant 
agreement. The project revenue operations date is May 2002, ten 
months behind schedule, in part due to hurricane delays. The 
estimate excludes $478,300,000 in additional costs related to 
the planned Minellas extension. Primary factors contributing to 
this increase include the addition of two stations; alignment 
changes, station enhancements, an enhanced fare collection 
system, an expanded system integration and quality assurance 
program; and low initial engineer's estimates. The Committee is 
very troubled by recent findings of the financial management 
oversight contractor that indicate that the current finance 
plan does not demonstrate clearly that the grantee has the 
financial capacity for its current capital plans and that it 
may be unable to build and maintain the project without 
adversely impacting the area's other transportation 
requirements.
    Therefore, the Committee directs that none of the funds 
provided in this Act shall be available until (1) the project 
sponsor produces a finance plan that clearly delineates the 
full costs-to-complete and manner in which the sponsor expects 
to pay those costs; (2) the FTA and FHWA conducts a final 
review and accepts the plan and certifies to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations that the fiscal management 
of the project meets or exceeds accepted U.S. government 
standards; (3) the General Accounting Office and the Department 
of Transportation's Inspector General conduct an independent 
analysis of the plans and provide such analysis to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of FTA 
accepting the plan; and (4) the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations have concluded their review of the analysis 
within 60 days of the transmittal of the analysis to the 
Committees. Lastly, the Committee directs the FTA to conduct 
ongoing, continual financial management reviews of this 
project.
    South Boston piers transitway.--The Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority (MBTA) is developing an underground 
transitway to connect the existing transit system with the 
South Boston Piers area. The Piers area, which is connected to 
the central business district (CBD) by three local bridges, is 
slated for significant future development. A 1.5-mile tunnel, 
to be constructed in two phases, will extend from the existing 
Boylston Station to the World Trade Center; five underground 
stations will provide connections to the MBTA's Red, Orange, 
and Green Lines. Dual-mode trackless trolleys will operate in 
the transitway tunnel and on surface routes in the eastern end 
of the Piers area. Phase 1 of this project consists of a 1-
mile, three-station bus tunnel between South Station and the 
World Trade Center, with an intermediate stop at Fan Pier. Part 
of the construction is being coordinated with the Central 
Artery highway project. South Station serves the existing MBTA 
Red Line, as well as Amtrak and commuter rail and bus service. 
The total estimated cost of Phase I is $413,400,000, though 
this does not include recently calculated cost increases. Any 
escalation of the total project cost is the responsibility of 
local project sponsors. Phase II would extend the transitway to 
Boylston Station on the Green Line and the Chinatown Station on 
the Orange Line. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA directed FTA to enter 
into an FFGA for this project. On November 5, 1994, an FFGA was 
issued for Phase 1, committing a total of $330,730,000 in 
section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal year 1999, a 
total of $241,880,000 has been provided for this project. For 
fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$53,962,000.
    The Committee is concerned about significant cost increases 
on the South Boston Piers transitway project. Originally 
estimated to cost a total of $413,400,000, the project is now 
estimated to cost $528,500,000, an increase of 28 percent. 
These cost increases are primarily the result of schedule 
delays and the fact that the original baseline cost estimate 
was not based on a final design but rather on conceptual 
engineering. Factors contributing to the construction delays 
include coordination problems with the joint Central Artery 
construction contracts, complications with the design for the 
relocation of utilities, and differing site conditions. Land 
acquisition costs have also been higher than anticipated. 
According to the FTA and the project management oversight 
consultant, other issues could increase the project's costs 
even further by an additional $80,000,000. These issues 
include: (1) potentially higher than anticipated contract costs 
to construct the last major segment of the transitway tunnel; 
(2) the decision of whether to build a new vehicle maintenance 
facility or expand an existing one; (3) capital participation 
for eight vehicles by a local agency; (4) a higher than 
anticipated unit-cost for the vehicles, and (5) potential 
additional land acquisition costs. To pay for these cost 
increases, the project sponsor expects to use federal formula 
funds and other resources, such as state bond funds.
    In light of these significant cost increases and the 
uncertainty of the financial capacity of the grantee to 
complete the project, the Committee directs that none of the 
funds available in this Act shall be available until (1) the 
project sponsor produces a finance plan that clearly delineates 
the full costs-to-complete and manner in which the sponsor 
expects to pay those costs; (2) the FTA conducts a final review 
and accepts the plan and certifies to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations that the fiscal management of the 
project meets or exceeds accepted U.S. government standards; 
(3) the General Accounting Office and the Department of 
Transportation's Inspector General conduct an independent 
analysis of the plans and provide such analysis to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of FTA 
accepting the plan; and (4) the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations have concluded their review of the analysis 
within 60 days of the transmittal of the analysis to the 
Committees. Lastly, the Committee directs the FTA to conduct 
ongoing, continual financial management reviews of this 
project.
    South DeKalb-Lindberg, Georgia corridor project.--The 
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is 
conducting a major investment study (MIS) to examine 
transportation options in a proposed 15-mile corridor extending 
from the South campus of the Georgia Perimeter College, north 
to the Emory University area. The proposed corridor also 
includes the Centers for Disease Control and medical center 
complex, and continues on to the existing Lindbergh Center 
Station on MARTA's North Line. Phase I of the MIS is projected 
for completion in May 1999. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress 
has appropriated $2,646,000 in section 5309 new starts funds 
for this effort. For fiscal year 2000, the accompanying bill 
provides $1,000,000.
    Spokane, Washington South Valley corridor light rail 
project.--The Spokane Regional Transportation Council has 
conducted a major investment study (MIS) to examine the impacts 
of high capacity transportation on a proposed 16-mile corridor 
between the central business district of Spokane, Washington 
and Liberty Lake. The proposed corridor would connect major 
residential and employment centers within the Spokane Valley. 
Spokane has been classified as a ``serious'' nonattainment area 
for carbon monoxide. Trips along the corridor nearly double 
based on the population and employment forecasts between the 
years 1990 and 2020. The MIS considered three alternatives 
including: high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, express busways, 
and light rail transit (LRT). Based on the results of the MIS, 
LRT was selected as the preferred alternative with strong 
public support. The MIS was included in the region's long-range 
metropolitan transportation plan in November 1997. It is 
anticipated that the project sponsor(s) will complete an 
environmental assessment in early 1999 and will request to 
initiate preliminary engineering (PE) in mid 1999. The total 
estimated cost for the LRT, including local, state and federal 
funding, ranges between $200,000,000 and $300,000,000. Through 
fiscal year 1999, Congress has appropriated nearly $1,000,000 
in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. The 
accompanying bill provides $3,000,000 to continue this project 
in fiscal year 2000.
    St. Louis, Missouri Metrolink cross county corridor 
project.--The East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC), 
the local metropolitan planning organization, (MPO) and the 
Missouri Highway and Transportation Department (MoDOT) have 
completed a major investment study (MIS) in the Cross County 
Corridor including St. Louis City and County. The east-west 
corridor connection is through Clayton, Missouri to the 
existing Metrolink system. The study evaluated transportation 
alternatives such as light rail transit (LRT), busway, highway, 
transportation systems management (TSM) and a no-build 
alternative. Phase I of the MIS was completed in March 1997. A 
locally preferred alternative (LPA), which included highway and 
transit improvements, was selected in September 1997. The 
transit component of the LPA is a 28.8-mile LRT line that 
extends Metrolink west in the City of St. Louis through 
downtown Clayton in St. Louis County, and then south from 
Clayton beyond the Interstate 55/Interstate 270 interchange in 
southeast St. Louis County and north from Clayton to beyond the 
Interstate 170/Interstate 270 interchange in North St. Louis 
County. Total estimated capital cost range from $1,000,000,000 
to $1,200,000,000. For fiscal year 2000, the bill includes an 
appropriation of $3,000,000.
    St. Louis-St. Clair County Metrolink light rail (phase II) 
extension project.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) 
is developing a 26-mile extension of the Metrolink light rail 
line from downtown East St. Louis, Illinois to the Mid America 
Airport in St. Clair County. A 17.4-mile Minimum Operable 
Segment (MOS) will extend from the current Metrolink terminal 
in downtown East St. Louis to Belleville Area College. This 
segment consists of eight stations, seven park-and-ride lots, 
20 new light rail vehicles, and a new maintenance facility in 
East St. Louis. The route makes extensive use of abandoned 
railroad rights-of-way. Right-of-way and real estate 
acquisition is proceeding as scheduled, and revenue service is 
scheduled to begin in May 2001. On October 17, 1996, FTA and 
Bi-State entered into an FFGA that commits a total of 
$243,930,000 in section 5309 new starts funding to complete the 
17.4-mile MOS. This does not include $8,485,000 in federal new 
starts funding provided prior to fiscal year 1996, which brings 
total federal funding for this project to $252,410,000 under 
the new starts program. Through fiscal year 1999, a total of 
$112,835,000 has been appropriated for this project. The 
accompanying bill provides $50,000,000 for the project in 
fiscal year 2000.
    Tampa Bay regional rail project.--The Hillsborough Area 
Regional Transit Authority (HART), in cooperation with the 
Hillsborough and Polk Counties metropolitan planning 
organizations (MPO) and the cities of Lakeland and Tampa, are 
proposing to implement the Tampa Bay Regional Rail System. The 
first stage of the project is a 28.5-mile minimum operable 
segment (MOS), and is one component of a multimodal ``early 
action plan'' to implement the locally preferred strategy. The 
MOS would provide rail service along an 18.5-mile, 19-station 
Northeast/Southwest Corridor and a 10-mile, 6-station West 
Corridor. Capital cost estimates for the 28.5-mile segment 
total $575,000,000 (in 1997 dollars). HART has estimated total 
project costs in year of expenditure (YOE) at $726,300,000; a 
corresponding YOE section 5309 share is $363,150,000. Annual 
operating costs are estimated at $15,300,000 (in 1997 dollars). 
HART estimates 22,000 daily boardings in 2015 on the proposed 
28.5-mile segment. The complete proposed project is a 39-
station, 71-mile system and is part of a $4,000,000,000 locally 
preferred strategy for implementing a regionwide package of 
multimodal transportation investments. The regional rail system 
would utilize both diesel multiple unit (DMU) rail technology 
commuter rail service (25 miles) throughout Hillsborough County 
and a portion of Polk County, including the cities of Tampa, 
Lakeland, and Plant City. HART estimates 44,000 total daily 
boardings for the complete 71-mile Regional Rail System in 
2015. Current capital cost estimates for the system total 
$1,090,000,000, while annual operating and maintenance costs 
are estimated at $40,000,000 (both in 1997 dollars). HART is 
planning for completion of the full 71-mile regional rail 
system by 2015. A major investment study (MIS) to address 
alternatives for enhancing mobility throughout Tampa, 
Hillsborough County, Lakeland, and Polk County was completed in 
April 1998, with the selection by local stakeholders of the 
multimodal locally preferred strategy, including the 71-mile 
regional rail system. The MIS also identified 28.5 miles of 
rail investment in the Northeast/Southwest and West Corridors 
to be included in the regional early action plan. The 2020 
long-range transportation plan, which incorporates both the 
early action plan and locally preferred strategy, was formally 
adopted by the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization 
Board in November 1998. FTA has approved (in January 1999) 
initiation of the preliminary engineering/environmental impact 
statement phase for the two corridors in the early action plan. 
TEA21 section 3030(a)(89) authorized the Tampa Regional Rail 
System for final design and construction. Through fiscal year 
1999, Congress has appropriated $4,965,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds for this project. For fiscal year 2000, the 
accompanying bill provides $1,000,000 for this project.
    Twin Cities Transitways projects.--The bill provides 
$5,433,000 for preliminary engineering on the Riverview, 
Northstar and Red Rock corridors of the Twin Cities Transitways 
system.
    Twin Cities Transitways--Hiawatha corridor project.--The 
bill provides $46,000,000 for final design and construction of 
the 12.2 mile Hiawatha corridor light rail transit line, which 
will link downtown Minneapolis with the Minneapolis-St. Paul 
International Airport and the Mall of America. Through fiscal 
year 1999, Congress has appropriated $28,830,000 for Twin 
Cities transitways projects (including Hiawatha corridor).
    Utah north/south light rail project.--The Utah Transit 
Authority (UTA) is constructing a 15-mile light rail transit 
(LRT) line from downtown Salt Lake City to the southern 
suburbs. The system will operate on city streets downtown (2 
miles) and then follow a lightly-used railroad alignment owned 
by UTA to the suburban community of Sandy (13 miles). This 
project is one component of the Interstate 15 corridor 
improvement initiative, which includes reconstruction of a 
parallel segment of I-15. Construction is underway, with an 
estimated completion date of December 2000. On August 2, 1995, 
FTA issued an FFGA for this project that commits a total of 
$237,390,000 in federal new starts funding. This does not 
include $6,600,000 in prior year funds that were provided 
before the FFGA was issued, which brings the total amount of 
section 5309 new starts funding to $243,990,000. A total of 
$206,065,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 1999. 
For fiscal year 2000, the accompanying bill provides 
$37,928,000 for this project.
    The Committee directs the FTA to re-negotiate the full 
funding grant agreement for this project to include $6,000,000 
in additional costs relating to the expansion of park and ride 
lots necessary for the temporary and permanent requirements of 
the Wasatch front communities and the Salt Lake City 2002 
Winter Olympic Games. The FTA is further directed when re-
negotiating the full funding grant agreement not to include 
additional rail cars that are unnecessary to meet the load 
factors already assumed in the existing full funding grant 
agreement and would otherwise be used on the yet-to-be built 
west-east light rail line.
    Virginia Railway Express Woodbridge station improvements 
project.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the 
Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Fredericksburg to Washington 
commuter rail project. Through fiscal year 1999, $6,960,000 has 
been appropriated for this project.
    Washington County, Oregon commuter rail.--The Committee is 
informed of a commuter transportation problem between the south 
and west suburbs in the Portland region of Oregon. Commuter 
rail may help alleviate some of the rapidly growing congestion 
in the area and enhance the transportation goals of the region 
by connecting to the Westside light rail line. The Committee 
encourages the FRA and the FTA to work with the state of 
Oregon, Washington County, Oregon, and METRO regarding commuter 
rail connecting Wilsonville, Oregon, to Washington County, 
Oregon.
    West Trenton, New Jersey rail project.--The New Jersey 
Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) conducted a study to examine 
the potential of restoring passenger rail service on an active 
freight rail line spanning central New Jersey, beginning in 
Ewing Township located along the Delaware River and traveling 
northeast to a connection with NJ Transit's Raritan Valley Line 
at Bound Brook. The study, which was completed in April 1994, 
examined the potential station sites and western terminus 
options along the proposed alignment. In January 1998, NJ 
Transit began a feasibility assessment, which is scheduled for 
completion in early 1999. An environmental assessment will be 
conducted depending on the results of the current feasibility 
study. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress has appropriated 
$1,490,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. 
For fiscal year 2000, the accompanying bill provides 
$1,000,000.
    Whitehall terminal reconstruction project.--The New York 
City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) is undertaking the 
reconstruction of the Staten Island-Whitehall Street Ferry 
Intermodal Terminal. The terminal, located at the southern tip 
of Manhattan was mostly destroyed by fire in 1991 and ferry 
service has been operating out of interim facilities since 
then. Reconstruction of the terminal will include improved 
connections with the New York City Transit subway system and 
several bus routes. The Staten Island to New York Ferry System 
moves over 60,000 riders daily. A draft environmental 
assessment has been developed and is currently under review. A 
finding of no significant impact (FONSI) is anticipated to be 
issued in the Spring of 1999. Final design and engineering are 
scheduled for completion shortly thereafter. The project is 
estimated to cost approximately $100,000,000. Through fiscal 
year 1999, Congress has appropriated $11,000,000 in section 
5309 new starts funds for this project. For fiscal year 2000, 
the committee recommendation includes $3,000,000.

                          Discretionary Grants


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................  ($2,000,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2000......................   (1,500,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................   (1,500,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................    (-500,000,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................  (-------------)

\1\ Amounts shown here for comparability purposes are for liquidating
  cash appropriations for the mass transit capital fund.

    This liquidating cash appropriation covers obligations 
incurred under contract authority provided for activities 
previously funded under the discretionary grants program. The 
Committee recommends $1,500,000,000 in liquidating cash for 
discretionary grants. This appropriation is mandatory and has 
no scoring effect.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants



                                                        Limitation on
                                   Appropriation      obligations (Trust
                                   (General fund)           fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year              $35,000,000          $40,000,000
 1999.........................
Budget request, fiscal year              15,000,000          135,000,000
 2000 \1\.....................
Recommended in the bill.......           15,000,000           60,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year          -20,000,000          +20,000,000
 1999.........................
    Budget request, fiscal      ...................          -75,000,000
 year 1999....................


\1\ Includes $75,000,000 in obligations proposed to be transferred from
  revenue aligned budget authority.

    Section 3037 of TEA21 established the jobs access and 
reverse commute grants program. For fiscal year 2000, the 
program is funded at a total level of $75,000,000, with no more 
than $15,000,000 derived from the general fund and $60,000,000 
derived from the mass transit account of the highway trust 
fund. These funds are guaranteed under the transit funding 
category.
    The program is to make competitive grants to qualifying 
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental 
authorities, agencies, and non-profit 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 may be provided for reverse commuter 
grants.
    The Committee recommends the following allocations of job 
access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 
2000:

        Project                                                   Amount

Atlanta regional commission, Georgia....................      $1,000,000
Chicago-DuPage area, Illinois...........................         100,000
District of Columbia....................................       1,250,000
DuPage County, Illinois.................................         120,000
Hillsborough area regional transit authority, Florida...         500,000
JOBLINKS................................................       1,000,000
Kansas City, Kansas JOBLINKS............................         850,000
Kentucky human services transportation delivery system 
    (including Hardin County, Owensboro, Barren River, 
    central Kentucky community action agency, Audubon 
    area community services organization, Kentucky River 
    Foothills express, Blue Grass Ultra-transit 
    services, Lexington-Fayette county area), Kentucky..       2,500,000
Lafayette, Indiana......................................         200,000
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, 
    California..........................................       1,000,000
Loudon County, Virginia.................................         300,000
Lynchburg, Virginia.....................................         100,000
Mariba, Kentucky........................................         125,000
Miami-Dade Transit Authority, Florida...................       1,100,000
Minnespolis/St. Paul, Minnesota.........................       1,500,000
National Welfare to Work Center at the University of 
    Illinois, Illinois..................................       1,000,000
Northern Tier community transportation, Massachusetts...         550,000
Palm Beach County, Florida..............................         500,000
San Bernardino, California..............................         600,000
San Diego metropolitan transit development board, 
    California..........................................         650,000
State of Louisiana, small urbanized and rural areas.....       1,250,000
State of Tennessee, small urban areas...................       1,300,000
Transportation opportunities training, Chicago, Illinois       1,000,000
Westchester County, New York job access support centers.       1,000,000
Wichita, Kansas.........................................         725,000
    Northern Tier, Massachusetts community transportation.--The 
bill includes $550,000 for coordination and capital for 
Northern Tier community transportation in Massachusetts.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

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

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................       $11,496,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................        12,042,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +546,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................       +12,042,000


    On March 4, 1996, the Vice President announced plans to 
restructure eight federal agencies into performance-based 
organizations (PBOs). The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation (Seaway) was one of the agencies chosen for the 
conversion to a PBO. Others include the 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 services.
    Legislation and a financial plan for the Seaway's PBO was 
submitted to Congress in July 1996; however, it was not acted 
upon. The PBO legislation was resubmitted to Congress in May 
1997; however, no action occurred prior to the end of fiscal 
year 1998. Although the Seaway plans to submit a legislative 
proposal during the first session of the 106th Congress, none 
has been submitted to or acted upon by Congress.
    A key element of the PBO initiative is to provide the 
Seaway with a five-year, stable funding source to enhance the 
corporation's long-range planning for capital projects. As a 
PBO, the Seaway's primary funding mechanism would change from 
yearly Congressional appropriation to mandatory formula-based 
payments. Due to the PBO proposal, the Seaway is not requesting 
an appropriation in fiscal year 2000, but instead is seeking a 
mandatory payment from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund of 
$12,042,000.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $12,042,000 instead 
of the mandatory funding requested. Establishing the Seaway as 
a PBO has not been authorized and it is not within this 
Committee's jurisdiction to do so. Neither the Committee nor 
the department is aware of any current or pending Congressional 
action on PBO authorizing legislation. Until authorization is 
enacted, the Committee will continue funding the Seaway 
according to current law. The Committee recommendation in no 
way presumes that the Seaway's status will change to a PBO.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

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

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The Committee recommends $82,953,000 in new budget 
authority to continue the operations, research and development, 
and grants-in-aid administered by the Research and Special 
Programs Administration. This is a 12.5 percent increase over 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The following table 
summarizes fiscal year 1999 program levels, the fiscal year 
2000 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year  1999    Fiscal year  2000    Recommended  in the
                    Program                             enacted              estimate               bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special programs..................      \1\ $29,280,000           $33,340,000          $32,361,000
Hazardous materials user fee...................                  ---            -4,575,000                  ---
Pipeline safety................................       \2\ 33,248,000            38,187,000   \2\,\3\ 36,092,000
Emergency preparedness grants..................              200,000               200,000              200,000
Limitation on obligation.......................          (11,000,000)                  ---          (14,300,000)
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................           73,728,000            67,152,000          82,953,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $282,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations for Year 2000 compliance activities.
\2\ Does not reflect funding derived from the reserve fund because it is not directly appropriated.
\3\ Excludes $150,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations for Year 2000 compliance activities.

                     Research and Special Programs





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................       $29,280,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................        33,340,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        32,361,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +3,081,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................         -979,000

\1\ Excludes $282,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations for Year
  2000 compliance activities.

    RSPA's research and special programs administers a 
comprehensive nationwide safety program to: (1) protect the 
nation from the risks inherent in the transportation of 
hazardous materials by water, air, highway and railroad; (2) 
oversee the execution of the Secretary of Transportation's 
statutory responsibilities for providing transportation 
services during national emergencies; and (3) coordinate the 
department's research and development policy, planning, 
university research, and technology transfer activities. 
Overall policy, legal, financial, management and administrative 
support to RSPA's programs also is provided under this 
appropriation. The total recommended program level for research 
and special programs $32,361,000, which is a 10.5 percent 
increase over the 1999 enacted level. Budget and staffing data 
for this appropriation are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year  1999  Fiscal year  2000   Recommended  in
                                                              enacted            estimate           the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety.............................        $16,063,000        $18,213,000        $17,813,000
    (Positions)........................................              (129)              (131)              (129)
Hazardous materials safety user fees...................  .................         -4,575,000  .................
Research and technology................................          3,676,000          3,547,000          3,547,000
    (Positions)........................................               (13)               (11)               (11)
Emergency transportation...............................            997,000          1,459,000          1,459,000
    (Positions)........................................                (7)                (9)                (9)
Program support........................................          8,544,000         10,121,000          9,542,000
    (Positions)........................................               (48)               (48)               (48)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Research and Special Programs...........         29,280,000         28,765,000         32,361,000
    (Positions)........................................              (197)              (199)              (197)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:

Deny funding for 3 new positions........................       -$150,000
Delete contract funds for safe food program.............        -300,000
Continue funding Garrett Morgan program in-house........        -200,000
Delete funds for human resource information system......        -329,000

    New staff positions.--The Committee has deleted funding for 
three new staff positions: the chief information officer and 
two sanitary food liaisons (-$150,000). Only two large agencies 
within the department have a chief information officer (CIO) 
and the department has had difficulty filling these positions. 
It is unclear why this small modal administration needs a CIO. 
The Committee believes that RSPA can better use its current 
information resources staff to manage its information 
technology requirements without a new CIO position.
    In 1991, the department was directed to implement the 
Sanitary Food Act. Since then, the department has undertaken a 
variety of activities in this area while trying to reassign 
these responsibilities to the Food and Drug Administration and 
the Department of Agriculture. While the reassignment of 
responsibilities has not occurred, it underscores the point 
that these activities are outside of RSPA's primary areas of 
responsibility and that it can contribute little to enhance 
food safety. Since RSPA staff have been working on food safety 
issues, albeit to a limited degree, for the past eight years, 
it is unclear why two additional staff are necessary at this 
time.
    Safe foods contract funds.--The Committee has denied 
funding for the new safe foods contract program for the same 
reasons that it has denied funding for the new staff positions 
(-$300,000).
    Garrett Morgan program.--Consistent with last year's 
conference action, the Committee has deleted additional funding 
for the Garrett Morgan program because these activities are 
currently being funded within RSPA's base program and by all 
other modes within the department. It is unclear why additional 
funding is necessary. (-$200,000).
    Human resource information center.--The Committee has not 
provided any funding for the human resource information center 
throughout the department (-$329,000). Additional discussion of 
this recommendation can be found under the office of the 
secretary, office of the assistant secretary for 
administration.
    User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request 
to begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from 
user fees. On April 15, 1999, RSPA issued a notice in the 
Federal Register that proposed a change in its current 
registration and fee assessment program for persons who 
transport or offer for transport certain categories and 
quantities of hazardous materials. The proposed change would 
increase the number of persons required to register and 
increase the annual registration fee for shippers and carriers 
which are not small businesses. These fees are intended to 
raise additional funds to enhance support for the national 
hazardous materials emergency preparedness grant program. 
However, within the notice, RSPA states that if Congress 
provides authority to fund RSPA's hazardous materials safety 
program from the registration fee, RSPA will need to initiate 
additional rulemaking actions to collect $18,200,000. These 
fees would be above those anticipated for emergency 
preparedness grants. Currently, this new fee is not authorized. 
Any new fee being imposed and collected should be reviewed on a 
case-by-case basis before specifically being authorized. RSPA 
has not made a case as to why the fee should be expanded to 
include the hazardous materials safety program. Further, the 
Committee is concerned about raising fees twice on a small 
segment of the transportation industry. While the Committee is 
generally supportive of increasing the funds available for 
emergency preparedness training and grants, it is unwilling to 
have the same segment of the industry fully fund the Federal 
Government's entire hazardous materials safety program.

                            Pipeline Safety


                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)

                    (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)


                                                          (Oil spill
                                  (Pipeline safety     liability trust
                                       fund)                fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year              $29,000,000           $4,248,000
 1999 \1\.....................
Budget estimate, fiscal year             33,939,000            4,248,000
 2000.........................
Recommended in the bill.......           30,598,000            5,494,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year           +1,598,000           +1,246,000
 1999.........................
    Budget estimate, fiscal              -3,341,000           +1,246,000
 year 2000....................

\1\ Excludes $150,000 in supplemental emergency funding for Year 2000
  compliance activities.

    The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national 
regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to 
life and property in the transportation of natural gas, 
petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The 
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the 
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection 
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and 
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The 
office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and 
administers a grants-in-aid program to state pipeline programs.
    The bill includes $36,092,000 to continue pipeline safety 
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid 
in fiscal year 2000. The bill specifies that, of the total 
appropriation, $5,494,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund and $30,598,000 from the pipeline safety 
fund. In addition, the Committee has included language that 
permits the office of pipeline safety to use $1,300,000 from 
its reserve fund for one-call notification grants, emergency 
notification, damage prevention and public education 
activities.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation by budget activity and funding source:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Oil spill
          Budget activity            Pipeline safety    liability trust    \1\ Reserve fund          Total
                                           fund               fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel, compensation, and               $8,013,000           $906,000  ..................         $8,919,000
 benefits.........................
Administrative expenses...........          3,920,000             45,000  ..................          3,965,000
Contracts:
    Information and analysis......            800,000            400,000  ..................          1,200,000
    Risk assessment and technical             500,000            800,000  ..................          1,300,000
     studies......................
    Compliance....................            200,000            100,000  ..................            300,000
    Training and information                  821,000            200,000  ..................          1,021,000
     dissemination................
    Emergency notification........  .................  .................          ($100,000)           (100,000)
    Damage prevention and public    .................  .................           (200,000)           (200,000)
     education....................
    Oil pollution act.............  .................          2,443,000  ..................          2,443,000
    Research and development......          1,944,000  .................  ..................          1,944,000
Grants:
    State grants..................         12,900,000            600,000  ..................         13,500,000
    Risk management...............            500,000  .................  ..................            500,000
    One-call......................  .................  .................         (1,000,000)         (1,000,000)
    Damage prevention.............          1,000,000  .................  ..................          1,000,000
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total.....................         30,598,000          5,494,000         (1,300,000)       $37,392,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding derived from the reserve fund is not directly appropriated.

    Oil spill liability trust fund.--The budget request sought 
$4,248,000 from the oil spill liability trust fund. The 
Committee has increased this amount to $5,494,000 because there 
are a number of activities that could be more suitably funded 
from this source instead of funded by new user fees. These 
changes are reflected in the table above.
    Administrative expenses.--RSPA requested a 24 percent 
increase for administrative expenses. The Committee has held 
these expenses to a 15 percent increase (-$296,000).
    Other reductions.--The Committee has made a number of small 
reductions to the request due to budgetary constraints. These 
reductions were made to the following programs: risk assessment 
and technology studies; training and information dissemination; 
risk management and program evaluation; research and 
development; and state grants. The majority of these reductions 
occurred because it has taken longer than originally 
anticipated to bring companies into the pipeline risk 
management demonstration program. As such, some of the 
increases that the administration sought will not be needed in 
their entirety. These reductions will not impact activities 
already underway.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (Emergency Preparedness Fund)




Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................          $200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.....................           200,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           200,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................  ................


    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a 
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 
public sector emergency response training and planning and 
provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions 
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a 
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
    The bill includes $200,000, the same amount requested for 
fiscal year 2000, for activities related to emergency response 
training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by 
section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    Bill language is included that limits the obligation of 
emergency preparedness training grants to $14,300,000 in fiscal 
year 2000, up from $11,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. This 
increase will ensure that hazardous material response training 
is provided to a larger segment of the response community, give 
grantees the option to provide compliance assistance to small 
businesses, and help address undeclared shipments of hazardous 
materials.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................       $43,495,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000 \2\..................        44,840,000
Recommended in the bill \2\...........................        44,840,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +1,345,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................               ---

\1\ Excludes $750,000 transferred from the Federal Highway
  Administration and $800,000 from the Federal Transit Administration.
\2\ Excludes $1,124,000 from the Federal Highway Administration and
  $800,000 from the Federal Transit Administration.

    The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to 
provide an objective and independent organization that would be 
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, 
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2) 
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation 
and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and 
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and 
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the 
Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of 
Transportation and to the Congress.
    The Committee recommendation provides $44,840,000 for 
activities of the Office of Inspector General, an increase of 
$1,345,000 (3.1 percent) above the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level and the same as the administration's request. The 
Committee continues to value highly the work of the Office of 
Inspector General in oversight of departmental programs and 
activities.
    Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector 
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to 
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to 
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review 
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 \1\...................       $16,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000 \2\.................        17,000,000
Recommended in the bill \3\...........................        17,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +1,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................               ---

\1\ Of this total, $2,600,000 is offset through the collection of user
  fees.
\2\ Represents $17,000,000 in user fees, which will offset the
  appropriation as the fees are collected throughout the fiscal year.
\3\ Of this total, $1,600,000 is offset through the collection of user
  fees.

    The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 
1996 by P.L. 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) 
Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend 
toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, 
the Act abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that 
had previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core 
rail and certain other provisions to the Board; and transferred 
certain other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway 
Administration. The Board is specifically responsible for 
regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-
licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The 
new law empowers the Board through its exemption authority to 
promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis 
and continues intact the important rail reforms of the Staggers 
Rail Act of 1980, which have helped substantially improve rail 
service and the profitability of the railroad industry.
    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$17,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over the 1999 enacted 
level, and the same as the Board requested. Included in this 
total is an estimated $1,600,000 in user fees, which will 
offset the appropriated funding. At this level, the Board will 
be able to accommodate 140 full-time equivalent positions.
    User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request 
to fund the entire operation of the Surface Transportation 
Board, or $17,000,000, from the collection of user fees. 
Current statutory authority, under the Independent Offices 
Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), grants the Board the 
authority to collect user fees, but, not to the level provided 
in the budget estimate.
    Instead of fully funding the Board through user fees, the 
Committee believes that $1,600,000 is a reasonable sum, based 
on current collections and carryover balances of $940,617 from 
fiscal years 1997 and 1998. Language is included in the bill 
allowing the fees to be credited to the appropriation as 
offsetting collections, and reducing the general fund 
appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are 
received and credited. This language simplifies the tracking of 
the collections and provides the Board with more flexibility in 
spending its appropriated funds.
    The Committee has deleted bill language, carried for the 
previous two years, which allowed any fees received in excess 
of the amount specified in the bill to remain available until 
expended but not available for obligation until the following 
fiscal year. Since the Board is permitted to offset its 
appropriation with user fees, it is no longer necessary to 
utilize fees from prior year filings during periods of 
shortfall.
    Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.--The Committee is 
aware that the Board has continuing jurisdiction over the Union 
Pacific/Southern Pacific merger in connection with the STB 
Finance Docket No. 32760. If it becomes necessary for the Board 
to issue a rule regarding the environmental mitigation study 
for Wichita, Kansas, the Board shall base its final 
environmental mitigation conditions for Wichita on verifiable 
and appropriate assumptions. If there is any material change in 
the bases of the assumptions on which the final mitigation for 
Wichita is imposed, the Committee expects the Board to exercise 
that jurisdiction by reexamining the final environmental 
mitigation measures. Also, if the Union Pacific Corporation, 
its divisions, or subsidiaries materially change or are unable 
to achieve the assumptions upon which the Board based its final 
mitigation measures, then the Board should reopen Finance 
Docket 32760, if requested, and prescribe additional mitigation 
properly reflecting these changes, if shown to be appropriate.

                                TITLE II


                            RELATED AGENCIES


       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................        $3,847,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2000......................         4,633,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         4,633,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................          +786,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000..................  ................


    The Committee recommends $4,633,000 for operations of the 
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, an 
increase of $786,000 over the 1999 enacted level, and the same 
level as the budget request.
    The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance 
with the Architectural Barriers Act; ensuring that public 
conveyances, including rolling stock, are readily accessible to 
and usable by physically handicapped persons; investigating and 
examining alternative approaches to the elimination of 
architectural, transportation, communication and attitudinal 
barriers; determining what measures are being taken to 
eliminate these barriers; developing minimum guidelines and 
requirements for accessibility standards; and providing 
technical assistance to all programs affected by Title V of the 
Rehabilitation Act.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses





Appropriation, fiscal year 1999.......................       $53,473,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000 \1\,\2\.............        57,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        57,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1999...................        +3,527,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000.................  ................

\1\ The President's budget request proposed to fund $10,000,000 of the
  Board's total budget from the collection of user fees.
\2\ Does not include $2,300,000 for rental payments provided in the
  emergency supplemental approprations Act.

    Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving 
transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting 
special studies, developing recommendations to prevent 
accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation 
safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of 
adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and 
licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of 
Transportation.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $57,000,000 for 
salaries and expenses of the NTSB, an increase of $3,527,000 
over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Committee denies 
the request to begin funding accident investigation costs 
through the collection of $10,000,000 in user fees.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1999 program 
level, the President's fiscal year 2000 request, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Fiscal year 1999 enacted      Fiscal year 2000       Recommended in the bill
                                   --------------------------         estimate         -------------------------
              Program                                        --------------------------
                                      Staff       Budget        Staff       Budget        Staff       Budget
                                      years      authority      years    authority \1\    years      authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction..............        97     $13,097,000        97     $13,945,000        97     $13,945,000
Aviation safety...................       139      19,491,000       139      20,640,000       139      20,640,000
Surface transportation............        90      12,041,000        90      12,750,000        90      12,750,000
Research and engineering..........        66       7,469,000        66       8,209,000        66       8,209,000
Administrative law judges.........        10       1,375,000        10       1,456,000        10       1,456,000
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................       402      53,473,000       402      57,000,000       402     57,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $10,000,000 in user fees.

    The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes 
to deviate in any way from the staff year allocations or by 
more than five percent from the funding allocations listed 
above.

                         AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL

    The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 
$750,000 for the Amtrak Reform Council, the same level as the 
budget request, and an increase of $300,000 over the fiscal 
year 1999 enacted level. The appropriation for the Amtrak 
Reform Council is contained in section 330 of the general 
provisions.

                               TITLE III


                           GENERAL PROVISIONS


                     (Including Transfers Of Funds)

    The Committee concurs with the general provisions that 
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
as proposed in the budget with the following changes:
    The Committee does not approve the requested deletion of 
the following sections, all of which were contained in the 
fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers are different):
    Section 314 prohibits the use of funds to award multi-year 
contracts for production end items that include certain 
specified provisions.
    Section 317 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 320 
staff years under the federally funded research and development 
center contract between the Federal Aviation Administration and 
the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development. The 
fiscal year 1999 Act prohibited funds to compensate in excess 
of 350 staff years.
    Section 318 reduces funding for activities of the 
Transportation administrative service center of the Department 
of Transportation and limits obligation authority of the center 
to $147,965,000. The fiscal year 1999 Act limited obligation 
authority of the center to $109,124,000.
    Section 320 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, 
or promulgate any regulation pursuant to title V of the Motor 
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate 
average fuel economy standards for automobiles as defined in 
such title, in any model year that differs from standards 
promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
section.
    Section 324 requires compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 326 prohibits funds to implement or enforce 
regulations that would result in slot allocations of 
international operations to any carrier at O'Hare International 
Airport in excess of the number of slots allocated to and 
scheduled by that carrier as of October 31, 1993, if that slot 
is withdrawn from an air carrier under existing regulations.
    Section 331 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
transfer funds appropriated for any office of the Office of the 
Secretary to any other office of the Office of the Secretary as 
long as no appropriation shall be increased or decreased by 
more than 12 per centum.
    Section 332 prohibits funds to be used to issue a final 
standard under docket number NHTSA 98-3945 (relating to State-
Issued Drivers Licenses and Comparable Identification Documents 
(section 656(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Responsibility Act of 1996)).
    The Committee included the following general provisions as 
requested with modifications:
    Section 305 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and 
expenses of more than 100 political and Presidential appointees 
in the Department of Transportation and includes a provision 
that prohibits political and Presidential personnel to be 
assigned on temporary detail outside the Department of 
Transportation.
    Section 319 allows funds received by the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, 
other public authorities, and private sources for expenses 
incurred for training to be credited to the respective accounts 
except for State rail safety inspectors.
    Section 321 provides that funds received from the sale of 
data products of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics may be 
credited to the Federal-aid highways account for reimbursing 
the Bureau for such expenses and that such funds shall be 
subject to the obligation limitation for federal-aid highways 
and highway safety construction.
    Section 325 allows receipts collected from users of fitness 
centers of the Department of Transportation to be available to 
support the operation and maintenance of those facilities.
    Section 327 limits the number of communities in the 48 
contiguous States that receive essential air service subsidies.
    Section 328 credits to appropriations of the Department of 
Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
and other funds received by the Department from travel 
management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of 
building space, and miscellaneous sources. Funds shall remain 
available until December 31, 2000.
    The Committee included the following new provisions:
    Section 334 prohibits funds for the aircraft purchase loan 
guarantee program. The funding prohibition was provided under a 
separate heading under the Federal Aviation Administration in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Section 335 prohibits funds to carry out the functions and 
operations of the office of motor carriers within the Federal 
Highway Administration.
    Section 336 provides that grants for operating assistance 
in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 under section 5307 of title 49, 
United States Code, for certain urbanized areas may not be more 
than 80 percent of the net project cost.
    Section 337 amends section 130(f) of title 23, United 
States Code, regarding the federal share for projects for the 
elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings.
    Section 338 amends section 3030(b) of Public Law 105-178 to 
authorize the Dane County Corridor-East-West Madison 
Metropolitan Area project.
    Section 339 provides that funds provided for the Griffin 
light rail project in Public Law 104-205 shall be available for 
alternative analysis and environmental impact studies for other 
transit alternatives in the Griffin corridor from Hartford, 
Connecticut, to Bradley International Airport.
    Section 340 amends section 3030(c)(1)(A)(v) of Public Law 
105-178 by deleting ``light rail'' from the authorization for 
the Hartford City light rail connection.
    Section 341 provides that the federal share of projects 
funded under the over-the-road bus accessibility program shall 
be 90 percent of the project cost.
    Section 342 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
make expenditures and investments for aviation insurance 
activities out of the aviation insurance revolving fund and 
authorized under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code, 
within the limits of funds made available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
44307. This authorization was provided under a separate heading 
under the Federal Aviation Administration in fiscal year 1999.
    Section 343 allows the Federal Aviation Administration to 
issue recommended airport improvement grants if the office of 
the Secretary of Transportation has not acted after 15 days of 
receiving such recommendations.
    Section 344 prohibits the expenditure of funds to execute a 
letter of intent, letter of no prejudice, or full funding grant 
agreement for the West-East light rail system, or any segment 
thereof, or a downtown connector in Salt Lake City, Utah.
    Section 345 provides that $10,000,000 of the additional 
funding in this bill is only for the Coast Guard Mackinaw 
replacement vessel and is available until September 30, 2005.
    Section 346 pertains to conveyed lands by the United States 
to the City of Safford, Arizona, for use by the city for 
airport purposes.
    Section 347 restricts the Coast Guard from expending funds 
appropriated in this Act for the issuance of a waiver to allow 
a vessel to be reconfigured for the purpose of extending its 
scheduled phase-out date under section 3703a of title 46, 
United States Code (Oil Pollution Act of 1990).
    The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the 
budget:
    (1) regarding the distribution of the Federal-aid highways 
limitation on obligations; (2) prohibiting funds other than 
those appropriated to the Surface Transportation Board or fees 
collected by the Board to be used for conducting activities of 
the Board; (3) allowing transfer authority of not more than 
$50,000,000 of funds appropriated to make up any shortfall in 
fees collected for the Essential Air Service Program; (4) 
amending section 104 of title 23, United States Code, to allow 
transfers of such sums as necessary to the Department of 
Transportation Office of Inspector General for highway audits 
and investigations; and (5) authorizing new railroad safety 
fees.

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states:

          Each report of a committee on a bill or joint 
        resolution of a public character, shall include a 
        statement citing the specific powers granted to the 
        Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 
        by the bill or joint resolution.

    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states:

          No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
        consequence of Appropriations made by law . . . .

    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                           Transfers of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee recommends the following transfers:
    Under Coast Guard, Reserve training: Provided, That no more 
than $23,000,000 of funds made available under this heading may 
be transferred to Coast Guard ``Operating expenses'' or 
otherwise made available to reimburse the Coast Guard for 
financial support of the Coast Guard Reserve.
    Under Federal Transit Administration, Administrative 
expenses: Provided further, That of the funds in this Act 
available for the execution of contracts under section 5327(c) 
of title 49, United States Code, $800,000 shall be transferred 
to the Department of Transportation Inspector General for costs 
associated with the audit and review of new fixed guideway 
systems.
    Under the general provisions:
    Sec. 316. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
funds appropriated before October 1, 1999, under chapter 53 of 
title 49 U.S.C., that remain available for expenditure may be 
transferred to and administered under the most recent 
appropriation heading for any such section.
    Sec. 331. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
transfer funds for any office of the Office of the Secretary to 
any other office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided, That 
no appropriation shall be increased or decreased by more than 
12 per centum by all such transfers.

          Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

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

       SECTION 110 OF THE ARCTIC RESEARCH AND POLICY ACT OF 1984

               coordination and review of budget requests

  Sec. 110. (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *
  (2) The Office of Management and Budget shall seek to 
facilitate planning for the design, procurement, maintenance, 
deployment, and operations of icebreakers needed to provide a 
platform for Arctic research [by allocating all funds necessary 
to support icebreaking operations, except for recurring 
incremental costs associated with specific projects, to the 
Coast Guard].
                              ----------                              


  SECTION 312 OF THE ARCTIC MARINE LIVING RESOURCES CONVENTION ACT OF 
                                  1984

SEC. 312. FEDERAL AGENCY COOPERATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Icebreaking.--The Department of Transportation shall 
facilitate planning for the design, procurement, maintenance, 
deployment, and operation of icebreakers needed to provide a 
platform for Antarctic research. All funds necessary to support 
icebreaking operations, except for recurring incremental costs 
associated with specific projects, shall be allocated to the 
United States Coast Guard.]
                              ----------                              


             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21st CENTURY



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE III--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3027. APPORTIONMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FORMULA GRANTS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  ``(e) Government Share for Operating Assistance to Certain 
Smaller Urbanized Areas.--Notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 5307(e), a 
grant of the Government for operating expenses of a project 
under 49 U.S.C. 5307(b) in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to any 
recipient that is providing transit services in an urbanized 
area with a population between 128,000 and 128,200, as 
determined in the 1990 census, and that had adopted a five-year 
transit plan before September 1, 1998, may not be more than 80 
percent of the net project cost.''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3030. PROJECTS FOR NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS AND EXTENSIONS TO 
                    EXISTING SYSTEMS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Engineering.--The 
following projects are authorized for alternatives analysis and 
preliminary engineering for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 
under section 5309(m)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code:
          (1) Atlanta--Georgia 400 Multimodal Corridor.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (71) Dane County Corridor--East-West Madison 
        Metropolitan Area.
  (c) Project Authorizations.--
          (1) In general.--Of the total amount made available 
        by or authorized under section 5338(b) of title 49, 
        United States Code, to carry out section 5309(m)(1)(B) 
        for fiscal years 1998 through 2003:
                  (A) $3,000,000,000 shall be available for the 
                following projects (even if the project is not 
                listed in subsection (a) or (b)):
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (v) Hartford City [Light Rail] 
                        Connection to Central Business 
                        District, $33,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              SECTION 130 OF TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE

1Sec. 130. Railway-highway crossings

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Apportionment.--Twenty-five percent of the funds 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section shall 
be apportioned to the States in the same manner as sums are 
apportioned under section 104(b)(2) of this title, 25 percent 
of such funds shall be apportioned to the States in the same 
manner as sums are apportioned under section 104(b)(6) of this 
title, and 50 percent of such funds shall be apportioned to the 
States in the ratio that total railway-highway crossings in 
each State bears to the total of such crossings in all States. 
The Federal share payable on account of any project financed 
with funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
section shall be [90] 100 percent of the cost thereof.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law.
    The bill provides that appropriations shall remain 
available for more than one year for a number of programs for 
which the basic authorizing legislation does not explicitly 
authorize such extended availability.
    The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, 
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of 
Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board. 
Similar provisions have appeared in many previous 
appropriations Acts.
    The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase 
of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar 
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
    Language is included in several instances permitting 
certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs,'' 
which would allow crediting the account with up to $1,250,000 
in user fees.
    Language is included that limits operating costs and 
capital outlays of the Transportation Administrative Service 
Center of the Department of Transportation and limits special 
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those 
assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to 
and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' which specifies that none of the funds appropriated 
shall be available for pay or administrative expenses in 
connection with shipping commissioners.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation 
to the amount of fees collected from yacht owners.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both 
military and civilian employment levels to comply with 
Executive Order No. 12839.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement 
any regulation that would promulgate new maritime user fees not 
specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds from the 
disposal of surplus real property by sale or lease.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' that requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment 
plan for the United States Coast Guard.
    Language is included under Coast Guard, ``Reserve 
training'' that limits funds available for transfer to 
``Operating expenses'' to no more than $23,000,000 to reimburse 
the Coast Guard for financial support of the Coast Guard 
Reserve.
    Language is included under Coast Guard, ``Reserve 
training'' that prohibits funds by the Coast Guard to assess 
direct charges on the Coast Guard Reserves for items or 
activities which were not so charged during fiscal year 1997.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Research, 
development, test, and evaluation'' that credits funds received 
from state and local governments and other entities for 
expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and 
evaluation.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations,'' that prohibits funds to plan, 
finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new 
aviation user fees no specifically authorized by law.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations,'' that provides $5,000,000 for 
the contract tower cost-sharing program and $600,000 for the 
Centennial of Flight Commission.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations,'' permitting the use of funds to 
enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting 
organization to develop aviation safety standards.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds 
for new applicants of the second career training program.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds 
for premium pay unless an employee actually performed work 
during the time corresponding to the premium pay.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds from being 
used to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in 
the contiguous United States.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that limits FAA's contribution 
to the Transportation Administrative Service Center, and 
prohibits funds for conducting and coordinating activities on 
aeronautical charting and cartography through the Center.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Operations'' that prohibits multiyear leases greater than 
five years in length or greater than $100,000,000 unless 
specifically authorized and contingent liabilities fully 
funded.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Operations'' that prohibits funds for FAA to sign a lease for 
satellite services related to the global positioning system 
wide area augmentation system until the FAA administrator 
certifies in writing that such lease will result in the lowest 
overall cost to the agency.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that allows certain funds received 
for expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of 
air navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment 
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Language included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and Equipment'' that prohibits the Federal 
Aviation Administration from entering into a capital lease 
agreement unless appropriations have been provided to fully 
cover the Federal Government's contingent liabilities at the 
time the lease agreement is signed.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Research, engineering, and development,'' that allows certain 
funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering 
and development to be credited to the account.
    The bill includes a limitation on administrative expenses 
and transportation research of the Federal Highway 
Administration.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Operations and research'' prohibiting the 
planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling 
passenger car tires for low rolling resistance.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting 
obligations for certain safety grant programs.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Safety and Operations'' authorizing the Secretary to receive 
payments from the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, 
credit them to the appropriation charged with the first deed of 
trust, and make payments on the first deed of trust.
    Language is included authorizing the Secretary to issue 
fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under 
sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
Regulatory Reform Act.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Rhode Island rail development'' that specifies that the 
federal contribution shall be matched on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Administrative expenses'' that transfers funds to the 
Inspector General for audit and review of new fixed guideway 
systems.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Capital Investment Grants,'' specifying the distribution of 
funds for new fixed guideway systems in this Act.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Capital Investment Grants, Olympic transportation 
infrastructure investments'' that specifies that funds shall be 
allocated by the Secretary of Transportation based on the Salt 
Lake City 2002 Winter Olympic Games approved transportation 
management plan and prohibits funds for the Salt Lake City 
west-east light rail project or a downtown connector in Salt 
Lake City, Utah.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' which would 
allow up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 
5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
offsetting receipts.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' that credits 
certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and 
other activities.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that allows up to 
$1,300,000 for one-call notification grants, emergency 
notification, damage prevention and public education activities 
to be funded from amounts previously collected and held in a 
reserve account.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants,'' specifying 
the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate 
funds provided under this head.
    Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, 
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $1,600,000 
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated 
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis as such fees are received.
    Language is included under ``Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Salaries and 
expenses,'' that provides that funds received for publications 
and training may be credited to the appropriation.
    The bill contains a number of general provisions that place 
limitations or funding prohibitions on the use of funds in the 
bill and which might, under some circumstances, be construed as 
changing the application of existing law.
    The bill contains a number of general provisions that allow 
for the redistribution of previously appropriated funds.
    Section 308 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
enter into grants, cooperative agreements, and other 
transactions relative to the Technology Reinvestment Project 
and provides that such authority may be exercised without 
regard to section 3324 of title 31, United States Code.
    Section 313 allows airports to transfer to the Federal 
Aviation Administration instrument landing systems which 
conform to FAA specifications and the purchase of such 
equipment was assisted by a federal airport aid program.
    Section 318 reduced funding for activities of the 
transportation administrative service center of the Department 
of Transportation and limits obligation authority of the center 
to $147,965,000.
    Section 319 provides that funds received for training from 
States, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
private sources by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Transit Administration, and Federal Railroad Administration to 
be credited to each respective agency except for State rail 
safety inspectors participating in training pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 20105.
    Section 320 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, 
or promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle 
Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average 
fuel economy standards for automobiles.
    Section 321 allows funds received by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products be 
credited to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of 
reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses.
    Section 322 prohibits funds for any type of training which: 
(a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities 
bearing directly on the performance of official duties; (b) 
could be highly stressful or emotional to the students; (c) 
does not provide prior notification of content and methods to 
be used during the training; (d) contains any religious 
concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a person's values or 
lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness training, except for 
raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and 
workplace rights.
    Section 325 allows receipts, in amounts determined by the 
Secretary, collected from users of Department of Transportation 
fitness centers to be available to support the operation and 
maintenance of those facilities.
    Section 327 limits the number of communities that receive 
essential air service funding.
    Section 328 credits to appropriations of the Department of 
Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
and other funds received by the Department from travel 
management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of 
building space, and miscellaneous sources.
    Section 329 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
allow issuers to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to 
the Department of Transportation.
    Section 333 amends the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 
1984 and the Arctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 
1984 as it pertains to Coast Guard icebreaking operations.
    Section 334 prohibits funds for aircraft purchase loan 
guarantees.
    Section 335 prohibits funds to carry out the functions and 
operations of the Office of motor carriers within the Federal 
Highway Administration.
    Section 336 provides that grants for operating assistance 
in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 under section 5307 of title 49, 
United States Code, for certain urbanized areas may not be more 
than 80 percent of the net project cost.
    Section 337 amends section 130(f) of title 23, United 
States Code, regarding the federal share for projects for the 
elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings.
    Section 338 amends section 3030(b) of Public Law 105-178 to 
authorize the Dane County Corridor--East-West Madison 
Metropolitan Area project.
    Section 339 provides that funds provided for the Griffin 
light rail project in Public Law 104-205 shall be available for 
alternative analysis and environmental impact studies for other 
transit alternatives in the Griffin corridor from Hartford, 
Connecticut, to Bradley International Airport.
    Section 340 amends section 3030(c)(1)(A)(v) of Public Law 
105-178 by deleting ``light rail'' from the authorization for 
the Hartford City light rail connection.
    Section 341 provides that the federal share of projects 
funded under the over-the-road bus accessibility program shall 
be 90 percent of the project cost.
    Section 342 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
make expenditures and investments for aviation insurance 
activities out of the aviation insurance revolving fund and 
authorized under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code, 
within the limits of funds made available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
44307.
    Section 343 allows the Federal Aviation Administration to 
issue recommended airport improvement grants if the Secretary 
of Transportation has not acted after 15 days of receiving such 
recommendations.
    Section 346 provides that the Secretary of Transportation 
may waive any term contained in the deed of conveyance dated 
April 3, 1956, as it pertains to the city of Safford, Arizona, 
use of conveyed land for airport purposes as long as such 
waiver does not result in the closure of an airport.
    Section 347 prohibits the Coast Guard from expending funds 
appropriated in this Act to review or issue a waiver for a 
vessel deemed to be equipped with a double bottom or double 
sides.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following lists the agencies in 
the accompanying bill which contain appropriations that are not 
authorized by law:
          United States Coast Guard
          Federal Aviation Administration
          Federal Railroad Administration
          Research and Special Programs Administration
          Surface Transportation Board

                 Comparison With the Budget Resolution

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                302(b) allocation                         This bill
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Budget authority       Outlays        Budget authority       Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary \1\...................            $12,700            $43,544            $12,700            $43,544
Mandatory...........................                721                717                721                717
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................             13,421             44,261             13,421             44,261
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes oulays from prior-year budget authority.

    The bill provides new spending authority as defined under 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, as 
follows:
    Under Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad 
rehabilitation and improvement program, authority is provided 
to issue notes necessary to pay obligations under section 511 
through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 
Reform Act. This provision has been included at the request of 
the administration because the government's financial 
obligations under this program are difficult to determine in 
advance and may require immediate expenditures of funds. The 
Committee has received no indication to date that this 
authority will be used in fiscal year 2000. Similar provisions 
have been included in many previous appropriations Acts.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority 
provided in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee 
by the Congressional Budget Office:

                        [In millions of dollars]



Budget authority......................................           $14,580
Outlays:
    2000 \1\..........................................            18,172
    2001..............................................            16,715
    2002..............................................             7,531
    2003..............................................             3,516
    2004 and future years.............................             3,588

\1\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget 
Office has provided the following estimates of new budget 
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for 
financial assistance to state and local governments:

                        [In millions of dollars]



Budget authority......................................            $1,156
Fiscal year 2000 outlays..............................             8,381


                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:
    No rescissions are recommended in this bill.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:
    There were no rollcall votes.
    
    
