[Senate Report 106-309]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 596
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-309

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



 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  2001

                                _______
                                

                 June 14, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2720]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2720) 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, 
and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the bill do pass.



Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2001

Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $15,295,400,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2001........................  16,146,737,000
Fiscal year 2000 enacted................................  14,429,976,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                    SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

                                                                   Page
Total obligational authority.....................................     5

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                        Office of the Secretary

Immediate Office of the Secretary................................    10
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.........................    11
Office of the General Counsel....................................    11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.....................    12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
  Affairs........................................................    12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs........    12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.......    13
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.............    13
Office of Public Affairs.........................................    14
Executive Secretariat............................................    14
Board of Contract Appeals........................................    14
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization...........    14
Office of Intelligence and Security..............................    15
Office of the Chief Information Officer..........................    15
Office of Intermodalism..........................................    15
Office of Civil Rights...........................................    15
Transportation planning, research, and development...............    16
Transportation Administrative Service Center.....................    17
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund.........    18
Rental Payments..................................................    21
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................    23
Minority business outreach.......................................    23

                            U.S. Coast Guard

Operating expenses...............................................    29
Acquisition, construction, and improvements......................    36
Environmental compliance and restoration.........................    41
Alteration of bridges............................................    42
Retired pay......................................................    43
Reserve training.................................................    43
Research, development, test, and evaluation......................    44
Boat safety......................................................    45

                    Federal Aviation Administration

Operations.......................................................    48
Facilities and equipment.........................................    57
Research, engineering, and development...........................    77
Grants-in-aid for airports.......................................    80

                     Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses............................    90
Federal-aid highways.............................................    92
Limitation on Transportation Research............................   101
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System................   107
Magnetic levitation transportation...............................   108
Bureau of Transportation Statistics..............................   109
Liquidation of Contract Authorization............................   110

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety: Limitation on administrative expense.......   111
National motor carrier safety program............................   114

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research..........................................   116
Highway traffic safety grants....................................   123

                    Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations............................................   125
Railroad research and development................................   127
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program........   128
Next generation high-speed rail..................................   129
Alaska railroad rehabilitation...................................   131
West Virginia Rail Development...................................   132
Rhode Island rail development....................................   132
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
  (Amtrak).......................................................   132
Amtrak Reform Council............................................   135
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project.......................   136
Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund...................   136

                     Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses..........................................   138
Formula grants...................................................   142
University transportation research...............................   144
Transit planning and research....................................   145
Trust fund share of expenses.....................................   147
Capital investment grants........................................   147
Discretionary Grants.............................................   162
Job access and reverse commute grants............................   162

              St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

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

              Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs....................................   165
Pipeline safety..................................................   169
Emergency preparedness grants....................................   172

                      Office of Inspector General

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

                      Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses............................................   175

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: 
  Salaries and expenses..........................................   177
National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses......   177

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions...............................................   179
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   182
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   182
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   183
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   187

  Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds

    In addition to the appropriation of $15,295,400,000 in new 
budget authority for fiscal year 2001, large amounts of 
contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits 
for which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The 
principal items in this category are the trust funded programs 
for Federal-aid highways, for mass transit, and for airport 
development grants. For fiscal year 2001, estimated obligation 
limitations total $38,432,600,000.

                     program, project, and activity

    During fiscal year 2001, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions 
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or 
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory 
statements of the committee of conference. This definition 
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) 
authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants and 
discretionary grant allocations made through either bill or 
report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made 
pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for 
facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and 
for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard, 
shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed 
under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified 
by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee 
reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of 
the committee of conference.

             transportation equity act for the 21st century

    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the 
previous authorization for most Federal highway, transit, and 
highway safety programs, expired on September 30, 1997. On May 
22, 1998, the Congress passed a new authorization bill, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], which 
the President signed into law on June 9, 1998. Under this law, 
most of the authorizations are contract authority; that is, 
they are available for obligation without appropriation. The 
role of the appropriations process with respect to contract 
authority programs generally is to set obligation limitations 
so that overall Federal spending stays within legislated 
targets and to appropriate liquidating cash to cover the 
outlays associated with obligations that have been made.
    The Congress recently enacted, and the President signed, 
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 
21st Century, providing the most recent statement of aviation 
policy and priorities for fiscal year 2001. The Committee 
recommendation, within budgetary realities, attempts to honor 
the thrust of the priorities articulated in that legislation.

               the government performance and results act

    The Government Performance and Results Act [Results Act] 
requires Federal agencies to develop strategic plans and annual 
performance plans and reports. The Department's first multiyear 
strategic plan was submitted September 30, 1997. The second 
strategic plan will be submitted in September 2000. The 
Committee is fully committed to support the Department as it 
seeks to implement the requirements of the Results Act.
    The Committee commends the Department for its aggressive 
implementation of the Results Act.
    The combined fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan and fiscal 
year 1999 Report was delivered to Congress on schedule March 
31, 2000. In the fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan, performance 
measures have been identified for all of the Department's major 
programs. All of these goals are stated in terms of effects on 
the American public, and many reflect ambitious target levels 
of performance. The treatment of management challenges 
identified by the Inspector General and the General Accounting 
Office has been changed to make it clearer how they contribute 
to achieving the Department's outcome goals. For most of the 
management challenges, specific milestones leading to 
resolution have also been included.
    The 1999 Performance Report included either final or 
preliminary data for over 90 percent of the measures in the 
1999 Performance Plan. The Department either met or had a 
positive trend for approximately 77 percent of its 1999 goals. 
For the five goals missed by a significant amount, the 
Department is reviewing its strategies to see if they need to 
be changed.
    Generally, the goals focus on several of the most important 
challenges facing the Department of Transportation. One of the 
weaknesses cited by the GAO in its earlier review of the 
Department's performance plan was the lack of a consistent link 
of the performance goals to the strategic outcomes and the lack 
of consistent inclusion of goals and measures for addressing 
the management challenges facing the department. That 
deficiency has in substantial part been addressed in the 2001 
Performance Plan. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has 
repeatedly identified the lack of accountability for financial 
activities as a key challenge for the DOT. It remains too early 
to tell whether the Department's recognition of this continuing 
deficiency has been adequately addressed.
    Many of the challenges identified by the GAO and the OIG 
are long-standing and will require sustained attention by DOT 
and the Congress, but the plan's goals and measures are 
objective, quantifiable, and measurable. For all except a few 
performance goals, the Department's plan describes target 
levels of performance in both annual and multi-year terms. The 
Committee has suggested some presentation and reporting 
modifications that would improve the clarity and usefulness of 
the plan as a management and oversight tool and will watch with 
interest as those suggestions are considered by the Department.
    The specificity and aggressiveness of activity goals and 
measures vary depending on the likelihood of meeting the 
relevant challenge. Almost invariably, the goals and measures 
move the department toward qualitative or quantitative 
improvement in the safety and performance activities generally 
considered to be the primary Federal issues relating to 
transportation. However, the full value of the plan formulation 
process will be realized when it is used as a critical 
evaluation tool for gauging the effectiveness of departmental 
programs and initiatives for improving performance measures. 
That evaluation dynamic has been elusive to date and, 
accordingly, the overall potential of the GPRA exercise has yet 
to be substantially realized.
    Another concern might be the scattershot approach to some 
goals as evidenced by the myriad activities to address a 
specific challenge, i.e., the identified high-risk information 
technology initiative for the FAA's air traffic control 
modernization program. The DOT plan could be significantly 
improved in this specific area by consistently including goals 
and measures for addressing endemic, long-term problems facing 
the department in the procurement, information technology, and 
financial management arenas.
    The plan notes the obvious cross cutting activities at 
other Federal agencies, but the subcommittee believes that 
cross-cutting issues present an area ripe for efficiencies or 
for goal specialization. For example, the plan states that both 
FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have 
similar performance goals in the area of aviation fatalities. 
Another danger of plans built with substantial cross agency 
participation and support is that, unless the additional 
agencies share the Department's enthusiasm for the program 
(i.e., NDGPS, AVTP), the Department may quickly find itself the 
single parent of a very resource demanding program in its 
infancy. Greater coordination and reconciling of plans and 
budget submissions should help foster cross departmental 
initiatives.
    However, a continuing challenge for the Department is 
maintaining the unqualified financial opinion the Department 
received for the first time in 1999. The DOT financial 
management weaknesses at the FAA contribute significantly to 
this problem. The FAA lacks a cost accounting system or an 
alternative system for reporting project and activity costs. 
This deficiency generally makes it questionable whether the 
Department can adequately link costs factors with performance 
measures in any area of financial, procurement, or cost 
effectiveness.
    The Department notes that they are pursuing cost accounting 
improvements, but the subcommittee is concerned that any real 
improvement in this risk area is at least 2 years off. In 
addition, the plan acknowledges identified concerns about 
limitations and expresses a willingness and intent to remedy 
shortcomings--however, on an anecdotal basis, it is difficult 
to identify actions taken toward those ends.
    The Department continues to have substantial problems in 
two major risk areas: significant cost overruns, schedule 
delays and performance shortfalls experienced by the air 
traffic control modernization program and serious financial 
management weaknesses at the FAA. These problems have been 
documented and identified by the OIG, the GAO, the Department 
and the Congress and solutions have been suggested. Although 
some actions have been taken to address these recommendations, 
major performance and management challenges persist. These high 
risk areas are not new to the agencies or the Department. 
Solutions have been elusive, but the subcommittee has no reason 
to question the Department's commitment to finding long term 
solutions for any of the GAO or IG identified problems.
    Clearly, the Department has made major strides with its 
performance plan, but that plan has yet to penetrate the day-
to-day operations of the Department, the modal administrations, 
or the procurement or personnel processes. In short, the plans 
are very useful documents for determining how the Department 
views the relative and absolute importance of its disparate 
goals and a valuable gauge of whether the Departmental 
leadership is serious about remedying identified deficiencies 
or inconsistencies in programs, activities, management, or 
direction.

                           defense activities

    For a number of years, the Transportation allocation has 
included a defense allocation for national securities of the 
Coast Guard in addition to general discretionary resources. 
This split support for the Transportation function recognizes 
the interrelated nature of the Coast Guard's multiple mission 
strategy. In addition, there are a number of other accounts in 
the Department that have significant defense aspects to their 
primary and secondary missions and the nature of many of the 
Department of Transportation programs builds upon, or shares 
common elements with Department of Defense missions. For 
example, the Department of Defense GPS (Global Positioning 
System), that the Department of Defense has spent over 
$9,000,000,000 for direct procurement and as much as 
$19,000,000,000 for the entire program, is the backbone for 
several Department of Transportation modernization programs and 
new initiatives. Where possible, the Department should strive 
to coordinate with the Department of Defense to maximize the 
areas of mutual cooperation, procurement leverage, and program 
focus.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $60,852,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      69,186,000
Committee recommendation................................      57,469,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $1,355,000 for TASC pursuant to 
section 319 of Public Law 106-69; also does not reflect $500,000 
provided to this account and transferred to EPA pursuant to section 365 
of Public Law 106-69.

    Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of 
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment 
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The 
Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the 
Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General 
Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for 
transportation policy, aviation and international affairs, 
budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration. 
These secretarial offices have policy development and central 
supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall 
planning and direction of the Department of Transportation, 
including staff assistance and general management supervision 
of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of 
the Department.
    The budget proposes a consolidated appropriation for the 
offices funded by this account. 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.
    The Committee recommends a total of $57,469,000 for the 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $60,000 for 
reception and representation expenses.
    Staffing levels.--The Committee notes the current level of 
vacancies in the Office of Secretary and recognizing the 
traditional and natural attrition that accompanies a change of 
administration, the Committee recommendation adjusts the 
appropriations for salaries and expenses downward to reflect 
the current staffing levels less a portion of the anticipated 
turnover. This adjustment is made without prejudice and will be 
reviewed during the course of the fiscal year 2001 
appropriations process and, if necessary, during consideration 
of subsequent fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations 
vehicles.

                           General Provisions

    Limitation on Political and Presidential appointees.--The 
Committee recommendation includes a provision (sec. 305) 
similar to those carried in previous Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which 
limits the number of political and Presidental appointees 
funded by this act within the Department of Transportation. The 
ceiling for fiscal year 2001 is 104 personnel, which is the 
same level enacted in fiscal year 2000 adjusted for the new 
political appointees envisioned in the new Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration created in fiscal year 2000 by 
Congress. Further, the bill specifies that no political or 
presidential appointee may be detailed outside the Department 
of Transportation or any other agency funded in this bill.
    Discretionary Grants.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned by the Department's oversight and review of the modal 
administrations discretionary grants, letters of intent, or 
full funding grant agreements. The Department is directed to 
comply with the letter, the spirit, and the intent of the 3-day 
notification language included in the bill (sec. 333) which has 
been carried in previous Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Acts with respect to all 
discretionary grants totaling $1,000,000 or more of the Federal 
Highway Administration (excluding the emergency relief 
program), any program of the Federal Transit Administration 
(excluding the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization 
programs), and the airport improvement program of the Federal 
Aviation Administration. Further, no notification or 
announcement should involve funds that are not available for 
obligation.
    Additionally, the Committee is gravely concerned with the 
Department's management of the discretionary highway program. 
On more than one occasion, the Department has instituted major 
initiatives that deviate from the legislative history without 
keeping Congress adequately informed. Even more troublesome, 
the Department has left no stone unturned in its search for 
loopholes that would justify its actions. The Committee reminds 
the Department that Executive Branch propensities cannot 
substitute for Congress' own statements concerning the best 
evidence of Congressional intentions, that is, the official 
reports of the Congress. The Office of the Secretary is 
directed to submit a report to the Committee by July 1, 2000 
that explains how the department will handle such situations in 
the future.

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $1,867,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (2,031,000)
Committee recommendation................................      1,800,000 

\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 $1,800,000 consistent with the general 
guidance provided for the Office of the Secretary.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

Appropriations, 2000....................................       $600,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................       (587,000)
Committee recommendation................................        500,000 

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

    The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the 
primary responsibility of assisting the Secretary in the 
overall planning and direction of the Department. The Committee 
has recommended a total of $500,000 for the Immediate Office of 
the Deputy Secretary consistent with the general guidance 
provided for the Office of the Secretary.

                     Office of the General Counsel

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $9,000,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................    (11,172,000)
Committee recommendation................................      9,000,000 

\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 General Counsel is the chief legal officer 
of the Department of Transportation and the final authority 
within the Department on all legal questions.
    The Committee recommends $9,000,000, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 2000 for the Office of the General 
Counsel, consistent with the general guidance provided for the 
Office of the Secretary.
    Aviation competition guidelines.--When Congress passed the 
Airline Deregulation Act, it decided that the marketplace, and 
not regulators, should set airline prices and schedules. That 
landmark action has generated enormous benefits for the air 
traveling public. However, the Subcommittee on Transportation 
Appropriations has been very concerned about barriers to entry 
and the health of airline competition which may distort the 
competitive landscape. The Subcommittee has held a number of 
hearings over the past 3 years and remains convinced that it is 
critically important to have a free and competitive market that 
provides a framework for competition and permits entry into the 
aviation marketplace for new service, low cost competition, and 
boutique services. Where robust competition exists, consumers 
benefit; where significant market power exists (and is 
exercised), consumers pay the oligopolistic premium. While it 
should be clear that there is no prospect of support from the 
Committee to reregulate the airline industry, it should also be 
clear that airline competition is an area of substantial 
Congressional interest and attention.
    The Committee in the past has suggested that the Department 
consider a process in which the Department, upon receiving a 
complaint, would refer such alleged activity to the Department 
of Justice for further action to determine if it constitutes a 
permissible competitive action. This would provide greater 
certainty to the airlines as to what constitutes anti-
competitive activity. Such communications between the 
Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice 
could include patterns of behavior or the omission of 
consistent behavior as it relates to potential competitive 
services from market participants with varying degrees of 
market power. The Committee believes that the staffing 
resources provided in the Committee's recommendation are 
sufficient for such advisory or referral activity on the part 
of the Department of Transportation.

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $2,824,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (3,131,500)
Committee recommendation................................      2,500,000 

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

    The Assistant Secretary for Policy is the primary policy 
officer of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary 
for analysis, development, articulation, and review of policies 
and plans for domestic transportation. For fiscal year 2001, 
the Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Policy consistent with the general 
guidance provided for the Office of the Secretary.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $7,650,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (7,702,000)
Committee recommendation................................      7,000,000 

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

    The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs is responsible for administering the economic 
regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and 
provides departmental leadership and coordination on 
international transportation policy issues relating to 
maritime, trade, technical assistance, and cooperation 
programs. As overseer of airline economic regulation, the 
Assistant Secretary is responsible for international aviation 
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness 
and licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, and 
special investigations such as airline delays and computer 
reservations systems (CRS). For fiscal year 2001, the Committee 
recommends $7,000,000 for the Assistant Secretary for Aviation 
and International Affairs consistent with the general guidance 
provided for the Office of the Secretary.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $6,870,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (7,241,000)
Committee recommendation................................      6,500,000 

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

    The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the 
principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development, 
review, presentation, and execution of the Department's budget 
resource requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of 
the Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this 
office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation 
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to 
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution 
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of 
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for 
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to 
advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes 
necessary to improve program effectiveness.
    The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary to report 
monthly on the status of all outstanding report and reporting 
requirements, including how delinquent Congressionally mandated 
or requested reports are and an estimated date for delivery. 
The Committee expects that the Department will constitute this 
responsibility in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Budget and Programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $6,500,000 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs 
consistent with the general guidance provided for the Office of 
the Secretary. At this level, the Committee has included 
$60,000 for reception and representation expenses for the 
Secretary.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $2,039,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (2,167,000)
Committee recommendation................................      2,000,000 

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

    The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises 
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental 
activities and on all Departmental legislative initiatives and 
other relationships with Members of the Congress; promotes 
effective communication with other Federal agencies and 
regional Department officials, and with State and local 
governments and national organizations for development of 
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences, 
awareness, and needs are brought into the decision-making 
process.
    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs consistent with 
the general guidance provided for the Office of the Secretary.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $17,767,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................    (20,139,000)
Committee recommendation................................     17,800,000 

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

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration is the principal 
adviser to the Secretary on departmental administrative 
management matters, and is responsible for personnel and 
training, management policy, employment ceiling control 
systems, automated systems policy, administrative operations, 
real and personal property management, acquisition management, 
and grants management.
    The Committee recommends $17,800,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration consistent with the 
general guidance for the Office of the Secretary and which 
includes the Office of the Secretary portion of rent.

                        Office of Public Affairs

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $1,800,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (1,714,000)
Committee recommendation................................      1,500,000 

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

    The Office of Public Affairs is the principal adviser to 
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news 
media on public affairs question. The Office issues news 
releases, articles, factsheets, briefing materials, 
publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides 
information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the 
public and news media on transportation programs and issues.
    The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs consistent with the general guidance for the 
Office of the Secretary.

                         Executive Secretariat

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $1,102,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (1,181,000)
Committee recommendation................................      1,181,000 

\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 and appropriation of $1,181,000 
for expenses of the Executive Secretariat.

                       Board of Contract Appeals

Appropriations, 2000....................................       $520,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................       (496,000)
Committee recommendation................................        496,000 

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

    The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals 
is to provide an independent forum for the trial and 
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor 
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as 
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601.
    The Committee has provided $496,000 for the Board of 
Contract Appeals Board.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $1,222,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (1,192,000)
Committee recommendation................................      1,192,000 

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

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for 
small and disadvantaged business participation in the 
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective 
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15 
of the Small Business Act, as amended.
    The Committee recommends $1,192,000.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $1,454,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (3,494,000)
Committee recommendation................................................

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

    The Office of Intelligence and Security within the Office 
of the Secretary coordinates security and intelligence policies 
and strategies among the modes of transportation and serves as 
liaison with other Government intelligence and law enforcement 
agencies.
    The Committee recommends the Office of Intelligence and 
Security be funded from funds made available to the Coast Guard 
and/or the Federal Aviation Administration. The office is 
headed by an official from the Coast Guard and the majority of 
the functions of the office relate to Coast Guard and Federal 
Aviation Administration missions.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $5,075,000 
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     (6,929,000)
Committee recommendation................................      6,000,000 

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

    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer.

                        Office of Intermodalism

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $1,062,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................         ( \2\ )

\1\ Included within the Federal Highway Administration's limitation on 
administrative expenses.
\2\ Funding is not included for the Office of Intermodalism in the 
Office of the Secretary.

    The Committee does not recommend funding for the Office of 
Intermodalism in the Office of the Secretary accounts.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................      $7,200,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       8,726,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $212,000 for TASC pursuant to section 
219 of Public Law 106-69.

    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity 
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for 
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small 
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as 
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the 
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and 
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In 
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing 
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally 
operated and federally assisted transportation programs.
    The Committee has provided a funding level of $8,000,000 
for the Office of Civil Rights.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................      $3,300,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       5,258,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,300,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $10,000 for TASC pursuant to section 
319 of Public Law 106-69; also does not reflect reduction of $73,000 
pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.

    The Office of the Secretary performs those research 
activities and studies which can more effectively or 
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This 
research effort supports the planning, research and development 
activities, and systems development needed to assist the 
Secretary in the formulation of national transportation 
policies. The program is carried out primarily through 
contracts with other Federal agencies, educational 
institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private 
firms. Within the Committee's recommendation, funding is 
provided in this account for the 2001 Special Winter Olympics 
and for a commission authorized in section 228 of FAIR 21.
    Missing children.--The Committee is aware of the effective 
work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
to combat crimes against children and to reunite abducted or 
runaway children with their families. There are many 
opportunities in the transportation sector to alert the public 
to the status of a missing child. For example, truckstops, 
airports, rail and bus stations, and other transportation 
facilities are utilized by millions of Americans every day. 
These are ideal places to raise public awareness of missing 
children. Moreover, employees in the transportation sector, 
including flight attendants, bus and truck drivers, and ticket 
agents, come into contact with hundreds of individuals every 
day and could be a key element in identifying abducted 
children. When nonlaw enforcement entities adopt procedures 
that hinder pedophiles and kidnappers, they are doing a much 
needed public service. Of note is WalMart's Code Adam Program. 
When a child disappears in a participating store, Code Adam is 
addressed over the public address system. Store personnel 
immediately stop work to look for the child and monitor all 
exits. If the missing child is not located in 10 minutes, or is 
seen with someone other than a parent or guardian, the police 
are called. This program is implemented in all 2,800 WalMart 
and Sam's Club stores. The Committee urges the transportation 
sector to consider similar programs.
    In addition, transportation facilities are generally public 
places and present the same dangers that any public place has 
for unaccompanied children. Parents should remember, and 
transportation providers can help them to be more aware, that 
they should be ever diligent and make certain that they take 
precautions to ensure their child's safety while traveling.
    The Committee directs the Secretary and each of the modal 
administrators to work with the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children and the transportation industry to identify 
and implement initiatives to maximize the transportation 
sector's involvement in the effort to relocate missing 
children. The Committee notes that the Secretary's report to 
the Committee on Appropriation relating to this initiative 
indicated that ``language will be developed to incorporate in 
presentations done by the Secretary and other Department 
Executives,'' and ``A work group geared at synthesizing the 
information provided by NCMEC (National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children) with current Department programs has been 
formed. The findings of this group will be reported to the 
Appropriations Committee in June 2000.'' The Committee looks 
forward to the June 2000 report and for further action on this 
initiative by the Department.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, 2000 \1\....................................  ($148,673,000)
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\...............................   (163,811,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (173,278,000)

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $15,000,000 pursuant to section 319 of 
Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Proposed without limitations. Includes DOT only.

    The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC] 
provides a business operation fund for DOT to provide a wide 
range of administrative services to the Department and other 
customers. TASC functions as an entrepreneurial and self-
sufficient entity and provides competitive quality services 
responsive to customer needs. The TASC is governed by a Board 
of Directors composed of customer agencies operating in a 
competitive business-like environment. The TASC presents 
proposed operating and financial plans to the Board at the 
beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board has approved 
those plans the TASC provides products and services to its full 
customer base. The Director of TASC provides quarterly 
performance and financial reports to the Board, makes 
recommendations for changes to the approved plans and is 
responsible for the day-to-day management of the TASC. DOT 
administrations must procure consolidated administrative 
services from the TASC unless a financial analysis of the 
services demonstrates that it is more cost beneficial to the 
Department as a whole--not to an individual operating entity 
alone--to change the nature of the service delivery (to 
consolidate a service or to decentralize a service). TASC 
services are being marketed to customers outside DOT to provide 
greater economies of scale, thus reducing costs to individual 
customers. TASC services include:
  --Functions formerly in DOT's working capital fund [WCF];
  --Office of the Secretary [OST] personnel, procurement and 
        information technology support operations;
  --Systems development staff;
  --Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets 
        facilities; and
  --Certain departmental services and administrative 
        operations, such as human resources management 
        programs, transit fare subsidy payments, and employee 
        wellness including substance awareness and testing.
    All of the services of the TASC will be financed through 
customer reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for-
service basis.
    The bill includes language that includes a limitation on 
activities financed through the transportation administrative 
service center at $173,278,000. The limitation shall not apply 
to non-DOT entities and the Committee directs that activities 
shall be provided on a competitive basis. Further, the 
Committee directs that the Department shall submit with the 
Department's congressional budget submission an approved annual 
operating plan of the transportation administrative service 
center and quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations.

        Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $45,000,000
Mandatory authority, 2000 \2\...........................       5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \3\...............................      27,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001 (mandatory authority) \2\.........      22,100,000
Committee recommendation \1\ \2\........................      50,000,000

\1\ Transfer from FAA operations.
\2\ From overflight fees.
\3\ Transfer from FAA Grants-in-aid for airports.

    The Essential Air Service [EAS] and Rural Airport 
Improvement Program provides funds directly to commuter/
regional airlines to provide air service to small communities 
that otherwise would not receive air service and for rural 
airport improvement as provided by the 1996 Federal Aviation 
Reauthorization Act.
    The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorizes 
user fees for flights that fly over, but do not land in, the 
United States. The first $50,000,000 of each year's fees were 
to go directly to carry out the Essential Air Service Program 
and, to the extent not used for essential air service, to 
improve rural airport safety. If $50,000,000 in fees is not 
available, funding must be transferred from FAA appropriations 
to the EAS programs.
    Many EAS points are located in remote rural areas: 60 of 78 
communities receiving subsidized service under the program are 
more than 100 highway miles from the nearest small, medium, or 
large hub airport. Thirty more communities are located in 
Alaska, where, in all but two cases, year-round road access 
does not exist, and in many instances does not exist at all. 
Without air service, such communities would be further isolated 
from the Nation's economic centers. The funding provided is 
adequate to maintain existing levels of service in Alaska.
    Moreover, businesses are typically interested in locating 
in areas that have convenient access to scheduled air service. 
Loss of service would seriously hamper small communities' 
ability to attract new business or even to retain those they 
now have, resulting in further strain on local economies and 
loss of jobs.
    The following table reflects the points currently receiving 
service and the annual rates as of March 1, 2000. The 
$50,000,000 funding level is sufficient to maintain current 
service levels and quality of service at the communities 
currently served by the EAS program, although the cost of the 
program appears to be increasing.
    In the lower 48 States, the tables show distances that EAS 
communities are from other air service centers and subsidy-per-
passenger calculations. The distance figures are shown to give 
a sense of the degree of isolation of the communities, and the 
subsidy-per-passenger figures are a rough measure of the cost 
of providing the service compared to the number of passengers 
benefiting from the service. Neither of those calculations are 
relevant to Alaska. First, only 2 of the 30 subsidized 
communities in Alaska have road access to other air service. 
Thus, the Alaskan communities are clearly among the most 
isolated in the Nation. In fact, many are islands and would be 
all but cut off from the rest of the world without air service. 
Second, any subsidy-per-passenger calculation would be highly 
misleading, at best. While subsidy-per-passenger may be used as 
a crude measure of cost benefit in the lower 48, in many of the 
subsidized EAS markets the principal traffic being carried on 
the EAS flights is food being delivered to the bush community. 
Thus, the whole community benefits from--indeed is fully 
dependent on--the EAS flights, not just the few who may 
actually travel on the flights.

                                      EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF MARCH 1, 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Average daily
                                                 Estimated     enplanements at
                                                 mileage to    EAS point (year   Annual subsidy    Subsidy per
             States/communities                 nearest hub         ending      rates (March 1,     passenger
                                              (small, medium,   September 30,        2000)
                                               or large) \1\        1999)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA:
    Kingman.................................              101              6.1         $432,564          $112.76
    Page....................................              282             12.0          686,014            91.25
    Prescott................................              102             21.5          432,564            32.07
    Show Low................................              168             10.7          205,040            30.59
ARKANSAS:
    El Dorado/Camden........................              108              5.3          825,569           246.73
    Harrison................................              142              6.5        1,125,591           276.76
    Hot Springs.............................               53              8.4        1,125,591           212.86
    Jonesboro...............................               79              6.6          825,569           198.50
CALIFORNIA:
    Crescent City...........................              234             33.4          314,865            15.06
    Merced..................................              114             10.8          951,271           141.14
COLORADO:
    Alamosa.................................              162             14.1        1,060,940           120.59
    Cortez..................................              258             26.5          408,227            24.65
    Lamar...................................              163              4.9          633,984           205.51
    Pueblo..................................  ...............             14.0          500,000            57.08
HAWAII:
    Hana....................................               32             14.8          574,500            62.18
    Kamuela.................................               39              4.0          424,559           168.88
    Kalaupapa...............................          ( \2\ )             12.4          136,404            17.54
ILLINOIS: Mattoon...........................              126              2.9          540,449           294.20
IOWA: Ottumwa...............................               85              2.5          380,039           238.57
KANSAS:
    Dodge City..............................              149             19.5          463,179            37.94
    Garden City.............................              201             29.2          463,179            25.36
    Goodland................................              176              3.4          909,597           432.11
    Great Bend..............................              120             15.7          693,209            70.60
    Hays....................................              180             17.2          693,209            64.41
    Liberal/Guymon..........................              142             13.9          633,984            72.81
    Topeka..................................               71             12.7          722,141            90.96
MAINE:
    Augusta/Waterville......................               71             10.8          596,806            88.42
    Bar Harbor..............................              157             35.8          596,806            26.64
    Rockland................................               80             22.4          596,806            42.47
MICHIGAN:
    Ironwood/Ashland........................              218              6.1          684,239           180.35
    Iron Mountain/Kingsford.................              101             26.6          473,599            28.41
    Manistee................................              115              4.2          361,808           138.94
MINNESOTA: Mankato..........................               75  ...............          ( \3\ )          ( \3\ )
MISSOURI:
    Cape Girardeau..........................              138             28.6          278,560            15.58
    Fort Leonard Wood.......................              130             18.2          337,124            29.60
    Kirksville..............................              137              4.2          450,736           172.37
MONTANA:
    Glasgow.................................              763              6.2          671,032           173.35
    Glendive................................              624              3.7          671,032           289.74
    Havre...................................              674              4.3          671,032           248.71
    Lewistown...............................              558              3.4          671,032           317.72
    Miles City..............................              529              4.7          671,032           229.10
    Sidney..................................              653              7.6          671,032           140.15
    Wolf Point..............................              698              4.8          671,032           222.34
NEBRASKA:
    Alliance................................              256              5.9          770,950           210.24
    Chadron.................................              311              5.3          770,950           231.03
    Hastings................................              162  ...............          ( \3\ )          ( \3\ )
    Kearney.................................              181             21.4          839,487            62.69
    McCook..................................              271              7.4        1,401,900           302.59
    Norfolk.................................              109              5.8          431,660           118.78
    North Platte............................              277             26.4          106,006             6.42
NEVADA: Ely.................................              237              2.8        1,087,340           627.79
NEW MEXICO:
    Alamogordo/Holloman AFB.................               91              9.8          777,127           126.61
    Clovis..................................              105             12.6          926,594           117.53
    Gallup..................................              143              8.2          691,080           134.27
    Silver City/Hurley/Deming...............              133             10.1          872,204           138.29
NEW YORK:
    Massena.................................              115             10.5          371,836            56.45
    Ogdensburg..............................              123              8.9          371,836            66.97
    Watertown...............................               65             24.1          371,836            24.70
NORTH DAKOTA:
    Devils Lake.............................              396             10.5          613,389            93.40
    Dickinson...............................              490             12.1          247,255            32.66
    Jamestown...............................              302             10.0          613,389            97.95
    Williston...............................              592             19.0          244,216            20.49
OKLAHOMA:
    Enid....................................               84              6.3          972,122           246.61
    Ponca City..............................               81              8.4          972,122           185.73
PENNSYLVANIA: Oil City/Franklin.............               86             29.3          510,261            27.86
PUERTO RICO: Ponce..........................               77             32.8          500,000            24.34
SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Brookings...............................               57              5.9          881,662           240.56
    Mitchell................................               69  ...............          ( \3\ )          ( \3\ )
    Yankton.................................               81              4.8          640,976           212.95
TEXAS: Brownwood............................              138              4.7          865,886           295.42
UTAH:
    Cedar City..............................              178             23.6          679,450            45.93
    Moab....................................              240              6.0          595,373           158.64
    Vernal..................................              174             11.8          661,624            89.77
VERMONT: Rutland............................              144              9.8          596,806            97.60
WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses  Lake.............              101             37.1          514,313            22.17
WEST VIRGINIA:
    Beckley.................................              173              7.9          627,512           126.54
    Princeton/Bluefield.....................              137              7.2          627,512           139.45
WISCONSIN: Oshkosh..........................               49             13.9          460,392            52.97
WYOMING:
    Laramie.................................              144             31.5          671,151            34.00
    Rock Springs............................              184             30.0          493,151            26.26
    Worland.................................              398              9.1          671,151           118.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activity Statistics. The
  above distances are based on the 1998 Airport Activity Statistics, which is based on CY 1998 passenger data.
\2\ There is no FAA-designated small, medium or large hub on the island of Molokai.
\3\ Hiatus in service.

                            RENTAL PAYMENTS

    Until 1997, payments to the General Services Administration 
for headquarters and field space rental and related services 
for all modes were consolidated into this account. Beginning in 
1998, however, all GSA rental payments are reflected in the 
modal budgets. The following table displays by modal 
administration the GSA rental payments for fiscal years 1999, 
2000, and requested for 2001, both in square feet and funding 
levels.

                                               GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS
                                     [Dollars and square feet in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year 1999 actual    Fiscal year 2000 estimate       Fiscal year 2001
                             --------------------------------------------------------     President's budget
       Administration                                                                ---------------------------
                                 Funding     Square feet     Funding     Square feet     Funding     Square feet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway                    $17,922           912       $20,400           883       $27,334           883
 Administration.............
National Highway Traffic             4,042           178         4,657           182         5,882           196
 Safety Administration......
Federal Railroad                     3,172           135         3,121           138         3,308           140
 Administration.............
Federal Transit                      3,500           137         3,913           138         4,304           139
 Administration.............
Federal Aviation                    75,400         3,128        92,105         3,400        92,000         3,415
 Administration.............
U.S. Coast Guard............        37,450         2,003        34,337         2,027        33,970         2,099
St. Lawrence Seaway                    203             7           185             6           212             6
 Development Corporation....
Maritime Administration.....         4,234           259         4,597           260         4,676           260
Research and Special                 2,215            79         2,389            82         2,654            86
 Programs Administration....
Office of Inspector General.         2,510           108         2,800           107         3,056           107
Office of the Secretary of           6,713           204         6,921           204         7,190           204
 Transportation (OST).......
Transportation                       4,677           215         5,251           216        11,028           382
 Administrative Service
 Center.....................
Bureau of Transportation               750            20           729            26           930            32
 Statistics.................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............
 Administration \1\.........
Surface Transportation Board         1,538            66         1,700            66         1,785            66
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Department of         164,326         7,466       183,105         7,735       198,329         8,015
       Transportation.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Included in Federal Highway Administration.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       1,900,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,900,000

    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
[OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC].--The OSDBU/
MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working 
capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-
owned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE's]. In fiscal year 2001, the 
short-term loan program will continue to focus on the lending 
of working capital to DBE/MBE/WBE's for transportation-related 
projects in order to strengthen their competitive and 
productive capabilities.
    Since fiscal year 1993, the loan program has been a 
separate line item appropriation, which segregated such 
activities in response to changes made by the Federal Credit 
Reform Act of 1990. For fiscal year 2001, the administration 
proposes converting this program from a direct loan program to 
a guaranteed loan program. The limitation on subsidized loans 
under the Minority Business Resource Center is at the 
administration's requested level of $13,775,000. The Committee 
recognizes that ability of certain institutions to provide 
minority business firms with contracting expertise and directs 
that the Minority Business Resource Center Program work with 
the Alabama State University Business Technology Center and 
Alabama A&M University to develop those institutions' 
capabilities to assist minority business firms to secure and 
execute contracts with the Federal Government.
    Of the funds appropriated, $1,500,000 covers the subsidy 
costs for loans not to exceed $13,775,000; and, $400,000 is for 
administrative expenses to carry out the Direct Loan Program.

                       Minority Business Outreach

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................      $2,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $18,000 pursuant to section 301 of 
Public Law 106-113.

    This appropriation provides contractual support to assist 
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in 
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects 
that involve Federal spending. It also provides support to 
historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is 
requested by the administration since this program provides 
grants and contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and 
not just OST purposes.

                           General Provisions

    Advisory committees.--The Committee has retained a general 
provision (sec. 325) which would limit the amount of funds that 
could be used for the expenses of advisory committees utilized 
by the Department of Transportation. The limitation specified 
is $1,500,000.
    Rebates, refunds, and incentive payments.--The Department 
receives funds from various Government programs at different 
time intervals (that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly). For 
example, under the General Services Administration's Travel 
Management Center [TMC] Program, rebate checks received from 
the travel contractor are distributed monthly to each element 
of the Department in proportion to net domestic airline sales 
arranged by the contractor. Past expenditures have to be 
analyzed to determine the proper sources to refund which can be 
a time-consuming process. The staff time and cost associated 
with the precise accounting for each such refund is 
prohibitive. To alleviate the need to specifically identify the 
source for each repayment the Committee has included language 
(sec. 326), as requested, that allows a fair and sensible 
allocation of the rebates and miscellaneous and other funds.
    Departmental Aircraft.--The Committee continues to be aware 
of the significant difficulty that the department has had in 
using aircraft for the movement of Department of Transportation 
officials and personnel under the Office of Management and 
Budget guidelines. If the department is unable to make use of 
dedicated aircraft in an efficient manner, the Committee 
believes that there are significant cost savings, flexibility, 
and efficiency to be garnered through utilizing the private 
sector for the business aircraft requirements of the FAA, the 
Office of the Secretary, and to a lesser extent, the Coast 
Guard. Accordingly, the Committee has again included bill 
language (sec. 332) that permits the fractional ownership of 
business aircraft by the department which will allow the 
department to sell underutilized business aircraft in the 
agency's inventory and utilize those resources for more 
critical priorities. Fractional aircraft ownership concepts 
provide access to an entire fleet of aircraft, availability of 
a mix of aircraft types and sizes, all on very short notice and 
are eminently compatible with the OMB guidelines. Costs include 
aircraft share, a monthly management fee (to include 
maintenance, flight and cabin crew, crew training, and routine 
service), and an hourly rate for time aboard the aircraft. The 
Committee believes that fractional ownership of administrative 
aircraft in a number of situations could prove extremely 
beneficial in reducing the costs and inefficiencies of the 
aircraft in administrative roles which are currently owned and 
operated in the government inventory. Therefore, the Committee 
urges the department to submit the study requested in last 
year's conference report and establish a test program of 
fractional ownership for the Federal Aviation Administration, 
at a minimum, to replace existing mission support aircraft used 
for administrative requirements, with a mix of light to mid-
size jets to determine the flexibility, efficiency, and cost 
benefits for the government. Alternatively, the Department 
should submit by July 1, 2000 language that would exempt the 
aircraft operations of the Department and the appropriate modal 
administrations from the OMB guidelines.
    Delinquent reporting requirements.--The Committee is 
increasingly concerned by the Department's apparent selective 
adherence to required reports and guidance included in the 
House and Senate reports. If this reticence is not remedied, 
the Committee will provide incentives to prompt greater 
attention to Congressional intent.
    Safety inspector liability insurance.--The bill includes a 
general provision requested by the administration (sec. 339) 
which would extend support for the purchase of professional 
liability insurance to departmental safety inspectors. Under 
current law, Federal agencies can subsidize the purchase of 
liability insurance by management grade employees, but not for 
non-supervisory employees. Safety inspectors are inherently at 
risk for punitive lawsuits and would benefit from having the 
same reimbursement opportunity that is currently extended for 
management staff. The provision requires that the departmental 
share of the liability insurance costs may not exceed one-half.

                                 Other

    User fees.--The Committee has included bill language, as 
requested, which permits the Office of the Secretary to 
continue to credit to this account $1,250,000 in user fees.
    In addition, the administration's budget proposal includes 
provisions that would authorize the Secretary of Transportation 
to charge user fees for Coast Guard, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Research and 
Special Programs Administration, Surface Transportation Board, 
and National Transportation Safety Board services, totaling 
$1,300,000,000. These provisions were drafted to produce the 
net effect of reducing the budgetary impact of the 
administration's request, but the agencies themselves are 
``held harmless'' against potential loss of funds because the 
language is contingent upon authorization of the user fees. 
Each affected agency would have access to all budgetary 
resources provided in the appropriations bill, because the 
offsetting collections are not reduced from the general fund 
appropriation until the authorizing legislation is enacted. 
Despite this fact, the administration's budget takes full 
credit for these offsetting collections, artificially reducing 
the budget resources required to fund the overall budget 
request.
    These proposals amount to budgetary ``smoke and mirrors''. 
Additionally, these proposed user fees represent new taxes on 
many different sectors of U.S. business and the traveling 
public. Congress has consistently rejected such user fee 
proposals, yet the administration continues to include them in 
its budget submissions.
    The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 338) 
which directs that in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission, 
the Department must identify offsets for each proposed user 
fee. These identified offsets will be reduced from each 
agency's budget if the proposed fees are not authorized and 
enacted before the next fiscal year. This provision endeavors 
to make the administration fiscally accountable for its user 
fee proposals.
    Reductions and emergency supplementals in fiscal year 2000 
appropriations.--In fiscal year 2000, reductions were made to a 
number of accounts due to the limitation or reduction imposed 
in the Transportation Administrative Service Center. In 
addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-
113 rescinded 0.38 percent of discretionary budget authority 
and obligation limitations provided for fiscal year 2000. In 
the Senate Committee report, each account head shows the amount 
appropriated in Public Law 106-69 before the various reductions 
or supplementals were made. The table below depicts the amount 
of funds appropriated for each of the accounts, and the 
reduction and supplementals.

                                                             CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS
                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Public Law 106-69 DOT Appropriations Act                Public Law 106-113       Public Law    Public Law
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  106-79 Sec.   106-31 Sec.        Net
                          Account                           Appropriations                                     GP 365                     Sec. 301        8131          3029       appropriation
                                                            and obligation    GP 319 TASC    GP 338 Motor    Transfer to    Sec. 225    0.38 percent    Transfer      Ellsworth   and obligation
                                                              limitation                        carrier          EPA         transit         cut        from DOD     settlement     limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
    Salaries and expenses.................................         60,852          -1,355   ..............       ( \1\ )  ............  ............  ............  ............         59,497
    Transportation planning, research, and development....          3,300             -73   ..............  ............  ............           -10  ............  ............          3,217
    Minority business resources center....................          1,900   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............          1,900
    Minority business outreach............................          2,900   ..............  ..............  ............  ............           -18  ............  ............          2,882
    Office of Civil Rights................................          7,200            -212   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............          6,988
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................         76,152          -1,640   ..............  ............  ............           -28  ............  ............         74,484
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
U.S. Coast Guard:
    Operating Expenses....................................      2,781,000          -1,963   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............      2,779,037
    Acquisition, construction, and improvements...........        389,326            -349   ..............  ............  ............        -1,478  ............  ............        387,499
    Environmental compliance and restoration..............         17,000             -11   ..............  ............  ............           -65  ............  ............         16,924
    Alteration of bridges.................................         15,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............           -57  ............  ............         14,943
    Retired pay...........................................        730,327   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............        730,327
    Reserve training......................................         72,000             -48   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         71,952
    Research, development, test, and evaluation...........         19,000              -7   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         18,993
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................      4,023,653          -2,378   ..............  ............  ............        -1,600  ............  ............      4,019,675
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Operations............................................      5,900,000          -6,610   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............      5,893,390
    Facilities and equipment..............................      2,075,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............      2,075,000
    Rescission, facilities and equipment..................        -30,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............        -30,000
    Research, engineering, and development................        156,495   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............        156,495
    Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitation)....      1,950,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............       -54,362  ............  ............      1,895,638
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................     10,051,495          -6,610   ..............  ............  ............       -54,362  ............  ............      9,990,523
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration:
    Limitation on administrative expenses.................       [376,072]        [-1,233]       [-70,484]  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............       [304,355]
    Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation)..........     27,701,350          -1,415         -76,058   ............  ............      -105,260  ............  ............     27,520,032
    Exempt obligations....................................      1,206,702   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............      1,206,702
    Ellsworth housing settlement..........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............         3,000          3,000
    Motor carrier safety grants (obligation limitation)...        105,000   ..............       -105,000   ............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ..............
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................     29,013,052          -1,415        -181,058   ............  ............      -105,260  ............         3,000     28,729,734
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
    Motor carrier safety grants (obligation limitation)...  ..............  ..............        105,000   ............  ............  ............  ............  ............        105,000
    Office of Motor Carrier Safety (obligation limitation)  ..............  ..............         76,058   ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         76,058
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................  ..............  ..............        181,058   ............  ............  ............  ............  ............        181,058
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
    Operations and Research, General Fund.................         87,400            -930   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         86,470
    Operations and Research, Trust Fund (obligation                72,000            -398   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         71,602
     limitation)..........................................
    National driver registration..........................          2,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............          2,000
    Highway safety grants.................................        206,800   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............        206,800
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        368,200          -1,328   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............        366,872
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Safety and operations.................................         94,288            -436   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         93,852
    Research and development..............................         22,464   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         22,464
    Next generation high speed rail.......................         27,200   ..............  ..............  ............  ............          -103  ............  ............         27,097
    Alaska railroad rehabilitation........................         10,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............           -38         5,000  ............         14,962
    Rhode Island rail development.........................         10,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............           -38  ............  ............          9,962
    Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corp............        571,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............        571,000
    Amtrak Reform Council.................................            750   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............            750
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................        735,702            -436   ..............  ............  ............          -179         5,000  ............        740,087
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration:
    Administrative expenses (approps and obligation                60,000            -438   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         59,562
     limitation)..........................................
    Formula grants (approps and obligation limitation) \3\      3,048,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............      3,048,000
    Univ. transportation research (approps and obligation           6,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............          6,000
     limitation)..........................................
    Transit planning and research (approps and obligation         107,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............          -243  ............  ............        106,757
     limitation)..........................................
    Capital investment grants (approps and obligation           2,501,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............       -17,381  ............  ............      2,483,619
     limitation) \3\......................................
    Capital investment grants (Trust Fund approps)........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ............         6,000           -23  ............  ............          5,977
    Job access (approps and obligation limitation)........         75,000   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         75,000
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................      5,797,000            -438   ..............  ............         6,000       -17,647  ............  ............      5,784,915
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.: Operations and            12,042             -25   ..............  ............  ............           -46  ............  ............         11,971
 maintenance..............................................
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Research and Special Programs Administration:
    Research and special programs.........................         32,061            -296   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         31,765
    Pipeline safety.......................................         36,879            -198   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         36,681
    Emergency preparedness grants.........................            200   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............            200
    Emergency preparedness grants.........................         14,100   ..............  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         14,100
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................         83,240            -494   ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............         82,746
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Bureau of Transportation Statistics \2\...................        [31,000]          [-182]  ..............  ............  ............  ............  ............  ............        [30,818]
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and expenses....         44,840            -224   ..............  ............  ............          -170  ............  ............         44,446
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board: Salaries and expenses.......         17,000             -12   ..............  ............  ............           -58  ............  ............         16,930
                                                           =====================================================================================================================================
      Total, Department of Transportation, Excluding           50,222,376         -15,000   ..............  ............         6,000      -179,350         5,000         3,000     50,043,441
       Maritime Administration............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GP 365 appropriates $500,000 to OST, to be transferred to EPA.
\2\ BTS funding included within Federal-aid highways.
\3\ Reflects transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital discretionary pursuant to Public Law 106-69.

Note: Above data does not reflect supplemental funding proposals.

                            U.S. COAST GUARD


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    The U.S. Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established 
on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter 
Service and the Lifesaving Service. In 1939, the U.S. 
Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed 
by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The 
Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities the enforcement 
of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of 
safety of life and property at sea; assistance to navigation; 
protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a 
state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the 
Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2).
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$4,423,099,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal 
year 2001. The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                           Program                               2000 enacted                    recommendations
                                                                     \1\         2001 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses \2\ \3\...................................       2,781,000        3,199,000        3,039,460
Acquisition, construction, and improvements \3\ \4\..........         389,326          520,200          407,748
Environmental compliance and restoration.....................          17,000           16,700           16,700
Alteration of bridges........................................          15,000   ...............          15,500
Retired pay (mandatory)......................................         730,327          778,000          778,000
Reserve training.............................................          72,000           73,371           80,371
Research, development, test, and evaluation..................          19,000           21,320           21,320
Boat safety (mandatory)......................................          64,000           64,000           64,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       4,087,653        4,672,591        4,423,099
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $2,378,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69 or reflect
  reduction of $1,600,000 for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Includes funding for national security activities of the Coast Guard scored against budget function 050
  (defense discretionary) as follows: Fiscal year 2000 enacted amount includes $300,000,000 in defense
  discretionary funding; fiscal year 2001 estimate includes $341,000,000 and fiscal year 2001 Committee
  recommendation includes $641,000,000.
\3\ Includes proposed navigation assistance fees in fiscal year 2001 as follows: $116,000,000 in operating
  expenses, and $96,000,000 in acquisition, construction and improvements.
\4\ Includes $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 in asset sales.

                           Operating Expenses


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 General            Trust             Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\..................................    $2,756,000,000       $25,000,000    $2,781,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\ \3\.............................     3,174,000,000        25,000,000     3,199,000,000
Committee recommendation \4\..............................     3,014,460,000        25,000,000     3,039,460,000
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority..............       100,000,000  ................       100,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total available funds...............................     3,114,460,000        25,000,000     3,139,460,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
  Excludes $1,963,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes $341,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\3\ Includes $116,000,000 for proposed navigation assistance fees.
\4\ Includes $641,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).

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

                    committee funding recommendation

    The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating 
expenses is $3,039,460,000, including $25,000,000 from the 
oilspill liability trust fund and $641,000,000 from function 
050 for the Coast Guard's defense-related activities.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year
                                    2000        Budget       Committee
                                enacted \1\    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel resources:
    Military pay and benefits.    1,366,152    1,471,495      1,470,491
    Civilian pay and benefits.      225,517      243,119        242,945
    Military health care......      139,815      174,769        174,664
    Permanent change of              75,045       78,103         69,298
     station [PCS] and related
     travel and transportation
    Training and education....       81,966       85,557         78,072
    Recruiting................        5,585        5,585          5,585
    FECA/UCX..................       11,091       11,091         11,091
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, personnel            1,905,171    2,069,719      2,052,146
       resources..............
                               =========================================
Operating funds and unit level
 maintenance:
    Atlantic area command.....      121,137      125,702        125,509
    Pacific area command......      123,213      118,891        126,625
    District commands:
        1st district..........       35,967       36,566         36,566
        7th district..........       47,652       49,043         49,043
        8th district..........       28,168       28,674         28,674
        9th district..........       17,304       17,775         17,775
        13th district.........       12,453       13,030         13,030
        14th district.........        9,910        9,734          9,734
        17th district.........       20,465       20,972         20,972
    Headquarters directorates.      184,326      223,413        222,288
    Headquarters managed units       45,236       55,342         53,577
    Other activities..........        1,653        1,653          1,653
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, operating funds        647,484      700,795        705,446
       and unit level
       maintenance............
                               =========================================
Depot level maintenance:
    Aircraft maintenance......      149,321      170,101        157,026
    Electronic maintenance....       39,366       42,395         40,895
    Ocean engineering and            97,442      105,785        100,785
     shore facility
     maintenance..............
    Vessel maintenance........      102,255      110,205        105,890
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, depot level            388,384      428,486        404,596
       maintenance............
                               =========================================
Account-wide adjustments:
    TASC reduction............       -1,963  ...........  ..............
    Undistributed reduction...  ...........  ...........       -122,728
                               =========================================
      Total appropriation.....  \2\ 2,779,0    3,199,000      3,039,460
                                         76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $1,963,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law 106-
  69.
\2\ Assumes carryover of $160,000,000 from Kosovo emergency
  supplemental.

Note.--Fiscal year 2000 enacted and fiscal year 2001 request include
  $300,000,000 and $341,000,000, respectively, for national security
  activities, budget function 050 (defense).

    Military pay and benefit.--The Committee recommends 
$1,470,491,000 for military pay and allowances, an increase of 
$104,339,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The 
Committee recommendation fully funds the fiscal year 2001 3.7 
percent pay raise as well as the budget request for recruiting 
and retention bonuses, aviator career continuation pay, and 15 
year career bonus payments to personnel affected by the Redux 
repeal as authorized under the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
    Military health care.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $174,664,000 for military health care. This is 
$34,849,000 more than last year's enacted level. The Committee 
notes that the Coast Guard has allowed active duty personnel, 
their dependents, and retirees to enroll in the Uniformed 
Health Services Family Plan for their medical care.
    Military health care task force.--The Coast Guard, as a 
uniformed service, is required by statute to be a full 
participant in the Department of Defense TRICARE program. The 
health care delivery structural requirements of the Coast 
Guard, however, are vastly different from what is necessary for 
the Defense Department. Under TRICARE, military personnel and 
their dependents are expected to rely on the nearest military 
treatment facility for health services. Unlike DOD personnel 
who are stationed in large military bases, Coast Guard 
personnel typically are assigned to small stations, many of 
which are at remote locations a great distance from the nearest 
military treatment facility. As a result of this difference, 
the Coast Guard cannot justify health care facilities at these 
units and must rely on the participation of health care 
providers in the community for health services. The Committee 
commends the Coast Guard for working with DOD to increase the 
reimbursement rates in remote areas to attract greater civilian 
participation in TRICARE. Nevertheless, the Committee is 
concerned that this alone will not improve the quality of 
health care at remote stations. Also, the Coast Guard does not 
need to maintain an organic health care system as the military 
services must for overseas operations. Given these anomalies, 
the Committee directs the Coast Guard to form a task force to 
assess the systemic requirements of the Coast Guard in 
providing health care to its uniformed personnel and determine 
if the Coast Guard should continue its participation in TRICARE 
or transition to an alternate health care system, such as the 
Federal Employee's Health Benefits Program. The task force 
shall analyze such issues as program administration, access to 
providers, scope of coverage, and costs to the agency and 
individual expenses. The task force shall submit its report and 
recommendations to Congress no later than July 1, 2001 and 
should provide an interim report for use in the preparation of 
the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
    Aviation detachment support.--The Administration requests 
$3,904,000 for personnel, training, fuel, and maintenance to 
operate three HH-65 helicopters which will support operations 
on the new polar icebreaker. Although funding for these three 
helicopters is also requested in the budget estimate, the Coast 
Guard does not expect delivery of the helicopters until fiscal 
year 2003. Because the Coast Guard will not have the additional 
airframes to operate, the Committee expects that this reduction 
will have no adverse impact on current operations.
    Partnership in maritime medicine.--Of the funds provided, 
$1,750,000 is for Tulane University and the University of 
Alabama in Birmingham to establish a pilot project to identify 
and address the unique occupational and health hazards 
affecting Coast Guard personnel. The research will determine 
the environmental medicine needs of Coast Guard personnel, 
develop safety devices to identify early warnings of potential 
hazards, and serve as a primary source of guidance regarding 
maritime occupational and environmental health issues.
    Permanent change of station.--Within the Committee 
recommendation, the Committee has reduced $5,000,000 
specifically for permanent change of station based on the 
estimated number of travel orders to be issued during fiscal 
year 2001 and the projected average cost per move.
    Administrative account.--The Committee recommends 
$1,653,000 for other activities, the same as the budget 
request, which funds the Chief of Staff's Administrative 
Account. The Committee understands that the funding in this 
account is for agency contingencies, natural or mission related 
emergencies below the scope of supplemental appropriations, and 
other development initiatives. The Committee directs the Coast 
Guard to notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations of the specific use and amount prior to the 
obligation of any of the account's funds.
    National security.--The accompanying bill provides 
$641,000,000 from the defense function for Coast Guard support 
of national security activities. This is $300,000,000 more than 
the requested level of funding and is $341,000,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Coast Guard is one of 
the five Armed Services and serves a unique niche within the 
national security community. The value of Coast Guard forces to 
the national security command was evident by their 
participation in support of NATO operations in Yugoslavia and 
maritime interception operations to enforce the U.N. embargo 
against Iraq. The Coast Guard must maintain a high state of 
operational readiness, and the Committee recommendation 
provides the necessary resources to ensure that the Coast Guard 
is able to meet its national security commitments.
    Drug interdiction.--The Committee recommends $565,200,000, 
as requested, for drug interdiction activities, and it should 
be left to the Commandant's discretion how the drug 
interdiction funding is distributed. The Committee 
recommendation increases funding for drug interdiction by 
$46,240,000 from the fiscal year 2000 level. Included in the 
Committee recommendation is $17,205,000 to establish a 
helicopter squadron (HITRON 10) as the initial operating 
capability of the airborne use of force initiative which has 
shown promise in improving the Coast Guard's ability to 
intercept go-fast boats. The Committee is aware that drug 
trafficking, including the use of go-fast boats, in the Eastern 
Pacific is rapidly rising and urges the Coast Guard to deploy 
and operate the helicopter squadron as a national asset.
    Ballast water management program.--The Committee 
recommended funding level includes $3,592,000 to continue the 
nationwide ballast water management program.
    Pacific Area Command.--The Committee recommends 
$126,625,000 in funding for the command and control functions 
of the Pacific Area Command. This is $7,734,000 more than the 
budget estimate and $3,412,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level. The Administration has requested a change to the 
reimbursement policy for polar icebreaking services provided to 
the National Science Foundation. Because the three polar 
icebreakers fall under the operational control of the Pacific 
Area Commander, the budget proposed reducing this account by 
$7,800,000. The Committee denies this request and has restored 
the funding associated with the proposed policy.
    Headquarters directorates.--The Committee recommends 
$222,288,000 for headquarters directorates, an increase of 
$37,962,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The 
Committee recommendation defers $398,000 from the budget 
request to develop the International Marine Information and 
Safety System (IMISS). The IMISS collects data on a voluntary 
basis from maritime industry and analyzes it through a 
commercially-operated data center to allow industry 
participants to take the necessary precautions to prevent 
marine accidents. The Committee believes that it is more 
appropriate for industry to fund this system and encourages the 
Coast Guard to provide guidance and technical expertise to 
industry partners that desire to establish such a system. 
Within the funds provided for the Office of the Chief Counsel, 
$100,000 is specifically to dispose of the backlog of real 
property conveyances that have been authorized for transfer 
through legislation.
    Maritime transportation system leadership and 
coordination.--Due to inadequate justification, the Committee 
has deleted $801,000 for the maritime transportation system 
leadership and coordination program, a new initiative.
    Mackinaw.--The Committee recommendation includes $6,181,000 
in funding for continued operation and maintenance of the 
icebreaking cutter Mackinaw during fiscal year 2001.
    AMSEA.--The Committee recommends $350,000 to be available 
only for this marine safety training program that trains 
fishermen and children in cold water marine safety techniques.
    Oil spill geographic information system.--Within the funds 
provided, the Committee has included $2,000,000 for the 
development of a geographic information system for oil spill 
planning, response, and damage assessment in Alabama and 
Mississippi, including State waters bordering the Gulf of 
Mexico. The Committee notes that oil spill managers have 
utilized the baseline maps and related databases of a similar 
system that was developed for Louisiana in planning for and 
responding to such incidents.
    Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The Committee remains 
supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association 
[MFSA] to provide specialized firefighting training and 
maintain an oilspill response contingency plan for the Columbia 
River. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide 
funding for MFSA consistent with the authorization and directs 
the Secretary to provide $135,500 to continue efforts by the 
nonprofit organization comprised of numerous fire departments 
on both sides of the Columbia River. The funding will be 
utilized to provide specialized communications, firefighting 
training and equipment, and to implement the oilspill response 
contingency plan for the Columbia River.
    Indonesian Coast Guard.--Five of the world's busiest 
shipping lanes and 40 percent of world's shipping pass through 
the territorial waters of the Republic of Indonesia. At the 
urging of the United States, Indonesia is separating its coast 
guard from the military into an independent agency. The 
Committee directs the Coast Guard to work with representatives 
from the Indonesian government on officer training and to study 
turning over surplus vessels for the purpose of improving the 
capability of the Indonesian Coast Guard fleet.
    Depot level maintenance and repair.--The Committee 
recommends $404,596,000 for depot level maintenance and repair, 
which is $23,890,000 lower than the budget request. The 
Committee notes that these funds were requested to address 
spare part shortages and deferred maintenance activities during 
fiscal year 2000. The Committee has provided funding 
specifically to eliminate the recurring and non-recurring 
backlog in all Coast Guard maintenance accounts in another 
appropriations bill.

                             bill language

    Secretary's discretionary transfer authority.--The bill 
includes language that permits the Secretary to transfer up to 
$100,000,000 from Federal Aviation Administration operations to 
Coast Guard operating expenses for the purposes of providing 
additional funds for drug interdiction activities or activities 
related to the Office of Intelligence and Security.
    Maritime user fees.--The accompanying bill includes a 
provision that prohibits the planning, finalization, or 
implementation of any regulation that would promulgate new 
maritime user fees not specifically authorized by law after the 
date of enactment of this act.
    Audit Reimbursement.--The bill includes a provision to 
transfer $5,000,000 to the Department of Transportation 
Inspector General. The transferred funding will reimburse the 
IG for audits and investigations of Coast Guard-related issues, 
programs, and systems. Other agencies are also required to 
transfer funds to the department IG.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    User fees.--The Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation 
Appropriations Act included a provision prohibiting the Coast 
Guard from levying new user fees that Congress has not 
authorized. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the 
administration's budget request proposes to collect 
$212,000,000 from new user fees for navigation services 
provided by the Coast Guard. Although the Committee has 
rejected the administration's proposal to raise taxes on 
transportation users year after year, the administration has 
again resorted to such budget gimmickry because it presents a 
budget request that is artificially high.
    The Committee is exasperated with the continued submission 
of user fees proposals in the budget request that the Committee 
has not approved. The Committee, therefore, has included a 
general provision (sec. 338) that requires the Department to 
identify a specific spending offset in its budget request for 
each dollar that is proposed to be collect by new user fees not 
authorized by Congress. This provision will encourage 
responsibility and accountability in future budget requests.
    Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San 
Francisco.--The bill retains a general provision (sec. 313) 
that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement 
regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety 
fairway less than 5 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 5-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide 
fairways separated by a 2-mile-wide area where off-shore 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 2-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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\........................................    $369,326,000     $20,000,000   $389,326,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\ \3\...................................     500,200,000      20,000,000    520,200,000
Committee recommendation........................................     387,747,660      20,000,000    407,747,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $349,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69. Excludes $1,478,000
  reduction for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Includes $10,000,000 in asset sales funding for Y2K.
\3\ Includes $96,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees.

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

                        committee recommendation

    The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal year 2000  Fiscal year 2001     Committee
                                                                enacted \1\      estimate \2\     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels....................................................     $134,560,000      $257,180,000      $145,936,660
Deepwater replacement project..............................       44,200,000        42,300,000        42,300,000
Aircraft...................................................       44,210,000        43,650,000        41,650,000
Other equipment............................................       51,626,000        60,313,000        54,304,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation....................       63,800,000        61,606,000        68,406,000
Personnel and related support..............................       50,930,000        55,151,000        55,151,000
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................      389,326,000       520,200,000       407,747,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $340,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69. Excludes $1,478,000
  reduction for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Includes $96,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees. Also includes $10,000,000 in asset sales.

                                vessels

    The Committee recommends $145,936,660 for vessel 
acquisition and improvements. The projected allocation of these 
funds is shown in the table below:

                                 VESSELS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee
                                           2001 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquire vessels and equipment:
    Seagoing buoy tender [WLB]                  $123,730         $82,486
     replacement........................
    Follow-on for polar icebreaker                 1,000           1,000
     replacement........................
    87-foot Patrol Boat (WPB)                      7,000           7,000
     replacement........................
    Survey and design--cutters and boats             500             500
    Great Lakes icebreaker (GLIB)                110,000          40,000
     replacement........................
    Surface search radar replacement               1,150           1,150
     project............................
Repair, renovate, or improve existing
 vessels and small boats:
    Configuration management............           3,600           3,600
    Alex Haley Conversion Project.......           3,200           3,200
    Over-the-Horizon Cutter Boats.......           1,500           1,500
    Coast Guard Patrol Craft (WPC)                 1,000           1,000
     Conversion Project.................
    Polar class icebreaker reliability             4,500           4,500
     improvement project [RIP]..........
                                         -------------------------------
      Total (new program level).........         257,180         145,937
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement.--The Committee 
recommends $82,486,660 for the procurement of 2 Juniper class 
Seagoing Buoy Tenders (WLB) but defers the budget request of 
$41,243,340 for a third buoy tender. The reduction is without 
prejudice and is due to the fact that guaranteed spending 
greatly reduces the Committee's ability to fund other 
priorities that are not protected by a firewall.
    Great Lakes icebreaker.--In August 1999, the Coast Guard 
received authorization to proceed with validation, full-scale 
development, and production of a vessel to replace the 
Mackinaw, the 56-year-old heavy icebreaker for the Great Lakes. 
The Committee is very supportive of retaining a heavy 
icebreaking capability in the Great Lakes and concurs with the 
Coast Guard recommendation to replace the Mackinaw with a new 
vessel. The Committee, however, is concerned with the estimated 
costs to design and build a replacement for the Mackinaw. The 
National Science Foundation leases the R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer, 
an icebreaker with capabilities similar what the Coast Guard 
proposed for the Great Lakes Icebreaker (GLIB). Although the 
Palmer cost $70,000,000 to design and build, the Coast Guard 
projects to spend approximately $130,000,000 on the GLIB. By 
another comparison, the USCG Healy, a polar icebreaker with 
more robust capabilities, was designed and constructed for 
$25,000 a ton and the GLIB will cost $52,000 a ton. The 
Committee urges the Coast Guard to follow the ship building 
acquisition strategies of the Navy, especially in regards to 
government design, which have proven to reduce costs.
    The Committee recommends $40,000,000 and the accompanying 
bill provides the Commandant with the authority to enter into a 
contract for the GLIB on an incremental basis. If the Coast 
Guard provides the Committee with an additional justification 
of the cost and procurement strategy outlined for the GLIB, the 
Committee is willing to reconsider this approach in conference 
with the House. The Committee also directs the Department's 
Inspector General to certify to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations that the design specifications and 
requirements of the Request for Proposals (RFP) will not 
preclude full and fair competition.

                           DEEPWATER PROJECT

    In fiscal year 1996, the Coast Guard received approval to 
initiate the Integrated Deepwater Systems project, a major 
acquisition of surface ships, aircraft, sensors, and 
communications equipment to conduct operations beyond 50 miles 
offshore. The Deepwater project is projected to be the largest 
and most expensive acquisition program in the Coast Guard's 
history. It also promises to be its most complex acquisition. 
While the Committee finds merit in an acquisition strategy that 
avoids a one-for-one asset replacement, the Committee is 
concerned that it may be too ambitious and unproven for an 
agency that has experienced difficulty in managing large and 
complex acquisition programs. In addition, the Committee 
remains concerned that the acquisition of Deepwater assets 
under this project, which is projected to reach $500,000,000 
annually, is not affordable within current budget constraints 
and could preclude funding for other important projects, such 
as the modernization of the National Distress System. The 
Committee's concerns have been echoed by the Department's 
Inspector General which recently added the Deepwater program to 
its list of the top 12 management challenges facing the 
Department of Transportation. The Committee urges the Coast 
Guard to identify and manage the risk associated with a project 
of this magnitude.
    Notwithstanding these concerns, the Committee 
recommendation fully funds the budget request of $42,300,000 to 
complete the functional design and proposal review phases of 
the Deepwater project. It is the Committee's understanding that 
the Coast Guard intends to request $350,000,000 for the 
Deepwater project in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission. 
The industry teams' proposals, however, are not due until April 
2001 and the final decision on which assets will be replaced or 
modernized will not occur until July 2001. This is inconsistent 
with best acquisition management practices and fails to 
acknowledge the experience in other major procurements, such as 
those by the Federal Aviation Administration, which have shown 
that lack of certainty in design and funding increases the 
likelihood that projects will undergo schedule slippages and 
cost overruns. As this project transitions from design 
development to asset acquisition, the Committee urges the Coast 
Guard to adopt budget planning practices that use information 
available from the industry teams to develop cost and schedule 
estimates to justify the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The 
Committee also directs the Coast Guard to identify in their 
fiscal year 2002 budget justification specific assets to be 
acquired or modernized, the quantity requested, and the cost 
associated with each item. Failure to provide this 
justification will contribute to the already substantial 
challenge of meeting the projected budgetary requirements for 
outyear funding of this project.

                                aircraft

    For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends 
$41,650,000. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are distributed as 
follows:

                                AIRCRAFT
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee
                                           2001 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH-65 helicoper mission computer unit              3,650           3,650
 replacement............................
HH-65 LTS-101 engine life cycle cost               1,000          11,000
 reduction..............................
Aviation simulator modernization project           3,000           3,000
Coast Guard cutter Healy aviation                 36,000          24,000
 support................................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................          43,650          41,650
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HH-65 helicopter engine.--The Committee recommends 
$11,000,000 for the HH-65 LTS-101 engine life cycle cost 
reduction, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget 
estimate. The increased funding is specifically to initiate the 
non-recurring engineering phase of the HH-65 engine power 
restoration program. Due to aircraft modifications and the 
Rescue Swimmer requirement, additional weight has been added to 
the HH-65 helicopter without comparable improvements in engine 
performance. The Coast Guard has identified the need to improve 
the performance of the LTS-101 engine to extend the mission 
endurance, range, and on-station time of the HH-65 helicopter.
    The Committee believes the power restoration initiative 
complements the life cycle cost reduction program and that by 
accelerating this program, the Coast Guard will develop an 
improved engine capability more efficiently.
    USCG Cutter Healy aviation support.--The Committee 
recommends $24,000,000 for the procurement of two HH-65 
aircraft and associated equipment to support polar icebreaking 
operations. The Committee recommendation deletes $12,000,000 
and the request to acquire a third airframe due to budget 
constraints.

                            other equipment

    The Committee recommends $54,304,000 for other equipment. 
The following table displays the project allocations:

                             OTHER EQUIPMENT
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee
                                           2001 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system [FLS]............           5,500           5,500
Ports and waterways safety system                  8,100           7,550
 [PAWSS]................................
Marine information for safety and law              8,500           8,500
 enforcement [MISLE]....................
Defense message system [DMS]                       2,471           2,471
 impementation..........................
Global maritime distress and safety                3,083           3,083
 system (GMDSS).........................
Personnel management information system/           2,000           2,000
 joint uniform military pay system II...
Aviation logistics management                      1,100           1,100
 information system [ALMIS].............
National distress system modernization..          22,000          22,000
Search and rescue capabilities                     1,500           1,500
 enhancement project....................
Commercial satellite communication                 5,459  ..............
 upgrade................................
Local notice to mariners (LNM)                       600             600
 automation.............................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................          60,313          54,304
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ports and waterways safety systems.--The Committee 
recommends $7,550,000 for installation of the Ports and 
Waterway Safety System at Berwick Bay, Louisiana and Sault 
Saint Marie. The Committee recommendation is $3,050,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $550,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee believes that the recommended 
level is sufficient and urges the Coast Guard to reduce 
unnecessary costs associated with the system.
    National Distress System.--The Committee has provided 
$22,000,000 for the National Distress and Response System 
(NDRS) modernization project. The Committee urges the Coast 
Guard to expeditiously develop an upgraded system.
    Commercial satellite communications.--The Committee defers 
the $5,459,000 requested for the acquisition of commercial 
satellite communications equipment. The Committee has provided 
funding for this project in another appropriations act.

                shore facilities and aids to navigation

    The program level recommended is $68,406,000.

                 SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year       Committee
                                         2001 estimate    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore--General:
    Survey and design shore projects..           7,000            7,000
    Minor AC&I shore construction                8,000            8,000
     projects.........................
    Coast Guard housing...............          12,400           12,400
Shore--Air stations: Renovate air                8,200            8,200
 station hangar, Kodiak...............
Shore--Centers/groups/stations:
    Transportation improvements--Coast           8,000            8,000
     Guard Island, Alameda,  CA.......
    Coast Guard medium endurance                 2,400            2,400
     cutter waterfront improvements,
     Portsmouth, VA...................
    Homeporting pier construction--     ...............           5,800
     Homer, AK........................
    Modernize CG facilities--based,              5,800            5,800
     Cape May, NJ.....................
    Rebuild CG Station, Port Huron,              1,300            1,300
     MI--Phase I......................
    Modernize air station, Port                  3,800            3,800
     Angeles hangar, Port Angeles, WA.
    Helipad modernization, Craig, AK..  ...............           1,000
Aids to navigation facilities:                   4,706            4,706
 Waterways aids-to-navigation projects
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................          61,606           68,406
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

    The program level recommended is $55,151,000. Within the 
amount provided, $1,000,000 shall be for core acquisition 
costs. The Committee has provided the full amount requested for 
AC&I personnel and related support.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Capital investment plan.--The Committee is extremely 
disappointed that the administration ignored the provision in 
last year's act requiring the submission of a 5-year capital 
investment plan no later than the date of the initial 
submission of the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request. 
The Committee does not request reports unnecessarily, and the 
failure to deliver this particular report suggests that there 
are systemic failures in the planning and budgeting of capital 
assets. The Committee has included a provision which prohibits 
the obligation of funds made available for the Integrated 
Deepwater Replacement Project until the report is delivered to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision 
crediting to this appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease 
of the Coast Guard's surplus property. The bill does not 
include language that the administration requested which would 
have reduced appropriations under this heading as asset sales 
or leases are realized. This Committee believes that would 
provide a disincentive for the timely disposal of surplus 
property.

                           GENERAL PROVISION

    Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Committee has included 
a general provision reinstating a requirement that the Coast 
Guard submit a quarterly report regarding the status of major 
acquisition programs.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      16,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,700,000

\1\ Excludes $11,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of 
Public Law 106-69. Excludes $65,000 reduction for the 0.38 percent 
reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.

    The Environmental Compliance and Restoration account 
provides funds to address environmental problems at former and 
current Coast Guard units as required by applicable Federal, 
State, and local environmental laws and regulations. Planned 
expenditures for these funds include major upgrades to 
petroleum and regulated-substance storage tanks, restoration of 
contaminated ground water and soils, remediation efforts at 
hazardous substance disposal sites, and initial site surveys 
and actions necessary to bring Coast Guard shore facilities and 
vessels into compliance with environmental laws and 
regulations.
    The accompanying bill provides $16,700,000 for 
environmental compliance and restoration. The recommendation is 
the same as the budget request and $300,000 less the fiscal 
year 2000 enacted level. Within the amount provided, the 
Commandant is directed to provide $100,000 in reimbursement to 
the current owner of the former Coast Guard lighthouse facility 
at Cape May, New Jersey for costs incurred for clean-up of lead 
contaminated soil at that facility. This reimbursement shall be 
made only if such payment is authorized in law.

                         Alteration of Bridges


                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................      15,500,000

\1\ Excludes $57,000 reduction for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant 
to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Up to $11,000,000 which will be reimbursed from Federal-aid 
highways.

    The ``Alteration of bridges'' appropriation provides funds 
for the Coast Guard's share of the cost of altering or removing 
bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the 
Truman-Hobbs Act of June 21, 1940, as amended (33 U.S.C. 511 et 
seq.), the Coast Guard, as the Federal Government's agent, is 
required to share with owners the cost of altering railroad and 
publicly owned highway bridges which obstruct the free movement 
of navigation on navigable waters of the United States in 
accordance with the formula established in 33 U.S.C. 516.
    The administration has not requested appropriated funds for 
the alteration of bridges that are unreasonable obstructions to 
maritime trade and transportation. Instead, the President's 
budget requests funding from the Federal-Aid Highways program 
for the alternation of highway bridges, with program 
administration remaining under the Coast Guard. The Committee 
disagrees with this approach because it is inconsistent with 
the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs Act. Also, it would preclude 
funding for modifications to railroad bridges which impede 
marine navigation because they are not eligible under the 
Federal-Aid Highway program.
    The Committee has provided an appropriation from the 
highway trust fund of $15,500,000 for the alteration of 
bridges, which is $500,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level and $4,500,000 more than the highway trust fund 
limitation requested by the administration. The Committee 
recommendation is to be distributed as follows:

                                                               Committee
                                                          recommendation

Florida Avenue Bridge, New Orleans, LA..................      $3,750,000
Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick, GA.....................       2,000,000
CSX Railroad Bridge, Mobile, AL.........................       3,750,000
Elign, Joliet, and Eastern RR Bridge, Divine, IL........       3,000,000
Limehouse Highway Bridge, Johns Island, SC..............       3,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      15,500,000

                              Retired Pay

Appropriations, 2000 (mandatory)........................    $730,327,000
Budget estimate, 2001 (mandatory).......................     778,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory)....................     778,000,000

    The ``Retired pay'' appropriation provides for retired pay 
of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard 
Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse Service, and for 
annuities payable to beneficiaries of retired military 
personnel under the retired serviceman's family protection plan 
(10 U.S.C. 1431-1446) and survivor benefit plan (10 U.S.C. 
1447-1455), and for medical care of retired personnel and their 
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. The average 
number of personnel on the retired rolls is estimated to be 
33,499 in fiscal year 2001, as compared with an estimated 
32,684 in fiscal year 2000 and 31,812 in fiscal year 1999.

                            Reserve Training

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $72,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      73,371,000
Committee recommendation................................      80,371,000

\1\ Excludes $48,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of 
Public Law 106-69.

    Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 145, the Secretary of 
Transportation is required to adequately support the 
development and training of a Reserve force to ensure that the 
Coast Guard will be sufficiently organized, manned, and 
equipped to fully perform its wartime missions. The purpose of 
the Reserve training program is to provide trained units and 
qualified persons for active duty in the Coast Guard in time of 
war or national emergency, or at such other times as the 
national security requires. Coast Guard reservists must also 
train for mobilization assignments that are unique to the Coast 
Guard in times of war, such as port security operations 
associated with the Coast Guard's Maritime Defense Zone [MDZ] 
mission and include deployable port security units.
    The Committee has included $80,371,000 for reserve 
training. This is $7,000,000 above the budget request and 
$8,371,000 more than last year's enacted level. The 
administration proposed reducing more than 700 reserve billets 
to support a Selected Reserve strength of 7,300. The Coast 
Guard would implement this reduction in reserve personnel by 
reducing accessions and offering enlisted and commissioned 
reservists voluntary separations, and if necessary seek 
involuntary separations. The administration also recommended a 
commensurate reduction to the number of full-time support 
personnel assigned to the Reserve. This request is counter-
productive to an organization with pressing readiness concerns, 
considering that Reservists are largely integrated into active 
component commands and perform virtually all the operational 
duties of their active duty counterparts. Furthermore, it 
contradicts the aggressive 3-year recruiting effort to 
eliminate the personnel shortfall below the level of 8,000 
which was reached at the beginning of fiscal year 2000. The 
Committee recommendation fully maintains a Selected Reserve 
level of at least 8,000 and provides Reserve training funding 
as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Committee
                   Functional program element                       2000 levels    2001 estimate  recommendation
                                                                        \1\       (7,300 SELRES)  (8,000 SELRES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial training................................................           2,581           2,650           4,170
Continuing training.............................................          43,844          45,574          49,429
Operation and maintenance support...............................          15,672          15,915          16,398
Program management and administration...........................           9,903           9,232          10,374
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          72,000          73,371          80,371
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $48,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\........................................     $15,500,000      $3,500,000     $19,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...........................................      17,820,000       3,500,000      21,320,000
Committee recommendation........................................      17,820,000       3,500,000      21,320,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $7,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.

    The Coast Guard's Research and Development Program seeks to 
improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries 
out its varied operational missions and to increase the 
knowledge base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory 
responsibilities.
    The Committee recommends a funding level of $21,320,000 for 
research and development projects, which is $2,320,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Of this amount 
$3,500,000 is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust 
fund. This recommendation is consistent with the budget 
request.
    Budget justification.--The Committee is disappointed by the 
lack of specificity in the budget justification for RDT&E 
projects and funding as well as by non-responsive answers to 
hearing questions. The Committee expects the Coast Guard in its 
fiscal year 2002 budget justification to submit detailed 
funding data and project descriptions for each of the seven 
programs in the RDT&E appropriation.
    Marine Environmental Protection.--The Committee has 
included not less than $1,000,000 to continue the development 
and testing of methods to verify appropriate ship ballast 
exchange to ensure that alien aquatic species are not 
introduced into American waterways.
    Inspector general report.--The Committee is concerned that 
the research and development program lacks focus and is 
uncertain of the contribution of research activities to 
acquisition programs and the agency's operational capability. 
To exercise appropriate congressional oversight, the Committee 
believes it would be beneficial for an external review of this 
program. The Committee directs the Department's Inspector 
General to conduct a systematic analysis of the Coast Guard's 
research and development program. The Inspector General should 
analyze the management and direction of research and the 
allocation of funds. The report should also examine if the 
Coast Guard has sufficiently defined how individual projects 
further the Department's performance goals.

                              Boat Safety


                     (aquatic resources trust fund)

Appropriations, 2000 (mandatory)........................     $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 (mandatory).......................      64,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory)....................      64,000,000

    This account provides financial assistance for a 
coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for 
the several States. Title 46, United States Code, section 
13106, establishes a ``Boat safety'' account from which the 
Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist 
in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying 
State programs. The ``Boat safety'' account consists of amounts 
transferred from the highway trust fund which are derived from 
the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon).
    The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century 
provides $64,000,000 of mandatory funding from the ``Aquatic 
Resources Trust fund'' annually for this program. Of this 
amount, $59,000,000 is provided for grants to States and 
$5,000,000 for Coast Guard administration. The President's 
budget requests no discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 
2000.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    The Federal Aviation Administration traces its origins to 
the Air Commerce Act of 1926, but more recently to the Federal 
Aviation Act of 1958 which established the independent Federal 
Aviation Agency from functions which had resided in the Airways 
Modernization Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and 
parts of the Civil Aeronautics Board. FAA became an 
administration of the Department of Transportation on April 1, 
1967, pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act (October 
15, 1966).
    The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 2001 amounts to $12,540,358,000. The following table 
summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                           Program                                                2001 budget     recommendation
                                                                 2000 enacted       estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations \1\...............................................        5,900,000        6,592,235    \2\ 6,470,250
    Direct appropriation.....................................  ...............        5,587,235        6,350,250
    Secretary's discretionary transfer authority.............  ...............  ...............          100,000
    User fees: Budget authority (mandatory) \3\..............  ...............        1,005,000           50,000
Facilities and equipment \4\.................................        2,075,000        2,495,000        2,656,765
Research, engineering, and development.......................          156,495          184,366          183,343
Airport improvement program \5\..............................        1,950,000        1,950,000        3,200,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total available budget resources.......................       10,081,495       11,221,601       12,540,358
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes fiscal year 2000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes $120,000,000 available from the Airport Improvement Program if necessary to maintain aviation
  safety.
\3\ Includes $965,000,000 new user fees proposed in President's budget request.
\4\ Excludes fiscal year 2000 rescission of prior year balances pursuant to Public Law 106-69.
\5\ Excludes fiscal year 2000 reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.

    The FAA is a complex and multilayered organization that 
consistently defies any rational management models. The 
organization has the best and the worst organizational 
characteristics of a bureaucracy: intense stability and intense 
resistance to change. Accordingly, technological modernization 
of air traffic systems, streamlining of regulatory processes, 
personnel changes, accounting changes, and program reviews meet 
broad institutional resistance while the entire organization 
would ostensibly concur with the goal of each such initiative.
    The FAA was reauthorized in early 2000 and unprecedented 
resources for the Facilities and Equipment and Airport 
Improvement Program accounts were authorized. The Committee 
recommendation has made every attempt to honor those authorized 
levels in the hope that these additional resources may help 
alleviate the anticipated capacity constraints that accompany 
increased air traffic operations and passenger enplanements. 
However, the Committee anticipates that the solution to the 
aviation industries' growing pains is not simply one of 
committing more Federal resources to infrastructure investment 
or air traffic control modernization, as important as those 
investments are. Unfortunately, the formula for growing the 
capacity of the nation's airways is one that cannot be solved 
without increased efficiency and substantial managerial 
improvement at the FAA in all aspects of its missions; two 
goals that have been elusive or unattainable to date.
    For the past several years, the Committee has focused 
aviation capital investment on airport infrastructure, on 
technology that will allow airports and the airlines to be more 
efficient, and on technology and process changes that will 
increase the efficiency of the air traffic control system and 
personnel. While the progress is not as rapid as the Committee 
would like and the promised efficiencies from the new 
controller agreement have yet to be realized, the Committee 
anticipates that the pressures on the operations account 
culminating from the FAA's failure to manage its workforce or 
program to appropriated levels combined with the increased 
pressure on those accounts from the focus of the recently 
enacted and signed Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and 
Reform Act for the 21st Century (FAIR 21) on the capital 
accounts will necessitate a comprehensive reevaluation of the 
agency's approach to operational functions.
    It's also important to note that FAA's budget growth has 
come in an environment where their workload has only grown 2 
percent over the past 10 years. The FAA moves airplanes, not 
passengers and operations are currently projected to grow at an 
average 2.1 percent per year over the next 10 years which is 
far in excess of the historical experience. The estimate for 
operations growth from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 is 
1.5 percent. Traditionally, the FAA's estimates have been high 
by 50-100 percent on enplanements and by slightly less on 
operations. But, assuming the projections are correct (even 
though they are being made in a period of unprecedented 
economic growth), the FAA's appropriation will undoubtably 
continue to outpace, in percentage terms, the growth in the 
FAA's workload. Unfortunately, the missing piece of the 
equation is significant productivity gains and cost saving 
measures on the part of the FAA.
    The President's budget request for the FAA proposed more 
than 10 percent growth over last year's appropriation. The 
budget request is not lean, particularly when viewed in the 
context of the current budgetary constraints and compared to 
other agencies in the Federal Government, or even within the 
Department of Transportation.
    Since the submission of the budget request, the Congress 
has passed and the President has signed an authorization for 
the FAA which envisions an appropriation for the agency in 
excess of $12,600,000,000, more than 25 percent growth over 
fiscal year 2000. Given the budgetary constraints facing the 
Committee, this level of growth is difficult to sustain and 
absent some dramatic change in the performance of the FAA in 
program execution, is difficult to justify on any objective 
measure. The focus of the Congress and the Administration 
should not be on whether we are committed to spending increased 
resources on the FAA--clearly that question is answered by how 
much scarce Federal resources have been committed to the FAA. 
The question that remains is whether the FAA is capable of 
spending these resources wisely and whether this spending will 
translate into increased aviation safety and productivity.
    Clearly, some of the refocusing that the FAA Administrator 
has done with the Facilities and Equipment budget--emphasizing 
the Free Flight Phase I initiative, for example--provides the 
Committee with a sense that the agency's modernization 
priorities are becoming more aligned with the Congressional 
focus. However, some of the continuing problems with some of 
the Agency's largest procurements fuel concern that the agency 
continues to face substantial difficulties in the 
administration of major procurements. Clearly, there is a 
critical need for continued, and perhaps increased oversight, 
from within the FAA, and from organizations like the Department 
of Transportation Inspector General, the General Accounting 
Office, and the Congress.
    Expenditures on FAA programs continue to exceed the taxes 
paid into the aviation trust fund, demonstrating the importance 
the Congress places on maintaining a robust investment in the 
air transportation system. The Committee's focus as we review 
the FAA's programs is on how to do things better, not how to 
insulate the FAA from oversight or to create additional 
restraints on the FAA Administrator's attempts to manage the 
agency.

                               Operations

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................  $5,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   6,592,235,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 6,470,250,000

\1\ Excludes reduction of $6,610,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law 
106-69.
\2\ Includes $120,000,000 available from the Airport Improvement Program 
if necessary to maintain aviation safety.

    FAA's ``Operations'' appropriation provides funds for the 
operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of 
the air traffic control and navigation systems and activities. 
It also covers the administration and management of the 
regulatory, commercial space, medical, engineering, and 
development programs.
    User fees.--The administration proposed to collect 
$965,000,000 in new user fee taxes from commercial aviation 
users of the air traffic control system. The fees would be 
available for appropriation only for aviation purposes. The 
administration, at the time of the submission of the budget 
request, also estimated collecting $22,000,000 of the 
$50,000,000 authorized in overflight fees for fiscal year 2001. 
These fees are to be available without Appropriations Committee 
action for the essential air service program (under the Office 
of the Secretary of Transportation) and rural airport safety.
    FAA's operations costs have risen from $3,800,000,000 in 
1990 to nearly $6,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 and these 
figures continue to rise. FAA's fiscal year 2001 operations 
budget request of almost $6,600,000,000 is a 12 percent 
increase over fiscal year 2000 figures. By 2003, FAA projects 
its Operations account will grow to about $7,200,000,000. This 
Committee has repeatedly cautioned that FAA's operations costs 
need to be contained. In fiscal year 1999, FAA faced an 
operations shortfall of over $280,000,000 which required cuts 
in safety and non-safety programs alike. This year the agency 
requested a $77,000,000 supplemental appropriation to fund 
operations activities such as controller training and contract 
maintenance for the air traffic control system. These 
shortfalls are clear examples of the need for FAA to contain 
its rising costs of operations.
    Provisions of FAIR 21 underscore the need for FAA to 
substantially improve its fiscal management. FAIR 21 provides 
FAA with $18,500,000,000 in committed funding for capital 
investment over the next 3 years but provides only enough trust 
fund revenue to meet about 65 percent of FAA's projected 
operations requirements for that period. In addition, the 
significant increases in capital investment provided by FAIR 21 
will require improvements in FAA's oversight of its contracting 
actions. This must include ensuring that independent government 
cost estimates are prepared, reflect accurate pricing, and are 
not inflated. Audits of proposed contract costs and actual 
charges are also necessary. Since 1996, FAA's reliance on 
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) has dropped significantly 
as evidenced by the number of audits performed. For example, in 
1996 approximately 185 DCAA audits were performed on FAA 
contracts. However, in 1999, the number of audits had dropped 
to only 37. To protect the increased capital investment 
provided by FAIR 21, the Committee expects that FAA will obtain 
the needed contract audit support from DCAA and the DOT IG is 
instructed to monitor FAA's progress in this regard.
    The need for FAA to improve its fiscal responsibility is 
clear. In February of this year, the DOT IG testified before 
this Committee that a necessary tool for improving FAA's fiscal 
management was development of a strategic business plan. This 
plan should, at a minimum, (1) describe corporate strategies 
and operating plans, (2) define long-term capital requirements 
and strategies for investing in infrastructure and future 
technology, and (3) provide strategies for controlling costs 
and enhancing productivity. The Committee agrees that such a 
plan would be beneficial providing that it is specific enough 
to identify savings and efficiencies at all levels of the 
agency. The Committee is specifically concerned about FAA's 
oversight of areas particularly susceptible to waste and abuse 
such as extended employee travel, substantial delinquencies 
involving employee use of government credit cards, and curbing 
employee parking at private garages where other DOT agencies do 
not offer similar benefits. Accordingly, the DOT IG is 
instructed to evaluate FAA's actions in these areas and report 
on their results.
    The bill includes $4,414,869,000 for the operations 
activities of the Federal Aviation Administration from the 
airport and airway trust fund. An additional $120,000,000 is 
made available from the airport and airway trust fund for air 
traffic services through the AIP program. The balance of the 
operations appropriation will come from the general fund.
    As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to 
the Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are 
insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic 
control system.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2000 program        2001 budget         Committee
                                                            level \1\           estimate        recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services..................................          4,648,907          5,210,434       \2\ 5,159,391
Aviation regulation and certification.................            640,162            691,979             691,979
Civil aviation security...............................            131,474            144,328             138,462
Research and acquisitions.............................            174,083            196,497             182,401
Commercial space transportation.......................              6,560             12,607              10,000
Regional coordination.................................             95,321  ..................             99,347
Human resources.......................................             52,809  ..................             49,906
Financial services....................................             38,981  ..................             43,000
Staff offices.........................................             73,093        \3\ 336,390              95,764
Essential air service.................................             32,000             ( \4\ )            ( \5\ )
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................................          5,893,390          6,592,235           6,470,250
                                                       =========================================================
New user fees.........................................  .................           (965,000)  .................
Appropriated funds....................................  .................          6,592,235           6,470,250
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority..........  .................  ..................            100,000
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total available funds...........................          5,893,390          6,592,235           6,570,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $6,610,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes $120,000,000 available from the Airport Improvement Program if necessary to maintain aviation
  safety.
\3\ Proposes to consolidate Human resources, Region/center operations, and Financial services into the Staff
  offices line of business in fiscal year 2001.
\4\ Proposes that the Essential air service (EAS) payment be paid out of the Airport Improvement Program in
  fiscal year 2001.
\5\ Includes funds generated by overflight user fee and fiscal year 2001 payment.

                          air traffic services

    The Committee recommendation makes available a total of 
$5,159,391,000 for the operation and maintenance of the 
national air traffic control and flight service system.
    The Committee is confident that this level, although 
constrained, is sufficient for air traffic services and offers 
the following analysis for illustration of the flexibility 
represented by the Committee's recommendation. The requirements 
for funding for this activity could be predicated on a series 
of adjustments to the prior fiscal year appropriated level. 
Initially, the appropriation could be adjusted downward for the 
overflight fees that were not forthcoming in prior fiscal 
years, but are currently anticipated at a level of $22,100,000 
for fiscal year 2001. The Administrator and the Secretary have 
both indicated that the FAA has been able to maintain a safe 
air traffic control environment notwithstanding the inability 
to access the revenues that would have come from these fees 
although the administration has proposed supplemental funding 
that has yet to be enacted. In addition, substantial controller 
staff years in this appropriation are directly attributable 
solely to union activities and over $62,000,000 is attributable 
to direct overtime staffing. Given the high level of staff-
years committed to union activities viewed in conjunction with 
the seemingly unalterable trend for substantial reliance on 
overtime staffing, the Committee encourages the Federal 
Aviation Administration to pursue greater flexibility in 
staffing arrangements to reduce the current reliance on 
overtime.
    While the Committee does not recommend reducing the 
appropriation by the approximately 38 percent growth in 
overtime staffing over the past 2 years and the over 
$200,000,000 of other special pay allotments, the FAA should 
pursue efficiencies that would result from a greater 
coordination of activities in this area. Reductions have been 
assumed for $65,726,000 in NAS plan handoff costs above the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriated level and for other savings 
discussed elsewhere in the report.
    Further, the Committee notes that the FAA forecasting of 
aviation activity has tended to be overly optimistic as 
discussed later in this report. The FAA has consistently 
overestimated future aviation activity which has a cascading 
impact on the Air Traffic Services budget as it takes 3 to 5 
years to fully train a new controller. Overestimates in the 
need for new controllers 5 years from now will likely lead to 
significant future expenditures for unnecessary resources. Air 
traffic control operation costs continue to increase faster 
than demand for FAA air traffic control services. The high 
likelihood that future FAA workloads are overestimated provide 
ample guidance for FAA management adjustments as resource 
constraints are addressed.
    In addition, the FAA must increase the efficiency of the 
air traffic control work force. Some of those possible 
efficiencies are mentioned in this and other reports. The 
average annual growth in operations at air traffic control 
towers, en route centers, and flight service stations from 1992 
to 1997 has been 0.05 percent, 2.13 percent, and 0.55 percent, 
respectively. Current average aircraft handled per hour at en 
route centers are just over 3 per controller hour, and current 
average operations per hour at air traffic control towers are 
approximately 6 per controller hour. Those averages would seem 
to indicate that there is some room for improvement in 
controller efficiency or staffing coordination.
    The Committee is confident that careful management of the 
funds provided in this act will ensure sufficient resources are 
available to cover the substantial salary increases contained 
in the controller's pay agreement.
    Maintenance concerns.--The Committee is aware of increasing 
concerns and complaints about the FAA's decisions to impose 
agency-wide spending restrictions on activities funded by the 
operations appropriation while excluding other similar 
activities elsewhere in the account from similar restrictions. 
The Committee has refrained from earmarking more money for 
specific items such as staffing and training in the operations 
account to provide the maximum level of flexibility for the 
Administrator as she manages the FAA workforce but reiterates 
the concern that adequate resources are committed to 
maintaining the FAA's capital plant.
    Remote maintenance and monitoring.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $350,000 for expansion of RMMS to 
Beaumont and Longview, Texas. The Committee encourages the FAA 
to explore remote certification and maintenance options for 
older, remotely located radar systems. The Committee 
understands that COTS technology allows for remote maintenance 
and certification of several systems in the FAA inventory by 
continuously measuring the facility's critical performance 
parameters and transmitting the test results through a standard 
phone line to appropriate FAA officials. The Committee 
recommendation includes funds for a greater exploration and 
implementation of RMM capabilities.
    Contract tower program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $55,300,000 for the contract tower program as well as 
$5,000,000 for the contract tower cost-sharing program. The 
$5,000,000 is in addition to those funds provided for the 
regular contract tower program.
    The Department of Transportation's Inspector General has 
found that the contract tower program has provided level I air 
traffic control services at a lower cost for 110 towers 
previously operated by the FAA and provided air traffic control 
services at 50 towers the FAA could not have afforded to staff.
    The cost sharing program allows those towers that fall 
below the FAA threshold to participate in the program by 
contributing a local match. This program enables small airports 
to have their tower staffed with an FAA certified air traffic 
controller; thereby ensuring the safe and efficient movement of 
people and goods.
    The program continues to receive strong user and airport 
support as a cost-effective way to enhance aviation safety. 
Additionally, the Department of Transportation Inspector 
General just completed a new audit of the program validating 
its safety and cost benefits and the National Transportation 
Safety Board has added its support. The Committee continues to 
fully support this program and the contract tower cost-sharing 
program. Therefore, the bill includes resources to fully fund 
the contract tower program including a pilot program to expand 
the program at the discretion of the Administrator to two 
visual flight rule (VFR) air traffic control towers operated by 
the FAA, and additional funds are provided for the cost-sharing 
program. It should be noted that the Committee is concerned 
that earlier this year the FAA considered contract tower 
funding reductions that could have eliminated nearly half the 
airports that benefit from the program. No such program cuts 
should be proposed in the future because aviation safety would 
be jeopardized and the FAA effectively would be penalizing a 
program that has proved its cost effectiveness and its 
significant aviation safety benefits. The Committee understands 
that the appropriated levels for contract tower operations are 
sufficient to maintain operations at all eligible contract 
tower facilities.
    Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the FAA 
Administrator is directed to provide to the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committee the plan proposing the extension of 
the contract tower program requested in prior appropriations 
bills. The plan should identify potential cost savings and 
other benefits, such as the positive impact on controller 
staffing at busier FAA air traffic facilities, and include a 
timeline for expanding the contract tower program to these 
facilities during the fiscal year. Average savings from the 
current contract tower program as compared to an FAA managed 
baseline average about $250,000 per facility annually. 
Accordingly, since the savings should be greater with a former 
level II or III VFR tower, the Committee believes that savings 
from expanding the program to two towers offer substantial 
savings.
    Inclusion of Olive Branch Airport, Henderson Airport, and 
Tupelo Municipal Airport in the contract tower program.--The 
Committee bill recommendation includes funding for inclusion of 
the Olive Branch, Henderson, and Tupelo Municipal Airports in 
the contract tower program. It is the Committee's understanding 
that these airports are eligible for the program and encourages 
the FAA to work with the local airport authority to facilitate 
its participation in the program.
    Lawton Air Traffic Control Tower.--The Committee has been 
advised that the U.S. Army intends to discontinue operation of 
the Fort Sill Army Radar Approach Control (ARAC) at the Henry 
Post Army Airfield. Accordingly, the Committee directs the FAA 
to work with the local aviation officials to facilitate the 
transfer of the operation of that facility or coordination of a 
joint operational agreement that will continue the operation of 
air traffic control services in that airspace in an appropriate 
manner that will preserve aviation safety and efficient 
airspace management. The Committee recommendation provides up 
to $1,500,000 for a continuation of air traffic control 
services in that airspace.
    Introduction of Regional Jets.--The Committee directs the 
FAA to develop strategies and procedures to maximize the 
efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) as it relates 
to the integration of increased operations of regional jets at 
the nations most congested airports. This initiative should 
include strategies to maximize the use of runway 11/29 at 
Newark International airport by all aircraft and investigating 
the impacts of the integration of regional jet operations on 
air traffic efficiency in the New York TRACON airspace and 
balancing current traffic flows to maximize airspace capacity 
for arrivals and departures in that airspace. FAA should 
consult and collaborate with all impacted airport sponsors and 
airport users to develop and implement procedures pursuant to 
this effort.
    GPS approaches.--The Committee recommendation includes 
sufficient funds to continue the FAA's work on GPS approaches 
and to initiate preliminary consideration and analysis of GPS 
approaches for helipads to be integrated with helipad lighting 
design, in addition to the funds made available in the Airport 
Improvement Program account. The Committee recommendation also 
includes funding for a GPS approach for Bert Mooney Airport in 
Butte, MT.
    National airspace redesign.--Of the funds appropriated for 
this activity, the $8,500,000 for the NY/NJ Airspace Redesign 
cannot be reprogrammed by the FAA for other activities, 
including airspace redesign activities outside the NY/NJ metro 
area.
    Oceanic Traffic Services.--Given the difficulty that the 
FAA has experienced in modernizing the oceanic service 
function, the Committee has once again provided discretionary 
authority to the FAA Administrator permitting the contracting 
out of the oceanic services function. The Committee notes that 
the FAA Administrator has the discretion under this authority 
to establish requisite staffing standards and requirements. The 
demands on the air traffic routes in the Pacific and the North 
Atlantic desperately require the capacity enhancement that 
technological and operational modernization promises for 
oceanic services. The Committee will continue to watch the 
progress of the procurement for improved oceanic communications 
closely and would anticipate that the FAA Administrator would 
avail herself of the authority granted to the agency in the 
areas of procurement reform and in this legislation that permit 
her great flexibility in modernizing this system. The Committee 
emphasizes that this authority is permissive as opposed to 
directive and encourages the FAA Administrator to exercise this 
authority if the agency continues to experience difficulty in 
the modernization of this capability.
    The Committee also notes that the FAA elected to pay the 
potential contractors to participate in the procurement and 
anticipates that there will be no slippage from the current 
schedule. Given the pay to participate scenario that the FAA is 
currently operating under, if the schedule does slip, the 
Committee assumes any unsolicited proposal that promises a cost 
effective alternative system would be given every appropriate 
consideration. Further, recognizing the immediate benefits of 
improved oceanic communication, particularly over the Pacific, 
the Committee urges the Administrator to field an operational 
system in Anchorage, Alaska and Oakland, California within 12 
months of contract signing.
    NAS Handoff.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$69,700,000 for NAS handoff activities. This is the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The Committee notes that the 
FAA anticipates spending only $44,400,000 on NAS handoff 
activities in fiscal year 2000 and that only $13,000,000 will 
come from the Operations appropriations under current execution 
plans at the FAA. The Committee assumes that appropriate 
notification to the Committees on Appropriations will occur as 
the FAA executes this and other activities.
    Training.--The Committee notes and commends the FAA on its 
commitment to operational training over the past several years 
in light of budgetary constraints and competing operational 
priorities. However, the Committee remains concerned about the 
short term pressure on training resources in light of immediate 
budgetary pressures. Specifically, the Committee is concerned 
that the requested operational training program levels appear 
inadequate to meet the required controller proficiency and 
developmental training requirement to maintain operational 
safety and improve efficiency. In addition, the Committee is 
concerned that the FAA has slipped into a practice of utilizing 
members of the Controller Work Force (CWF) rather than the Air 
Traffic Instructional Services (ATIS) program contract. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommendation includes $23,000,000, 
which is less than the $25,000,000 in training needs identified 
by the ATC facilities participating in the ATIS program for 
training activities under the training contract. Further, the 
Committee directs that the FAA not utilize CWF members for this 
training if such utilization would result in an increase in the 
direct or indirect use of overtime funds. Within the 
limitations of this policy, the Committee expects the 
Administrator to ensure that controllers are fully trained for 
their programmed positions at tower, TRACON, and center 
facilities, especially at the nation's busier facilities during 
the summer travel season. The Committee further directs the FAA 
to coordinate with the Committee before utilizing these funds 
for any activities other than air traffic instructional 
services training at field facilities for developmental and 
proficiency training of controllers.
    Adak, Alaska.--The Committee directs the FAA to report on 
the condition of existing aviation infrastructure at Adak, 
Alaska and the necessary improvements for safety and improved 
efficiency for aviation commercialization.
    NIOSH study.--The Committee notes the great challenges 
pilots flying in remote locations of Alaska face from severe 
climatic conditions, extreme geographical features including 
the nation's highest mountain ranges, and an inadequate 
aviation infrastructure such as basic runway lights, in an area 
one-fifth the size of the continental United States. It 
strongly supports the interagency cooperative effort of the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
the National Transportation Safety Board, other Federal, State, 
and private parties, and FAA efforts to improve aviation safety 
in the State through cooperative review and enhancement of 
safety procedures and practices. The Committee directs FAA to 
continue its participation in this important endeavor at 
existing levels.

                 Aviation Regulation and Certification

    The Committee provides $691,979,000 for aviation regulation 
and certification, the same level as the budget request.
    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 this is a valuable program 
and should not be reduced in funding below the fiscal year 2000 
level.
    Boeing 737 flight data recorders.--Appropriate 
consideration should be given to ensure that the technological 
feasibility of any final rule requiring airlines to further 
upgrade and retrofit flight data recorders on all 737 aircraft. 
Timeframes established for compliance should be realistic and 
to the extent consistent with safety, the FAA is encouraged to 
offer appropriate relief to carriers which have been aggressive 
and early in terms of compliance with existing FAA regulations 
in this area. Carriers should have incentives to comply with 
FAA safety regulations early and to be aggressive in their 
implementation schedules. When a carrier has demonstrated such 
aggressiveness and early compliance, the FAA Administrator 
should, consistent with other safety considerations, consider 
that behavior when promulgating follow on rulemakings. To fail 
to do so could provide a strong disincentive to implement 
safety enhancements any sooner than absolutely necessary under 
existing law or regulation.

                        Civil Aviation Security

    The Committee provides $138,462,000 for civil aviation 
security. The Committee has provided substantial budgetary 
increases for FAA's civil aviation security function over the 
past several years, and yet has difficulty determining whether 
those additional resources are translating into substantial 
improvements in aviation security. The FAA is directed to 
develop and submit with the fiscal year 2002 budget request the 
strategic plan for pursuit of the civil aviation security 
program recommended by the Inspector General in 1998.

                       Research and Acquisitions

    The Committee provides $182,401,000 for research and 
acquisition, an increase of 8 percent above the fiscal year 
2000 enacted level. The Committee believes this level to be 
adequate for the activities of this office coordinating the 
financing, planning, and management of the FAA's acquisition 
and research functions.
    Next generation e-mail.--The Committee recommends an 
increase of $4,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level for 
improvements to the FAA's e-mail systems.
    Telecommunications bandwidth.--The Committee recommendation 
defers the requested upgrades to the bandwidth of certain 
telecommunications systems.

                    Commercial Space Transportation

    The Committee provides $10,000,000 for the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation. The reduction below the budget 
request is made without prejudice due to budgetary constraints. 
The Committee notes that the recommended amount provided by the 
Committee represents an increase of 46 percent above fiscal 
year 2000 levels.

                           Financial Services

    The Committee provides $43,000,000 for financial services, 
an increase of 2.4 percent above fiscal year 2000 levels.
    Restraints on growth.--The budget request envisioned 
substantial funding for new program initiatives or programmatic 
growth that cannot be accommodated given the budget constraints 
facing the operations account. While providing resources that 
accommodate the base funding levels for these initiatives, the 
Committee recommendation does not fully fund the new 
initiatives. A comparison of some of these initiatives with 
recommended levels is presented below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year--
                                         -------------------------------
                Activity                                       2001
                                           2000 enacted   recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DELPHI implementation...................        $100,000      $3,800,000
IPPS replacement........................          50,000       4,400,000
Asset management........................       2,516,000       3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Human Resources

    The Committee provides $49,906,000 for human resources, an 
increase of 2.4 percent above the fiscal year 2000 level. The 
reduction is due to budget constraints and is made without 
prejudice. The budget request presented this office under the 
request for ``staff offices.'' The Committee bill maintains the 
budget presentation enacted in prior fiscal years and 
encourages the FAA to present the request for fiscal year 2002 
consistent with the structure in this, and last year's, 
appropriations legislation.

                         Regional Coordination

    The Committee provides $99,347,000 for regional 
coordination, an increase of 1.5 percent above the fiscal year 
2000 enacted level. The budget request presented this funding 
in the ``Staff offices'' request. The Committee bill maintains 
the budgeting approach enacted in fiscal year 2000.

                             Staff Offices

    The Committee provides $95,764,000 for staff offices, which 
is 22 percent above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
    Second career training program.--The Committee has included 
bill language which was included in the President's budget 
request which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the 
second career training program. This prohibition has been 
carried in annual appropriations acts for many years.
    Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision, first 
included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which 
prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those 
cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This 
provision is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal 
years 1995-2000. It was requested by the administration for 
fiscal year 2001.
    Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee 
has retained bill language which was requested by the 
administration to prohibit the use of funds for operating a 
manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous 
United States. There is no funding provided in the 
``Operations'' account for such stations in fiscal year 2001.
    Secretary's discretionary transfer funds.--The Committee 
has included language that provides authority for the Secretary 
to transfer up to $100,000,000 from Coast Guard operating 
expenses, for the purpose of air traffic control operations and 
maintenance to enhance aviation safety and security.
    OIG audit reimbursement.--The Committee recommendation 
directs the FAA to reimburse the Office of Inspector General 
$19,000,000 for audit and other aviation review work conducted 
in that office.
    Restriction on multiyear leases.--The bill maintains a 
restriction on multiyear leases as enacted in fiscal year 2000.
    Charting Services.--For several years, the DOT and NOAA 
have attempted to transfer the aeronautical charting and 
cartography functions from NOAA to the DOT. Public Law 106-181 
authorizes the transfer of these activities from the Department 
of Commerce to the FAA by October 1, 2000 which the Committee 
supports. If the FAA is unable to accept the transfer of the 
functions by October 1, 2000 and seeks legislative relief from 
the requirements included in Public Law 106-181, the Committee 
expects that the FAA would pay the full cost of any services 
provided by NOAA.

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................  $2,075,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   2,495,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,656,765,000

\1\ Excludes $30,000,000 rescission of prior year balances.

    Under the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation, 
safety, capacity and efficiency of the Federal airway system 
are improved by the procurement and installation of new 
equipment and the construction and modernization of facilities 
to keep pace with aeronautical activity and in accordance with 
the Federal Aviation Administration's comprehensive capital 
investment plan [CIP], formerly called the national airspace 
system [NAS] plan.
    The Federal Aviation Administration's most recent estimate 
is that it will spend approximately $37,500,000,000 on the Air 
Traffic Control Modernization effort from 1981 through 2004. 
The estimate for the modernization of the system has continued 
to evolve and escalate and the FAA has deployed several new 
systems since 1981. However, the FAA has not delivered 
virtually any system (and certainly not any major ones) within 
cost, schedule, or performance goals due primarily to a 
complete failure to impose acquisition management discipline. 
Last year, the General Accounting Office testified:

          ``From the inception of the air traffic control 
        modernization program to today, FAA has not 
        consistently followed a disciplined management approach 
        for acquiring new systems. In the 1980's and early 
        1990's, FAA did not follow the phased approach of 
        Federal acquisition guidance designed to help mitigate 
        the cost, schedule, and performance risk associated 
        with the development of major systems. The agency 
        believed that it could develop and install new systems 
        more quickly by combining several of the five phases 
        outlined in this guidance. However, as a result of not 
        following this disciplined, phased approach, FAA often 
        encountered major difficulties such as those associated 
        with developing the Advanced Automation System. In 
        1995, the Congress exempted FAA from many Federal 
        procurement rules and regulations, in April, 1996, FAA 
        implemented an acquisition management system, which 
        emphasized, once again, the need for a disciplined 
        approach to acquisition management. However, we (GAO) 
        found continuing weaknesses in key areas such as how 
        FAA monitors the status of projects throughout their 
        life-cycle.''

    Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation 
Inspector General testified:

          ``The problems with these acquisitions (WAAS, STARS, 
        AMASS) are not the result of a lack of funding or the 
        result of burdensome procurement and personnel rules. 
        What all these systems have in common are difficulties 
        with software development and human factors. . . . As a 
        result of these problems, schedules have proven to be 
        unrealistic and costs have increased. FAA has taken 
        steps to address problems with WAAS, STARS, and AMASS 
        but only after major problems have surfaced. FAA can do 
        more to protect the Government, make contractors more 
        accountable, and address human factors issues earlier 
        in the development and acquisition processes.
          ``In addition, FAA needs to identify and resolve 
        human factors concerns early in the acquisition process 
        to avoid cost overruns and schedule delays.
          ``In fairness to FAA, we must recognize that the 
        development of new technologies, particularly those 
        involving complex software and new aircraft avionics, 
        involve research and development risks for which the 
        United States bears much of the cost. Many of the firms 
        developing these systems for FAA rank among the most 
        technologically sophisticated in the world. Once 
        developed, this technology is considered `off the 
        shelf' and can be sold at a fraction of the costs to 
        other ATC providers.''

    Further, the Department of Inspector General's Top 12 
Management Issues Report highlighted air traffic control 
modernization stated:

          ``FAA acknowledges past problems and is addressing 
        them with a more incremental approach--`build a little, 
        test a little'--to some acquisitions. . . . Also, FAA 
        completed the initial phase of the HOST Replacement 
        program, on schedule and within budget, before the year 
        2000. Further, FAA is currently on schedule with the 
        Display System Replacement program, which modernizes 
        domestic enroute centers by replacing aging and 
        unsupportable display equipment.''

    Clearly, management and modernization of the National 
Airspace System is a herculean and complicated task, and a 
challenge which will continue as long as air travel is the 
fastest, most cost-effective, and safest means of traveling 
significant distances. Modernization is an incremental and 
persistent responsibility. Although FAA has recently modified 
procurement processes and implemented an acquisition management 
system in 1996, the schedule delays, cost escalations, and 
performance problems continue to plague modernization efforts. 
While there are several core issues that continue to appear as 
reasons for the problems as noted above, most of those core 
issues are arguably rooted in the FAA's organizational culture. 
Many observers of the FAA acquisition dynamic have concluded 
that the FAA culture has led employees to act in ways that do 
not evidence a strong commitment to mission focus, 
accountability, coordination, and adaptability. The 
Administrator is currently undertaking a number of steps to 
change the FAA culture, and some anecdotal examples may 
indicate that those efforts are having some success at the 
margin.
    Some have expressed the concern that the cited examples of 
success are distinguishable on the specific circumstances: 
DSR's problems, delays, and cost overruns were relegated to the 
procurement's predecessor and HOST was up against a firm 
deadline (Y2K) which precluded the FAA's from any reengineering 
or changing any significant aspect of the procurement. If those 
concerns have merit, it may well be that the FAA's traditional 
approach to procurements is flawed from the start. Perhaps the 
Congress and the FAA should spend less time with cost benefit 
analysis, that invariably become moot as decision-making tools 
as costs escalate, as relating to major procurements and more 
time engaged in a dialogue with all interested stakeholders 
about what the system of the future should look like and what 
we can commit for such a system. The Committee believes that a 
dialogue of that nature would inevitably lead to greater buy-in 
up front by the users (industry), the operators (controllers, 
maintenance personnel), and the Congress. In addition, such a 
dialogue should have the added benefit of providing greater 
certainty for the program managers and the contractors 
concerning requirement changes or developmental modifications 
and would facilitate greater agency accountability.
    Clearly, changing the FAA culture is a long term 
proposition, but the Committee recommendations have been 
reviewed with a focus on reinforcing greater accountability, 
mission focus, and striving for better or alternative ways of 
improving the system.

                                                      CIP MILESTONES FOR MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Year of first-site                                  Year of last-site
                                                            implementation                                     implementation
               System name                1983 NAS -------------------------------- 2000 CIP  1983 NAS ------------------------------ 1999 CIP  2000 CIP
                                            plan     1991    1993    1998    1999               plan
                                                      CIP     CIP     CIP     CIP                       1991 CIP  1993 CIP  1998 CIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Automation System (AAS)........      1990    1991    1991  ( \1\   ( \1\    ( \1\ )      1994      2001      2004   ( \1\ )   ( \1\ )   ( \1\ )
                                                                         )       )
    Display System Replacement (DSR)....  ........  ......  ......    1998    1998      1998  ........  ........  ........      2000      2000      2000
    Standard Terminal Automation          ........  ......  ......    1998  ( \2\   \3\ 1999  ........  ........  ........      2005   ( \2\ )      2008
     Replacement System (STARS).........                                         )
    Tower Automation Program (TAP)......  ........  ......  ......  ( \4\   ( \4\    ( \4\ )  ........  ........  ........   ( \4\ )   ( \4\ )   ( \4\ )
                                                                         )       )
Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR-4)...      1988    1993    1994    1996    1996      1996      1991      1996      1996      1999      1999      2000
Airport Surface Detection Equipment           1987    1992    1993    1993    1993      1993      1990      1994      1996      1999      1999      2002
 (ASDE-3)...............................
Automated Weather Observing System            1986    1989    1989    1989    1989      1989      1990      1997      1997      2002      2002      2002
 (AWOS)/Automated Surface Observing
 System (ASOS)..........................
Central Weather Processor (CWP).........      1990    1991    1991    1991    1991      1991      1991      1998  \5\ 1992  \5\ 1993  \5\ 1993  \5\ 1993
Flight Service Automation System (FSAS).      1984    1991    1991    1991    1991      1991      1989      1995      1994      1995      1995      1995
Mode-S..................................      1988    1993    1994    1994    1994      1994      1993      1996      1996  \6\ 1999  \6\ 1999  \7\ 2004
Radio Microwave Link (RML) Replacement        1985    1986    1986    1986    1986      1986      1989      1994      1993      1993      1993      1993
 and Expan-  sion.......................
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)...   ( \8\ )    1993    1994    1994    1994      1994   ( \8\ )      1996      1996      2001      2000      2000
Voice Switching and Control System            1989    1995    1995    1995    1995      1995      1992      1997      1997      1997      1997      1997
 (VSCS).................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En Route (DSR), Terminal (STARS), and Tower (TAP).
\2\ STARS schedule is under review.
\3\ First IOC for Early Display Configuration for STARS.
\4\ The Tower Automation Program (TAP) has been terminated.
\5\ Dates denoted are for MWP I only. The CWP-RWP segment has been eliminated as a continuation of the CWP Program, and has been merged with MWP II into
  the Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) Program.
\6\ Dates denoted are for Interim Beacon Interrogator (IBI) Last-Site Implementation.
\7\ Date denoted is for full Mode-S Last-Site Implementation.
\8\ TDWR was not included in the 1983 NAS Plan.

Source: FAA 1983 NAS Plan; 1991, and 1993 CIP; February 1998 GAO testimony Observations on FAA's Modernization Program and December 1998 GAO report
  Status of the FAA's Modernization Program.


          REASONS FOR DELAY AND COST INCREASES IN CIP PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          System name                       Reasons for delay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Automation System      In general, AAS delays were due to an
 (AAS).                          overly ambitious plan, inadequate FAA
                                 oversight of the contractor, and
                                 ineffective resolution of requirements
                                 issues. The AAS Program has been
                                 restructured into three areas: En
                                 Route, Terminal, and Tower.
Air Route Surveillance Radar    Problems with the radar's development
 (ARSR-4).                       and site preparation delayed first-site
                                 implementation. Testing took longer
                                 than originally expected. Delays have
                                 also occurred due to changes in system
                                 design, interface problems with other
                                 ATC systems, and slips in site
                                 construction. Past delays were due to
                                 environmental issues at Ajo, Arizona
                                 and typhoon damage at Mount Santa Rosa,
                                 Guam (which was commissioned in January
                                 2000). However, the AJO system has been
                                 further delayed until completion of the
                                 technician familiarization training and
                                 the evaluation of system reliability.
Airport Surface Detection       Original delays occurred because FAA and
 Equipment (ASDE-3).             the contractor under-estimated software
                                 complexity. FAA changed some
                                 requirements, and testing uncovered
                                 some performance problems. Software
                                 development, establishing remote
                                 towers, site selection/preparation, and
                                 the addition of seven systems further
                                 delayed the program. Though the agency
                                 previously experienced site preparation
                                 delays which subsequently delayed
                                 installations, only the La Guardia and
                                 Charlotte systems now remained to be
                                 installed. One ASDE-3 system had been
                                 used to provide spare parts and the
                                 time necessary to refurbish it has
                                 caused the recent delay in last-site
                                 implementation.
Automated Weather Observing     Site prep, installation, and maintenance
 System (AWOS)/Automated         problems, as well as delays in
 Surface Observing System        receiving Government-furnished
 (ASOS).                         equipment contributed to original
                                 delays. Last-site implementation delay
                                 occurred because of communications
                                 funding shortfalls and installation
                                 delays of the communications
                                 infrastructure to deliver weather
                                 information. Recent delays are
                                 associated with the addition of ASOS
                                 systems per fiscal year 1997 and fiscal
                                 year 1998 Congressional direction.
Central Weather Processor       Early software development problems and
 (CWP).                          software discrepancies during testing
                                 delayed the system in early stages. The
                                 program was descoped to just the CWP-
                                 MWP I segment, which is now fully
                                 implemented.
Flight Service Automation       Original delays occurred because of
 System (FSAS).                  software development and testing
                                 problems with the Model I system.
                                 Program implementation is complete.
Mode S........................  Problems in developing hardware and
                                 software during initial phases delayed
                                 the system, and software problems
                                 caused a delay in first-site
                                 implementation. Implementation of the
                                 last-site initially moved out due to en
                                 route interface requirements and site
                                 preparation delays. Recent delays in
                                 the last-site implementation are
                                 attributed to a deferral of all funding
                                 for the Mode-S program from fiscal year
                                 1998-fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year
                                 2001-04. The FAA chose to defer the
                                 funding as it was determined that the
                                 interim capability (interim beacon
                                 interrogator) of Mode-S was acceptable
                                 and satisfied the capability
                                 requirements over the past several
                                 years. However, implementation of the
                                 full capability of Mode-S is critical
                                 to meet the end-state requirements of
                                 the NAS. With funding restored in
                                 fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2004, the
                                 last site implementation in full Mode-S
                                 will be 2004.
Radar Microwave Link (RML)      In the early stages, site acquisition
 Replacement and Expansion.      and prep problems delayed the system.
                                 Other delays occurred because of a
                                 change in the prime contractor and due
                                 to problems encountered during
                                 operational test and evaluation.
                                 Program implementation is complete.
Standard Terminal Automation    Delays are primarily associated with new
 Replacement System (STARS).     computer-human interface requirements
                                 that require custom software
                                 development, a fundamental change in
                                 the STARS program acquisition strategy.
                                 Additional requirements to the program
                                 including Automated Radar Terminal
                                 System (ARTS) color displays at
                                 selected Terminal Radar Approach
                                 Control (TRACON) facilities, ARTS IIIE
                                 systems for 3 TRACONs, and Early
                                 Display Configuration development and
                                 deployment at up to 16 sites
                                 contributed to the delays.
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar  Site availability and land acquisition
 (TDWR).                         problems have delayed last-site
                                 implementation. Recent delays are
                                 associated with land procurement and
                                 environmental issues at the last 2
                                 sites (Chicago-Midway and New York.
Voice Switching and Control     Early delays were due to the two
 System (VSCS).                  prototype contracts having technical
                                 difficulties in meeting FAA's
                                 requirements for system reliability.
                                 Additional delays occurred because of
                                 software development and integration
                                 problems during the upgrade of the
                                 prototype to a production model. The
                                 implementation schedule has not changed
                                 since the 1991 CIP. The last site
                                 implementation was achieved on schedule
                                 in February 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill includes an appropriation of $2,656,765,000 for 
the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. This appropriation represents an increase of 28 
percent above the level provided for fiscal year 2000. The bill 
does not provide the advanced appropriations requested by the 
administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of 
the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows:

                                            FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee
                         Program name                            2000 enacted    2001 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING................      $26,696,300      $40,848,000      $45,848,000
SAFE FLIGHT 21...............................................       16,000,000       25,000,000       35,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--ADV DEV/PROTOTYPING..........................       42,696,300       65,848,000       80,848,000
                                                              ==================================================
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS.......................       23,862,000       15,400,000       15,400,000
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION..........................................        6,000,000       14,600,000       14,600,000
OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM....................................       27,000,000       51,970,000       51,970,000
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS....................       25,000,000       30,200,000       30,200,000
NEXT GENERATION VHF A/G COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.................        6,100,000       12,300,000       12,300,000
FREE FLIGHT PHASE ONE........................................      179,625,000      170,800,000      175,800,000
FREE FLIGHT PHASE TWO........................................  ...............       50,000,000       25,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS............................      267,587,000      345,270,000      325,270,000
                                                              ==================================================
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS)..................................      112,440,000      114,850,000      116,850,000
                                                              ==================================================
AFSS VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT................................        1,000,000  ...............  ...............
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM FOR GPS (LAAS)................  ...............        9,300,000       37,000,000
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS).........................  ...............       65,000,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--LANDING/NAVAIDS..............................        1,000,000       74,300,000       37,000,000
                                                              ==================================================
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITY--BUILDING LEASE................        1,322,500  ...............  ...............
NAS IMPROVEMENT OF SYSTEM SUPPORT LABORATORY.................  ...............        2,162,000        2,162,000
TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITIES..................................       11,477,500        8,795,500        8,795,000
TECHNICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINMENT..................  ...............        2,726,000        2,726,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, RDT&E EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES...............       12,800,000       13,683,500       13,683,000
                                                              ==================================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 1.......................................      436,523,300      613,951,500      573,651,000
                                                              ==================================================
         AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

EN ROUTE AUTOMATION..........................................      160,000,000      122,200,000      122,200,000
NEXT GENERATION WEATHER RADAR (NEXRAD).......................        4,900,000        4,100,000        4,100,000
AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT............................  ...............          940,000          940,000
WEATHER AND RADAR PROCESSOR (WARP)...........................       15,000,000       24,710,000       24,710,000
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS....................  ...............        1,200,000        1,200,000
ARTCC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS/PLANT IMPROVEMENTS...............       36,900,000       58,000,000       58,950,000
VOICE SWITCHING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (VSCS)....................       17,500,000  ...............  ...............
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.......................................       15,000,000       25,944,000       25,944,000
CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT..............................          850,000        1,880,000        1,880,000
DOD BASE CLOSURE--FACILITY TRANSFER..........................        3,900,000  ...............  ...............
BACK-UP EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS (BUEC)......................        1,580,000  ...............  ...............
AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE......................  ...............       16,074,000       16,074,000
AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION RFI ELIMINATION.....................        1,700,000  ...............  ...............
VOLCANO MONITOR..............................................        2,000,000  ...............        2,000,000
ATC BEACON INTERROGATOR (ATCBI) REPLACEMENT..................       25,000,000       77,612,000       77,612,000
ATC EN ROUTE RADAR FACILITIES................................        2,700,000        2,844,000        2,844,000
EN ROUTE COMMS AND CONTROL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT............        1,430,000        5,031,606        7,631,000
RCF FACILITIES--EXPAND/RELOCATE..............................        6,700,000  ...............  ...............
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS.......................  ...............        8,218,000        8,218,000
FAA TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE........................        6,100,000       29,400,000       29,400,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS............................      301,260,000      378,153,606      383,703,000
                                                              ==================================================
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE)...................       10,000,000        1,500,000        1,500,000
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE-X).................  ...............        8,400,000        8,400,000
TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR (TDWR)--PROVIDE...............        9,300,000        5,100,000        5,100,000
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS)..................................       82,800,000       75,550,000       75,550,000
TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES--REPLACE.............       78,900,000      105,000,000      117,100,000
CONTROL TOWER/TRACON FACILITIES--IMPROVE.....................       24,782,700       40,259,672       40,259,672
TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT (TVSR)/ETVS................       10,900,000        5,000,000       10,900,000
EMPLOYEE SAFETY/OSHA AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STDS.......       22,000,000       28,400,000       28,400,000
CHICAGO METROPLEX............................................          700,000  ...............  ...............
NEW AUSTIN AIRPORT AT BERGSTROM..............................        1,500,000        2,500,000        2,500,000
POTOMAC METROPLEX............................................       17,100,000       25,800,000       25,800,000
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPLEX................................       17,500,000        6,000,000        6,000,000
ATLANTA METROPLEX............................................        7,700,000        3,400,000        3,400,000
NAS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS)..................        3,520,000       13,100,000       13,100,000
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR-9)...........................        4,000,000        4,722,000       17,000,000
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS)..................       18,200,000       20,650,000       20,650,000
VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM...........................        2,500,000        2,632,000        3,632,000
TERMINAL DIGITAL RADAR (ASR-11)..............................       76,100,000      108,250,000       75,000,000
WEATHER SYSTEMS PROCESSOR....................................       24,000,000       22,400,000       22,400,000
DOD/FAA ATC FACILITIES TRANSFER..............................        3,000,000        2,600,000        2,600,000
PRECISION RUNWAY MONITORS....................................        3,300,000        2,000,000       17,000,000
TERMINAL RADAR (ASR)--IMPROVE................................        3,838,800        3,233,600        3,233,000
TERMINAL COMMUNICATIONS IMPROVEMENTS.........................        1,124,000        1,250,700        1,550,700
RCE EQUIPMENT................................................        3,400,000  ...............  ...............
MODE S--PROVIDE..............................................  ...............        1,974,000        1,974,000
TERMINAL APPLIED ENGINEERING.................................  ...............        6,700,000        6,700,000
REMOTE RADAR CAPABILITY......................................          900,000  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--TERMINAL PROGRAMS............................      417,065,500      494,921,972      508,249,372
                                                              ==================================================
AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS)....................        9,900,000        8,213,900       13,213,900
OASIS........................................................       10,000,000       23,100,000       23,100,000
WEATHER MESSAGE SWITCHING CENTER REPLACEMENT.................  ...............        2,500,000        2,500,000
FLIGHT SERVICE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT........................        1,364,400        1,277,500        1,277,500
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION SWITCH MODERNIZATION..................  ...............        6,000,000        6,000,000
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION.........................        2,600,000        4,000,000        4,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS......................       23,864,400       45,091,400       50,091,400
                                                              ==================================================
VOR..........................................................        2,000,000        2,632,000        2,632,000
NEXT GENERATION NAVIGATION/LANDING SYSTEMS...................      114,000,000  ...............      164,400,000
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)--ESTABLISH/UPGRADE...........  ...............       16,000,000  ...............
ILS--REPLACE MARK 1A, 1B, AND 1C.............................        1,000,000        1,000,000  ...............
LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT SYSTEM (LLWAS).....................        2,200,000        5,734,000        5,734,000
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR)....................................        6,300,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS).........................  ...............       46,000,000  ...............
NDB SUSTAIN..................................................        1,000,000          940,000          940,000
NAVIGATIONAL AND LANDING AIDS--IMPROVE.......................        3,146,800        2,955,922        2,955,922
ILS--REPLACE GRN-27..........................................  ...............        1,000,000        1,000,000
APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (ALSIP).................        8,700,000        1,040,000       21,450,000
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATORS (PAPI)....................        3,500,000  ...............        6,000,000
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME)...........................        1,200,000        1,128,000        1,428,000
VISUAL NAVAIDS...............................................        1,000,000        2,820,000        2,820,000
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES AUTOMATION (IAPA).............          900,000  ...............  ...............
GULF OF MEXICO OFFSHORE PROGRAM..............................  ...............        1,900,000        3,600,000
LORAN-C UPGRADE/MODERNIZATION................................  ...............       20,000,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS................      144,946,800      106,149,922      215,959,922
                                                              ==================================================
ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMM SYSTEM (ANICS)................        3,600,000        2,500,000        7,200,000
FUEL STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT AND MONITORING.................       10,500,000       10,500,000       10,500,000
FAA BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT--IMPROVE/MODERNIZE...............        4,000,000       10,000,000       10,000,000
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS--SUSTAIN/SUPPORT....................       17,500,000       28,200,000       28,200,000
AIR NAVAIDS AND ATC FACILITIES (LOCAL PROJECTS)..............        2,000,000        1,880,000        1,880,000
AIRCRAFT RELATED EQUIPMENT PROGRAM...........................        1,840,000        6,000,000        6,000,000
COMPUTER AIDED ENG GRAPHICS (CAEG) REPLACEMENT...............        3,000,000        2,600,000        2,600,000
SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SAMS)................  ...............        5,400,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--OTHER ATC FACILITIES.........................       42,440,000       67,080,000       66,380,000
                                                              ==================================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 2.......................................      929,576,700    1,091,396,900    1,224,383,694
                                                              ==================================================
               NON-ATC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

NAS MANAGEMENT AUTOMATION PROGRAM (NASMAP)...................          800,000        1,034,000        1,034,000
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT...............................       22,500,000       22,600,000       22,600,000
AVIATION SAFETY ANALYSIS SYSTEM (ASAS).......................       14,000,000       15,980,000       15,980,000
OPERATIONAL DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ODMS)....................          600,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
FAA EMPLOYEE HOUSING--PROVIDE................................        8,000,000  ...............  ...............
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEM AND FACILITIES......................        2,300,000        7,500,000        7,500,000
TEST EQUIPMENT--MAINTENANCE SUPPORT..........................        1,000,000          940,000          940,000
INTEGRATED FLIGHT QUALITY ASSURANCE..........................        3,000,000        2,200,000        2,200,000
SAFETY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SUBSYSTEM (SPAS).................        5,200,000        2,400,000        2,400,000
NATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY DATA CENTER.........................        1,500,000        1,800,000        1,800,000
NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS (RCOM)...........................  ...............        4,700,000        4,700,000
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM...............................        5,000,000        2,500,000        2,500,000
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION TECHNOLOGY...............................       97,500,000       97,500,000       99,500,000
FACILITY SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT............................       11,500,000       19,339,000       19,339,000
INFORMATION SECURITY.........................................        7,500,000       11,200,000       11,200,000
NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS (RCOM)...........................        1,000,000  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--SUPPORT EQUIPMENT............................      181,400,000      190,693,000      192,693,000
                                                              ==================================================
AERONAUTICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION.............  ...............        7,200,000        7,200,000
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) TRAINING FACILITIES...........  ...............        1,880,000        1,880,000
DISTANCE LEARNING............................................  ...............        2,162,000        2,162,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--TRAINING EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES..............  ...............       11,242,000       11,242,000
                                                              ==================================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 3.......................................      181,400,000      201,935,000      203,935,000
                                                              ==================================================
                       MISSION SUPPORT

SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT...................       22,200,000       24,711,000       24,711,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT LEASES.......................................       31,100,000       33,800,000       33,800,000
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES...................................        5,600,000        6,300,000        6,300,000
MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL CENTER--LEASE.....................       14,600,000       14,000,000       14,000,000
IN-PLANT NAS CONTRACT SUPPORT SERVICES.......................        2,800,000        2,619,000        2,619,000
TRANSITION ENGINEERING SUPPORT...............................       38,700,000       37,539,000       37,539,000
FREQUENCY AND SPECTRUM ENGINEERING--PROVIDE..................        3,000,000        2,900,000        2,900,000
PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MOVES............................        2,500,000       26,400,000       26,400,000
FAA SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE......................................        1,000,000        3,534,000        3,534,000
TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPPORT CONTRACT (TSSC)...................       40,000,000       44,911,000       44,911,000
RESOURCE TRACKING PROGRAM....................................  ...............        3,450,000        3,450,000
CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEV. (MITRE).............       61,000,000       63,400,000       68,400,000
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION......................       69,700,000  \1\ 135,000,000       63,578,706
                                                              ==================================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 4.......................................      222,500,000      263,564,000      332,142,706
                                                              ==================================================
                PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES...............................      295,000,000      322,652,600      322,652,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requested in operations.

             engineering, development, test, and evaluation

    Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.--The 
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping covers a range 
of timely and critical initiatives within the Engineering, 
Development, Test and Evaluation activity. The Committee 
recommendation provides $45,848,000 for this activity including 
the airport-related research proposed for funding under the 
airport improvement program request and $2,000,000 for the 
airfield pavement improvement program authorized under section 
905 of Public Law 106-181. In addition, funding is included in 
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping for ADS-B, GPS 
availability, accuracy, and integrity including $2,600,000 for 
GPS harmonization work to be undertaken as part of a multi-
agency initiative to explore the vulnerability of the GPS 
signal to interference and $1,000,000 for anti-jamming work. In 
addition, the Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for 
Commercial Remote Sensing Products and Spatial Information 
Technologies.
    Universal Access Systems (UAS).--FAA is directed to work 
with organizations representing airports, airline pilots, and 
other interested parties to deploy expeditiously the 
continuously-updated data needed on approved flight crew 
members that will allow universal access systems to operate 
properly. Existing systems that deliver data and other 
information to airport computer systems should be used if they 
will facilitate rapid deployment and provide the best cost, 
benefit, and data security. This program presents an 
opportunity for the FAA to partner with industry to develop the 
universal data and standards needed to make such security 
systems available in the near future, and utilize digital 
networks already designed for airport sponsors maximizing the 
incentives to field universal security systems on a voluntary 
basis.
    Safe Flight 21.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$35,000,000 for the Safe Flight 21 initiatives. Half the 
additional funding above the request is to extend the Capstone 
program into Southeastern Alaska including communications 
upgrades. The other half of the increase is to expand the Ohio 
Valley program with a specific focus on utilizing ADS-B 
technologies to contribute to runway incursion solutions. The 
Committee is encouraged by initial reports of the progress of 
the Safe Flight initiative and commends the FAA for the 
approach and focus of the effort in this area.

En route programs

    Aviation Weather Services Improvements.--The Committee 
recommendation fully funds the budget request for Aviation 
Weather Service Improvements and notes that weather is the 
major contributor to air traffic delays, accounting for 65 
percent of all delays and a factor in 40 percent of accidents.
    En Route Automation.--The Committee recommendation fully 
funds the en route automation requests and provides $65,000,000 
for Eunomia to develop and en route communications gateway that 
will replace current Peripheral Adapter Module Replacement Item 
(PAMRI) functionality which has demonstrated increasingly 
difficult to maintain.
    Oceanic Automation System.--The Committee fully funds the 
request for the Oceanic ATOP procurement and notes that the FAA 
recently downselected from three vendors to two. The FAA 
anticipates a further downselect before the end of the calendar 
year. As noted elsewhere in the report, the Oceanic procurement 
has experienced substantial delays and difficulties in the past 
and the Committee encourages the FAA to aggressively manage 
this procurement to field improved capability in the oceanic 
environment. The Committee has provided authority for the FAA 
to contract out this entire function at the discretion of the 
FAA Administrator if the current procurement strategy 
experiences further difficulties in order to expedite this 
modernization and to provide the greatest possible flexibility 
in this regard for the administrator.
    Free Flight Phase One.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $175,800,000 for the Free Flight Phase One activities. 
Within the amount provided for Free Flight Phase I, the 
Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the continued expansion 
and improvement of the Departure Spacing Program (DSP). Within 
this amount, sufficient funding (approximately $2,000,000) is 
for the installation of bar-coded strips at the tower 
facilities serving Newark International Airport, LaGuardia 
Airport, Kennedy International Airport and Philadelphia 
International Airport. This enhancement is expected to improve 
both the safety and efficiency of the DSP program in that 
region. The Committee notes that the DSP program holds great 
promise for providing improved data on the frequency and cause 
of delays at these airports. The Administrator is encouraged to 
design and implement improvements to the program so as to 
maximize the opportunities for data gathering and information 
sharing on the matter of delays.
    Free Flight Phase Two.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $25,000,000 for the expansion of the Free Flight 
initiatives, half of the budget request. The reduction to the 
request is made without prejudice and will be revisited as the 
fiscal year 2000 Free Flight activities progress with a focus 
on whether such an aggressive expansion of the program can be 
successfully implemented in fiscal year 2001. Within the 
Committee recommendation, funding is included to provide pFast 
for Denver International Airport.

Terminal programs

    Terminal Automation (STARS).--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,000,000 above the budget requests for the Terminal 
Automation program and is heartened by the positive reports 
from the users of the initially deployed system in the field. 
The additional funds are to be used for activity 2 efforts and 
to deploy a DBRITE system to the Mid-Delta regional airport.
    The Committee has become aware that the FAA is considering 
disbursing used radar equipment to the new St. Louis Gateway 
TRACON due to open in 2001. It is the Committee's understanding 
that all of the equipment designated to go in the new TRACON is 
state-of-the-art except for the vitally important radar scopes. 
The Committee requests that the FAA review its decision 
regarding the radar scopes for the St. Louis Gateway TRACON.
    Local Area Augmentation System For GPS (LAAS).--The 
Committee recommendation provides funding the LAAS program from 
within the Next Generation Navigation systems. The Committee 
provides $37,000,000 for the LAAS program within this line and 
notes that there has been substantial private development of 
the LAAS capability and that an agreement has recently been 
reached to install a LAAS system at Memphis Airport. The FAA is 
encouraged to take full advantage of the private investment in 
this initiative. Further, the Committee is concerned that the 
integrity issue that has recently plagued the Wide Area 
Augmentation System procurement (WAAS) be aggressively managed 
as it relates to the LAAS system so as to minimize the impact 
that integrity issues may ultimately have on both the cost and 
schedule for the LAAS procurement. $4,000,000 of the increased 
funding for this program is for a continuation of the 
development work on a low cost next generation precision 
gyroscope utilizing silicon manufacturing technologies. The 
Committee continues to view developmental work in this area as 
critical to extending the benefits of satellite based 
navigational services to the general aviation community by 
providing the technological developments that will permit 
affordable inertial navigational capability for general 
aviation users.
    Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).--The Committee 
recommendation within the Next Generation Navigational/Landing 
Systems line for WAAS is the budget request adjusted for the 
shifts announced by the FAA after discovery of the most recent 
schedule and technical delays in the program and taking into 
account the funding provided in the Advance Technology 
Development and Prototyping line for the developmental work 
funded in that line. The Committee remains concerned about the 
single strand nature of this procurement and encourages the FAA 
to proceed cautiously with this procurement. In addition, the 
Committee encourages the FAA to take full advantage of the 
secondary or ancillary benefits that the WAAS signal may 
provide for other aviation purposes. Accordingly, the FAA 
should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this 
regard and should explore what applications of the technology 
might be of use to the aviation community notwithstanding the 
certification difficulties of the current system. Clearly, the 
value of the WAAS signal to airports, general aviation users, 
avionics manufacturers, and others is significant even before 
the primary use of the signal is capable of being certified. 
The FAA should pursue incremental uses and applications of 
applying the WAAS signal as a potential solution for runway 
incursion issues, and other critical aviation challenges. The 
following table outlines the progression of this procurement to 
ever higher costs, ever diminished capability, and ever longer 
schedule to full operating capability, however reduced:

                       DEVELOPMENT COSTS, SCHEDULES, AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS FOR WAAS
                                              [Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Estimated       Initial
             Year              development     operating        Performance     Full operating     Performance
                                  costs        capability       expectation       capability       expectation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1994....................         $508  June 1997......  Precision         Dec. 2000......  Precision
                                                              approach                           approach
                                                              capability was                     capability was
                                                              for a 19.2                         for a 19.2
                                                              meter Vertical                     meter Vertical
                                                              Protection                         Protection
                                                              Limit, with 95                     Limit, with
                                                              percent                            99.999 percent
                                                              availability,                      availability,
                                                              throughout 50                      throughout 100
                                                              percent of the                     percent of the
                                                              continental                        total NAS. In
                                                              United States.                     the best case,
                                                              In the best                        this would
                                                              case, this                         provide
                                                              would provide                      Category I
                                                              Category I                         precision
                                                              precision                          approach minima
                                                              approach minima                    (200 feet
                                                              (200 feet                          height above
                                                              height above                       touchdown and
                                                              touchdown and                      \3/4\ mile
                                                              \3/4\mile                          visibility, \1/
                                                              visibility, \1/                    2\ mile with
                                                              2\ mile with                       approach
                                                              approach                           lights).
                                                              lights).
Jan. 1998....................    \1\ 1,007  July 1999......  Same as June      Dec. 2001......  Same as June
                                                              1994.                              1994.
Jan. 1999....................        1,007  Sept. 2000.....  Same as June      To be            Same as June
                                                              1994.             determined.      1994.
Sept. 1999...................    \2\ 2,484  Sept. 2000.....  Same as June      Dec. 2006......  Same as June
                                                              1994.                              1994.
June 2000....................    \3\ 2,724  Dec. 2002......  Limited           To be            To be
                                                              precision         determined.      determined.
                                                              approach
                                                              capability to
                                                              50 meters
                                                              Vertical
                                                              Protection
                                                              Limit, with 95
                                                              percent
                                                              availability,
                                                              throughout 75
                                                              percent of the
                                                              continental
                                                              United States.
                                                              In the best
                                                              case, this
                                                              would provide
                                                              vertically
                                                              guided approach
                                                              to at around a
                                                              350 feet height
                                                              above touchdown
                                                              and 1 mile
                                                              visibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Jan. 1998 program development costs for WAAS include the prime contractor costs, development of
  standards and procedures, technical engineering and program support, and the first year of costs for
  satellites. According to FAA, a primary reason for the cost growth between June 1994 and January 1998 was due
  to unanticipated development costs to build greater reliability into the WAAS ground component.
\2\ The Sept. 1999 estimate for WAAS development includes $1,300,000,000 in satellite service acquisition
  through 2020. In earlier estimates, satellite service acquisition costs were included in the cost of operating
  WAAS.
\3\ GAO estimated the increase between the Sept. 1999 and June 2000 based on information provided by FAA and its
  experts. We estimate that meeting the June 1994 performance expectation for initial WAAS could add up to
  $240,000,000 to the cost of developing WAAS and potentially take 3 years or more beyond Sept. 2000.

    Technical Center Facilities.--The Committee recommendation 
provides for the full request for technical center facilities 
although the justification describes activities that would more 
appropriately be funded in the operations account.

              Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

En Route programs

    Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications.--The Committee 
provides full funding of the requests for Aeronautical Data 
Link (ADL) and encourages the FAA to pursue this capability 
aggressively in order to achieve the advantages that it 
promises for elements of the Free Flight Phase 1 initiative as 
well as improving the safety and efficiency of the NAS. The Air 
Transport Association (ATA) has identified $4,000,000 of 
unnecessary costs, in part due to air traffic control 
communications-related inefficiencies, and has stated that ADL 
is one of the key elements of NAS automation needed to reduce 
these inefficiency costs. Specifically, the en route Controller 
Pilot Data Link Communication module should be reviewed to 
determine where the greatest work load relief and 
communications traffic volume can be addressed. The Committee 
is informed that over 50 percent of the communications between 
controllers in the en route environment and commercial pilots 
are a function of handing off aircraft from one sector to 
another. If this category of communications could be addressed 
through application of data link and cooperative coordination 
with the airlines, the risk of controller/pilot confusion could 
be minimized and substantial efficiencies could be realized. In 
addition, the FAA should consider contracting for the National 
Airspace System's air-ground communications system with a 
provider who would build, operate and evolve a single system to 
support both air traffic control and airline operations 
communications in order to reduce the complexity and other 
risks in the FAA's air-ground digital communications program, 
to rationalize FAA's spending on communications, and to 
eliminate the present redundancy in the air-ground 
communication system.
    ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $58,950,000 for this 
activity, including $13,950,000 for the full cost of the 
Combined En Route Radar Approach (CERAP) ASOS Controller 
Equipment/Information Display System (ACE-IDS).
    Air Traffic Management.--The Committee recommendation 
provides the requested level for Air Traffic Management 
although the justification describes activities more 
appropriately funded in the operations account.
    Volcano Monitor.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$2,000,000 for the volcano monitor activity, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
    En Route Communications and Control Facilities 
Improvement.--The Committee recommends $7,631,000 for this 
program. Of the funds provided, $3,200,000 is only for the 
relocation of RTR-A and RTR-D systems at Lambert-St. Louis 
International Airport.

Terminal programs

    Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $117,100,000 for this 
program. The recommendation provides funding for the following 
projects:

Chantilly, VA...........................................         $75,000
Gulfport, MS............................................          75,000
Kalamazoo, MI...........................................          75,000
Deer Valley, AZ.........................................          75,000
Broomfield, CO..........................................          75,000
Wilmington, DE..........................................         305,000
Wilkes Barre, PA........................................         959,200
Miami, FL...............................................          51,900
Orlando, FL.............................................         177,900
Atlanta, GA.............................................         167,900
Newburgh, NY............................................       1,000,000
Champaign, IL...........................................         749,000
Topeka, KS..............................................       4,361,840
Savannah, GA............................................       7,741,015
La Guardia, NY..........................................      25,440,000
Boston, MA..............................................      24,944,308
Oakland, CA.............................................      25,912,347
St. Louis, MO...........................................       3,317,000
Billings-Logan, MT......................................       3,100,000
Houston Hobby, TX.......................................         818,550
Little Rock, AR.........................................         642,000
Roanoke, VA.............................................       2,140,000
Seattle, WA.............................................          25,000
Bedford, MA.............................................         535,000
Salina, KS..............................................         267,500
Newark, NJ..............................................       2,407,500
Merrill Field, AK.......................................         321,000
Pt. Columbus, OH........................................       1,000,000
N. Las Vegas, NV........................................         214,000
Birmingham, AL..........................................       1,359,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................         267,000
W.K. Kellogg, MI........................................       1,000,000
Missoula, MT............................................         500,000
Pangborn, WA............................................       1,000,000
Paine Field, WA.........................................       1,000,000
Martin State, MD........................................       1,000,000
McArthur Airport, NY....................................       1,000,000
Richmond, VA............................................       1,000,000
Rogue Valley, OR........................................       1,000,000
Vero Beach, FL..........................................       1,000,000

    Control Tower/Tracon Facilities--Improve.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $40,259,672 for this program, including 
funding to continue the cable loop relocation project at 
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and $2,400,000 for the 
removal and relocation of the ASR-9 at that airport.
    Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/ETVS.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $10,900,000 for the program, 
the same level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
    Employee Safety/OSHA and Environmental Compliance 
Standards.--The Committee recommendation provides $28,400,000 
for this program. The Committee notes that the budget 
justification fails to provide the greater detail for this 
program requested in the fiscal year 2000 Committee report. The 
administration should expect reductions in the appropriation 
for this program if such justification is not forthcoming.
    Potomac Metroplex.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$17,100,000, the same level provide in fiscal year 2000 and 
leaving slightly less than that amount for future funding 
requirements.
    Precision Runway Monitors.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding above the request for acquisition of 
additional precision runway monitor equipment. The Committee 
recommendation provides necessary resources for the 
installation of a precision runway monitor at Newark 
International Airport.
    Airport Surveillance Radar.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $17,000,000 for this program including preliminary 
funding for radars for Palm Springs Regional Airport, Yakutat 
Airport, Gallatin Field, Central Oregon Regional, Eagle County 
Regional Airport, and Salt Lake City International Airport. 
Further, the power systems upgrades envisioned in this program, 
whether a new design or an existing system requiring 
modernization, shall be subject to competitive bidding by GSA 
approved contractors and will utilize commercial off the shelf 
(COTS) products when available. Priority will be given to power 
system components that meet the established quality standards 
of the FAA, are compatible with the existing power system 
infrastructure, are of the latest proven technology, and 
provide the most cost-effective solution.
    Voice Recorder Replacement Program.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $3,632,000 for this program. The 
Committee directs the FAA to conduct a study evaluating the 
benefits and advisability of deployable flight data recorders 
to complementing current voice and data recorders and provide 
the report with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
    Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $75,000,000 for continued production of 
the digital airport surveillance radar system. Air Force 
operation tests completed in February 2000 indicted several 
developmental issues that must be resolved. Problems included 
generation of false weather cells, loss of aircraft detection 
capability close to the airport, and a shortfall in computer 
processor capability which limits the system's ability to 
handle future requirements. The Air Force Operational Test and 
Evaluation Center recommended that the problems be corrected 
prior to the fielding of low initial productions units. The 
appropriated level is sufficient given the delays due to the 
current deficiencies identified in the testing.
    Terminal Communications Improvements.--The Committee 
provides $1,550,700 for the terminal communications 
improvements program, including funding for the installation of 
remote air-ground communications facilities for Park City and 
Heber Valley airports in support of the 2002 Winter Olympic 
Games.

Flight Service Programs

    Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $5,000,000 above the request to upgrade 
existing systems with poor reliability and outdated technology 
with modern equipment.
    Flight Service Station Modernization.--The Committee 
recommendation provides the full budget request for this 
program. Further, the power systems upgrades envisioned in this 
program, whether a new design or an existing system requiring 
modernization, shall be subject to competitive bidding by GSA 
approved contractors and will utilized commercial off the shelf 
(COTS) products when available. Priority will be given to power 
system components that meet the established quality standards 
of the FAA, are compatible with the existing power system 
infrastructure, are of the latest proven technology, and 
provide the most cost-effective solution.

Landing and Navigational Aids

    Next Generation Navigation System.--The Committee provides 
$164,400,000 for the various initiatives under this heading, to 
be distributed as follows:

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)....................     $73,000,000
Instrument Landing System Establishment.................      43,700,000
ILS--Replace Mark 1A, 1B, and 1C........................       1,000,000
ILS--Replace GRN-27.....................................       1,000,000
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System.......      18,700,000
Loran-C Upgrade/Modernization...........................      25,000,000
TLS.....................................................       2,000,000

    Instrument Landing System Establishment/upgrade.--The 
Committee recommends $43,700,000 to be distributed as follows:

Meridian/Key Field Airport..............................      $2,000,000
Hartsfield (5th runway).................................       4,900,000
Evanston Airport, WY....................................       2,500,000
Muscatine Municipal Airport.............................       1,600,000
Lafayette Regional Airport..............................       1,000,000
Kalealoa Airport........................................       2,300,000
Athens-Decatur..........................................       1,000,000
Gulf Shores Municipal Airport...........................       1,300,000
Lehigh Valley International Airport.....................       2,000,000
Klawock Airport.........................................       1,000,000
Mexico, MO..............................................       2,000,000
Harry Browne Airport....................................       1,000,000
Wexford County Airport..................................       1,500,000
London-Corbin Airport...................................       1,600,000
Cat I/II/III ILS and associated equipment...............      18,000,000

    Runway Visual Range (RVR).--The Committee recommendation 
provides $5,000,000 for this program including $300,000 for 
Sawyer Airport RVR equipment and tower equipment and $1,000,000 
for Reading, PA RVR equipment.
    Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP).--The 
Committee recommends $21,450,000, to be distributed as follows:

Meridian/Key Field MALSR................................      $2,300,000
Hartsfield MALSR........................................       2,300,000
Juneau Airport ALSIP....................................       2,000,000
Las Cruces International Airport ALSIP..................       2,750,000
Salt Lake City International Airport ALSIP..............       3,000,000
Newport Airport ALSIP...................................       2,500,000
Bethel Airport ALSIP....................................       2,000,000
North Bend ALSIP........................................       1,000,000
Saginaw MBS International Airport ALSIP.................         500,000
Baton Rouge MALSR.......................................       2,000,000
ALSIP procurement and related expenses..................       1,100,000

    Distance Measuring Equipment (DME).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $1,428,000 for the DME program. The 
additional funding above the request is for the installation of 
a DME on Newark Runway 11, where the ILS has no marker beacons 
to identify key points on the ILS approach.
    Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $3,600,000 to accelerate the 
implementation of CNS in the Gulf of Mexico.

Other ATC Facilities

    Alaskan NAS Interfacility Comm System (ANICS).--The 
Committee recommendation provides $7,200,000 to remedy prior 
years budget reductions consistent with the recently completed 
GAO review of the cost benefit analysis of the ANICS program.
    Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support.--The Committee 
provides $28,200,000 for this program. The power systems 
upgrades envisioned in this program, whether a new design or an 
existing system requiring modernization, shall be subject to 
competitive bidding by GSA approved contractors and will 
utilize commercial off the shelf (COTS) products when 
available. Priority will be given to power system components 
that meet the established quality standards of the FAA, are 
compatible with the existing power system infrastructure, are 
of the latest proven technology, and provide the most cost-
effective solution.
    Special Use Airspace Management System (SAMS).--The 
Committee does not provide the recommended funding for lack of 
complete justification. This activity will be reviewed prior to 
conclusion of the fiscal year 2001 appropriation process.

Non ATC Facilities and Equipment

    Explosive detection technology.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $99,500,000 for this activity, 
$2,000,000 above the request. The recommended level includes 
$2,000,000 for the Safe Passenger Alliance (SAFPAS) initiative 
to study the requisite technology to develop remote check-in 
locations in and around cities.

Mission Support

    Center For Advanced Aviation System Dev. (MITRE).--The 
Committee recommendation includes an additional $5,000,000 for 
the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development consistent 
with the budget request for other FAA CAASD activities. Funding 
is included within this recommendation to continue the 
development of Flight Management System procedures for Newark 
and Teterboro airports at MITRE/CAASD.
    National Airspace System Implementation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $63,578,706 for this activity, 
$71,422,000 below the budget request.

                        major equipment activity


                                         TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   City                                 Acceptance                     Commissioning dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphis..................................  July 1993...........................  December 1994
Houston Intercontinental.................  March 1993..........................  July 1994
Atlanta..................................  April 1993..........................  December 1995
Washington National......................  February 1994.......................  January 1996
Denver...................................  December 1993.......................  August 1995
Chicago O'Hare...........................  March 1994..........................  July 1996
St. Louis................................  May 1994............................  February 1995
Orlando..................................  June 1994...........................  April 1996
New Orleans..............................  July 1994...........................  March 1996
Tampa....................................  July 1994...........................  March 1996
Miami....................................  November 1995.......................  June 1996
Pittsburgh...............................  December 1994.......................  July 1997
Andrews AFB..............................  December 1994.......................  August 1996
Newark...................................  December 1994.......................  October 1997
Boston...................................  April 1995..........................  January 1996
Kansas City..............................  December 1994.......................  July 1995
Detroit..................................  March 1996..........................  September 1996
Houston Hobby............................  August 1995.........................  July 1996
Dallas/Love..............................  May 1995............................  January 1996
Dallas/Fort Worth........................  June 1995...........................  June 1996
Dayton...................................  May 1995............................  April 1998
Wichita..................................  June 1995...........................  September 1995
Indianapolis.............................  July 1995...........................  October 1996
Cincinnati...............................  July 1996...........................  June 1997
Philadelphia.............................  July 1996...........................  October 1997
Phoenix..................................  April 1997..........................  April 1998
Milwaukee................................  September 1997......................  November 1997
Chicago Midway...........................  April 1999..........................  November 2000
Cleveland................................  July 1996...........................  October 1996
Columbus.................................  December 1996.......................  May 1997
San Juan.................................  November 1998.......................  August 2000
West Palm Beach..........................  February 1996.......................  May 1997
Nashville................................  December 1997.......................  April 1998
Louisville...............................  December 1997.......................  March 1999
Washington Dulles........................  November 1996.......................  May 1998
Charlotte................................  September 1995......................  December 1995
Salt Lake City...........................  September 1997......................  November 1999
Fort Lauderdale..........................  November 1998.......................  November 1999
Baltimore................................  November 1996.......................  May 1997
Raleigh-Durham...........................  December 1997.......................  January 1998
Minneapolis..............................  April 1997..........................  May 1997
Oklahoma City............................  April 1997..........................  September 1997
Tulsa....................................  July 1997...........................  May 1998
New York City (JFK and LGA)..............  August 1999.........................  November 2000
Las Vegas................................  April 1999..........................  June 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT [ASDE-3]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Commissioning
         Site location              Delivery date             date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Academy \1\...............  .....................  .................
WJH Technical Center \2\......  .....................  .................
Pittsburgh, PA................  December 1989........  June 1996
San Francisco.................  November 1991........  October 1995
Dallas/Fort Worth \3\.........  February 1992........  March 1995
Philadelphia..................  February 1992........  March 1996
Los Angeles \3\...............  August 1992..........  April 1995
Detroit.......................  August 1992..........  December 1994
Cleveland.....................  August 1992..........  December 1994
Boston........................  August 1992..........  March 1995
Portland......................  August 1992..........  December 1994
Atlanta.......................  September 1992.......  January 1995
Seattle.......................  September 1992.......  December 1993
Los Angeles \3\...............  February 1993........  February 1995
Denver (DIA) \3\..............  March 1993...........  May 1995
St. Louis.....................  December 1993........  February 1995
Denver (DIA) \3\..............  December 1993........  October 1995
New York-Kennedy..............  January 1994.........  February 1995
Minneapolis...................  July 1994............  March 1995
Anchorage.....................  August 1994..........  October 1995
New Orleans...................  October 1994.........  September 1995
Baltimore.....................  November 1994........  June 1995
Kansas City...................  December 1994........  May 1995
Miami.........................  February 1995........  November 1996
Houston \3\...................  February 1995........  August 1995
Memphis.......................  June 1995............  December 1997
Chicago.......................  June 1995............  April 1996
Houston \3\...................  August 1996..........  July 1997
Charlotte.....................  February 2001........  May 2002
Louisville \4\................  August 1998..........  September 1999
Reagan Washington National....  February 1996........  TBD \5\
Cincinnati....................  October 1995.........  September 1996
Dulles........................  May 1997.............  February 1998
San Diego.....................  November 1995........  November 1996
Dallas-Fort Worth \3\ \4\.....  November 1996........  February 1998
Andrews AFB...................  January 1998.........  February 1999
Salt Lake City................  March 1998...........  June 1999
Las Vegas \4\.................  June 1999............  December 2000
New York-LaGuardia............  February 2000........  June 2001
Newark........................  June 1998............  May 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA training/field support/depot support facility.
\2\ To be relocated to Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City.
\3\ Dual sensor facilities.
\4\ Asset redirected from Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Orlando, Orange County.
\5\ A study is underway on the relocation of the ASDE-3 antenna to
  address multipath issues.

                Terminal air traffic control facilities

    Funding for terminal air traffic control started in previous years:

  St. Louis (TRACON), MO
  Houston (Hobby), TX
  Little Rock, AR
  Roanoke, VA
  Seattle (ATCT), WA
  Bedford, MA
  Salina, KS
  Newark, NJ
  Merrill Field, AK
  Pt. Columbus, OH
  North Las Vegas, NV
  Birmingham, AL
  Grand Canyon, AZ

    Phase III funding for terminal air traffic control facilities 
started in fiscal year 1998 and before:

  Topeka, KS
  Savannah, GA
  LaGuardia, NY
  Boston, MA
  Oakland, CA

    Phase II funding for terminal air traffic control facilities:

  Wilmington, DE
  Wilkes Barre, PA
  Miami, FL
  Orlando, FL
  Atlanta, GA
  Newburgh (Stewart), NY
  Champaign, IL

    Phase I funding for terminal air traffic control facilities to be 
replaced in fiscal year 2001:

  Chantilly, VA
  Gulfport, MS
  Kalamazoo, MI
  Deer Valley, AZ
  Broomfield, CO

                         advance appropriations

    The Committee has not included the advance appropriations 
for fiscal years 2001 through 2007 requested by the 
administration.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $156,495,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     184,366,000
Committee recommendation................................     183,343,000

    This appropriation finances research, engineering, and 
development programs to improve the national air traffic 
control system by increasing its safety, security, 
productivity, and capacity. The programs are designed to meet 
the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote 
flight safety. The major objectives are to keep the current 
system operating safely and efficiently; to protect the 
environment; and to modernize the system through improvements 
in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order 
to insure that the system will safely and efficiently handle 
the volume of aircraft traffic expected to materialize in the 
future.
    The Committee directs the FAA to provide greater detail in 
the budget justification presentation of the Research, 
Engineering, and Development account similar to the detail 
provided in the Facilities and Equipment account. In 
particular, the justification should continue to provide cost 
breakouts for the individual initiatives within each budget 
item, and should provide cumulative prior years' appropriations 
for each initiative and anticipated future year funding 
requirement to achieve articulated program goals. The Committee 
appreciates the effort to cross reference the various 
initiatives with agency goals and looks forward to future 
development of performance measures where appropriate and 
meaningful.
    The bill includes $183,343,000 for research, engineering, 
and development. The Committee recommendation provides the 
following allocation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal Year      Fiscal Year       Committee
                         Program Name                            2000 Enacted    2001 Estimate    Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure:
    System planning and resource management..................       $1,164,000       $1,350,000       $1,164,000
    Technical laboratory facility............................       11,075,000       13,431,000       13,431,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development..........        4,900,000        5,000,000  ...............
    Information security.....................................  ...............        5,500,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................       17,139,000       25,281,000       14,595,000
                                                              ==================================================
Weather:
    National laboratory program..............................       11,000,000       16,398,000       16,648,000
    In-house support.........................................        2,500,000        4,391,000        4,391,000
    Center for Wind, Ice and Fog.............................          700,000          700,000          700,000
    Juneau, AK...............................................        3,100,000        3,100,000        3,100,000
    SOCRATES.................................................        2,000,000        3,200,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................       19,300,000       27,789,000       24,839,000
                                                              ==================================================
Aircraft Safety Technology:
    Aircraft systems fire safety.............................        4,750,000        5,451,000        4,750,000
    Advanced materials/structural safety.....................        2,338,000        2,797,000        2,797,000
    Propulsion and fuel systems..............................        3,126,000        5,200,000        7,200,000
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research...............        3,844,000        4,109,000        4,109,000
    Aging aircraft...........................................       21,594,000       22,384,000       34,684,000
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research........        1,981,000        2,782,000        2,782,000
    Aviation safety risk analysis............................        6,824,000        6,657,000        6,657,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................       44,457,000       49,380,000       62,979,000
                                                              ==================================================
System Security Technology:
    Explosives and weapons detection and aircraft hardening..       42,606,000       37,460,000       42,606,000
    Aircraft hardening.......................................  ...............        4,307,000        4,307,000
    Airport security technology integration..................        2,285,000        2,462,000        2,462,000
    Aviation security human factors..........................        5,256,000        5,145,000        5,145,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................       50,147,000       49,374,000       54,520,000
                                                              ==================================================
Human Factors and Aviation Medicine:
    Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors.        9,142,000       10,100,000       10,100,000
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors......        8,000,000        9,950,000        8,000,000
    Aeromedical research.....................................        4,829,000        5,049,000        4,829,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................       21,971,000       25,099,000       22,929,000
                                                              ==================================================
Environment and Energy.......................................        3,481,000        7,443,000        3,481,000
                                                              ==================================================
      Total appropriation....................................      156,495,000      184,366,000      183,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                 system development and infrastructure

    Objectives: To provide (1) a systems engineering approach 
and benefit/cost analyses to the development of a comprehensive 
research, engineering, and development program and (2) 
visibility, accountability, coordination, and control of the 
research, engineering, and development activities.
    System planning and resource management.--The Committee 
recommends $1,164,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal 
year 2000.
    FAA technical laboratory facility.--The administration's 
request was $13,431,000 for work at the FAA Technical Center. 
The Committee provides the full budget request.
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.--The 
Committee provides the appropriation for the Center for 
Advanced Aviation System Development within the Facilities and 
Equipment appropriation.
    Information Security.--The Committee recommendation deletes 
the funding for this activity due to budget constraints.

                                weather

    Objectives: To improve the timeliness and accuracy of 
weather forecasting in order to enhance flight safety, increase 
system capacity, improve flight efficiency, reduce air traffic 
control [ATC] and pilot workload, improve flight planning, and 
increase productivity.
    National laboratory program.--The Committee recommends 
$16,648,000 for the National laboratory program including 
$250,000 to develop and test an aviation weather hazard 
characterization and depiction system at the University of 
Oklahoma College of Geosciences.
    SOCRATES.--The Committee recommendation deletes the funding 
for this program due to budget constraints.

                       aircraft safety technology

    Objectives: To develop technologies, standards, and 
maintenance regulations that maintain or improve aircraft 
safety in an evolving, changing, and demanding aviation 
environment.
    This research supports airborne data monitoring systems, 
advanced materials and crashworthiness research, the Center for 
Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR), and the Aging Aircraft 
Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center (AANC), which 
conduct research in the area of aircraft safety technology. The 
research initiatives in this area are a unique and 
comprehensive effort to improve the safety of aging aircraft by 
applying new technical capabilities in inspection, and drawing 
upon expertise in government, university and industry.
    Aircraft systems fire safety.--The Committee recommends 
$4,750,000, the same level provided in fiscal year 2000.
    Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee recommends 
$7,200,000 for the Propulsion and fuel systems program 
including $2,000,000 for the Specialty Metals Processing 
Consortium.
    Aging Aircraft.--The Committee recommends $34,684,000 for 
this program, including an increase of $1,800,000 above the 
budget request for the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability 
(CASR). This funding represents a slight increase above the 
average commitment to the level of effort at CASR on enhancing 
the reliability of airframes and related initiatives and 
provides necessary funding to establish research efforts in 
fluorescent penetrant inspection. In addition, the recommended 
level includes $2,200,000 above the budget request for 
activities of the engine titanium consortium effort and 
$11,300,000 for the activities of the Airworthiness Assurance 
Center of Excellence including the research at the 
nondestructive inspection validation center.

                       system security technology

    Objectives: To enhance the security of passengers and crews 
in all aspects of aircraft, airports, and related ATC 
facilities by developing systems that prevent or deter 
terrorist activities.
    Explosives and Weapon Detection.--The Committee recommends 
$42,606,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 2000. 
Of this amount $6,000,000 is to continue development of the 
pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) cargo inspection system and 
$1,000,000 is for the Safe Skies initiative involving research 
and development of explosives and chemical or biological agents 
currently being conducted by the Institute of Biological 
Detection Systems. Further, the Committee directs that the FAA 
continue to fund dual use X-ray technology, which moves large 
amounts of palletized cargo through scanning systems with very 
high levels of contraband and threat detection.

                  human factors and aviation medicine

    Objectives: To establish ways to improve the effectiveness 
of human performance in the operation of the aviation system 
and to seek better methods for preventing human error, 
accidents, and incidents.
    Flight deck, Maintenance, System Integration Human 
Factors.--The Committee provides $10,100,000, the requested 
budget level and directs the FAA to evaluate the need for a 
pilot training module designed to instruct pilots on how to 
respond to loss-of-control aircraft, the second leading cause 
of airline accidents.
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The 
Committee recommends $8,000,000 for this program, the same 
level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
    Aeromedical research.--The Committee recommends $4,829,000, 
the same level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

                         environment and energy

    Objectives: To protect the environment, conserve energy, 
and keep the U.S. air transportation industry strong and 
competitive. The Committee recommends $3,481,000, the same 
level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,750,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   1,960,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,200,000,000

    Chapter 471 of title 49, U.S.C. authorizes a program of 
grants to fund airport planning and development and noise 
compatibility planning and projects for public use airports in 
all States and territories.
    The Committee recommends $3,200,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the 
Committee's obligation limitation on airport programs for 
fiscal year 2001 and for the payment of previous years' 
obligations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Obligation limitation, 2000 \1\.........................  $1,950,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   1,950,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 3,200,000,000

\1\ Reflects reduction of $54,362,000 pursuant to section 301 of Public 
Law 106-113.
\2\ Includes $120,000,000 available for air traffic services if 
necessary to maintain aviation safety.

    The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2001 
for grants-in-aid to airports is $3,200,000,000 and is intended 
to be sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing 
airport and airway safety, ensuring that airport standards can 
be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing 
additional capacity. The amount provided includes $120,000,000 
which may be available for air traffic services to maintain 
aviation safety.
    The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of 
funding is available to airports in the form of passenger 
facility charges [PFC's]. The first PFC charge began for 
airlines tickets issued on June 1, 1992. DOT data shows that as 
of March 1, 2000, 314 airports have been approved for 
collection of PFC's in the amount of $24,700,000,000. During 
calendar year 1999 airports collected $1,515,000,000 in PFC 
charges and $1,550,000,000 is estimated to be collected in 
calendar year 2000. Of the airports collecting PFC's, 
approximately one-fourth collected about 90 percent of the 
total, and all of these are either large or medium hub 
airports. Prior to the authorized increase in PFC charges, the 
DOT estimated that these airports will collect more than 
$1,400,000,000 in calendar year 2000, depending on the number 
of applications received and approved and assuming current 
statutory authority. Eventually, the funding to airports from 
the 50 percent nominal increase in authorized passenger 
facility charges will result in dramatically increased 
resources for airport improvements, expansions, and 
enhancements.

                       Limitation On Obligations

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$3,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. This is $1,250,000,000 
(64.1 percent) above the President's budget request and the 
same amount above the fiscal year 2000 level.
    A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to 
the fiscal year 2000 levels and the President's budget request 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                 2000 enacted    2001 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements.................................................   $1,100,434,505   $1,127,704,636   $1,943,417,033
    Primary airports.........................................      556,348,911      566,769,374    1,056,383,909
    Cargo airports (3 percent)...............................       55,519,140       55,850,610       93,350,610
    Alaska supplemental......................................       10,672,557       10,672,557       21,345,114
    States (20 percent)......................................      342,368,030      344,412,095      622,337,400
    Carryover entitlement....................................      135,525,867      150,000,000      150,000,000
Small Airport Fund...........................................      142,204,990      146,461,513      274,936,625
    Non hub..................................................       81,259,994       83,692,293      157,106,643
    Non commercial service...................................       40,629,997       41,846,147       78,553,321
    Small hub................................................       20,314,999       20,923,073       39,276,661
Discretionary Set Asides.....................................      231,039,432      223,257,924      345,362,670
    Noise (34 percent of discretionary)......................      206,719,492      199,757,089      303,733,336
    Reliever (0.66 percent of discretionary).................  ...............  ...............        5,896,000
    Military airport program (4 percent of discretionary)....       24,319,940       23,500,835       35,733,334
Other Discretionary..........................................      376,959,073      364,262,927      583,280,675
    Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise...........................      282,719,305      273,197,195      410,978,004
    Remaining discretionary..................................       94,239,768       91,065,732      172,302,671
Administration...............................................       45,000,000       53,003,000       53,000,000
Airport Research.............................................  ...............        7,380,000  ...............
Essential Air Service........................................  ...............       27,900,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total limitation on obligations........................    1,895,638,000    1,950,000,000    3,200,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      AIRPORT DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

    Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, 
$928,643,345 is available for discretionary grants to airports.
    The Committee has carefully considered a broad array of 
discretionary grant requests that can be expected in fiscal 
year 2001. Specifically, the Committee expects the FAA to give 
priority consideration to applications for the projects listed 
below in the catergories of the AIP for which they are 
eligible. If funds in the remaining discretionary category are 
used for any projects in fiscal year 2000 that are not listed 
below, the Committee expects that they will be for projects for 
which FAA has issued letters of intent (including letters of 
intent the Committee recommends below that the FAA subsequently 
issues), or for projects that will produce significant aviation 
safety improvements or significant improvements in systemwide 
capacity or otherwise have a very high benefit/cost ratio.
    Within the program levels recommended, the Committee 
directs that priority be given to applications involving the 
further development of the following airports:

Abbeville Airport, AL
Abilene Regional Airport, TX
Abrams Municipal Airport in Grand Ledge, MI
Akutan Airport, AK
Albany International Airport, NY
Anaconda/Deer Lodge County Airport, MT
Anchorage International Airport, AK
Arnold Palmer Regional Airport, PA
Atka Airport, AK
Augusta Regional Airport, GA
Austin Straubel International Airport, WI
Baltimore Washington International Airport, MD
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, LA
Bay Bridge Airport, MD
Bay Minette Municipal Airport, AL
Beaver Head County Airport, MT
Benedum Airport, WV
Bennington Airport, VT
Billings-Logan International Airport, MT
Birmingham International Airport, AL
Bishop International Airport, MI
Boeing Field, WA
Braxton County Airport, WV
Brookhaven-Lincoln County Airport, MS
Bucyrus City Airport, OH
Buffalo Airport Center, NY
Butler County Airport, PA
Carroll County Airport, MD
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA
Cherry Capitol Airport New Airport, MI
Chignik Lagoon Airport, AK
Chippewa County International Airport, MI
Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, WI
Clayton Airport, AL
Cochran Municipal Airport, GA
Concord Regional Airport, NC
County Airport in Escanaba, MI
Cumberland Regional Airport, MD
DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, GA
Detroit City Airport, MI
Detroit Metroit, Oakland County International, MI
Dillingham Airport, AK
Dona Ana County Airport, NM
Eastern West Virginia Airport, WV
Edward F. Knapp Airport, VT
Elba Municipal Airport, AL
Elkins-Randolph County Airport, WV
Erie International Airport, PA
Fairhope Municipal Airport, AL
Fayette County Airport, PA
Felts Field, WA
Ford Airport, GA
Frederick Municipal Airport, MD
Freeport Alterbertus Airport, IL
Fulton County Airport, GA
Gadsen Airport, AL
Garrett County Airport, MD
Gary Airport, IN
George Bush Intercontinental Airport/Houston, TX
Gerald R. Ford International Airport, MI
Glacier Park International Airport, MT
Golden Triangle Regional Airport, MS
Great Falls International Airport, MT
Greenville Municipal Airport, AL
Greenwood-Leflore Airport, MS
Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport, MS
Hagerstown Regional Airport, MD
Harrisburg International Airport, PA
Hawkins Field Airport, MS
Headland Municipal Airport, AL
Heart of Georgia Airport, Eastman, GA
Heber City Municipal Airport, UT
Helena Regional Airport, MT
Henry E. Rohlsen Airport on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
Henry Tift Meyers Airport, GA
Gladwin Airport, Gladwin, MI
Grant County Airport, WV
Greenbrier Valley, WV
Hoonah Airport, AK
Houghton County Memorial Airport, MI
Indiana County Airport, PA
Iuka Airport, MS
Jackson County Airport, WV
Jackson International Airport, MS
Juneau International Airport, AK
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek International, MI
Kalispell City Airport, MT
Kee Field Airport, WV
Kent County International Airport, MD
Key Field Airport, MS
Klawock Airport, AK
Knapp Airport, Berlin, VT
Lafayette Regional Airport, LA
Lanawee County Airport, MI
Lancaster Airport, PA
Lehigh Valley International Airport, PA
Lewistown Municipal Airport, MT
Livingston County Airport, Howell, MI
Logan County Airport, WV
Louisville International-Standiford Field (Jim DeLong-Regional 
Airport), KY
Madison County Executive Airport, AL
Mammoth Lakes Airport, CA
Marin County Airport (Goss Field), CA
Marshall City Airport, WV
Mason County Airport, WV
McAllen Miller International Airport, TX
Memphis International Airport, TN
Memphis-Shelby County Airport, TN
Mercer City Airport, WV
Mid-Delta Regional Airport, MS
Midland-Bay-Saginaw International Airport, MI
Mingo County Airport, WV
Minot International Airport, ND
Missoula International Airport, MT
Montgomery Regional Airport, AL
Moorehead Municipal Airport, MN
Morgantown Airport, WV
Mt. Washington Regional Airport, Whitefield, NH
Nashville International Airport, TN
Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport, VA
Oakland-Pontiac Airport, MI
Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT
Ohio University Airport, OH
Olive Branch Airport, MS
Oscoda-Wurthsmith Airport, MI
Palmer Municipal Airport, AK
Palwaukee Municipal Airport, IL
Pease International Tradeport Airport, NH
Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS
Phillips Army Air Field at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Picayune Municipal Airport, MS
Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC
Pittsburgh International Airport, PA
Ponca City Municipal Airport, OK
Port Columbus International Airport, OH
Prattville Autauga County Airport, AL
Provo Municipal Airport, UT
Pryor Field Regional Airport, AL
Quillayute Airport, WA
Raleigh City Memorial Airport, WV
Reading Municipal, General Carl A Spaatz Field, PA
Reynolds Airport, Jackson County, MI
Richard B. Russell Field, GA
Rickenbacker International Airport, OH
Roberts Field/Redmond Municipal Airport, OR
Rock County Airport, WI
Russellville Municipal Airport, AL
Rutland State Airport, VT
Salisbury/Wicomico Regional Airport, MD
Salt Lake City International Airport, UT
Sawyer Airport, MI
Southern Illinois Airport, IL
Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, GA
Southwest Michigan Regional Airport, MI
Spokane International Airport, WA
Springfield-Branson Regional Airport, MO
Statesboro Municipal Airport, GA
Stennis International Airport, MS
Summersville Airport,
Syracuse Hancock International, NY
Tishomingo County Airport, MS
Toledo Express Airport, OH
Tooele Valley Airport, UT
Tri-State Airport, WV
Troy Municipal Airport, AL
Tulip City Airport, MI
Tunica Municipal Airport, MS
Tupelo Municipal Airport, MS
University-Oxford Airport, MS
Vero Beach Municipal Airport, FL
Walker County Airport, AL
Waynesboro Municipal, MS
Wendover Airport, UT
Westmoreland County Airport, PA
Wheeling-Ohio City Airport, WV
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, PA
William B. Hartsfield-Atlanta International, GA
Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, PA
Will Rogers World Airport, OK
Wittman Regional Airport, WI
Wood County Airport, WV
Wright Army Airfield, GA
Yeager Airport, WV

    Abbeville Airport, AL.--The FAA Administrator is urged to 
work with the Abbeville Airport and interested local officials 
to foster the inclusion of this important local aviation 
facility on the NPIAS. Upon inclusion, the airport safety and 
expansion projects should be given priority consideration by 
the FAA Administrator.
    Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned about the adequacy of the security provided for the 
entire airport at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, not just the small, 
immediate area around the terminal. While security fencing of 
the immediate area of the terminal might address the security 
needs of the airport in its existing role as a weather divert 
airport, that fencing is inadequate to prepare properly for the 
airport's role during the Olympics or for anticipated growth. 
The Committee is concerned about the vulnerability of the 
runways, taxiways, hangars, tie-downs, the heli-pad, the de-
icing area and other facilities outside the 650 feet of fencing 
immediately adjacent to the terminal. Notwithstanding the 
current lack of commercial traffic, the Committee directs the 
Administrator to give priority consideration to providing 
funding for the erection of a fence and gateways to provide 
physical security around the entire perimeter of the airport 
and which meets the antiterrorism plans of the Olympic 
Organizing Committee.
    Lafayette Airport, Louisiana.--The Committee urges the FAA 
to give priority consideration to discretionary funding for 
runway, taxiway, landing and lighting system, and equipment 
improvements. There are critical runway upgrades that must be 
addressed immediately including rubber removal, seal-coating, 
groove and mark striping of runway 4R/22L as well as an 
extension of the north safety area of runway 4R/22L to 1,000 
feet.
    Jackson International Airport, Jackson, MS.--The Committee 
is aware that the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority has 
undertaken the phased construction of a new air cargo park at 
the Jackson International Airport, for which $7,000,000 in FAA, 
EDA and local funding has already been committed. In order to 
meet schedule requirements for final design and construction of 
Segment I of the project, the Committee encourages the FAA to 
give priority consideration to requests by the Jackson 
International Airport for discretionary funding to complete 
construction of the air cargo apron and related improvements, 
including the paving of the taxi connection to the runway.
    Albany International Airport, New York.--The Committee 
urges the FAA to give priority consideration to a discretionary 
application for funding to extend Runway 10-28.
    South Central Alaska float plane facility.--The Committee 
directs the FAA to work with the State of Alaska, local 
aviation officials, and interested aviation operators and float 
plane enthusiasts to study possible locations for a new float 
plane facility in South Central Alaska to minimize air traffic 
conflicts and to efficiently service the large float plane 
population. The Committee notes that Alaska has the highest 
rate of small plane ownership in the country and that Lake Hood 
in Anchorage is the busiest float plane base in the world. The 
FAA shall study possible locations for a new float plane base 
to address the backlog of slips at Lake Hood. Suitable 
locations should be less than 1 hour by road or marine link 
from Anchorage and Wasilla.
    Syracuse Hancock International Airport, New York.--The 
Committee urges the FAA to give priority consideration to a 
request for discretionary funding to repair the aircraft rescue 
and fire fighting building at Syracuse Hancock International 
Airport.
    Buffalo Niagara International Airport, New York.--The 
Committee directs the FAA Administrator to give priority 
consideration to two projects at the Buffalo Niagara 
International Airport to extend Runway 14-32 and other safety 
improvements. This first project provides for the extension of 
the airport's crosswind runway, Runway 14-32, by approximately 
1,790 feet to accommodate carriers in the event that the 
airport's main runway, Runway 5-23, is disabled by weather or 
repair work. At present, air carrier operators may not use 
Runway 14-32 because of its inadequate length and because of 
its poor instrumentation. The project would improve those 
instrumentation deficiencies and remove a remote refueling 
station which is located in the prospective Taxiway Object Free 
Area (OFA) of the extended Runway 14-32. The second project is 
to expand the apron and to make east access improvements to the 
airport to facilitate the East Terminal expansion.
    Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus, OH.--The 
Committee is pleased to note the continued significant progress 
made in the transition of the former Rickenbacker Air Force 
Base to the Rickenbacker International Airport and Foreign 
Trade Zone No. 138. The Committee directs the FAA to give 
priority consideration to grant applications within available 
discretionary programs, including the Military Airports 
Program, that will support Rickenbacker's 5-year capital 
improvement plan to address essential infrastructure needs.
    George Bush InterContinental Airport, TX.--The Committee 
directs the FAA Administrator to give priority consideration to 
the airport's $2,000,000 discretionary request for a fuel-cell 
demonstration project to evaluate an emergency airport vehicle 
technology to meet the power demands of airline ground service 
equipment while concurrently cutting air emissions at airports.
    Port Columbus International Airport, OH.--The Committee 
directs the FAA Administrator to give priority consideration to 
a terminal apron reconstruction (pavement overlay) and a 
partial reconstruction of the terminal apron pavement. In 
addition, the airport is in need of a glycol retention and 
treatment system to meet National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements.
    Concord Regional Airport, NC.--The Committee directs that 
the Administrator give priority consideration to the airport 
improvement, expansion, and safety projects at the Concord 
Regional Airport. In addition, the Committee is concerned that 
the Concord Regional Airport, and other similarly situated 
airports not be penalized by the Block Grant Program policy as 
implemented by the FAA. An airport offered for priority 
consideration by the Congress should not be frustrated in the 
discretionary grant process by virtue of the host state's 
participation in the Block Grant Program. The operations at the 
Concord Regional Airport grew from 45,000 in 1998 to almost 
67,000 in 1999, and are projected to exceed 80,000 by the end 
of calendar year 2000. Clearly, any blanket policy that 
effectively precludes an airport experiencing this type of 
operational growth from participating in the discretionary 
grant process is flawed and should either be revised or 
rescinded. The FAA is directed to respond to the Committee 
regarding the impact of this policy on airports such as Concord 
Regional, proposed safeguards to remedy the described impact on 
this airport, and a justification for continuing the policy, if 
warranted.
    Baton Rouge, LA.--The Committee directs the FAA 
Administrator to give priority consideration to the noise 
mitigation program at Baton Rouge Airport in Louisiana and to a 
series of projects to reconstruct taxiway ``F'' and the east 
side apron, the perimeter road (phase I) project, construction 
of taxiway ``C'', pavement overlay for runway 13L-31R, and the 
reconstruction of runway 4L-22R.
    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.

                           LETTERS OF INTENT

    Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI's] to 
fund multiyear airport improvement projects that will 
significantly enhance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also 
to consider a project's benefits and costs in determining 
whether to approve it for AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of 
committing to LOI's no more than about 50 percent of forecasted 
discretionary funds allocated for capacity, safety, security, 
and noise projects. The Committee viewed this policy as 
reasonable because it gave FAA the flexibility to fund other 
worthy projects that do not fall under a LOI. Both FAA and 
airport authorities have found letters of intent helpful in 
planning and funding airport development.
    Current letters of intent assume the following fiscal year 
2001 grant allocations:

Alaska: Anchorage International.........................      $5,018,750
Arkansas: Fayetteville (northwest Arkansas).............       7,000,000
California: Sacramento Metro............................       1,600,000
Florida:
    Fort Myers Southwest Florida International..........       4,000,000
    Orlando International...............................       6,473,591
Georgia: Hartsfield Atlanta International...............       9,998,300
Illinois:
    Mid-America, Belleville reliever....................      14,000,000
    Chicago Midway......................................       9,000,000
Kentucky:
    Greater Cincinnati..................................       1,561,725
    Louisville..........................................       3,525,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan..........................      16,850,000
Minnesota: Minneapolis-St. Paul International...........      10,000,000
Missouri: St. Louis Lambert International...............      13,910,000
Nevada:
    Reno/Tahoe International............................       7,600,000
    Las Vegas-Henderson Sky Harbor......................       2,540,000
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State...................       1,100,000
Tennessee: Memphis International........................       6,800,000
Texas:
    New Austin at Bergstrom.............................       6,775,188
    Midland.............................................       1,194,207
Utah: Salt Lake City International......................       9,000,000
Virginia: Reagan Washington National....................      13,249,000
Washington: Seattle-Tacoma International................      11,700,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     162,895,761

    In addition, applications are pending for capacity 
enhancement projects which would, if constructed, significantly 
reduce congestion and delay. These projects require multiyear 
funding commitments. The Committee recommends that the FAA 
enter into letters of intent for multiyear funding of such 
capacity enhancement projects.
    Baltimore-Washington International Airport.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to 
the application of Baltimore-Washington International Airport 
for a letter of intent for a major capital improvement program 
including expansion of existing piers, runway and taxiway 
rehabilitation projects, and a mid-field cargo complex.
    Memphis International Airport, TN.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to 
the Memphis International Airport's application for a letter of 
intent for the airport expansion and improvement projects 
described in the authority's application. The projects include 
the reconstruction of runway 18R-36L, the extension of taxiway 
N to the south end of runway 18R-36L, construction of an 
aircraft apron at the south end of taxiway N, reconstruction of 
taxiway M, and the equipping of taxiway M as a temporary 
runway. The Committee is informed that substantial safety, 
capacity and economic benefits will accrue from the completion 
of this project.
    Anchorage International Airport, AK.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to 
the Anchorage International Airport's application for a letter 
of intent for the North/South Runway Parallel taxiways, SAP 
taxiways, WAP taxiways, roads and utilities relocations, Runway 
extension, Apron construction and reconstructions. The 
Anchorage International Airport is a major passenger, 
international cargo, and float plane facility. The Committee is 
informed that substantial safety, system capacity, efficiency, 
and furtherance of the Gateway program will result from the 
planned improvements at the airport.
    Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to 
the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's application for a letter 
of intent for construction of a parallel runway (5L-23R), and 
related improvements described in the authority's application, 
which are necessary to integrate this new runway into existing 
facilities. The Committee is informed that substantial safety, 
capacity and economic benefits will accrue from the completion 
of this project.
    George Bush Intercontinental Airport/Houston.--The 
Committee encourages the FAA to give full and immediate 
consideration to the George Bush Intercontinental Airport's 
request for a letter of intent for its proposed capital 
improvement program which includes terminal and airfield 
development, a new runway, and extension and widening of an 
existing runway. The Committee is informed that the airport 
improvement will have national capacity enhancing impacts and 
will increase the efficiency of the airport contributing to a 
reduction in congestion at the airport and throughout the 
system.

                             ADMINISTRATION

    The bill provides that, within the overall obligation 
limitation, $53,000,000 is available for administration of the 
airports program by the FAA. Of those funds, $4,500,000 is only 
available for the development of GPS approaches at airports 
that experience capacity constraints and significant 
operational delays due to weather. The Committee is convinced 
that substantial individual airport capacity and system-wide 
benefits will accrue through the FAA's aggressive development 
of GPS approaches at selected airports. In this regard, the FAA 
should develop a GPS approach for Bert Mooney Airport and work 
with the State of Oregon to facilitate the development of GPS 
approaches within their State program. This effort can be 
accommodated within the substantial growth in the 
administrative funding for the airports program.

                           general provision

    FAA Facilities on Airport Property.--The bill contains a 
provision (sec. 340) concerning FAA facilities on airport 
property. In order to maintain the FAA's future ability to 
secure below-market financing of FAA facilities located on 
airport property, the Committee believes FAA should continue 
its decades-old practice of paying below-market rates for the 
construction of buildings, maintenance, utilities and expenses 
(including replacement costs of older buildings) to airport 
sponsors for space in airport buildings relating to ATC, FSS/
FSDO, air navigation and ATC weather-reporting and 
communication activities. As local governmental entities, 
airport sponsors have saved FAA significant real estate expense 
by providing the Agency, at the sponsor's risk, below-market 
financing for buildings required for ATC facilities. The 
Committee continues to agree with the long-standing airport 
grant assurance, ``Land for Federal Facilities,'' which 
specifies that airport sponsors shall furnish without cost to 
the FAA land for ATC facilities. However, that assurance also 
specifies that building expenses are permitted to be paid by 
the FAA, and the Committee agrees that it is in the best long-
term economic interest of the FAA's current and future need for 
ATC building facilities to continue to pay reasonable rental 
rates for FAA space occupied in airport sponsor-owned 
buildings. As such, the Committee believes that FAA should not 
pursue guidelines that would require airport sponsors to 
provide cost-free space. In addition, the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General should provide the Committee 
with a study assessing the cost to airport sponsors of changing 
the current practice.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                 (RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

    The bill includes a rescission of $579,000,000 in contract 
authority. This budget authority was made available in Public 
Law 106-181 for obligation during fiscal year 2000. However, 
since such funds are above the obligation limitation for that 
year, they are not available for obligation and are therefore 
available for rescission. This recommendation will have no 
programmatic impact, since the funding is not currently 
available for use in the AIP program.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    The principle missions of the Federal Highway 
Administration are: to provide Federal financial and technical 
assistance to the States to plan, construct, and improve the 
National Highway System, urban and rural roads, and bridges; to 
foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective 
highway and intermodal system nationwide; and to provide access 
to and within National Forests, National Parks, Indian Lands 
and other public lands.
    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $30,701,382,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2001. The 
following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels, 
the fiscal year 2001 program request and the Committee's 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                             Program                               2000 program     2001 budget   recommendation
                                                                       level         estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways limitation \1\ \2\.........................     27,701,350      29,318,806      29,661,806
    Limitation on administrative expenses \3\...................       (376,072)       (315,834)       (386,658)
Exempt Federal-aid obligations..................................      1,206,702       1,039,576       1,039,576
Emergency relief supplemental obligations.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Ellsworth \4\...................................................         (3,000)  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     28,908,052      30,358,382      30,701,382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program and in 2000 includes $76,000,000
  in administrative expenses for motor carriers.
\2\ Does not reflect reduction of $105,260,000 pursuant to 0.38 percent reduction in section 301 of Public Law
  106-113.
\3\ Does not reflect reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69; fiscal year 2000 includes
  $76,058,000 for administrative expenses of the Office of Motor Carriers.
\4\ Pursuant to section 3029 of Public Law 106-31.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $376,072,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................     315,834,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................     386,657,840

\1\ In fiscal year 2001, funding for motor carrier administration 
expenses is included as a separate limitation in the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration.

    The limitation on administrative expenses controls spending 
for virtually all the salaries and expenses of the Federal 
Highway Administration. The Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century changed the funding source for the highway 
research accounts from the administrative takedown of the 
Federal-Aid Highway Program to individual contract authority 
provisions. The Committee recommends a limitation of 
$386,657,840. This limitation excludes funding for the 
operations of the office of motor carriers, which is now 
provided in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 
consistent with the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999. The budget request included a number of legislative set-
asides within this limitation. The Committee has not included 
these items legislatively in the bill.
    The following table reflects the fiscal year 2000 level, 
the 2001 level requested by the administration, and the 
Committee's recommendation:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                           Program                                                2001 budget     recommendation
                                                                2000 level \1\      estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses:
    Salaries and benefits....................................          202,756          210,748          210,748
    Travel...................................................            9,473            9,473            9,473
    Transportation...........................................              663              465              465
    GSA rent.................................................           20,275           16,537           16,537
    Communications, rent, and utilities......................            9,955            9,857            9,857
    Printing.................................................            1,609            1,512            1,512
    TASC.....................................................            7,764            6,621            6,621
    Supplies.................................................            2,079            2,021            2,021
    Equipment................................................            4,947            6,947            4,947
    Sec. 1102(f) restorations................................           98,500          ( \2\ )           96,231
    Other....................................................           44,834           51,653           28,246
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................          304,355          315,834          386,658
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $1,233,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Administration requests for these programs were included elsewhere in Federal Highways.

    Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$210,748,000 for this appropriation. The Committee 
recommendation for administrative expenses provides FHWA the 
flexibility to allocate the appropriation among such expenses 
as ADP, permanent change of station, travel, transportation, 
salaries and benefits consistent with the other recommendations 
in the report. The Committee notes that the on-board workforce 
is 200 FTE below authorized levels for fiscal year 2000 which 
should provide ample flexibility to execute the program within 
the appropriated level.
    Information technology activities.--The Committee has 
deferred increases in information technology activities 
totaling $2,400,000 in fiscal year 2001 pending a review of the 
need and compatibility by the Department of Transportation 
chief information officer of the proposed new systems and 
enhancements and a determination of outyear costs.
    Workforce development.--The Committee recommendation 
includes the requested $4,330,000 for workforce development 
activities.
    Rural transportation planning initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation deletes the requested funding for the new rural 
transportation planning initiative as potentially duplicative 
of the LTAP and RTAP efforts and encourages the FHWA to 
initiate with the FTA, within those programs, appropriate 
modules to identify or address the most pressing rural 
transportation deficiencies.
    Climate change center.--The Committee recommendation 
deletes the request for funding to establish a climate change 
center, which would conduct and coordinate the Department of 
Transportation's research on environmental strategies. The 
Committee recommendation provides funds within the FHWA 
research and technology program for the conduct of 
environmental research and questions the necessity of 
establishing a new center to coordinate this specific research.
    Delta initiative.--The Committee recommendation does not 
include funding for the Delta initiative as requested in the 
budget due to budget constraints, incomplete articulation of 
programmatic objectives, and the applicability of other 
authorized programs to address elements of the initiative. The 
Committee seeks greater understanding of the administration's 
goals in this regard and stands ready to work with the 
administration to identify available funding for these and 
other economically beneficial initiatives for rurally 
impoverished regions of the country.
    Technology sharing and transfer activities.--The Committee 
recommendation does not include the funding requested to 
encourage greater sharing among the Department of 
Transportation various administrations and their research and 
technology constituencies. Sufficient funding is provided for 
training and education activities in the highway research and 
technology programs to further the goals of this initiative.
    National personal transportation survey.--The Committee 
recommendation does not provide the request for a national 
personal transportation survey under this heading. The 
Committee has included funding for this activity within the 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics appropriation.
    International trade data systems.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the requested funding for international 
trade data systems. Within the funding provided, the Committee 
directs the FHWA to conduct a study with the University of 
Texas at El Paso and Dowling College of Long Island, NY through 
the NAFTA Intermodal Transportation Institute on transportation 
issues emerging from NAFTA and to work with the Arctic Council 
to identify opportunities for international cooperation and 
development in the circumpolar region.
    OIG audit reimbursement.--The Committee recommendation 
directs the FHWA to reimburse the Office of Inspector General 
$10,000,000 for audit and other highway related review work 
conducted in that office.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2000

                                                       ($27,701,350,000)

Budget estimate, 2001 \1\

                                                        (29,318,806,000)

Committee recommendation \2\

                                                        (29,661,806,000)

\1\ The budget request includes new obligations of $3,058,000,000 
associated with revenue aligned budget authority, of which $598,000,000 
is transferred to other modal administrations. The request also includes 
$255,000,000 in additional obligation authority.
\2\ The Committee recommendation includes $26,603,806,000 in guaranteed 
obligations, and $3,058,000,000 in obligations resulting from revenue 
aligned budget authority, consistent with current law.

    The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 2001 Federal-aid highways obligations to $29,661,806,000, 
an increase of $1,960,456,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level and $343,000,000 over the budget request. The recommended 
level is the level assumed in TEA21.
    The obligation limitation for the Federal-aid highways 
program included in this bill includes $3,058,000,000 in 
obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority. 
TEA21 provides for an automatic increase in the Federal-aid 
highways 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. 
Under 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 apportioned and allocated programs, and for the 
overall Federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an 
equal amount, and certain amounts to be distributed to the 
motor carrier safety grants program of the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration. In total, the estimate of 
increased income, and therefore, budget authority and 
obligations for fiscal year 2001 is $3,058,000,000.
    The budget request--in contravention of provisions of 
TEA21--proposed to allocate this additional obligation 
authority in fiscal year 2001 to other programs, including 
NHTSA's operations and research program; FTA's job access and 
reverse commute program; high speed rail activities; and the 
commercial drivers license program.
    In addition, the budget request included several proposals 
which are not included in the Committee's recommendation. These 
proposals included: (1) a set aside of $1,200,000 from funds 
made available for administrative expenses for training on 
Indian reservations; (2) an additional $25,000,000 for the 
transportation and community and system preservation program; 
(3) an additional $140,000,000 for the national corridor 
planning and border infrastructure program; (4) an additional 
$221,500,000 for transportation research programs; and (5) 
$398,000,000 to implement an emergency relief reserve fund. 
These proposals have not been approved by the Committee as they 
are unauthorized and if adopted would have required 
corresponding reductions in the States' apportionments and 
their obligation authority in fiscal year 2001.
    The following table indicates estimated obligations by 
State within the $29,661,806,000 provided by this Act and in 
permanent law:

  ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2001 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AND REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY (RABA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  OBLIGATION
                            STATES                              LIMITATION \1\        RABA            TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................     $478,393,294      $60,783,866     $539,177,160
Alaska.......................................................      273,338,905       35,732,730      309,071,635
Arizona......................................................      386,599,345       49,704,732      436,304,077
Arkansas.....................................................      312,654,965       39,628,622      352,283,587
California...................................................    2,211,981,611      281,962,890    2,493,944,501
Colorado.....................................................      275,490,135       35,004,926      310,495,061
Connecticut..................................................      353,217,355       45,542,794      398,760,149
Delaware.....................................................      103,731,809       13,268,662      117,000,471
District of Columbia.........................................       93,741,325       11,865,040      105,606,365
Florida......................................................    1,121,666,241      144,774,894    1,266,441,135
Georgia......................................................      832,178,590      106,971,898      939,150,488
Hawaii.......................................................      121,240,964       15,525,466      136,766,430
Idaho........................................................      181,168,531       23,146,002      204,314,533
Illinois.....................................................      795,299,213      101,421,628      896,720,841
Indiana......................................................      555,444,640       71,291,154      626,735,794
Iowa.........................................................      283,379,331       36,047,704      319,427,035
Kansas.......................................................      276,678,619       35,139,478      311,818,097
Kentucky.....................................................      423,684,551       54,114,368      477,798,919
Louisiana....................................................      376,584,623       48,126,804      424,711,427
Maine........................................................      124,948,152       15,782,338      140,730,490
Maryland.....................................................      386,612,173       49,395,874      436,008,047
Massachusetts................................................      440,827,553       55,894,124      496,721,677
Michigan.....................................................      770,487,758       98,736,704      869,224,462
Minnesota....................................................      352,733,729       44,961,774      397,695,503
Mississippi..................................................      295,425,345       37,695,966      333,121,311
Missouri.....................................................      585,613,867       74,578,504      660,192,371
Montana......................................................      230,749,423       29,775,746      260,525,169
Nebraska.....................................................      183,090,968       23,295,844      206,386,812
Nevada.......................................................      169,145,618       21,736,264      190,881,882
New Hampshire................................................      121,821,196       15,482,654      137,303,850
New Jersey...................................................      632,567,758       80,764,838      713,332,596
New Mexico...................................................      231,198,136       29,641,194      260,839,330
New York.....................................................    1,211,655,529      154,826,540    1,366,482,069
North Carolina...............................................      662,205,968       84,939,008      747,144,976
North Dakota.................................................      153,765,807       19,650,708      173,416,515
Ohio.........................................................      823,947,807      105,158,504      929,106,311
Oklahoma.....................................................      364,937,744       46,417,382      411,355,126
Oregon.......................................................      291,813,790       36,536,984      328,350,774
Pennsylvania.................................................    1,190,371,427      149,606,534    1,339,977,961
Rhode Island.................................................      139,958,730       17,867,894      157,826,624
South Carolina...............................................      393,474,564       50,215,418      443,689,982
South Dakota.................................................      171,367,488       21,439,638      192,807,126
Tennessee....................................................      544,746,298       69,511,398      614,257,696
Texas........................................................    1,785,645,239      229,230,738    2,014,875,977
Utah.........................................................      190,699,752       24,332,506      215,032,258
Vermont......................................................      107,423,888       13,715,130      121,139,018
Virginia.....................................................      615,042,972       78,633,412      693,676,384
Washington...................................................      421,802,708       53,606,740      475,409,448
West Virginia................................................      267,976,665       33,943,800      301,920,465
Wisconsin....................................................      465,112,354       59,725,798      524,838,152
Wyoming......................................................      163,917,007       20,846,386      184,763,393
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................   23,947,561,460    3,058,000,000   27,005,561,460
                                                              ==================================================
Allocation Programs \2\......................................    2,656,244,540  ...............    2,656,244,540
                                                              ==================================================
      Total..................................................   26,603,806,000    3,058,000,000   29,661,806,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Special Limitation (Minimum Guarantee, Appalachian Development Highway, High Priority Projects).
\2\ Includes Territorial High Priority Projects.

                     FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

    Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a 
Federal-State partnership. States and localities maintain 
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new 
construction of roads. State highway departments have the 
authority to initiate Federal-aid projects subject to FHWA 
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The 
Federal Government provides financial support for construction 
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary 
with the type of road.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), 
the highway, highway safety, and transit authorization through 
fiscal year 2003 makes funds available in the following major 
categories:
    National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized the 
National Highway System (NHS), which was subsequently 
established as a 163,000-mile road system by the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This system serves 
major population centers, intermodal transportation facilities, 
national border crossings, and major destinations. It is 
comprised of all interstate routes, selected urban and 
principal rural arterials, defense highways, and major highway 
connectors carrying up to 75 percent of commercial truck 
traffic and 40 percent of all vehicle traffic. States may 
transfer up to half of its NHS funds to the Surface 
Transportation program (STP) and all NHS funds with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation. The Federal 
share of the NHS is an 80 percent match and funds remain 
available for 4 fiscal 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. The 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 the 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.
    National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Program.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for the covered 
bridge program elsewhere in the bill, $2,000,000 above the 
level provided in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill. The 
Committee directs the FHWA to provide priority consideration 
for bridges within this $10,000,000 that are in eminent danger 
of failure absent remedial attention. The Committee has been 
made aware of one such bridge, the Cambridge Junction Covered 
Bridge, which was included in last year's report but which the 
FHWA has, to date, failed to address.
    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.
    On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be 
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both 
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ 
program, including regional emissions and verifying new mobile 
source control techniques.
    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.
    The Committee directs that the funds allocated for this 
program in this bill and in permanent law are to be derived 
from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and not 
from funds allocated to the National Park Service's regions. 
Funds provided for the Federal lands program in fiscal year 
2001 shall be available for the following activities:

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge access road............      $1,900,000
NM Route 4 Jemez Pueble Bypass..........................       1,000,000
Giant Springs Road relocation L&C Interpretive Center 
    (Great Falls, MT)...................................       1,600,000
Highway 323 between Elzada and Ekalaka..................       1,000,000
Highway 419 reconstruction..............................       5,200,000
Charles M. Russell/Fort Peck Roads coalition access 
    project.............................................       1,000,000
New River Gorge National River road and safety 
    improvements........................................       3,500,000
Natchez Trace Parkway multi-use trail...................         675,000
Acadia National Park trails and road projects...........         500,000
Rampart Road Eureka connector...........................       1,000,000
Sawtooth National Forest access (phase 2)...............         550,000
Delaware Water Gap Recreational Area....................       2,000,000
Teton Trail Pass (phase 3)..............................       1,000,000
Cedar Pass landslide stabilization, Badlands National 
    Park................................................       1,750,000
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, Haleakala 
    National Park, Maui, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, 
    Hakalau Forest National Refuge, Puuhonua Honaunau 
    National Historic Park, and Hanalei National 
    Wildlife Refuge.....................................       2,150,000
Forest Highway 26.......................................       1,300,000
Western Canal-Arena Reach Walkway.......................         500,000
Boyer Chute NWR paving project..........................       3,000,000
Hoover Dam bypass 4-lane bridge.........................      11,000,000
Lake Cumberland access road and improvements............       1,250,000
US 95 Widening Between Laughlin Cutoff and Railroad Pass       2,500,000
Milford lake replacement bridge (Corps of Engineers 
    lake)...............................................         500,000
Old Lock I Park access road.............................       1,600,000
Chugach Road............................................         500,000
Iditarod (Millenium trail)..............................       1,900,000
Metlakatla/Walden Point Road............................       2,000,000
Pasagshak Road Realignment and improvement..............         700,000
U.S. 26 Upgrade.........................................         500,000
Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge public roads......       1,000,000

    Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge access road.--The 
Committee has allocated $1,900,000 for the construction of an 
access road to the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Box 
Elder County, Utah. The Committee directs the FHWA to manage 
and oversee the environmental work, design, engineering and 
final construction of this access road using funds appropriated 
for this project as well as any local matching funds. Local 
funding may include contributions of right of way by both 
private and public entities. The Committee further directs FHWA 
to work cooperatively with local county and State governments 
in moving this project forward.

                    Revenue Aligned Budget Authority

    Beginning in fiscal year 2000, TEA21 provides that 
guaranteed funding levels for the Federal-aid highways and 
highway safety programs are adjusted to reflect revised receipt 
estimates for the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. In 
conjunction with this adjustment, section 110 of Title 23, 
entitled the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), 
authorizes contract authority in an amount equal to the 
additional obligation limitation. This follows through on the 
TEA21 philosophy that highway program funding levels are linked 
to receipts to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund.
    In fiscal year 2001, the RABA adjustment is $3,058,000,000. 
The budget request proposes to reallocate a portion of the RABA 
to Administration priorities. Of the $3,058,000,000 adjustment, 
$741,000,000 would be transferred to these initiatives, and 
$2,317,000,000 would be distributed to Federal-aid and motor 
carrier programs as described by TEA21 and amended by the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.
    The following table presents the State-by-State allocation 
revenue aligned budget authority:

                                        REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Full RABA
                              State                                Admin. distr.   TEA21 distr.      committee
                                                                                                  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA.........................................................          41,620          56,296          60,784
ALASKA..........................................................          24,403          33,019          35,733
ARIZONA.........................................................          33,982          45,989          49,705
ARKANSAS........................................................          27,252          36,857          39,629
CALIFORNIA......................................................         192,556         260,472         281,963
COLORADO........................................................          23,972          32,437          35,005
CONNECTICUT.....................................................          31,060          42,018          45,543
DELAWARE........................................................           9,079          12,289          13,269
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA............................................           8,094          10,950          11,865
FLORIDA.........................................................          98,866         133,774         144,775
GEORGIA.........................................................          72,971          98,720         106,972
HAWAII..........................................................          10,580          14,312          15,525
IDAHO...........................................................          15,797          21,359          23,146
ILLINOIS........................................................          69,077          93,428         101,422
INDIANA.........................................................          48,609          65,756          71,291
IOWA............................................................          24,576          33,244          36,048
KANSAS..........................................................          23,951          32,399          35,139
KENTUCKY........................................................          36,905          49,925          54,114
LOUISIANA.......................................................          32,778          44,332          48,127
MAINE...........................................................          10,896          14,739          15,782
MARYLAND........................................................          33,696          45,585          49,396
MASSACHUSETTS...................................................          38,389          51,919          55,894
MICHIGAN........................................................          67,305          91,044          98,737
MINNESOTA.......................................................          30,608          41,395          44,962
MISSISSIPPI.....................................................          25,698          34,763          37,696
MISSOURI........................................................          50,947          68,911          74,579
MONTANA.........................................................          20,374          27,577          29,776
NEBRASKA........................................................          15,929          21,557          23,296
NEVADA..........................................................          14,846          20,089          21,736
NEW HAMPSHIRE...................................................          10,601          14,335          15,483
NEW JERSEY......................................................          55,014          74,409          80,765
NEW MEXICO......................................................          20,219          27,353          29,641
NEW YORK........................................................         105,420         142,576         154,827
NORTH CAROLINA..................................................          57,943          78,390          84,939
NORTH DAKOTA....................................................          13,438          18,187          19,651
OHIO............................................................          71,674          96,952         105,159
OKLAHOMA........................................................          31,735          42,934          46,417
OREGON..........................................................          25,248          34,140          36,537
PENNSYLVANIA....................................................         102,976         139,222         149,607
RHODE ISLAND....................................................          12,276          16,612          17,868
SOUTH CAROLINA..................................................          34,553          46,751          50,215
SOUTH DAKOTA....................................................          14,918          20,176          21,440
TENNESSEE.......................................................          47,385          64,099          69,511
TEXAS...........................................................         156,693         212,010         229,231
UTAH............................................................          16,581          22,429          24,333
VERMONT.........................................................           9,372          12,682          13,715
VIRGINIA........................................................          53,715          72,671          78,633
WASHINGTON......................................................          36,508          49,378          53,607
WEST VIRGINIA...................................................          23,057          31,172          33,944
WISCONSIN.......................................................          40,737          55,111          59,726
WYOMING.........................................................          14,316          19,373          20,846
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, after the computation of 
funds for major Federal-aid programs, 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, $2,800,000,000 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 $9,500,000,000 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, and this bill, funding totalling 
$450,000,000 will be available for fiscal year 2001 and will be 
distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete 
estimate. The committee is supportive of a strong Federal 
commitment to complete these overdue safety and economic 
development infrastructure improvements within the timeframe 
anticipated by TEA21.
    National corridor planning and border infrastructure 
programs.--TEA21 created a new national corridor planning and 
development program that identifies funds for planning, design, 
and construction of highway 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 
outlined in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure 
program is established to improve the safe movement of people 
and goods at or across the U.S./Mexico and U.S/Canada borders.
    Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of 
TEA21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats 
and ferry terminal facilities. The Committee notes that 
$20,000,000 of the funds in this program have been statutorily 
reserved and directs the FHWA to work with the State of Alaska 
to develop fast ferries for Southeast Alaska. Of the remaining 
appropriation, funds shall be available for the following 
projects:

Dorena Ferry Mississippi River Crossing.................        $500,000
Vallejo Baylink.........................................         500,000
SANDAG Highspeed ferry service..........................         500,000
Providence and New Port ferry...........................         500,000
Savannah Water Taxi.....................................         500,000
Alabama ferry docks.....................................       1,000,000
Curtis Vessel replacement for Rockland and Vinal Haven..       1,000,000
State of Ohio ferries...................................       1,000,000
New London, CT ferry expansion and improvement..........       1,000,000
Treasure Island Ferry Service initiation................         500,000
Port of Corpus Christi (North Harbor) Ferry facility....       1,000,000
Champlain Ferry Terminals...............................       1,000,000
Provincetown Terminal Improvements......................         800,000
Gees Bend Ferry.........................................       1,000,000
Penns Landing Dock improvements.........................         800,000

    The Committee has provided substantial funding in this bill 
and in previous appropriations Acts to improve waterborne 
transportation systems for commuters throughout U.S. cities and 
ports. The Committee is concerned that existing regulations 
regarding the chartering of passenger vessels may have the 
effect of allowing foreign corporations to operate commuter 
ferries in the United States, which the Committee believes is 
contrary to the intent of laws reserving these and similar 
transportation operations for U.S. owned and controlled 
companies.
    Transportation and community and system preservation pilot 
program.--TEA21 created 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 projects. These grants may be used to 
improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce 
transportation externalities and the need for future 
infrastructure investment, and improve transportation 
efficiency and access consistent with community character. 
Funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2001 shall be 
available for the following activities:

Auburn, AL transportation facilities improvement project        $800,000
Bangor, ME intermodal hub facility, crossing 
    improvements, bike/pedestrian trails................         600,000
Bedford, NH corridor planning study.....................         250,000
Billings, MT open space improvement project.............         575,000
Bowling Green, KY Riverfront Development transportation 
    enhancements........................................         800,000
Burlington, VT North Street and Church Street 
    Marcketplace community planning and improvements....       1,100,000
Charleston, WV Kanawha Boulevard Walkway project........       2,000,000
Claiborne County, MS access road for new port facility..         400,000
Concord, NH 20/20 vision project........................         500,000
Dayton, OH Huffman Prairie Flying Field multimodal 
    gateway entrance....................................         700,000
Fairbanks, AK downtown transit/cultural integration 
    planning............................................         750,000
Flint, MI transportation planning and origin and 
    destination shipping study..........................         150,000
Heritage Corridor Project study, IL.....................         200,000
Houston, TX Main Street connectivity project............         750,000
GM&O intermodal center track alignment..................         500,000
Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, NJ.....................       1,500,000
Jackson, MS traffic congestion mitigation project.......         600,000
Johnstown, PA pedestrian and streetscape improvements...         450,000
Kansas City, MO Illus Davis Mall enhancements...........         350,000
Las Cruces, NM railroad and transportation museum.......         200,000
Marked Tree, AR U.S. Highway 63 improvements............         600,000
Mobile, Alabama State Docks.............................       1,500,000
Montana DOT/Western Montana College statewide geological 
    sign project........................................         400,000
Montana statewide rail grade separation study and 
    environmental review................................         500,000
North Metro, MN trunk highway 610/10 improvement project         775,000
Olympic Discovery Trail, WA.............................         500,000
Omaha, NE access and redevelopment project..............         300,000
Palmer, AK urban revitalization.........................         200,000
Pittsburgh, PA Roberto Clemente Park pedestrian 
    improvements........................................         600,000
Portland, OR Pioneer Courthouse Square renovation 
    project.............................................         400,000
Quincy, IL 18th Street Bridge project...................         300,000
Raton, NM rail depot/intermodal center redevelopment....         750,000
Roseville, CA historic district revitalization project..         500,000
Saddle Road, HI improvements............................       1,000,000
Soldotna, AK East Redoubt Avenue improvements...........         750,000
Springfield, MO center city plan........................         750,000
Talkeetna, AK parking lot/pedestrian underpass..........         400,000
Utah-Colorado ``Isolated Empire'' Rail Connector........         500,000
Virginia Beach, VA bike trail...........................         400,000
Wheeling, WV Victorian Village transportation initiative         500,000
City of New Bedford, MA North Terminal Project..........         200,000

                 LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Limitation, 2000 \1\....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation \1\............................  ($437,250,000)

\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2000 and requested in fiscal year 
2001 are assumed within the Federal-aid highways obligation limitation.

    The limitation controls spending for the transportation 
research and technology programs of the FHWA. This limitation 
includes the intelligent transportation systems, surface 
transportation research, technology deployment, training and 
education, and university transportation research. The 
Committee recommendation provides an obligation limitation for 
transportation research of $437,250,000 for the following 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
programs:

Surface transportation research.........................     $98,000,000
Technology deployment program...........................      45,000,000
Training and education..................................      18,000,000
Bureau of transportation statistics.....................      31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests, and 
    development.........................................     100,000,000
ITS deployment..........................................     118,000,000
University transportation research......................      27,250,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................     437,250,000

    Surface Transportation Research.--Within the funds provided 
for surface transportation research and development, 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
International activities................................         500,000
Research and technology support.........................       7,500,000
Highway research and development........................      66,000,000
LTPP....................................................      10,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      98,000,000

    Within the funds provided for highway research and 
development, the Committee recommends that $66,000,000 be 
allocated for the following activities in the specified 
amounts:

Safety..................................................     $15,000,000
Pavements...............................................      15,000,000
Structures..............................................      15,000,000
Environment.............................................       6,200,000
Policy..................................................       4,600,000
Planning and real estate................................       4,100,000
Advanced research.......................................         900,000
Highway operations and asset management.................       5,200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      66,000,000

    The Committee has allocated the surface transportation 
research and development account in the same manner as it has 
historically, rather than in the new configuration proposed by 
FHWA. This allocation will not interfere with the performance-
based approach required under GPRA, but will ensure that the 
flow of Federal investments can be monitored easily. The 
Committee's allocation concentrates funds in the three 
foundations of FHWA's research and development program: safety, 
pavements, and structures. To respond to the pressing 
challenges of today's highway environment, increased funds also 
have been made available for highway operations and asset 
management.
    The Committee also seeks to ensure that FHWA continues to 
focus on research and development, and therefore, does not 
approve the use of any funds specified under highway research 
and development to support technology deployment, assessment, 
or other programmatic purposes as proposed by FHWA. Instead, 
under the surface transportation research and development 
subaccount, the Committee directs that $14,000,000 be allocated 
for technology deployment and assessment activities to expedite 
the transfer of advanced technologies to state and local 
governments. Next year, FHWA should be prepared to show how 
funds to advance research and development were tracked 
separately from funds spent on technology deployment and 
assessment functions.
    In the fiscal year 2002 budget justification, the Committee 
expects FHWA to delineate the proposed allocation of surface 
transportation research and development funds using the same 
categorical basis displayed in this report. The FHWA should 
document how it proposes to allocate the technology assessment 
and deployment funds by specific projects or activities to be 
conducted by the core business units, state division offices, 
or resource centers. The justification will include a separate 
discussion of how the technology deployment program funds will 
be integrated with the surface transportation R&D funds.
    The Committee deletes funding for various administrative 
activities from the surface transportation R&D account and 
notes that funding under the general operating expense account 
(LAE) are available for many of these activities.
    Safety Research.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for 
safety research and development activities. The Committee 
commends FHWA for the development of various safety-oriented 
technologies and its assistance to States to reduce run-off-the 
road crashes, increase pedestrian and bicycle safety, improve 
roadside design and hardware, reduce hazards in work zones, 
advance safety and speed management systems, and further 
highway safety information systems.
    The Committee has increased funds above the requested 
amount to allow FHWA to expand its efforts to improve traffic 
safety at various types of intersections. Almost 25 percent of 
all fatal motor vehicle crashes are intersection-related. 
Intersection safety is a concern in both rural and urban 
areas--44 percent of intersection-related fatal crashes occur 
in rural areas and 56 percent in urban areas. Providing 
increased funds for this area of research is consistent with 
the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which identifies 
improving the design and operation of highway intersections as 
1 of its 22 strategies to reduce highway deaths and injuries. 
FHWA should identify the most common and severe safety problems 
at intersections and compile information on effective 
applications and design of innovative infrastructure 
configurations and treatments at both signalized and 
unsignalized intersections and interchanges. Within the funds 
provided, up to $500,000 is to explore traffic striping 
technology improvements which enhance reflectivity in heavy 
rain. The Committee recommendation provides up to $2,000,000 is 
available for research into the Freezefree anti-icing system 
initiative. In addition, up to $2,000,000 may be used for 
cooperative research at the Western Washington University 
Vehicle Research Institute for safety and related initiatives 
and $500,000 is for rural bridge safety research in cooperation 
with the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
    Pavements.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for 
pavements research and development, including work on asphalt, 
Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled materials. 
This increase in funding above the fiscal year 2000 
appropriation, along with the funds provided for the LTPP, will 
allow FHWA to undertake research projects to improve the 
Nation's infrastructure. In the effort to identify and develop 
better asphalt pavements, the FHWA should not overlook the 
significance of high quality initial asphalt products before 
the application of additives or the introduction of composites. 
The Committee has been informed that the introduction of 
additives or composites may simply restore the durability and 
performance specifications of high quality asphalt products 
that actually cost less than the compound hybrid products. The 
FHWA should seek the lowest cost, highest quality products in 
the research effort regardless of whether that solution 
involves composites, polymers, additives, or simply better 
quality concretes or asphalts. Within the recommended 
appropriation, up to $750,000 is for the Portland cement 
concrete pavement research at the Iowa State University Center 
for Transportation Research and Education Center, up to 
$2,000,000 is for alkali silica reactivity research with 
lithium based technologies, $2,500,000 is for the National 
Center for Asphalt Technology Pavement Research at Auburn 
University, up to $2,000,000 is for the cooperative polymer 
additive demonstration involving the South Carolina Department 
of Transportation, South Carolina State University, and Clemson 
University, up to $2,000,000 is for further research into the 
GSB-88 emulsified sealer/binder treatment, and up to $1,000,000 
is for geosynthetic material pavement research at the Western 
Transportation Institute.
    Structures.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for 
structures research and development. These funds will help FHWA 
make progress towards its performance goal to reduce 
deficiencies on NHS bridges from 25 percent to 20 percent and 
reduce deficiencies on all bridges from 31.4 percent to 25 
percent by 2007. This funding will ensure continued progress on 
high performance materials and engineering applications to 
efficiently design, repair, rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges. 
Of the funds provided, up to $2,000,000 is available for 
research at the Center for Advanced Bridge Engineering at Wayne 
State University, up to $2,000,000 is for the continuing 
destructive testing research at the Utah Transportation Center, 
up to $1,500,000 is for advanced sensor and inspection research 
at the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center, up 
to $2,000,000 is for earthquake hazards mitigation research at 
University of Missouri-Rolla, up to $2,000,000 is for research 
into composite structure and related engineering research at 
West Virginia University, up to $2,000,000 is for polymer 
matrix composite research for wood structures at the University 
of Maine, up to $2,000,000 is for completion of the rust 
proofing and paint technology transfer project using the I-110 
bridge from I-10 to U.S. 90, and up to $1,500,000 is for 
cooperative work with the Transportation Research Center (TRAC) 
at the Washington State University.
    The Committee is aware of the critical need for addressing 
bridge safety requirements at the Delaware Memorial Bridge. 
With the deepening of the shipping channel for the Delaware 
River from 40 feet to 45 feet to facilitate the transit of 
supertankers, the need exists to protect the base of the 
Delaware Memorial Bridge by installing a state-of-the-art, 
composite materials bridge fendering system. Noting that the 
Delaware Valley has the largest complex of oil refineries on 
the East Coast and that the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the 
major route for traffic between the Washington D.C.-Baltimore 
area and the New York City-New England area, the Committee is 
concerned for the severe impact both on the economy and the 
defense posture of our Nation should the Delaware Memorial 
Bridge be struck by a supertanker run errant while transiting 
the Delaware River. The Committee encourages the Federal 
Highway Administration to enter into discussions with the DRBA 
with a view to including funding for this bridge fendering 
system in the FHWA's budget request for fiscal year 2002.
    Policy Research.--The Committee recommends $4,600,000 for 
policy research. Additional funds to complete the NPTS should 
be obtained from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 
Because of budgetary constraints, the Committee has deleted 
funds for research cooperation with various international 
organizations and requests to be consulted before future 
international agreements are consummated that are likely to 
require financial support.
    Planning and Real Estate Research.--The Committee 
recommends $4,100,000 for planning and real estate research, 
including an increase of $100,000 in the real estate services 
portion of the planning R&D budget above the amount specified 
last year. These additional funds will help FHWA respond to 
requests from AASHTO and other groups for increased research in 
the real estate service area.
    Highway Operations and Asset Management.--The Committee 
recommends $5,200,000 for highway operations and asset 
management. Funds provided under this category support a 
variety of research projects seeking to improve highway 
operations, including work to improve the manual of uniform 
traffic control devices, work zone operations, technologies 
that facilitate operational responses to changes in weather 
conditions, and freight management operations. Of the $600,000 
provided for asset management, the Committee has not included 
any funds for statistical analysis of the National Quality 
Initiative. Such analysis shall be performed by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics. Of the funds provided, up to 
$800,000 is to support the innovative infrastructure financing 
best practices research ongoing at the University of Southern 
California and up to $1,000,000 is for the road life research 
program at New Mexico Highway 44.
    Environment Research.--The Committee recommends $6,200,000 
for research on environmental issues affecting highway 
operations and construction. Within the appropriated funds, up 
to $1,000,000 is for the Sustainable Transportation Systems Lab 
and the National Center for Transportation Technology (NIATT) 
for mitigation effort research for heavily trafficked national 
parks, $1,500,000 is for a dust and persistent particulate 
abatement demonstration study at Kotzebue, Alaska and 
$1,000,000 is to facilitate the work at the National 
Environmental Respiratory Center on air quality. The Committee 
is aware that the Department has not been responsive to the 
National Environmental Research Center in its efforts to 
establish a collaborative relationship as was encouraged in the 
fiscal year 2000 conference agreement, and directs FHWA to 
provide a letter report to the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations on the agency's efforts to work with NERC before 
November 30, 2000.
    R&T Technical Support.--The Committee has limited funds for 
R&T technical support to $7,500,000. Funding for other agency-
wide initiatives requested under the category ``Agency R&T 
Programs'' have not been approved, unless otherwise specified 
under the limitation on general operating expenses.
    R&D Partnership Initiative.--The Committee continues to 
support FHWA's participation in the National R&T Partnership 
Initiative. As part of this partnership, five working groups 
have been formed to advance a national research agenda in the 
areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and 
mobility, planning and environment, and policy analysis and 
systems monitoring. Key partners and stakeholders, including, 
State DOTs, academia, local governmental officials, and private 
sector representatives, are participating along with FHWA as 
part of this effort. The products of this initiative will 
provide input to the FHWA and other participants in shaping R&D 
directions and priorities, and increase opportunities for 
collaborative approaches to conducting high-priority R&T 
activities. The Committee notes that the Transportation 
Research Board (TRB) has taken a significant role in 
facilitating this effort, and that the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has voiced 
strong support and participates actively in this effort. The 
Committee encourages FHWA's continued support of this 
partnership initiative and appreciates the involvement of TRB, 
AASHTO, and others to advance the overall highway R&T program.
    ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, Development, 
and Deployment.--The Committee recommends that the $218,000,000 
authorized in TEA21 for ITS research and associated activities 
in fiscal year 2001 be allocated in the following manner:

Research and Development................................     $48,680,000
Operational Tests.......................................      11,820,000
Evaluation/Program Policy Assessment....................       7,750,000
Architecture and Standards..............................      13,750,000
Program Support.........................................       9,000,000
Integration Support.....................................       9,000,000
ITS Deployment Incentive Program........................     118,000,000

    The Committee commends the ITS program office on the 
detailed and exhaustive justification for the ITS Standards, 
Research, Operational Tests, and Development justification. In 
future justifications, the Committee requests that the 
justification spending plan summary table (pp. 1-5) also 
include the immediately prior 2 fiscal years' funding levels 
for the individual activity or project.
    ITS rail-highway crossing.--The Committee has included 
$500,000 to initiate the design, engineering and installation 
of intelligent transportation systems at railroad-highway 
crossings on rail corridors that are being equipped with 
positive train control systems. These funds will be used to 
perform the preliminary engineering needed to determine the 
costs to equip those corridors to improve safety by providing 
warnings to motorists of arriving trains and by providing 
warnings to trains that are blocked by obstacles in the 
crossings. This project should be viewed by the Joint Program 
Office as a multi-year effort to advance this technology. The 
Federal Railroad Administration had included this new program 
in its railroad research and development request, but would 
have contracted with the FHWA JPO to manage the research 
program.
    IVI Research.--The Committees's allowance includes 
$30,000,000 for the Intelligent Vehicle Program. The Committee 
notes that the focus of the IVI program is divided between 
truck and light vehicle initiatives. The Committee's 
recommendation provides adequate resources for the FHWA to 
pursue an additional operational test and encourages the FHWA 
to develop an additional operational test on advanced collision 
avoidance technologies on the light vehicle platform to 
maximize the future safety benefits and to maintain a relative 
balance in the program.
    Specified 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 the TEA21. 
Funding for deployment activities are to be available as 
follows:

Calhoun County, MI......................................        $500,000
Wayne County, MI........................................       1,500,000
Southeast Michigan......................................       1,000,000
Indiana Statewide (SAFE-T)..............................       1,500,000
Salt Lake City (Olympic Games)..........................       2,000,000
State of New Mexico.....................................       1,500,000
Santa Teresa, NM........................................       1,000,000
State of Missouri (Rural)...............................       1,000,000
Springfield-Branson, MO.................................       1,500,000
Kansas City, MO.........................................       2,500,000
Inglewood, CA...........................................       1,200,000
Lewis & Clark trail, MT.................................       1,250,000
State of Montana........................................       1,500,000
Fort Collins, CO........................................       2,000,000
Arapahoe County, CO.....................................       1,000,000
I-70 West project, CO...................................       1,000,000
I-81 Safety Corridor, VA................................       1,000,000
Aquidneck Island, RI....................................         750,000
Hattiesburg, MS.........................................       1,000,000
Jackson, MS.............................................       1,000,000
Grand Forks, ND.........................................       1,000,000
Moscow, ID..............................................       1,750,000
State of Ohio...........................................       2,500,000
State of Connecticut....................................       3,000,000
Illinois Statewide......................................       2,000,000
Charlotte, NC...........................................       1,250,000
Nashville, TN...........................................       1,000,000
State of Tennessee......................................       2,600,000
Spokane, WA.............................................       1,000,000
Bellingham, WA..........................................         700,000
Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination..................       2,000,000
Bay County, FL..........................................       1,000,000
Iowa statewide (traffic enforcement)....................       3,000,000
State of Nebraska.......................................       2,600,000
State of North Carolina.................................       3,000,000
South Carolina statewide................................       2,000,000
San Antonio, TX.........................................         200,000
Beaumont, TX............................................         300,000
Corpus Christi, TX (vehicle dispatching)................       1,500,000
Williamson County/Round Rock, TX........................         500,000
Austin, TX..............................................         500,000
Texas Border Phase I Houston, TX........................       1,000,000
Oklahoma statewide......................................       2,000,000
Vermont statewide.......................................       1,000,000
Vermont rural ITS.......................................       1,500,000
State of Wisconsin......................................       3,600,000
Tucson, AZ..............................................       2,500,000
Cargo Mate, NJ..........................................       1,000,000
New Jersey regional integration/TRANSCOM................       4,000,000
State of Kentucky.......................................       2,000,000
State of Maryland.......................................       4,000,000
Sacramento to Reno, I-80 corridor.......................         200,000
Washoe County, NV.......................................         200,000
North Las Vegas, NV.....................................       1,800,000
Delaware statewide......................................       1,000,000
North Central Pennsylvania..............................       1,500,000
Delaware River Port Authority...........................       3,500,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission........................       3,000,000
Huntsville, AL..........................................       2,000,000
Tuscaloosa/Muscle Shoals................................       3,000,000
Automated crash notification system, UAB................       2,000,000
Oregon statewide........................................       1,500,000
Alaska statewide........................................       4,200,000
South Dakota commercial vehicle ITS.....................       1,500,000

           NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2000....................................    ($5,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2001...................................    (18,700,000)
Committee recommendation \1\............................................

\1\ Funding for NDGPS provided within FAA ``facilities and equipment'' 
account.

    The administration has requested that $18,700,000 be 
provided for the fiscal year 2001 nationwide differential 
global positioning system (NDGPS) within the Federal Highway 
Administration's highway research and development program, 
using transferred revenue aligned budget authority. The 
Committee does not concur in the proposed RABA transfer, but 
has provided the requested NDGPS program funding within the 
Federal Aviation Administration's facilities and equipment 
account under the landing and navigational aids sub-account.
    Of the recommended funding level of $18,700,000, 
$13,200,000 will be utilized for capital costs, and $5,500,000 
will be spent for operating expenses. By the end of this 
calendar year, 23 decommissioned U.S. Air Force ground wave 
emergency network (GWEN) transmitting sites will have been 
converted to a differential GPS system and integrated into the 
nationwide network. DOT plans to establish an additional 28 
sites in fiscal year 2001, and the remaining 16 sites to 
complete the national system will be established in fiscal year 
2002. There is an estimated annualized operating cost of 
$6,900,000 for operating and maintaining the NDGPS.
    The Committee has expressed concern over the last 2 years 
that, while system benefits directly accrue to the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and many other Federal, 
State and local agencies have public safety and mapping needs 
that will be indirectly aided by the availability of a 
differential GPS system, DOT is the only Federal agency that 
requests appropriated funds for the development and operation 
of the NDGPS system. The Committee directs that a cost-sharing 
plan involving at least both DOT and the Department of Commerce 
be developed and conveyed to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than July 31, 2000, and that this cost-
sharing plan be reflected in these two departmental budget 
requests for fiscal year 2002. The Committee will not support 
an ongoing commitment to annual operating costs for the NDGPS 
system if DOT remains the only Federal entity which directly 
supports those operations.

                   Magnetic Levitation Transportation


                     TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM

                      (Limitation on obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2000....................................   ($20,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2001...................................    (25,000,000)
Committee recommendation (section 1218 funds)...........    (25,000,000)
Committee recommendation (section 3015(c) funds)........     (5,000,000)

    Section 1218 of TEA21 provides $25,000,000 in highway trust 
funds contract authority for Maglev preconstruction activities 
in fiscal year 2001. Additionally, Section 3015(c) of TEA21 
provides $5,000,000 from FHWA's technology deployment program 
for the development of low speed magnetic levitation technology 
in fiscal year 2001, bringing the total guaranteed contract 
authority available for maglev activities to $30,000,000.
    The high speed maglev program is administered by the 
Federal Railroad Administration; the low speed maglev program 
is administered by the Federal Transit Administration. A total 
of $5,000,000 of the funds provided between fiscal year 1999 
and 2001 in Section 1218 of TEA21 must be made available for 
research and development of low speed magnetic levitation for 
urban public transportation purposes. Thus far, $2,000,000 of 
the high speed maglev program funds have been transferred to 
FTA for the low speed urban maglev program. Therefore, in 
fiscal year 2001, FTA will receive directly or be transferred a 
total of $8,000,000 for low speed maglev development 
($3,000,000 from Section 1218 and $5,000,000 from Section 
3015(c)). The Federal Railroad Administration will be 
transferred $22,000,000 for the deployment of high speed maglev 
projects. This is the final year of guaranteed contract 
authority funding for the high speed maglev program under the 
TEA21 authorization cycle.
    High-speed maglev deployment program.--The administration 
has requested that $2,000,000 of the Section 1218 funds be made 
available for FRA's administration of the high speed maglev 
program. The Committee recommendation provides $25,000,000 for 
the high speed magnetic levitation technology deployment 
program, of which not more than $1,000,000 shall be available 
to the Federal Railroad Administration for administrative 
expenses and technical assistance. Within the high speed maglev 
program funds made available for fiscal year 2001, the 
Committee recommends the following amounts be made available 
for preconstruction planning and environmental impact 
assessments:

Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh 
    International Airport link................................$7,000,000
Maryland Department of Transportation: Baltimore-Washington 
    International Airport-Washington, D.C. link............... 4,000,000
California-Nevada super speed train commission, Las Vegas, NV 
    to Anaheim, CA............................................ 4,000,000
Georgia/Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta to Chattanooga... 3,000,000
Southern California Association of Governments: Los Angeles 
    International Airport to March Air Force Base............. 3,000,000

    Low-speed maglev program.--Within the $8,000,000 total low 
speed maglev program funds made available for fiscal year 2001, 
the Committee recommends the following amounts be made 
available for research and development of low speed magnetic 
levitation for urban public transportation purposes:

Segmented rail phased induction electric magnetic motor 
    (SERAPHIM) project........................................$2,000,000
Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority airport link 
    project................................................... 2,000,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania airborne shuttle system (PASS)....... 2,000,000

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics


                      (limitation on obligations)

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................   ($31,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2001...................................    (31,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (31,000,000)

\1\ Excludes reduction of $182,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of 
Public Law 106-69.

    The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] was 
established in section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and 
make accessible information on the Nation's transportation 
systems, collect information on intermodal transportation, and 
enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical 
programs of the Department of Transportation. For fiscal year 
2001, the Committee recommends a funding level of $31,000,000.
    BTS offices include the Director, Statistical Programs and 
Services, Transportation Studies, and the Office of Airline 
Information [OAI]. In addition, effective January 1, 1996, the 
responsibility to collect motor carrier financial data was 
transferred to the BTS after the sunset of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission.
    The Office of Airline Information collects and compiles 
financial and traffic (passenger and cargo) data. This 
information provides the Government with uniform and 
comprehensive economic and market data on individual airline 
operations. This program includes a small field office located 
in Anchorage, AK, which provides consumers and the Government 
with airline data related to essential air service and the 
intra-Alaskan mail rate program. The statistical aviation data 
compiled by OAI includes: airline passenger traffic statistics, 
ontime performance data by carrier, financial performance and 
certification data, fuel purchase and consumption, and other 
business and consumer directed statistics. These statistics are 
vitally important to the Federal Government and the aviation 
industry. In some cases, it is statutorily required that these 
statistics be used by the Federal Aviation Administration and 
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in allocation of 
trust funds, aviation bilateral negotiations, and other Federal 
transportation policy decisionmaking.
    National Quality Initiative.--Of the funds provided, 
$600,000 is for statistical analysis of the National Quality 
Initiative.
    National Passenger Transportation Survey (NPTS).--Of the 
funds provided to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, up 
to $5,000,000 may be used for the NPTS.
    Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston, 
Massachusetts.--Originally estimated to cost $2,500,000,000 in 
1985, the Project is now estimated to top over $13,100,000,000.
    In May 1999, the Inspector General (IG) questioned the 
Project's use of an $826,000,000 credit that it planned to 
obtain by overpaying for insurance and investing the excess 
until 2017. The Project was carrying the credit as an offset to 
current costs. In October 1999, the IG issued a draft report 
which identified $142,000,000 of cost overruns and suggested 
that the cost could increase by another $942,000,000. The IG 
also identified that the Project's finance plans did not 
adequately disclose costs on the Project. Both FHWA and Project 
management officials disagreed with the IG's warning that 
Project's costs could rise.
    In January 2000, Project officials submitted a revised 
finance plan to the FHWA. Ignoring the IG's earlier warnings 
that costs could rise and finance plans were incomplete, FHWA 
approved the revised finance plan on February 1, 2000. Later 
that same day, the Project surprised FHWA by announcing a 
$1,400,000,000 cost increase. Project officials have since 
acknowledged that they were well aware of cost escalation when 
they replied to the IG. Project management withheld that 
information from the Federal government.
    The withholding of information by Project officials, 
however egregious, does not excuse FHWA. FHWA had not performed 
its oversight duties and was unaware of the cost increases 
until they were announced by the Project. The Secretary of 
Transportation later termed the actions ``unconscionable'' and 
promised to reform FHWA's major project oversight. The 
Committee accepts the conclusions and recommendations of the 
department's task force but remains skeptical that they will be 
implemented effectively. FHWA's long established approach to 
``partnering'' on all large highway projects must include 
strong and effective verification mechanisms to prevent the 
recurrence of situations similar to those on the Central 
Artery.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2000

                                                       ($26,000,000,000)

Budget estimate, 2001

                                                        (28,000,000,000)
Committee recommendation
                                                        (28,000,000,000)

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $28,000,000,000.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act (Public Law 106-159), which established 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within 
the Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation, 
motor carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    The preeminent mission of the FMCSA is to improve the 
safety of commercial vehicle operations on the nation's 
highways. A primary goal of the agency is to reduce the number 
of accidents and fatalities due to truck accidents. FMCSA 
resources and activities contribute to safety in commercial 
vehicle operations through enforcement, safety regulation, 
technological innovation, improvements in information systems, 
training, and improvements to commercial driver's license 
testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To achieve these goals, 
the FMCSA works with Federal, State, and local enforcement 
agencies, the motor carrier industry, and highway safety 
organizations.

                          Motor Carrier Safety


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

    The office of motor carrier safety provides for most of the 
salaries, expenses and research funding for the FMCSA. The 
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended 
Section 104(a)(1) of title 23 to provide one-third of one 
percent to be made available to administer motor carrier safety 
programs and motor carrier research.

                  Limitation on administrative Expense

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................   ($76,058,000)
Budget estimate, 2001...................................    (92,194,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (92,194,000)

\1\ Provided under FHWA's limitation on administrative expenses in 
fiscal year 2000. This amount includes funding for administrative 
expenses and research and technology initiatives.

    The Committee recommendation provides a total of 
$92,194,000 for operating expenses and research for the FMCSA 
consistent with the budget request. Of the funds provided, 
$82,344,000 is for operating expenses and $9,850,000 is for 
research and technology initiatives. The recommendation 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
provides the following adjustments to the budget request:

High-risk, intrastate carrier information...............       -$500,000
Personnel adjustments...................................        -460,483
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.................        +100,000
Travel and transportation expenses......................        -500,000
Contract to administer vision exemption program.........        -638,000
Uniform carrier registration............................      +1,000,000
Motor carrier research..................................        +200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net...............................................        -798,483

    High risk, intrastate carrier information.--The Committee 
deletes GOE funds for the high-risk, intrastate carrier 
information initiative and recommends funding this activity 
under the MCSAP program because of its direct relevance to 
state motor carrier safety.
    Personnel Adjustments.--The Committee has added 2 FTEs for 
MCSAP implementation, 1 FTE for an information systems analyst, 
and 3 FTEs for vision exemption specialists. The Committee 
deletes funds for 4 FTEs for the executive secretariat, 1 FTE 
for an international specialist, 1 FTE, for a technology 
specialist, and 10 FTEs for motor carrier inspectors.
    MCSAP Implementation.--The Committee has added two 
additional staff to ensure that the FMCSA conducts proper 
oversight over a substantially expanded MCSAP, responds to 
concerns and questions of the states in a timely manner, and 
assists FMCSA field staff in program implementation.
    Safety Investigators.--The Committee has approved 42 FTEs 
for new safety investigators. Consistent with the intent of the 
MCSIA, those personnel will target their activities to motor 
carriers with poor compliance records or high crash rates. 
FMCSA is urged to maintain an adequate number of safety 
specialists who are conducting compliance reviews on a full-
time basis. The Committee would like to be notified in the 
future whenever there are less than 300 safety specialists 
(including trainees) conducting this function on a full-time 
basis.
    Technology and Information Specialists.--The Committee has 
approved the addition of three technology specialists, instead 
of the four requested. The Committee notes that there are 
currently more than 7 employees working to advance the CVO and 
PRISM programs. The Committee also has added 1 FTE to assist in 
the development of the improved information systems and to 
provide technical assistance to field operations on new 
computer systems.
    Border Personnel.--FMCSA has requested funds for 20 
additional employees to inspect vehicles at the border. 
However, the Committee notes that the base program already 
includes sufficient funds to support 40 Federal personnel 
conducting border inspections. Furthermore, additional funds 
authorized by the MCSIA will allow border States to increase 
substantially the number of State inspectors. The Committee 
seeks to ensure that there is an appropriate balance of 
inspectors serving the needs of safety at the border relative 
to the number of investigators focusing on high-risk motor 
carriers that operate throughout the Nation. The Committee's 
allowance includes funds for 10 of the 20 additional FTEs and 
positions which FMCSA requested to be employed at the border as 
safety inspectors. The Committee, however, directs that these 
personnel be employed as safety investigators conducting 
compliance reviews and that they be assigned to locations 
throughout the country, including the borders, based on need. 
The FMCSA is directed to submit an analysis to both the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations that assesses the 
safety contributions that these 10 personnel are likely to make 
as safety investigators compared to their expected 
contributions that might be anticipated if these personnel 
served as safety inspectors at the border. The analysis should 
also take into account workload considerations of both Federal 
and State personnel conducting inspections and investigations 
(or audits). After consideration of the analysis, the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees will make a determination on 
the permanent assignment of those personnel.
    Motor Carrier Advisory Committee.--ISTEA, TEA21, and the 
MCSIA specify numerous regulatory requirements that will be 
promulgated by the FMCSA. To expedite progress on the 
development of cost effective regulations, the Committee's 
allowance includes $100,000 to provide support for the Motor 
Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC), which is authorized 
in the MCSIA. The MCSAC will bring together diverse elements of 
the motor carrier, shipper, insurance, and highway safety 
communities to formulate improved regulations and to offer 
recommendations to improve relevant safety activities and 
information systems. In addition to helping the FMCSA with its 
regulatory agenda, MCSAC members will offer recommendations 
designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this 
agency.
    Vision Exemption.--The Committee deletes funding for the 
administration of the vision exemption program for commercial 
drivers. Processing applications will be a continuing function 
that should only be conducted by Federal officials trained in 
the motor carrier safety regulations associated with the 
exemption program. The three new positions recommended by the 
Committee will monitor and review the 50 to 55 applications 
that FMCSA typically receives each month under this program and 
will assist the agency in developing improved regulations that 
set the minimum medical standards for commercial drivers.
    Uniform Carrier Registration.--The Committee has increased 
funding for the Uniform Carrier Registration Program by 
$1,000,000.
    Motor Carrier Research.--The Committee recommends 
$9,850,000 for motor carrier safety research. The additional 
funding above the request permits an increased effort on the 
``Share the Road'' initiative, the ``No-zone'' initiative, and 
to facilitate a cooperative effort with the Army to develop 
safer, more efficient trucks.
    Although the Committee notes that the fiscal year 2001 
budget justification for motor carrier research is more useful 
than previous presentations, there remain additional 
opportunities to improve the budget justification. Last year, 
consistent with TRB recommendations, the Department was 
directed to ensure that ``. . . the justification for new 
projects will include an analysis of the possible impacts of 
the proposed research to crash reduction.'' This recommendation 
was not reflected in the budget request, and consequently, 
FMCSA is directed to provide that analysis and consult with 
both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before 
initiating any new project. Future budget requests should 
provide the recommended analysis to assist the Committee in 
ascertaining how each current and proposed R&D project is 
expected to reduce the frequency of crashes involving 
commercial motor vehicles. The Committee would view favorably 
efforts to relate proposed research projects to possible 
improvements in FMCSA activities.
    The Committee expects that not less than $1,000,000 will be 
used to improve the ``share the road'' campaign and associated 
activities. Working in conjunction with NHTSA, this initiative 
will be used to develop and test innovative approaches to 
encourage the motoring public to drive safely in the vicinity 
of commercial vehicles. The FMCSA shall enter into cooperative 
agreements with two or more states to conduct demonstration 
projects to accomplish these objectives.
    The Committee's allowance includes sufficient funds for 
FMCSA to develop a safety performance and cost model that could 
be used to evaluate the expected safety benefits and economic 
impacts of proposed regulatory initiatives, new enforcement 
strategies, technology advances, or incentive programs on 
commercial motor vehicle and driver safety. The computer model 
should be designed to easily incorporate new knowledge gained 
in the area of crash causation and new crash data obtained 
through improved information systems.

                           GENERAL PROVISION

    Hours of service.--The Committee recommendation includes a 
general provision (sec. 335) that prohibits the use of funds to 
finalize the rulemaking under docket No. FMCSA-97-2350-953.

                 National Motor Carrier Safety Program


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    (Liquidation of
                                       contract         (Limitation on
                                    authorization)       obligations)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............      ($105,000,000)      ($105,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2001...........       (187,000,000)       (187,000,000)
Committee recommendation........       (177,000,000)       (177,000,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program was 
authorized by TEA21 and amended by the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two major 
areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and 
the information systems and strategic safety initiatives 
(ISSSI). MCSAP provides grants and project funding to States to 
develop and implement national programs for the uniform 
enforcement of Federal and State rules and regulations 
concerning motor safety. The major objective of this program is 
to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving 
commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified States 
for the development of programs to enforce the Federal motor 
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the 
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program 
is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both 
interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic. 
ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor 
carrier programs.
    The Committee recommends $177,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for this program. This is an increase of $72,000,000 above the 
level enacted in fiscal year 2000.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    The Committee recommends a $177,000,000 limitation on 
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level 
authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999, which amended TEA21. None of this funding is derived from 
revenue aligned budget authority due to lack of authorization.
    The Committee recommends the following allocation of motor 
carrier safety funds:

Basic motor carrier safety grants.......................    $130,000,000
Performance-based incentive grant program...............      10,000,000
Border assistance.......................................       5,500,000
Priority initiatives....................................       8,000,000
State training and administration.......................       1,500,000
Crash causation.........................................       5,000,000
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives....      17,000,000

    The Department has invested substantial sums developing the 
ASPEN, SAFER, Mailbox, and Inspection Selection Systems to 
assist MCSAP officers so that they can maximize the 
effectiveness and efficiency of their inspection and audit 
activities. The Committee encourages FMCSA to provide increased 
technical assistance to each of the States to maximize the 
potential benefits that could be derived from deploying these 
technologies. The additional funds authorized by the MCSIA 
provide substantial funds to purchase and maintain these 
technologies and associated communication systems.
    CDL Improvements.--The funds specified above shall be used 
to help the States implement those provisions of the MCSIA that 
pertain to the CDL program, and to implement the 5-Year 
Strategic Plan to Improve the Effectiveness of the Commercial 
Driver's License Program. These additional funds will be used 
to address numerous opportunities to improve the CDL program 
that have been identified by the American Association of Motor 
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and others. The FMCSA is 
directed to work with the AAMVA, the Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance, lead MCSAP agencies, and lead driver licensing 
agencies to improve all aspects of the CDL program. In addition 
to reviewing the management and operation of the CDL program 
and underpinning information systems at both the Federal and 
State level, FMCSA shall sponsor two or more pilot projects 
involving law enforcement and driver licensing agencies to 
explore new and innovative ways to ensure that drivers that 
have been convicted of a disqualifying offense do not operate 
during the period of suspension or revocation. The budget 
justification for the fiscal year 2002 request should summarize 
the efforts in this regard to improve the CDL program.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March 1970, to reduce the 
escalating number of deaths, injuries, and economic costs 
resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. The 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the 
establishment and enforcement of Federal safety standards for 
motor vehicles and associated equipment and research, including 
the operation of required testing facilities and the National 
Driver Register. The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
Act initially provided for the establishment of low-speed, 
collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, 
diagnostic inspection, and odometer regulations and was later 
amended to incorporate responsibility for the administration of 
Federal automotive fuel economy standards.
    The Highway Safety Act provides for a coordinated highway 
safety grant program to be carried out by the States, together 
with supporting research, development, and demonstration 
programs. Under section 403 of title 23, United States Code, 
technical assistance is provided to the States in the conduct 
of their highway safety programs, and research and 
demonstration projects are conducted to develop and show the 
effectiveness of new techniques and countermeasures to address 
highway safety problems.
    Grants are provided to the States under title 23, United 
States Code, section 402 to assist in the establishment and 
improvement of highway safety programs designed to reduce 
traffic crashes, deaths, and injuries. Alcohol incentive grants 
are allocated to the States for alcohol-impaired driver safety 
programs. The occupant protection incentive grants program is 
separated into two parts: Section 405 rewards States that 
implement strong laws and programs to increase safety belt and 
child safety seat use; section 2003(b) of TEA21, the child 
passenger protection education grant program, encourages the 
States to implement child passenger protection and education 
programs such as proper installation of child restraints, 
restraint design, placement, and training in all aspects of 
child restraint use.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year
                           Program                               2000 enacted    2001 estimate      Committee
                                                                     \1\              \2\         recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research......................................    $161,400,000     $286,475,000     $181,876,000
National driver register (HTF)...............................      (2,000,000)      (2,000,000)      (2,000,000)
Highway traffic safety grants (firewall).....................     206,800,000      213,000,000      213,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................     368,200,000      499,475,000      394,876,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions of $1,328,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-64.
\2\ Includes $70,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.

                        Operations and Research

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

    For fiscal year 2001, the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century (TEA21), as amended, authorizes $181,876,000 of 
budget resources for the operations and research account of the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). TEA21 
authorizes $72,000,000 of contract authority from the highway 
trust fund to finance operations and research activities 
eligible under title 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included 
within the firewall guarantee for highway spending and is not 
subject to appropriation. The act also includes an 
authorization, subject to appropriations, from the highway 
trust fund of $2,000,000 to maintain the National Driver 
Register. Public Law 106-39, which was enacted last year, 
amends TEA21 by increasing the authorization for operations and 
research activities related to sections 30104 and 32102 of 
title 49 to $107,876,000. This funding is derived from the 
general fund and is subject to appropriations.
    The Administration is proposing to fund the agency 
substantially above the authorized level and has submitted a 
budget request of $286,475,000 for NHTSA's operations and 
research account. The budget request consists of $72,000,000 
from the highway trust fund guarantee for highway safety and 
research and analysis programs and $2,000,000 from the highway 
trust fund for the National Driver Register. The Administration 
also has requested an additional $142,475,000 in trust funds 
and to transfer $70,000,000 of revenue aligned budget authority 
(RABA).
    The Administration has again requested to augment NHTSA's 
operations and research by transferring $70,000,000 of highway 
construction funds from RABA even though Congress summarily 
rejected this approach last year. Disregarding a core provision 
of TEA21 highlights the pitfalls of managing programs through 
budgetary firewalls. Firewalls predetermine funding levels 
which expose unprotected programs to excessive budgetary 
pressure and impede the Administration's and Congress's 
flexibility to annually assess the balance between 
infrastructure investment, safety programs, and other 
priorities. Second, the Administration request exceeds the 
general fund authorization for NHTSA's operations and research 
by $34,599,000. Together with the $70,000,000 diverted from 
RABA, these additional sources of funding would boost NHTSA's 
operations and research account 58 percent above the increased 
authorization level that Congress enacted less than a year ago. 
The compilation of a wish list of new programs is not a 
substitute for responsible budgeting and program management. 
The additional funds would finance new programs, including the 
flagship initiatives, that duplicate efforts that are ongoing 
in the core safety and vehicle programs and have not been 
appropriately justified.
    To comply with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, the Committee has consulted extensively with NHTSA to 
revise its budget request. The Committee recommends fully 
funding the authorized level, and the accompanying bill 
provides appropriations totaling $181,876,000 to be distributed 
as follows:

                                                               Committee
        Program                                           recommendation
Salaries and benefits...................................     $55,880,000
Travel..................................................       1,166,000
Operating expenses......................................      19,810,000
Contract Programs:
    Safety performance..................................       7,366,000
    Safety assurance....................................      11,377,000
    Highway safety......................................      42,174,000
    Research and analysis...............................      54,108,000
    General administration..............................         645,000
Grant administration reimbursement......................     -10,650,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     181,876,000

                         Salaries and benefits

    Staffing level.--The Committee recommends $55,880,000 for 
salaries and benefits, which is $2,005,080 below the request 
and $3,237,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. 
The Committee denies the request to increase the number of 
authorized full time positions from 621 to 650 because the 
existing FTE ceiling is sufficient. The Committee is mindful 
that there are a number of vacancies at the NHTSA and that the 
agency has experienced difficulty in staffing these positions.

                           Operating Expenses

    The Committee recommendation is $4,454,000 lower than the 
requested amount due an increase above the budget request for 
grant reimbursement and overall budget constraints. Even though 
lower than the budget request, the amount is 16 percent above 
what was provided in fiscal year 2000. The Committee asserts 
that this level of funding is manageable and gives NHTSA the 
flexibility to allocate the recommendation through such means 
as limiting the growth for computer support, administrative 
support, training, printing, and workforce planning and 
development. Within the funding provided for computer support, 
sufficient resources are available to provide for computer-
related expenses for all administrative functions, including 
civil rights public affairs, counsel, plans and policy, and 
administration. The Committee expects NHTSA to focus the 
increased funding provided for operating expenses on program 
delivery.

                      safety performance standards

    New car assessment program.--The Committee recommends 
$5,456,000, the same as the Administration's request, to 
evaluate vehicle performance in crash tests and provide vehicle 
safety and crash test information to the public. The Committee 
expects NHTSA to conduct enough crash tests to provide 
consumers with frontal and side impact information on 80 to 90 
percent of new vehicles. The Committee denies the request to 
expand NCAP by using small size dummy in crash tests. The 
Committee believes that test devices should be required for use 
in safety standards compliance testing before being considered 
for inclusion in NCAP.

                            Safety Assurance

    Safety defects investigation.--The Committee defers the 
$145,000 requested to monitor and investigate recreational, 
transit, and emergency vehicles. While the Committee is not 
opposed to investigations of this nature, NHTSA has failed to 
provide a compelling justification for this work, and the 
Committee believes that the agency would benefit from 
documenting that there is a significant problem with defective 
safety-related parts and equipment installed on small 
population vehicles that demands its attention in this area. If 
NHTSA can demonstrate a significant defects problem, the 
Committee would entertain reprogramming funds for this purpose 
from within the additional funds to the base level for the 
Safety Assurance Program.
    Auto safety hotline.--The Committee recommendation deletes 
$268,000 from the budget request due to concern with the 
management of the hotline. The Committee is confident that the 
agency can improve customer service and continue its outreach 
program without a 38 percent growth for contract personnel.

                        highway safety programs

    Occupant protection.--The Committee acknowledges the 
dedication of NHTSA's staff to promote seat belt usage and 
efforts to achieve the Department's worthy goal of 85 percent 
seat belt usage by 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. Despite the 
combined effort of Federal and State safety officials, and law 
enforcement, as well as the strong support and resources of 
private organizations and industry, the seat belt usage rate 
remains relatively constant over the past few years. The mini-
National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), conducted in 
December, 1999 revealed the average seat belt use rate 
declining to 67 percent; preliminary analysis of another 
observational State survey indicates a modest increase in the 
use of seat belts to 70 percent. In light of this, the 
Committee believes it would be worthwhile to explore whether 
NHTSA's efforts could be improved.
    The Committee directs the Department's Inspector General to 
analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of the occupant 
protection program managed by NHTSA's Office of Traffic Safety 
Programs. This review should consider the scope and direction 
of NHTSA's efforts to increase seat belt use rates and whether 
the agency is allocating funds to partnerships, demonstration 
projects, and other activities that are most likely to achieve 
the Department's performance goals. The review also should 
consider the quality and nature of the technical assistance 
provided by NHTSA's regional staff to States and local 
governments that benefit from highway traffic safety grant 
programs.
    Seat belt innovative demonstration program.--The Committee 
recommends $11,000,000 for the national occupant protection 
program, which is $1,258,000 more than last year's enacted 
level.
    The Committee does not expect much progress in increasing 
the seat belt use rate unless more resources are directed to 
developing programs to reach high risk groups. NHTSA has 
initiated work in this area, but its efforts have been limited. 
The Committee directs NHTSA to allocate $1,000,000 to implement 
an innovative demonstration program whereby the agency will 
award grants of up to $50,000 to municipal, county, and other 
local governmental entities to promote seat belt usage. The 
grants should conduct an assessment of local challenges to 
increasing seat belt use and encourage widespread community and 
business participation in locally-developed initiatives. The 
Committee expects NHTSA to provide technical assistance and 
relevant research, and to coordinate with the Governors' 
Highway Safety Representatives to ensure that the new 
demonstration grants complement state-wide campaigns and 
supplement resources provided to States through highway traffic 
safety grants.
    Section 157 program.--The Section 157 program was 
established to provide grants to States as an incentive to 
increase seat belt use. Because the funding is based on 
qualification and not on entitlement, some funds may remain 
unobligated, which NHTSA is allowed to distribute to States as 
grants to conduct innovative strategies to increase seat belt 
usage statewide. The Committee has received complaints from 
several States concerning the agency's management of the 
innovative aspect of the program. Although the States were 
required to submit their applications for innovative grants by 
March 1, 1999 and asked to respond to additional questions in 
August, NHTSA did not award the grants until February 25, 
2000--almost 1 year after the application deadline. The 
Committee directs the NHTSA Administrator to conduct a review 
of the procedures and processes used to administer the 
innovative grants provision of the Section 157 program and to 
submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations that details how the administration of these 
grants will be improved and expeditiously awarded within the 
time constraints of existing law. The report is requested by 
December 1, 2000.
    Emergency medical services.--The Committee recommends 
$2,500,000 for emergency medical services (EMS), $657,000 more 
than the requested amount and $1,075,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2000 enacted level. The Committee has included $1,000,000 
to continue training EMS personnel in delivering pre-hospital 
care to patients with traumatic brain injuries. The Committee 
urges NHTSA to continue collaborating with the Brain Trauma 
Foundation and the University of Alabama in Birmingham in 
delivering this training to EMS personnel in as many States as 
possible.
    Safe Communities.--The Committee has deleted funding for 
the safe communities program. The program has not been funded 
since completion of the three-year pilot program, and the 
Committee asserts that the program duplicates other agency 
programs and safety grants.
    Aggressive driving research.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned with the frequent occurrence of aggressive driving by 
motorists, especially in the Washington capital region. To 
address this issue, the Committee has included $750,000 for the 
Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to continue the 
regional education and driver modification program to combat 
aggressive driving in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia. The Committee directs NHTSA to cooperate with the 
Maryland DMV in developing methods to evaluate the various 
components of the program, such as raising public awareness and 
enforcement techniques, and to disseminate successful 
strategies developed in this program with other States so they 
may benefit from this program.
    Rural accidents.--The Committee continues to be concerned 
about treatment of trauma victims from automobile accidents in 
rural areas who are remote from specialized medical centers. 
Within the funds provided for highway safety research, the 
Committee has included $250,000 for the University of Vermont's 
College of Medicine and Fletcher Allen Health Care to determine 
if the survival rate of rural vehicular accidents could be 
improved through the application of advanced mobile video 
telecommunications links between a Level 1 trauma center and 
ambulance crews. This will demonstrate if virtual instant 
access to specialized physicians and surgeons at the accident 
scene and during ambulance transportation improves patient care 
and reduces mortality. The Committee recommendation also 
includes $500,000 to continue research being conducted at the 
University of South Alabama to improve the prehospital care of 
rural vehicular trauma patients and evaluate methods to ensure 
timely access to the appropriate medical trauma center.

                         research and analysis

    Safety systems.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$8,926,000 for safety systems, which is $68,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee encourages NHTSA 
to enhance its efforts to test and evaluate advanced air bags 
and side impact protection systems. It is essential to minimize 
any adverse impact to ensure that these systems benefit all 
vehicle occupants. Not only must NHTSA ensure that these 
technologies meet its regulatory standards, but NHTSA research 
should also serve as a catalyst to developing safer advanced 
systems. The research and evaluations should be designed to 
minimize any unanticipated adverse consequences associated with 
the deployment of such systems.
    School bus occupant protection.--The Committee continues to 
be concerned about child passenger protection in school bus 
crashes, which results in injuries to approximately 8,500 
children annually. The revision of school bus safety standards 
in 1977 greatly improved school bus occupant protection, but 
these standards do not reflect advances in materials science 
and manufacturing technology. Accordingly, the Committee's 
recommendation for safety systems includes $250,000 for Mercer 
University Research Center to support a research initiative on 
school bus safety. In coordination with school bus 
manufacturers, the research should analyze alternative safety 
restraints and seating systems, dynamic computer models of 
large and small buses, and potential design changes to improve 
occupant protection.
    Biomechanics.--The Committee recommends that funding for 
the Crash Injury Reduction and Engineering Network (CIREN) 
should be at least as much as last year's enacted level. The 
Committee remains very supportive of the effort to study the 
cause, effects and results of crashes by linking trauma centers 
to vehicle engineers.
    State Data Program.--Since fiscal year 1999, the Congress 
has provided funds for a new program to obtain State crash data 
that NHTSA could use to improve highway safety and reduce 
deaths, injuries, and medical costs associated with vehicle 
crashes. The new program is intended to complement other data 
improvement efforts among the States by expediting the 
availability of the data. The data targeted by the new program 
reside in the electronic files produced by State governments 
based on motor vehicle crash reports collected from police 
departments. The program was to be implemented and tested among 
17 selected States before it becoming a national program. 
Although the budget request indicates that the program is 
ongoing, the Committee is aware that little progress has been 
made.
    The agency has expended more than $276,000 in Maryland, but 
since August 1999, the program has been stalled and no further 
work on the project has been completed. The Committee 
understands that some issues have been raised regarding 
internet security but knows of no substantive reason for the 
delay in completing the work in Maryland and making the project 
ready for implementation in the other 16 selected States. 
Therefore, the Committee directs NHTSA to either proceed with 
the program as planned or provide the Committee with a revised 
schedule and cost estimate for completing the work in Maryland 
in fiscal year 2001, including resolving the internet security 
issues and extending the program to other States.

                             bill language

    NCAP vehicle acquisition.--The accompanying bill includes a 
new provision prohibiting NHTSA from purchasing a vehicle for 
NCAP testing at a price that exceeds the manufacturer's 
suggested retail price.
    Rollover rating system.--The Committee is troubled by 
NHTSA's proposal that would add a rating of a vehicle's 
propensity to rollover based on a static stability measurement 
to the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). The same static 
stability factor that NHTSA is now proposing was rejected by 
the agency more than 10 years ago. The Committee questions the 
utility of a static stability factor in providing useful 
information to consumers because it does not take into 
consideration other driving conditions that induce rollover 
events, vehicle features to prevent rollover, or the 
application of technologies to protect occupants during this 
type of crash. Also, the Committee believes that the proposed 
rating system could confuse, and even mislead, consumers 
because the highest possible score varies among different 
vehicles types thereby biasing comparative analysis between 
vehicle classes.
    Considering the degree of uncertainty about the validity 
and adequacy of NHTSA's proposal, the Committee has included a 
provision that prohibits the agency from finalizing or 
implementing the proposed regulation until the Transportation 
Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences has reported 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that the 
measurement to determine static stability factor is 
scientifically valid and benefits consumers by presenting 
practical, useful information. The National Academy of Sciences 
shall also compare the proposed static stability factor with 
dynamic tests that replicate driving conditions and determine 
whether it is appropriate to expand rollover rating information 
from the NHTSA website to other means. The study commission may 
include representatives of consumers and victims of rollover 
crashes. The Committee has included $500,000 from the Safety 
Performance Standards Program for the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct the study.
    Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The Committee has 
included a prohibition that has been included in previous 
appropriations acts, on any rulemaking which would require that 
passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling 
resistance, or fuel economy characteristics. The Committee has 
included this provision because the need for such labels has 
not been adequately justified and the additional costs 
associated with this proposal would likely be prohibitive.
    Native American set-aside.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has deleted language requested by the administration 
that aside $1,000,000 for Native American programs.

                        national driver register


                           highway trust fund

    The National Driver Register [NDR] is a central repository 
of information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor 
vehicle have been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied. The 
NDR also contains information on persons who have been 
convicted of serious traffic-related violations such as driving 
while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. State driver 
licensing officials query the NDR when individuals apply for a 
license, for the purpose of determining whether driving 
privileges have been withdrawn by other States. Other 
organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration and 
the Federal Railroad Administration also use NDR license data 
in hiring and certification decisions in overall U.S. 
transportation operations.
    The bill includes $2,000,000 for the NDR from the highway 
trust fund.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $206,800,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     213,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     213,000,000

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
authorized the following State grant programs: Highway Safety 
Program, the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive 
Grant Program, the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program, 
and the State Highway Safety Data Grant Program. Under the 
Highway Safety Program, grant allocations are determined on the 
basis of a statutory formula established under 20 U.S.C. 402. 
Individual States use this funding in national priority areas 
established by Congress which have the greatest potential for 
achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes, 
fatalities, and injuries. Also, the national occupant 
protection survey shall be funded from within this amount. The 
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant 
Program encourages States to enact stiffer laws and implement 
stronger programs to detect and remove impaired drivers from 
the roads. The occupant protection program encourages States to 
promote and strengthen occupant protection initiatives. The 
State Highway Safety Data Grants Program encourages States to 
improve their collection and dissemination of important highway 
safety data.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation 
of contract authorization of $213,000,000 for the payment of 
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant 
programs.
    The Committee has included a provision prohibiting the use 
of section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or 
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for 
State, local, or private buildings or structures.

                       limitation on obligations

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal year 2000  Fiscal year 2001     Committee
                                                                  enacted          estimate       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs....................................     $152,800,000      $155,000,000      $155,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures  grants...........       36,000,000        36,000,000        36,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants.......................       10,000,000        13,000,000        13,000,000
Child passenger protection education grants................   \1\ (7,500,000)   \2\ (7,500,000)  ...............
State highway safety data grants...........................        8,000,000         9,000,000         9,000,000
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................      206,800,000       213,000,000       213,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From Federal Highway Administration.
\2\ From revenue aligned budget authority transferred to NHTSA operations and research.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an 
operating administration within the Department of 
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of 
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the 
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department 
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the 
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
(Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to 
rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical 
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad 
Administration.
    The Committee recommends new appropriations and obligation 
limitations totaling $725,015,000 for the activities of the 
Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2001. This is 
$468,471,500 less than the budget request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                          Program                                                2001 budget     recommendation
                                                            2000 enacted \1\      estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations \1\ \2\.............................      $94,288,000      $103,210,500       $99,390,000
Railroad research and development \3\.....................       22,464,000        26,800,000        24,725,000
Next generation high-speed rail \4\.......................       27,200,000        22,000,000        24,900,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation \4\ .......................       10,000,000   ................       20,000,000
West Virginia Rail Development............................  ................  ................       15,000,000
Rhode Island rail development \4\.........................       10,000,000        17,000,000   ................
Capital grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation.      571,000,000       521,476,000       521,000,000
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project................  ................       20,000,000        20,000,000
Amtrak Reform Council \5\.................................         (750,000)         (980,000)         (495,000)
Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service  Fund \6\.......  ................      468,000,000   ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...........................      734,952,000     1,178,486,500       725,015,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $436,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Fiscal year 2001 includes $77,300,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\3\ Fiscal year 2001 includes $25,500,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\4\ Does not reflect reductions pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\5\ The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent oversight commission. Funding is provided through a general
  provision, and is not part of the FRA budget.
\6\ Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority.

    User fees.--Consistent with the Committee's position 
outlined in the Office of the Secretary chapter of the report, 
the administration's legislative proposal to impose user fees 
on rail safety and research services has not been included.
    Office of Inspector General audit reimbursement.--The bill 
includes a provision to transfer $1,500,000 to the Department 
of Transportation Inspector General. The transferred funding 
will reimburse the OIG for audits and investigations of rail-
related issues and programs.

                         Safety and Operations

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $94,288,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\...............................     103,210,500
Adjusted budget estimate, 2001 (including proposed 
    transfer of $1,500,000 from Public Law 105-178 
    section 1218 Maglev funding)........................     104,710,500
Committee recommendation................................      99,390,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction for TASC.
\2\ Includes $77,300,000 proposed rail safety user fees.

    The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA 
rail safety activities and all other administrative and 
operating activities related to staff and programs. The 
Committee recommendation makes the following adjustments to the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
administration's budget request:

Deny additional staffing request........................       -$564,000
Deny travel increase above base.........................        -500,000
Deny program evaluation increase above base.............        -500,000
Provide partial funding for requested increase in IT 
    initiative, web site support, email security........      -1,190,500
Southeast transportation safety center..................        +350,000
Deny employee development program increase above base...        -660,000
Increase funding for new fatigue countermeasures pro- 
    gram................................................        +200,000
Reduce funding for ATIP.................................        -200,000
Deny requested inflation/vendor increases...............      -1,556,000
Reduction of proposed increases above base in salaries 
    and expenses........................................        -700,000

    Proposed Offset of Administrative Costs with Maglev 
Funds.--The budget proposes to pay for Operation Lifesaver 
contract support ($600,000), Alaska Railroad liability 
reimbursements to the Department of Labor ($763,000), and part 
of the agency's automated track inspection program ($137,000) 
with magnetic levitation transportation technology deployment 
program funds. The maglev program is authorized in section 1218 
of TEA21, and is a guaranteed firewall program funded by 
highway trust funds. It is inappropriate to transfer these 
funds to pay for activities which have always been part of the 
administrative and safety budgets of FRA, and such a transfer 
masks the true size of the requested increase in funding from 
the current fiscal year (a requested increase of $10,422,500, 
or 11 percent).
    Highway-rail grade crossing safety outreach program.--The 
Committee has approved new program funding of $500,000 for 
highway-rail grade crossing safety efforts. These new funds 
shall be provided to Operation Lifesaver for deployment of the 
national public service campaign initiated in the fiscal year 
2000 appropriations Act, which will increase awareness of 
highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. The 
Committee continues to stress the importance of implementing a 
unified campaign that has the financial and technical support 
of the railroad industry, FRA, and the law enforcement 
industry, and directs the FRA Administrator to provide a letter 
report to the Committees on Appropriations by July 31, 2000 on 
the progress of the national public service campaign, 
delineating the contracts and associated funding that have been 
approved thus far in this effort and outlining the program 
benchmarks and funding schedule for the entire Operation 
Lifesaver PSA campaign. In addition to the PSA follow-on funds, 
the Committee recommendation includes the administration's 
requested funding level of $600,000 for Operation Lifesaver 
contract support.
    Fatigue countermeasures.--The Committee supports the 
fatigue countermeasures campaign proposed in the budget 
request, and has provided $500,000 of new funding to support 
these efforts. Of these funds, $250,000 shall be used to 
develop and implement educational and training programs which 
are designed to increase the awareness of the dangers of 
fatigue throughout the rail industry, and to develop criteria 
with which to evaluate the effectiveness of fatigue 
countermeasures. The remaining $250,000 shall be used to 
perform in-the-field controlled light eye reaction testing. 
Testing and measuring fatigue is necessary to the development 
of fatigue countermeasures. Measurement technologies that are 
operationally practical, non-invasive and not disruptive are 
needed to conduct in-the-field testing for the purposes of 
gathering data and gauging the effectiveness of fatigue 
countermeasures.
    Staffing increases.--The FRA has requested 10 new positions 
in fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommendation denies 
funding for these requested staff increases.
    Information technology initiative.--FRA requested 
$2,161,000 for hardware and software for new information 
technology systems. The Committee has partially funded this 
request, providing $970,500 for IT infrastructure, internet/
intranet, data management system development and remote access 
services.
    Southeastern transportation safety center.--The Committee 
has included $350,000 for the establishment of an intermodal 
emergency response training center for the Southeast region of 
the United States, to be located in Meridian, MS. These funds 
shall be used for equipment and program costs associated with 
establishment of the center, to include rail passenger 
equipment and track, a functional rail-highway grade crossing, 
rail and motor carrier hazardous materials vehicles and 
containers, and other passenger rescue and hazardous materials 
training facilities. Federal funds provided for the center 
shall be matched with funding and in-kind contributions from 
industry, local governments, and other organizations.
    Grade crossings in Northeastern Illinois.--The Committee is 
aware of an effort by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 
to improve safety at rail-grade crossings. The State of 
Illinois, and, in particular, Northeastern Illinois have the 
largest number of rail-grade crossings and quiet zones in the 
country. The Committee recognizes Illinois' efforts to reduce 
accidents. The Committee urges the FRA to work with the 
affected communities including offering technical assistance, 
identifying Federal funding sources, and establishing Federal-
State-local task forces in order to improve rail-grade crossing 
safety and reduce accidents. The Committee expects the FRA to 
pay particular attention to enforcement enhancements and 
improved educational outreach in its efforts to help reduce the 
risks to motorists and pedestrians.

                   Railroad Research and Development

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $22,464,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................      26,800,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,725,000

\1\ Includes $25,500,000 proposed rail safety user fees.

    The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and 
Development Program provides for research in the development of 
safety and performance standards for high-speed rail and the 
evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$24,725,000 for railroad research and development, $2,075,000 
less than the administration's requested level.
    TRB R&D review panel.--The Committee notes the recent 
improvement in the design and conduct of FRA's research and 
development and next generation high-speed rail programs. Some 
of these modifications have been implemented in response to 
recommendations of the Transportation Research Board Committee 
for Review of the FRA Research and Development Program. The 
Committee recognizes the contributions of this review panel, 
and expects FRA to continue its support.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the following funding levels for 
the Railroad research and development programs:

Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials...........     $11,200,000
Track and vehicle track interaction.....................       7,950,000
Railroad systems safety.................................       4,650,000
R&D facilities and equipment............................         925,000

    Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials.--The 
Committee recommends a program funding level of $11,200,000, 
which is $1,050,000 less than the administration's request. 
Within this amount, $2,400,000 shall be for a full-scale crash 
test of rail passenger equipment at the Transportation Test 
Center [TTC] near Pueblo, CO. This testing will include dynamic 
and static tests using donated passenger car equipment. The 
overall objectives of these tests are to demonstrate the 
effectiveness and crashworthiness of cab car and coach car 
structural designs and the effectiveness of occupant protection 
strategies. The Committee does not approve the requested 
increases above current services for hazardous materials 
transportation or human factors research.
    Track and vehicle-track interaction.--The Committee 
recommends a program funding level of $7,950,000, $350,000 less 
than the administration's request. The Committee's 
recommendation includes the requested increases for track and 
components safety research in material and rail inspection and 
bridge safety and for vehicle/track interaction safety 
standards research ($650,000 above current services). The 
funding for grade crossings infrastructure research has been 
provided within the Federal Highway Administration's ITS 
research program and funding for train control research has 
been provided with the other positive train control development 
and deployment programs under FRA's Next Generation High-Speed 
Rail account. The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 in 
continued support for the Marshall University/University of 
Nebraska safety research project to develop and test a track 
stability data processing and feedback system.
    Railroad systems safety.--The Committee recommends a 
program funding level of $4,650,000, $250,000 less than the 
administration's request. This funding level provides half of 
the administration's request for a new research program to 
evaluate methods for developing performance-based regulations 
for their applicability to FRA's regulatory safety process.
    Research and development facilities and equipment.--The 
Committee recommends a funding level of $925,000 for R&D 
facilities and equipment, $425,000 less than the 
administration's request. This funding level allows for 
continued baseline support for the T-6 track research vehicle, 
which is used to assess and develop new technologies for 
automated track inspection, and provides half the requested 
increase for refurbishment and replacement of facilities and 
equipment at the Pueblo, CO Transportation Technology Center.
    Research and development cost sharing.--The Committee is 
concerned that the level of industry cost-sharing has been 
decreasing in some areas of the research and development 
program. The Committee encourages FRA to reinvigorate its 
efforts to secure cost-sharing from the railroads and 
supporting industries, and notes that future budget decisions 
will be affected by the agency's success in these efforts.

       Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program

    Section 502 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes 
obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs 
of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism 
to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or 
consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new 
loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 2001.
    The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, 
as established in section 7203 of the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century [TEA21], will enable the Secretary of 
Transportation to provide loans and loan guarantees to State 
and local governments, Government-sponsored authorities and 
corporations, railroads and joint ventures to acquire, improve, 
or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, 
including track, bridges, yards, and shops.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $27,200,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,900,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $103,000 pursuant to section 301 of 
Public Law 106-113.

    The Committee has provided $24,900,000 in general fund 
appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT] 
Program. The amount provided is $2,900,000 more than the 
administration's request.
    The Committee first provided funding for the Next 
Generation High-Speed Rail [NGHSR] Program in fiscal year 1995. 
The program funds high-speed rail research, development, and 
technology programs that are aimed at demonstrations to foster 
high-speed passenger service on corridors throughout the 
country.
    The Committee recommends the following funding levels for 
the Next generation high-speed rail programs:

Train control systems...................................      $9,500,000
High-speed non-electric locomotives.....................       6,800,000
Grade crossing hazard mitigation........................       4,600,000
Track/structures technology.............................       1,200,000
Corridor planning.......................................       2,800,000

    Train control systems.--The Committee has provided a total 
of $9,500,000 for positive train control (PTC) systems and 
demonstration projects. Of these funds, $2,000,000 shall be for 
the Transportation Safety Research Alliance (TSRA) advanced 
integrated technology system, which will provide continuous 
direction, movement, and highway crossing controls for rail 
freight optimized dispatching using PTC-generated information. 
Additionally, $3,000,000 shall be for the Michigan incremental 
train control system (ITCS) high-speed passenger rail 
demonstration project, the same amount as requested by the 
administration. Partners in this project are Michigan DOT, 
Amtrak, and Harmon Industries, which is supplying the system's 
hardware. The requested funding will allow this system to be 
adapted to the industry's new PTC modular onboard platform 
standards, making the ITCS approach more widely available for 
other developing high-speed rail corridors. No less than 
$500,000 shall be for the installation of a digital radio 
network vehicle tracking system at the Transportation 
Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, giving the TTC the 
capability to test and validate various positive train control 
architectures and components. This funding was requested in the 
FRA research and development budget. The Committee 
recommendation also includes $4,000,000 for the North American 
joint positive train control program, $3,000,000 less than the 
level requested by the administration. The Committee concurs 
with concerns expressed by the TRB R&D review panel, which 
issued an April 28, 2000 report stating that, ``the project has 
become more expensive and complicated than is necessary. The 
complexity of the project appears to stem from an effort to 
specify standards and design details well beyond the minimum 
required to achieve interoperability for a train of one 
railroad operating on the tracks of another.'' The Committee 
notes that building industry consensus on PTC-related issues is 
difficult and that any PTC system placed in service must 
satisfy safety requirements, including the emerging FRA PTC 
rulemaking. Therefore, slowing the pace of Federal investment 
in this project will not have an adverse effect on an already 
slow and complex process.
    High-speed nonelectric locomotives.--The Committee has 
provided a total of $6,800,000 for the high-speed, nonelectric 
locomotive program, the level requested by the administration. 
The funds for these programs focus on the demonstration of a 
high-speed, lightweight fossil fuel locomotive that will be 
able to facilitate the testing of an advanced locomotive 
propulsion system [ALPS]. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 
for the prototype locomotive demonstration and $3,800,000 for 
the ALPS program. Each of these two related development and 
deployment programs are proceeding well, and extensive high-
speed and operational testing will begin on the high-speed non-
electric passenger demonstration locomotive in late 2000 at the 
TTC. Final assembly of the ALPS flywheel-turbine propulsion 
system is planned for November 2000, which will then be 
integrated into the non-electric locomotive to maximize speed, 
acceleration, and fuel economy.
    Grade crossing hazard mitigation.--The Committee recommends 
$4,600,000 for grade crossing hazard mitigation initiatives, 
$600,000 more than the level requested by the administration. 
The low-cost innovative technologies and grade crossing hazard 
mitigation programs are funded at the current services level. 
However, the Committee recommends an increase above the 
baseline for the North Carolina sealed corridor initiative, for 
a total of $1,000,000. FRA is directed to provide a report by 
January 31, 2001 to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations and to the TRB R&D review panel that documents 
the success of the sealed corridor project, including a 
scientifically valid estimate of the lives saved by the 
improvements that have been installed and an evaluation of 
whether the resulting reduction in accidents is sustainable. Up 
to $200,000 of the funds provided in this appropriation may be 
used to prepare this report.
    Track/structures technology.--The Committee has provided 
$1,200,000 for the track/structures technology program, the 
same level as the administration's request. Within the funds 
provided, $100,000 shall be used for analysis in preparing a 
letter report which addresses the safety impacts resulting from 
operation of passenger trains on freight rail trackage at up to 
five inches of cant deficiency for speeds between 80 mph and 
110 mph. FRA shall perform an analysis of the specific criteria 
it would use to determine compliance with applicable track 
standard at locations where trains would operate at five inches 
of cant deficiency and whether any flexibility should be 
permitted in enforcing those standards to facilitate the 
highest possible speeds at these locations that can be achieved 
at five inches of cant deficiency. The report shall be provided 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 
November 30, 2000.
    Corridor planning.--The Committee recommends $2,800,000 for 
passenger rail corridor planning activities authorized by 
section 26101 of title 49, United States Code. These funds 
shall be distributed as follows:

Midwest Regional Rail Initiative preliminary engineering 
    and design and eligible right-of-way improvements...      $2,000,000
Wilkes-Barre, PA to Scranton, PA--New York corridor 
    extension 
    study...............................................         300,000
Boston, MA to Burlington, VT: high-speed corridor 
    feasibility study...................................         300,000
Southeast corridor extension from Charlotte, NC to 
    Macon, GA via Atlanta...............................         200,000

    Rail-highway crossing 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, the following 
allocations are made:

Georgia high-speed rail corridor between Atlanta and 
    Macon...............................................      $1,000,000
High-speed rail corridor between Mobile, AL and New 
    Orleans, 
    LA..................................................       2,000,000
Wisconsin high-speed rail corridor between Madison and 
    Milwaukee...........................................         750,000
Keystone high-speed rail corridor, between Harrisburg 
    and Philadelphia, PA................................       1,000,000
Pacific Northwest high-speed corridor, crossing 
    improvements in Salem, OR...........................         500,000

                     Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $38,000 pursuant to section 301 of 
Public Law 106-113.

    The Committee has included a total of $20,000,000 for rail 
safety and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger 
operations of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 498 
miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in 
Alaska, to the city of Fairbanks, and east to the town of North 
Pole and Eielson Air Force Base. It carries both passengers and 
freight, and provides a critical transportation link for 
passengers and cargo traveling through difficult terrain and 
harsh climatic conditions.
    The funds provided are available until expended and will be 
used for the following capital projects:
    Track rehabilitation.--The Committee continues its ongoing 
support for capital rehabilitation of the Alaska Railroad's 
existing track bed and lines used by passenger trains to 
improve safety and decrease running time. Congress has 
appropriated $10,000,000 annually since fiscal year 1996 for 
tie, track and ballast replacement and rehabilitation.
    Signalized automated siding access.--This capital 
investment project responds to increased rail traffic density 
on the railroad's main line corridor and helps prepare the 
track between Wasilla and Palmer for implementation of commuter 
rail service. Automated siding access will improve operational 
running times, enhance safety, and reduce delays along the most 
congested 50 mile corridor on the railroad's system.
    Track relocation/highway crossing elimination.--This 
capital project will reroute the existing line along the 
Richardson Highway between Fort Wainwright and North Pole, 
eliminating 25 highway-rail crossings.

                     West Virginia Rail Development

Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $15,000,000

    The Committee has provided $15,000,000 for capital costs 
associated with track, signal, and crossover rehabilitation and 
improvements on the MARC Brunswick line in West Virginia. These 
funds shall remain available until expended.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      17,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $38,000 pursuant to section 301 of 
Public Law 106-113.

    The Committee recommendation does not provide any fiscal 
year 2001 funding for the Rhode Island Rail Development 
project, a dedicated freight track paralleling the Northeast 
Corridor's newly-electrified passenger tracks between Quonset 
Point/Davisville and Central Falls, RI. This freight line will 
provide sufficient clearance to accommodate double-stack 
freight cars, and will enhance safety by avoiding mixing 
freight traffic and high-speed passenger rail service. In July 
1999, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RI DOT) 
undertook a comprehensive review of construction cost estimates 
to complete the freight rail improvement project. It was 
evident from this analysis that actual costs of construction 
were likely to be significantly higher than originally 
estimated. As a result of this review, as well as delays caused 
by Amtrak's North End electrification project, the date that RI 
DOT expects to get freight traffic off the main line and on to 
the third track has been postponed from Fall 2001 to July 2002.
    Total costs for the project are expected to exceed the 
original estimate, however, the Committee notes that Federal 
funding for the project is capped by law at $55,000,000 (of 
which $38,000,000 has been appropriated to date). In addition, 
the State of Rhode Island has committed to funding any costs 
that would exceed the original Federal-State cost estimate for 
the project.

 Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $571,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     521,476,000
Committee recommendation................................     521,000,000

    For fiscal year 2001, the administration has requested an 
appropriation of $521,476,000 for Amtrak capital funding with 
the same flexibility in spending its capital grant as provided 
to transit grantees.

Amtrak appropriations history--1971-2000

                        [In millions of dollars]

        Fiscal year                                         Annual total

1971-72.......................................................      40.0
1973..........................................................     170.0
1974..........................................................     149.1
1975..........................................................     276.5
1976..........................................................     471.2
Transition quarter (fiscal year change).......................     180.0
1977..........................................................     800.7
1978..........................................................   1,116.0
1979..........................................................   1,234.0
1980..........................................................   1,223.4
1981..........................................................   1,246.3
1982..........................................................     905.0
1983..........................................................     815.0
1984..........................................................     816.4
1985..........................................................     707.6
1986..........................................................     602.7
1987..........................................................     618.5
1988..........................................................     608.3
1989..........................................................     603.6
1990..........................................................     629.1
1991..........................................................     798.9
1992..........................................................     861.2
1993..........................................................     846.1
1993 supplemental appropriations..............................      45.0
1994..........................................................     922.2
1995..........................................................     972.0
1996..........................................................     750.0
1997..........................................................     760.0
Omnibus consolidated appropriations 1997......................      82.5
1998 Taxpayer Relief Act......................................   1,091.8
1998 Appropriations, Amtrak operations and Northeast corridor 
    improvement program.......................................     594.0
1999 Taxpayer Relief Act......................................   1,091.8
1999 Appropriations...........................................     609.2
2000..........................................................     571.0
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................  23,209.1

Source.--Federal Railroad Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $521,000,000 for Amtrak capital 
grants in fiscal year 2001. This is the so-called ``glidepath'' 
level of Federal funding agreed to by the administration and 
Amtrak, which called for $5,011,000,000 of Federal support over 
5 years (fiscal years 1998 through 2002). This agreed-to level 
of Federal funding included both general fund appropriations 
($2,828,000,000) and Taxpayer Relief Act funds 
($2,183,000,000).
    Amtrak's current financial situation remains precarious. 
According to FRA, the railroad ended fiscal year 1999 with a 
net operating loss of $702,000,000. The railroad's financial 
future is equally uncertain. The DOT Office of Inspector 
General, which has analyzed Amtrak's strategic business plan to 
determine whether the railroad's projections for achieving 
operational self-sufficiency by the end of fiscal year 2002 are 
reasonable, determined that the funding shortfall between total 
capital needs and expected Federal funding is, at a minimum, 
$500,000,000 over the remainder of this authorization cycle. 
Under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Public 
Law 105-134), the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC) has the authority 
to submit a ``sunset trigger'' action plan to Congress for the 
restructuring and rationalization of the national intercity 
passenger rail system if the ARC makes a finding that Amtrak 
will not meet its financial goal of operating without Federal 
operational subsidies. It is uncertain at this time what the 
Federal funding role will be in supporting passenger rail 
services beyond the end of fiscal year 2002.
    Bill language.--Consistent with first-year spending 
patterns of capital rail funds and with action taken last year, 
the Committee has included bill language that prohibits Amtrak 
from obligating more than $208,400,000 prior to September 30, 
2001.
    South End infrastructure improvements.--In January 2000, 
Amtrak released a report in response to a request from the 
Committees on Appropriations that described in detail the 
planned infrastructure improvements along the south end of the 
Northeast corridor between New York City and Washington, D.C. 
The report describes the work needed on the fixed capital plant 
(track, structures, communications and signalization, electric 
traction, facilities, yards and stations), which is owned by 
Amtrak and over which approximately 60 percent of the 
railroad's ridership is carried. In addition to Amtrak's own 
intercity service on this corridor, six public commuter rail 
systems operate on the south end, totaling more than 100 
million person trips per year. Over the past two decades, 
growth in intercity and commuter service on the corridor has 
created operational challenges and congestion. Additionally, 
Amtrak has deferred many maintenance projects on the south end, 
which has led parts of the corridor, particularly around the 
Penn Station New York tunnel complex, to fall below modern 
standards of design and building code requirements. In the 
South End report, Amtrak laid out short term (5-year) and long 
term (20-year) investment plans which would address life safety 
issues, operational reliability, and enhancement activities. 
Amtrak will enter into cost-sharing agreements with other 
corridor stakeholders, including the commuter railroads, State 
departments of transportation, and freight railroads to protect 
the Federal Government's investment in this part of the 
railroad's infrastructure. At the time of the report's release, 
cost sharing arrangements had not been discussed with Amtrak's 
partners and no commitments from other stakeholders had been 
made. The Committee directs Amtrak to provide a quarterly 
letter report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, the Senate Commerce Committee, and the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, beginning on 
September 30, 2000, which outlines the cost-sharing 
arrangements among the corridor stakeholders, as well as 
ongoing implementation of the South End corridor infrastructure 
improvement plan.
    Northeast corridor high-speed rail service.--Amtrak 
currently anticipates beginning its Acela express high speed 
passenger service in the Northeast corridor in July 2000, about 
7 months later than originally planned. Time is growing short 
to meet the new start-up date, and according to the DOT 
Inspector General, service may either be further delayed or 
start with a lower maximum speed and longer running times. 
There is a financial impact to this delay in inaugurating the 
new service. Amtrak estimates that if Acela service begins in 
July 2000 as currently planned, the lost passenger revenues in 
fiscal year 2000 associated with the delayed start-up would 
total $142,000,000. Amtrak plans to mitigate this revenue loss 
with operating expense savings, interest savings, and 
contractor penalties for late equipment delivery. The revenue 
loss will be higher if delays extend beyond July, and the the 
delayed start-up will in turn affect the delivery schedule for 
the 20 new Acela trainsets, which were scheduled to be 
delivered and in service by December 2000, but which Amtrak now 
estimates will be pushed back to March 2001. Successful 
implementation of express high-speed passenger service in the 
Northeast corridor is a cornerstone of Amtrak's strategic 
business plan, and is indispensable to achieving the mandate of 
operating self-sufficiency by the end of 2002. If Amtrak will 
not be able to meet its own internal timetables for 
establishing this service, the railroad must develop a 
financial mitigation plan to delineate how they will make up 
the lost revenue and still live within the ``glidepath'' 
agreement.
    Express freight and mail services.--In fiscal year 1999, 
Amtrak revenues from U.S. mail service were $80,600,000 and a 
net profit of $4,200,000 was realized from the new express 
freight services. Amtrak projects fiscal year 2000 revenues 
from mail and express freight to be $103,800,000 and 
$9,900,000, respectively. Changes to services on several of 
Amtrak's existing routes were recommended as part of Amtrak's 
market based network analysis to capitalize on express freight 
opportunities. Amtrak is directed to provide a letter report to 
the Senate Committee on Appropriations no later than August 31, 
2000, which outlines potential express freight opportunities on 
the Empire Builder route, and which addresses en route hubbing 
connections for these services in the State of Montana.
    Los Angeles to Las Vegas service.--Amtrak plans to initiate 
a new service between Los Angeles, CA and Las Vegas, NV in late 
calendar year 2000. Amtrak's fiscal year 1998 and 1999 capital 
budgets included a total of $14,000,000 to prepare for this 
service, and the Corporation entered into an agreement with 
Union Pacific to share the costs of double tracking a 20-mile 
segment between Cima and Kelso, CA. Since last year, the cost 
estimates for the double tracking increased, and Amtrak 
committed the remainder of its previously budgeted funding for 
this program to cover these increases. Subsequently, Amtrak's 
fiscal year 2000 strategic budget plan includes an additional 
$6,202,000 from Taxpayer Relief Act funds to build a station 
platform and layover track at the Las Vegas terminus, to enable 
the service to begin by the end of the year.

                         Amtrak Reform Council

Appropriations, 2000....................................        $750,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................         980,000
Committee recommendation................................         495,000

\1\ The Council is an independent entity. Its funding is presented 
within the FRA for display purposes only.

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $495,000 for 
necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform Council [ARC]. Initial 
funding for the ARC was provided in the fiscal year 1998 
supplemental appropriations bill, Public Law 105-174; in the 
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 transportation appropriations acts, 
$450,000 and $750,000, respectively, was appropriated for the 
Council. For fiscal year 2001, the administration has requested 
an appropriation of $980,000; the ARC itself has requested 
$1,400,000. Because the Council is an independent commission, 
the Committee's appropriation is not provided within the FRA's 
budget, but is provided in a general provision (sec. 328) of 
the bill. These funds are available for two years, through 
September 30, 2002.
    The ARC was established by the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act of 1997 [ARAA]. The Council consists of 11 
members, including four Senate appointees, four House 
appointees, two Presidential appointees, and the Secretary of 
Transportation. Under the ARAA, the responsibilities of the ARC 
include evaluating Amtrak's performance and making 
recommendations to Congress and Amtrak for achieving further 
cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial 
reforms. In addition, fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill 
language expanded the Council's statutory responsibilities to 
include its views on any routes or services that Amtrak's route 
analysis data indicate should be closed or realigned.
    As a practical matter, the ARC is a temporary commission. 
By the end of fiscal year 2002, the Council must make a 
determination on whether or not Amtrak can meet the financial 
goals outlined in the ARAA (though the Council may make a 
finding before the end of the current authorization). If the 
ARC determines these goals cannot be met, they must then submit 
a restructuring plan, and Amtrak must submit a liquidation 
plan.

               pennsylvania station redevelopment project

Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     $20,000,000
Committee recommendations...............................      20,000,000

    In 2000, an advance appropriation of $20,000,000 was 
provided for each fiscal year 2001, 2002, and 2003. These funds 
support the redevelopment of the Pennsylvania Station in New 
York City, including the renovation of the James A. Farley Post 
Office building as a train station and commercial center, and 
basic upgrades to Pennsylvania Station.

             expanded intercity rail passenger service fund

Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................    $468,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\ Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority.

    The administration is proposing a new grant program to 
improve intercity passenger rail service nationwide to be 
funded from revenue aligned budget authority. The budget 
proposal includes $468,000,000, of which $1,000,000 is for 
administrative expenses related to mandatory Environmental 
Impact Statements and other analyses. The proposed grants would 
be available to Amtrak and/or a partner State or State 
consortium to implement capital projects which enhance 
intercity rail service.
    Funding for the intercity rail passenger service fund has 
been denied. Since Amtrak is currently the only intercity rail 
provider in the continental United States, these additional 
funds should be viewed as an additional Federal subsidy to 
Amtrak above the administration's glidepath agreement with the 
railroad. Additionally, the Committee categorically opposes the 
transfer of revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) to other 
non-highway uses. Congress has been clear and emphatic in its 
opposition to diversions of RABA funds. The administration has 
put forth a number of proposed RABA diversions in its fiscal 
year 2001 budget request; none of them have been approved in 
this legislation.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    The Federal Transit Administration was established as a 
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization 
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred 
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit 
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist 
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, 
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning 
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services 
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide 
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural 
areas; to maximize productivity of transportation systems; and 
to provide assistance to State and local governments and their 
instrumentalities in financing such services and systems.
    The current authorization for the programs funded by the 
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In addition to 
the guaranteed level of funds under the mass transit 
discretionary budget category, the administration proposes 
funding of $50,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
    Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level 
of $6,271,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the 
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2001, which is 
the same obligation limitation authorized under the mass 
transit category in TEA21. This funding is comprised of 
$1,254,000,000 in direct appropriations of general funds and 
$5,016,600,000 in limitations on contract authority.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations compared to fiscal year 2000 and the 
administration's request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                        Program                          2000 enacted \1\     2001 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................             60,000             64,000             64,000
Formula grants \2\.....................................          3,048,000          3,345,000          3,345,000
University transportation research.....................              6,000              6,000              6,000
Transit planning and research..........................            107,000            110,000            110,000
Capital investment grants \2\ \3\......................          2,507,000          2,646,000          2,646,000
Job access and reverse commute grants \4\..............             75,000            150,000            100,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................          5,803,000          6,321,000          6,271,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reductions totaling $18,085,200 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69 and
  for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Fiscal year 2000 reflects transfer of $50,000,000 from Formula grants to Capital investment grants pursuant
  to Public Law 106-69.
\3\ Fiscal year 2000 includes $6,000,000 direct appropriation pursuant to section 225 of Public Law 106-113.
\4\ The budget proposal includes $50,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.

                        Administrative Expenses


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              General fund        Trust fund
                                                                                                       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................       $12,000,000        $48,000,000       $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\...............................        12,800,000         51,200,000        64,000,000
Committee recommendation................................        12,800,000         51,200,000        64,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $438,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.

    The Committee recommends a total of $64,000,000 in budget 
resources funds for administrative expenses.
    The Appropriations Committees have directed the DOT 
Inspector General (OIG) to track the progress of all fixed 
guideway projects of national significance and perform audits 
of those experiencing cost, schedule, or financing problems. To 
continue this work in fiscal year 2001, the administration 
proposes reimbursing the OIG $1,500,000 from FTA's 
administrative expenses account. The Committee has increased 
this transfer to $3,000,000, and has included bill language 
making these funds available to the OIG.
    Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee has 
not provided an increase of 10 FTE in fiscal year 2001, but 
anticipates that the requested fiscal year 2000 reprogramming 
to hire 20 positions (+10 FTE) above the enacted staff ceiling 
of 485 will be approved before the end of the current fiscal 
year. Therefore, the fiscal year 2001 staff ceiling will be 495 
FTE instead of the requested 505 FTE, and salaries and benefits 
are decreased by -$835,000.
    Information technology and other administrative expenses.--
The Committee anticipates that the requested fiscal year 2000 
reprogramming request for $2,500,000 in information technology 
initiatives will be approved before the end of the current 
fiscal year. However, the requested increase above baseline IT 
programs for fiscal year 2001 may exceed the agency's ability 
to implement projects in a timely and effective manner. The 
Committee approves the requests for IT infrastructure data 
protection (+$250,000), continued implementation of the 
Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) 
application program (+$250,000) and annual electronic 
procurement life cycle maintenance, licenses and core 
operations (+$150,000). Funding is denied for the remaining IT 
requests (-$291,000). The Committee directs FTA to use these 
savings to provide regional and state-based grantee workshops 
that will better familiarize grantees (especially those who are 
making a grant application with FTA for the first time) with 
regional planning, transit program development and eligibility, 
transit program management, and federally mandated 
requirements, as well as with the TEAM electronic application 
process.

                  transit funding equity among states

    Transit funding made available to public transit 
authorities, state departments of transportation, non-profit 
organizations, cities, and other public entities is made 
available through four mechanisms: formula grants (49 U.S.C. 
sections 5307, 5310, and 5311); capital investment grants (49 
U.S.C. section 5309), which include bus and bus facilities 
grants, fixed guideway modernization grants, and new fixed 
guideway capital grants; job access and reverse commute grants 
(49 U.S.C. section 3037); and some planning and research 
funding. Of the total $6,271,000,000 in transit funding, 
$5,991,000,000 is in section 5307, 5310, 5309, and 5311 funds. 
Of this subtotal, the formula program funds and the fixed 
guideway modernization program funds go out to public transit 
agencies by formulas set in TEA21. The bus and bus facilities 
grants and new fixed guideway capital grants have traditionally 
been designated by Congress in the annual appropriations 
process.
    The following table reflects fiscal year 2000 allocations 
to States for formula and capital investment grant programs.

                                                  FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Section
                                                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       5310 Elderly                                                     State total      State
                              State                                  5307 Urbanized     5311  Non-      and persons      5309 new       5309 fixed       5309 bus      selected FTA   percentage
                                                                          area        urbanized area       with           starts         quideway       allocation       programs      of total
                                                                                                        disability                     modernization
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................................................        $12,090,034      $4,603,405      $1,263,045      $2,943,236  ..............     $25,567,342     $46,467,062         0.8
Alaska...........................................................      \1\ 7,242,172         686,467         191,890      14,912,397  ..............      15,378,058      38,410,984         0.7
American Samoa...................................................  .................          97,843          52,634  ..............  ..............  ..............         150,477  ..........
Arizona..........................................................         30,821,282       2,015,250       1,112,627       4,905,394      $1,526,094       6,867,664      47,248,311         0.9
Arkansas.........................................................          4,743,949       3,680,231         880,019  ..............  ..............       5,062,451      14,366,650         0.3
California.......................................................        447,473,782       8,982,245       6,878,982     191,310,350      95,431,731      37,459,014     787,536,104        14.3
Colorado.........................................................         34,418,914       1,917,350         861,153      38,262,070       1,219,287       9,688,315      86,367,089         1.6
Connecticut......................................................         48,519,170       1,739,218         987,989         981,079      36,897,367       6,622,392      95,747,215         1.7
Delaware.........................................................          5,673,422         433,893         293,852         981,079         755,391       2,452,737      10,590,374         0.2
District of Columbia.............................................         25,177,344  ..............         291,611  ..............      46,383,358       7,211,050      79,063,363         1.4
Florida..........................................................        135,953,170       5,774,183       4,639,244      20,112,114      13,823,587      14,471,154     194,773,452         3.5
Georgia..........................................................         47,474,147       6,730,668       1,640,232      45,268,939      17,521,698      21,338,818     139,974,502         2.5
Guam.............................................................  .................         278,536         133,760  ..............  ..............  ..............         412,296  ..........
Hawaii...........................................................         23,889,547         755,415         376,045       5,101,609         625,993       4,169,654      34,918,263         0.6
Idaho............................................................          2,846,734       1,524,027         385,025  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,755,786         0.1
Illinois.........................................................        190,899,623       6,175,012       2,996,023      31,394,518     114,500,000       8,682,692     354,647,868         6.4
Indiana..........................................................         30,462,808       5,964,922       1,568,010       4,905,394       7,661,248       9,075,130      59,637,512         1.1
Iowa.............................................................          8,673,972       3,836,697         946,671  ..............  ..............      10,384,893      23,842,233         0.4
Kansas...........................................................          7,410,228       3,051,970         792,307         981,079  ..............       6,651,826      18,887,410         0.3
Kentucky.........................................................         15,875,261       5,038,137       1,210,112  ..............  ..............       5,886,573      28,010,083         0.5
Louisiana........................................................         25,638,155       4,166,904       1,214,053         981,079       2,709,022       4,905,476      39,614,689         0.7
Maine............................................................          2,042,136       2,010,694         483,465         490,539  ..............  ..............       5,026,834         0.1
Maryland.........................................................         70,400,537       2,510,254       1,219,834      11,481,577      22,632,029      11,282,593     119,526,824         2.2
Massachusetts....................................................        106,769,422       2,690,230       1,760,613      54,837,393      63,234,326      12,148,410     241,440,394         4.4
Michigan.........................................................         58,043,917       7,285,603       2,562,126  ..............         440,130      26,980,100      95,311,876         1.7
Minnesota........................................................         27,237,043       4,192,444       1,237,149      44,933,405       2,874,132      23,804,862     104,279,035         1.9
Mississippi......................................................          4,279,789       4,091,281         854,719  ..............  ..............       5,101,696      14,327,485         0.3
Missouri.........................................................         31,073,608       4,883,117       1,590,250      51,506,633       1,882,830      14,422,098     105,358,536         1.9
Montana..........................................................          2,154,127       1,234,582         352,572  ..............  ..............         588,657       4,329,938         0.1
Nebraska.........................................................          7,485,607       1,862,828         556,193  ..............  ..............         988,700      10,893,328         0.2
Nevada...........................................................         17,331,409         608,185         411,680       3,433,775  ..............       5,346,969      27,132,018         0.5
New Hampshire....................................................          3,018,110       1,610,315         388,463         981,079  ..............       2,943,286       8,941,253         0.2
New Jersey.......................................................        165,120,584       2,302,409       2,115,374     112,333,507      85,635,781      10,693,937     378,201,592         6.9
New Mexico.......................................................          6,248,659       1,810,042         488,168       9,810,787  ..............       8,584,582      26,942,238         0.5
New York.........................................................        474,107,838       8,104,755       4,912,556       6,377,011     316,773,720      26,680,885     836,956,765        15.2
North Carolina...................................................         24,485,967       8,609,644       1,866,530      11,772,945  ..............       7,192,409      53,927,495         1.0
North Dakota.....................................................          2,099,863         913,029         298,904  ..............  ..............         981,096       4,292,892         0.1
Northern Marianas................................................  .................          90,672          52,406  ..............  ..............  ..............         143,078  ..........
Ohio.............................................................         79,851,933       8,765,216       3,127,059       5,395,934      15,542,858      13,500,115     126,183,115         2.3
Oklahoma.........................................................         10,090,378       3,747,039       1,043,154  ..............  ..............       4,905,476      19,786,047         0.4
Oregon...........................................................         24,257,325       2,975,182         969,236      11,343,237       2,868,068       8,290,255      50,703,303         0.9
Pennsylvania.....................................................        130,035,687       9,777,689       3,750,831      23,055,350      96,624,465      28,345,805     291,589,827         5.3
Puerto Rico......................................................         39,304,948       2,921,881         919,030      31,394,519       1,968,870         588,657      77,097,905         1.4
Rhode Island.....................................................          9,319,486         374,298         429,419  ..............       1,446,893       3,231,728      14,801,824         0.3
South Carolina...................................................         10,155,824       4,309,170       1,008,050       2,452,697  ..............       8,604,204      26,529,945         0.5
South Dakota.....................................................          1,514,777       1,112,911         323,437  ..............  ..............       1,471,643       4,422,768         0.1
Tennessee........................................................         20,372,484       5,562,645       1,492,836       3,924,315          71,083       3,433,833      34,857,196         0.6
Texas............................................................        146,831,843      11,744,291       3,874,080     106,221,373       5,138,282      16,040,909     289,850,778         5.3
Utah.............................................................         18,137,338         843,648         454,360      47,021,140  ..............      14,029,660      80,486,146         1.5
Vermont..........................................................            761,283         995,038         265,950  ..............  ..............       4,169,654       6,191,925         0.1
Virgin Islands...................................................  .................         212,971         136,122  ..............  ..............  ..............         349,093  ..........
Virginia.........................................................         56,373,968       4,931,824       1,553,327      27,666,420         987,183      10,483,004     101,995,726         1.9
Washington.......................................................         76,640,808       3,455,667       1,392,260      31,394,519      15,232,451      19,425,683     147,541,388         2.7
West Virginia....................................................          3,670,219       2,938,313         734,389  ..............  ..............      21,093,544      28,436,465         0.5
Wisconsin........................................................         32,888,049       5,077,060       1,421,596         981,079         639,123      19,867,176      60,874,083         1.1
Wyoming..........................................................          1,051,862         710,084         224,993  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,986,939  ..........
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................................................      2,768,440,542     192,717,384      72,986,415     961,849,571     973,047,000     537,096,865   5,506,137,777         100
                                                                  ==============================================================================================================================
Oversight........................................................         13,888,701         968,065  ..............       7,353,000       7,353,000       4,096,500      33,659,266  ..........
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total......................................................  \2\ 2,782,329,243  \3\ 193,685,44  \4\ 72,986,415  \5\ 969,202,57     980,400,000  \6\ 541,193,36   5,539,797,043  ..........
                                                                                                   9                               1                               5
                                                                  ==============================================================================================================================
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility..................................  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,700,000  ..........
                                                                  ==============================================================================================================================
      Grand Total................................................      2,782,329,243     193,685,449      72,986,415     969,202,571     980,400,000     541,193,365   5,543,497,043  ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes funds appropriated for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations
\2\ Includes $4,589,012 in reapportioned recoveries.
\3\ Includes $72,481 in reapportioned recoveries.
\4\ Includes $39,614 in reapportioned recoveries.
\5\ Includes a reduction of $11,197,429 as part of Public Law 106-113.
\6\ Includes $1,199,750 of reallocated bus funds as part of Public Law 106-69; and a net reduction of $6,206,385 as part of Public Law 106-113.

                             Formula Grants


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              General fund       Trust fund            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\..................................      $569,600,000    $2,478,400,000    $3,048,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001.....................................       669,000,000     2,676,000,000     3,345,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................       669,000,000     2,676,000,000     3,345,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects $50,000,000 transferred to capital investment grants.

    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 non-urbanized areas (U.S.C. 
sec. 5311). In addition, setasides 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 $3,345,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2001, the statutory distribution of these formula grants 
is allocated among these categories as follows:

Urbanized areas (sec. 5307).............................  $2,997,316,081
Clean fuels (sec. 5308).................................      50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................      78,850,801
Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311)..........................     209,283,168
Over-the-Road Bus Program...............................       4,700,000
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, urbanized formula 
grants may be used to fund capital projects, and to finance 
planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and 
associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All 
urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are 
statutorily required to use 1 percent of their annual formula 
grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art, 
bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
    The following table displays the State-by-State 
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the 
program categories:

 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2001 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Section 5310
                                                Section 5307     Section 5311     elderly and     Total formula
                    State                      urbanized area    nonurbanized     persons with       programs
                                                                     area         disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................      $13,046,848       $4,974,114       $1,363,957      $19,384,919
Alaska......................................    \1\ 7,433,414          741,748          197,821        8,372,983
American Samoa..............................  ...............          105,722           52,867          158,589
Arizona.....................................       33,260,503        2,177,536        1,200,201       36,638,240
Arkansas....................................        5,119,390        3,976,597          946,967       10,042,954
California..................................      482,887,208        9,705,577        7,477,863      500,070,648
Colorado....................................       37,142,854        2,071,753          926,429       40,141,036
Connecticut.................................       52,359,019        1,879,275        1,064,511       55,302,805
Delaware....................................        6,122,420          468,834          308,825        6,900,079
District of Columbia........................       27,169,899  ...............          306,385       27,476,284
Florida.....................................      146,712,613        6,239,173        5,039,527      157,991,313
Georgia.....................................       51,231,289        7,272,683        1,774,590       60,278,562
Guam........................................  ...............          300,966          134,536          435,502
Hawaii......................................       25,780,183          816,248          398,306       26,994,737
Idaho.......................................        3,072,028        1,646,756          408,081        5,126,865
Illinois....................................      206,007,568        6,672,281        3,250,600      215,930,449
Indiana.....................................       32,873,659        6,445,272        1,695,963       41,014,894
Iowa........................................        9,360,438        4,145,662        1,019,530       14,525,630
Kansas......................................        7,996,681        3,297,743          851,478       12,145,902
Kentucky....................................       17,131,642        5,443,854        1,306,330       23,881,826
Louisiana...................................       27,667,179        4,502,461        1,310,621       33,480,261
Maine.......................................        2,203,751        2,172,613          515,251        4,891,615
Maryland....................................       75,972,090        2,712,403        1,316,914       80,001,407
Massachusetts...............................      115,219,238        2,906,872        1,905,644      120,031,754
Michigan....................................       62,637,557        7,872,306        2,778,229       73,288,092
Minnesota...................................       29,392,604        4,530,057        1,335,764       35,258,425
Mississippi.................................        4,618,496        4,420,748          919,424        9,958,668
Missouri....................................       33,532,798        5,276,351        1,720,175       40,529,324
Montana.....................................        2,324,606        1,334,002          372,751        4,031,359
Nebraska....................................        8,078,023        2,012,840          594,428       10,685,291
Nevada......................................       18,703,029          657,162          437,100       19,797,291
New Hampshire...............................        3,256,965        1,739,992          411,825        5,408,782
New Jersey..................................      178,188,359        2,487,820        2,291,863      182,968,042
New Mexico..................................        6,743,181        1,955,803          520,371        9,219,355
New York....................................      511,629,104        8,757,424        5,337,074      525,723,602
North Carolina..............................       26,423,807        9,302,971        2,020,953       37,747,731
North Dakota................................        2,266,047          986,554          314,324        3,566,925
Northern Marianas...........................  ...............           97,974           52,619          150,593
Ohio........................................       86,171,474        9,471,071        3,393,254       99,035,799
Oklahoma....................................       10,888,938        4,048,785        1,124,568       16,062,291
Oregon......................................       26,177,070        3,214,771        1,044,095       30,435,936
Pennsylvania................................      140,326,812       10,565,079        4,072,337      154,964,228
Puerto Rico.................................       42,415,576        3,157,178          989,437       46,562,191
Rhode Island................................       10,057,038          404,440          456,412       10,917,890
South Carolina..............................       10,959,566        4,656,183        1,086,351       16,702,100
South Dakota................................        1,634,658        1,202,532          341,032        3,178,222
Tennessee...................................       21,984,782        6,010,601        1,614,124       29,609,507
Texas.......................................      158,452,230       12,690,049        4,206,514      175,348,793
Utah........................................       19,572,743          911,586          483,564       20,967,893
Vermont.....................................          821,531        1,075,168          278,448        2,175,147
Virgin Islands..............................  ...............          230,121          137,109          367,230
Virginia....................................       60,835,448        5,328,980        1,679,979       67,844,407
Washington..................................       82,706,220        3,733,949        1,504,629       87,944,798
West Virginia...............................        3,960,684        3,174,933          788,425        7,924,042
Wisconsin...................................       35,490,834        5,485,912        1,536,567       42,513,313
Wyoming.....................................        1,135,107          767,267          233,859        2,136,233
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............................    2,987,155,201      208,236,752       78,850,801    3,274,242,754
Oversight...................................       15,010,830        1,046,416  ...............       16,057,246
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................    3,002,166,031      209,283,168       78,850,801    3,290,300,000
                                             ===================================================================
Clean Fuels.................................  ...............  ...............  ...............       50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility.............  ...............  ...............  ...............        4,700,000
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............    3,345,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.

    Over-the-road buses.--The Committee has included bill 
language that increases, through the current authorization 
period, the federal share of the incremental capital and 
training costs for the over-the-road bus accessibility program 
from the current level of 50 percent to 90 percent. A similar 
change in the Federal share for 1 year only was enacted last 
year. Section 3038(g) of TEA21 provides a total of $4,700,000 
for the over-the-road bus accessibility program costs in fiscal 
year 2001.
    The Committee has also included bill language which expands 
the exemption from Federal axle weight restrictions presently 
applicable only to public transit passenger buses to all over-
the-road buses. Over-the-road buses (OTRBs), like urban transit 
buses, have been carrying progressively more weight on each 
axle due to government mandates relating to safety, the 
environment and access for the mobility impaired. Consequently, 
fully loaded OTRBs now approach and sometimes may exceed the 
federal axle weight restrictions of 34,000 pounds on the tandem 
axle, with no single axle allowed to carry more than 20,000 
pounds. New emission standards going into effect in 2002 will 
only worsen the problem, because engine weight will be 
increased by 300 to 800 pounds. The transit bus exemption was 
enacted shortly after Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 
requirements were imposed on the transit industry in 1991. The 
ADA requirements were extended to OTRBs in 1999. Both transit 
buses and OTRBs are subject to the same safety, environmental, 
and accessibility requirements. It is inconsistent to exempt 
only one part of the industry and not the other. In addition, a 
study on the applicability of maximum axle weight limitations 
to both OTRBs and public transit vehicles is directed to be 
submitted to Congress no later than 18 months after enactment 
of this Act.

                   University Transportation Research


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............................................      $1,200,000      $4,800,000      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...........................................       1,200,000       4,800,000       6,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................       1,200,000       4,800,000       6,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 5505 of TEA21 provides authorization for the 
university transportation research program. The purpose of the 
university transportation research program is to become a 
national resource and focal point for the support and conduct 
of research and training concerning the transportation of 
passengers and property. Funds provided under the FTA 
university transportation research program are transferred to 
and managed by the Research and Special Programs Administration 
(RSPA), combined with a transfer from the Federal Highway 
Administration of $27,250,000. The transit university 
transportation research program funds are statutorily available 
only to the following universities: University of Minnesota, 
Northwestern University, Morgan State University, and North 
Carolina State University.
    The Committee action provides $6,000,000 for the university 
transportation research program, the same level as provided in 
fiscal year 2000.

                     Transit Planning and Research


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............................................     $21,000,000     $86,000,000    $107,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\ ......................................      22,200,000      87,800,000     110,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      22,200,000      87,800,000     110,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $243,386 pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.

    The Committee action provides $110,000,000 for transit 
planning and research. The bill contains language specifying 
that $52,113,600 shall be available for the metropolitan 
planning program; $5,250,000 for the rural transit assistance 
program; $29,500,000 for the national planning and research 
program; $10,886,400 for the State planning and research 
program; $8,250,000 for transit cooperative research; and 
$4,000,000 for the National Transit Institute at Rutgers 
University.

                  transit cooperative research program

    Within the funds provided for the transit cooperative 
research program, the bill contains language directing that 
$3,000,000 is available for research conducted by the Great 
Cities Universities research consortium, a coalition of 17 
urban public research universities. This research shall be a 
collaborative effort to develop and enhance software and other 
technologies that can be applied directly to transportation 
issues in the urban areas in which the institutions are 
located, and to work with local government planners and 
managers to apply these transportation planning and problem-
solving tools and to evaluate their performance. The 
institutions that comprise the Great Cities Universities 
research consortium are: University of Alabama at Birmingham, 
University of Cincinnati, Cleveland State University, Georgia 
State University, University of Houston, University of Illinois 
at Chicago, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 
University of Massachusetts Boston, University of Memphis, 
University of Missouri-Kansas City, University of Missouri-St. 
Louis, University of New Orleans, City University of New York/
City College, Portland State University, Virginia Commonwealth 
University, Wayne State University, and the University of 
Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--
                             ----------------------------    Committee
                              2000 program   2001 budget  recommendation
                                  level       estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning.......   $49,632,000   $52,113,600    $52,113,600
Rural transit assistance         5,250,000     5,250,000      5,250,000
 program....................
State planning and research     10,368,000    10,886,400     10,886,400
 program....................
Transit cooperative research     8,250,000     8,250,000      8,250,000
 program....................
National Transit Institute..     4,000,000     4,000,000      4,000,000
National planning and           29,500,000    29,500,000     29,500,000
 research program \1\.......
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................   107,000,000   110,000,000    110,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 does not reflect reduction of $243,386 pursuant to
  section 310 of Public Law 106-113.

                 NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

    The Committee recommendation includes transit planning and 
research grants from the national program that were authorized 
in section 3012 of the Transportation Equity Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001:

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority advanced 
    propulsion control system...........................      $3,000,000
Project ACTION..........................................       3,000,000

    Support in fiscal year 2001 is also provided for a number 
of important initiatives and Federal Transit Administration 
priorities, including:

Mid-America Regional Council coordinated transit 
    planning, Kansas City metro area....................        $750,000
Sacramento Area Council of Governments regional air 
    quality planning and coordination study.............         250,000
Salt Lake Olympic Committee multimodal transportation 
    plan-
    ning................................................       1,200,000
West Virginia University fuel cell technology institute 
    propulsion and ITS testing..........................       1,000,000
University of Rhode Island, Kingston traffic congestion 
    study...............................................         150,000
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority regional 
    transit study.......................................         350,000
Trans-lake Washington land use effectiveness and 
    enhancement review..................................         450,000
State of Vermont electric vehicle transit demonstration.         500,000
Center for Composites Manufacturing.....................         950,000
Acadia Island, Maine explorer transit system 
    experimental pilot program..........................         150,000
Southern Nevada air quaility study......................         800,000
Fairbanks extreme temperature clean fuels research......         800,000
National Transit Database...............................       2,500,000
Safety and security.....................................       6,100,000
National rural transit assistance program...............         750,000
Mississippi State University bus service expansion plan.         100,000
Bus Rapid Transit administration, data collection and 
    analysis............................................       1,000,000

    National transit database (NTD).--The NTD is FTA's national 
database for statistics for the transit industry, and provides 
for the national collection and dissemination of a uniform 
system of transit system financial accounts and operating data. 
These data are in turn used in the national allocation of 
Section 5307, 5310 and 5311 formula funding and section 5309 
rail modernization funding according to TEA21 formulas. The 
Committee supports FTA's request of $2,500,000 for ongoing NTD 
activities from the national planning and research program. In 
response to direction from the conferees in the Fiscal Year 
2000 Transportation Appropriations Act and in compliance with 
the Government Performance and Results Act, FTA is revising and 
redesigning the NTD to provide more meaningful and timely data 
for State and local governments, transit industry personnel, 
and academic institutions. The FTA has submitted a phase I 
report on the NTD redesign effort to the Committees on 
Appropriations, and is requesting $1,515,000 from project 
management oversight funds for phase II (prototype development, 
systems testing, and software integration) for fiscal year 
2001. The Committee concurs with this request.
    Fuel cell bus research and development.--The Committee has 
not provided direct transit planning and research funding for 
development of either phosphoric acid fuel cell or proton 
exchange membrane fuel cell bus development. Through fiscal 
year 2000, over $50,000,000 has been provided in Federal 
research and deployment funding for the development of this 
technology. Fuel cell vendors and automotive and transit 
vehicle manufacturers are currently working together to 
integrate fuel cell technology with bus platforms. The 
Committee understands that several transit agencies have 
expressed interest in procuring service vehicles which employ 
fuel cell technology. The Committee notes that both section 
5307 formula funds and section 5309 bus and bus facilities 
funds can be used for such procurements.

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $4,929,270,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................   5,066,600,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,016,600,000

\1\ Includes $50,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.

    For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has provided 
$5,016,600,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of 
transit expenses associated with the following programs: 
administrative expenses, formula grants, university 
transportation research, transit planning and research, job 
access and reverse commute grants, and capital investment 
grants. This level of funds is equal to the total budget 
authority from the highway trust fund inside the transit 
firewall as outlined in the transportation discretionary 
spending guarantee subtitle of the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century.

                       Capital Investment Grants


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                General funds     Trust funds         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\ \2\.................................     $540,200,000   $1,966,800,000   $2,507,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001........................................      529,200,000    2,116,800,000    2,646,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................      529,200,000    2,116,800,000    2,646,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants pursuant to Public Law 106-69; also includes $6,000,000
  Trust Fund direct appropriation pursuant to section 225 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Does not reflect reduction of $17,403,414 pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.

    Section 5309 of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants 
or loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof 
to be used in financing mass transportation investments. 
Investments may include construction of new fixed guideway 
systems and extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus 
fleet expansions and bus facility construction; and fixed 
guideway expenditures for existing systems.
    The Committee action provides a level of $2,646,000,000. 
Within this total, $2,116,800,000 is from the ``Mass transit'' 
account of the highway trust fund, and no more than 
$529,200,000 shall be appropriated from general funds. The 
following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                   2000 program     2001 budget      Committee
                                                                       level         estimate     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities..........................................    $546,200,000    $529,200,000    $529,200,000
Fixed guideway modernization....................................     980,400,000   1,058,400,000   1,058,400,000
New systems and new extensions..................................     980,400,000   1,058,400,000   1,058,400,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................   2,507,000,000   2,646,000,000   2,646,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
Unobligated discretionary bus and new starts funds from 
projects funded in the fiscal year 1998 Transportation 
appropriations bill (Public Law 105-66) and previous acts are 
available for reallocation in fiscal year 2001. As in previous 
years, a general provision (sec. 316) is included which limits 
funding availability for fiscal year 2001 capital investment 
funds, except fixed-guideway modernization funds, to 3 years 
from enactment.
    Under the 3-year availability rule, FTA has indicated that 
fiscal year 1998 funds provided for the following bus and bus 
facilities projects are in danger of lapsing before the end of 
fiscal year 2000.

                                             Remaining unobligated funds
Burlington, VT multimodal center........................      $1,465,794
Wilkes Barre, PA intermodal facility....................       1,465,794
Columbia, SC buses and facilities.......................       1,954,393
Florence, SC Pee Dee RTA intermodal facilities..........       1,143,908
San Joaquin, CA buses and bus facilities................       1,954,393

    FTA has also indicated that fiscal year 1998 funds provided 
for the following new fixed guideway systems projects are in 
danger of lapsing before the end of fiscal year 2000.

                                             Remaining unobligated funds
Burlington to Gloucester Line, New Jersey...............      $1,488,750
Jackson, Mississippi intermodal corridor................       2,990,300
New Orleans Canal Street Corridor project (fiscal years 
    1998 and 1997 funds)................................      13,924,777

    Extensions of discretionary funds for projects beyond 3-
year availability.--It has come to the Committee's attention 
that the FTA interprets Congressional extensions of funding 
availability beyond the statutory 3-year term as a renewal for 
another full 3-year period of availability. The Committee 
strongly objects to this interpretation, and stresses that the 
intent in matters of extending funding availability is to give 
project sponsors a limited amount of time to complete the 
process of obligating funds. The grant application process, 
legal certifications and assurances, and environmental 
clearances are assumed to be complete or well underway. The 
Committee directs the FTA to submit a legal opinion to the 
Transportation Subcommittee chairmen and ranking members of the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the 
implementation of Congressional funding extensions of 
discretionary grants beyond 3 years, immediately upon Senate 
passage of the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations 
bill.
    The Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds 
provided in the fiscal year 1996 and the fiscal year 1997 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for the Buffalo, New York crossroads 
intermodal center. Additionally, the Committee directs the FTA 
not to reallocate funds provided in the Fiscal Year 1998 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation 
Act for the New Rochelle, New York intermodal facility.
    The Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds 
provided in the Fiscal Year 1998 Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the following new 
starts projects:
  --Burlington-Essex commuter rail, Vermont
  --Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Airport Busway
  --Cleveland, Ohio Berea Red Line extension to Hopkins 
        International Airport
  --Galveston, Texas rail trolley system project
  --Colorado Roaring Fork Valley Rail project (Aspen to 
        Glenwood Springs)
    Additionally, the bill contains a provision reprogramming 
funds provided in previous fiscal years from the following two 
projects for the purposes specified:
  --North Front Range corridor feasibility study (fiscal year 
        1999)--to be made available for the Eagle Airport to 
        Avon, Colorado light rail system feasibility study and 
        preliminary engineering.
  --Gees Bend Ferry facilities, Wilcox County and Jefferson 
        State Community College/University of Montevallo 
        pedestrian walkway (fiscal year 2000)--to be made 
        available for State of Alabama buses and bus 
        facilities.

                         bus and bus facilities

    The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities 
funding is $529,200,000, which is 20 percent of the total made 
available for capital investment grants. These funds may be 
used to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related 
equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. Within the 
allocation of funds for discretionary bus and bus facilities, 
the budget proposes the following specific funding: $3,000,000 
for the Altoona, PA, bus testing facility; $50,000,000 for 
grants that meet the 49 U.S.C. section 5308 Clean Fuels Formula 
Grant Program standards; $4,850,000 for the Georgetown 
University fuel cell bus program; $50,000,000 for the Los 
Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (LACMTA) bus program; 
$15,000,000 for projects benefiting the Mississippi Delta 
Region; and, $35,000,000 for transit projects related to the 
2002 Winter Olympic Games. TEA21 requires that the Altoona bus 
testing facility and Georgetown University fuel cell bus 
program be allocated funds in the above-specified amounts. 
However, the Committee does not approve the non-authorized set-
asides from the bus and bus facilities program requested by the 
administration.
    The Committee has included bill language that delineates a 
number of eligible bus and bus facilities projects. These 
projects have been brought to the Appropriations Committee's 
attention as being meritorious and in need of Federal 
assistance. The bill includes language that directs the Federal 
Transit Administrator to submit to the congressional 
appropriations and authorizing committees, on or before 
February 1, 2001, a grant recommendation list choosing from 
among the projects listed in the appropriations bill.
  --1000 Oaks Community transportation project, California
  --AC Transit zero-emissions fuel cell bus deployment 
        demonstration project, California
  --Alabama A&M University buses and bus facilities
  --Alabama State Docks intermodal passenger and freight 
        facility
  --Alameda-Contra Costa County bus project, California
  --Alaska State Fair park and ride and passenger shuttle 
        system
  --Albany bus purchase, Linn-Benton transit system, Oregon
  --Albany-Rensselaer train station redevelopment, New York
  --Albuquerque automatic vehicle monitoring system (SOLAR), 
        New Mexico
  --Albuquerque bus replacement, New Mexico
  --Albuquerque West Side Transit Facility, New Mexico
  --Alexandria and Arlington bus facilities, Virginia
  --Altoona bus testing facility, Pennsylvania
  --Ames maintenance facility, Iowa
  --Anaheim Resort Transportation project, alternative and 
        electric transit, California
  --Angel Fire Bus and Bus Facilities, New Mexico
  --Area Transportation of North Central Pennsylvania buses and 
        bus facilities
  --Atlanta MARTA CNG buses, Georgia
  --Attleboro Intermodal Mixed-Use Garage Facility, 
        Massachusetts
  --Auburn, AL parking/intermodal facility
  --Auburn Transit hub park and ride, Washington
  --Austin Capital Metro buses, Texas
  --Bangor intermodal transportation center, Maine
  --Basin Transit System buses, Oregon
  --Beaver County Transit Facility, Pennsylvania
  --Bellows Falls Multimodal, Vermont
  --Ben Franklin Transit buses and bus facilities, Washington
  --Berks Area Reading intermodal facility, Pennsylvania
  --Bethlehem intermodal facility, Pennsylvania
  --Billings buses and intermodal facility, Montana
  --Binghamton Intermodal Transit Terminal, New York
  --Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority buses and bus 
        facilities, Alabama
  --Blackfoot Indian Reservation bus facility, Montana
  --Brattleboro multimodal center, Vermont
  --Brazos Transit District buses and bus facilities, Texas
  --Brea shuttle buses, California
  --Bridgeport intermodal facility, Connecticut
  --Brockton Intermodal transportation Center, Massachusetts
  --Brookhaven multimodal transportation center, Mississippi
  --Buffalo intermodal transportation center, New York
  --Burbank/Glendale--San Fernando Road bus facilities, 
        California
  --Burlington Multimodal Center, Vermont
  --Burlington Special Services Transportation Agency buses and 
        vans, Vermont
  --Camden subway and bus intermodal center renovation, New 
        Jersey
  --Campbell County intermodal facility, Kentucky
  --Carlsbad bus facility, New Mexico
  --Cedar Rapids intermodal facility, Iowa
  --Central Arkansas Transit Authority bus replacement, 
        Arkansas
  --Central Contra Costa Transit Authority buses, California
  --Central New York Regional Transit Authority CNG buses
  --Central Vermont Transit Authority buses and bus facilities
  --Charlotte bus and bus facilities, North Carolina
  --Chatham Area Transit ADA compliant buses and facility, 
        Georgia
  --Chester intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania
  --Cheyenne transit and operation facility, Wyoming
  --Chittenden County Transit Authority, Vermont
  --Cincinnati Riverfront Transit Center, Ohio
  --Cincinnati, Ohio intermodal improvements
  --Clark County bus passenger intermodal facility, Henderson, 
        Nevada
  --Clark County regional transportation commission clean fuel 
        fleet expansion, Nevada
  --Clark County RTC Las Vegas Bus Rapid Transit, Nevada
  --Clinton facility expansion, Iowa
  --Clovis Bus and Bus Related Facilities, New Mexico
  --Coast Transit Authority multimodal facility and shuttle 
        service, Mississippi
  --Columbia bus and bus facilities, Missouri
  --Columbia County ADA buses, Oregon
  --Columbus Near East transit center, Ohio
  --Community Transit buses and bus facilities--Snohomish 
        County, Washington
  --Compton Renaissance transit system project, California
  --Coos County buses, Oregon
  --Corpus Christi Adart ITS project, Texas
  --Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority buses and bus 
        facilities, Texas
  --Corvallis Transit System operations facility, Oregon
  --C-TRAN bus facility, transit ITS and I-5 park and ride 
        facility, Washington
  --Dallas Area Rapid Transit buses and bus facilities, Texas
  --Davis/Sacramento clean air buses and bus fueling faciity, 
        California
  --Dayton, Ohio Second and Main Multimodal Transportation 
        Center
  --Denali Depot intermodal facility, Alaska
  --Des Moines park and ride, Iowa
  --Dothan--Wiregrass Transit Authority buses and bus 
        facilities, Alabama
  --Durham Area Transit Authority buses and bus facilities, 
        North Carolina
  --East Palo Alto intermodal transit center, California
  --El Dorado County bus fleet expansion, California
  --El Paso buses and bus facilities, Texas
  --El Segundo Douglas Street gap closure project, California
  --Elizabeth Ferry Project, New Jersey
  --Essex Junction multimodal station, Vermont
  --Everett Transit buses and bus facilities, Washington
  --Excelsior Springs bus replacement, Missouri
  --Fairbanks clean fuel buses and fueling facilities
  --Fairbanks Bus/Rail Intermodal Facility, Alaska
  --Fairbanks parking garage and intermodal center, Alaska
  --Fairfax County Metrorail intermodal expansion program, 
        Virginia
  --Fairfield/Siusun Transit buses, California
  --Fishers Island ferry terminal expansion, New York
  --Folsom Railroad Block multimodal transportation hub, 
        California
  --Foothill Transit clean air bus and bus fueling facility, 
        California
  --Fresno Community Medical Centers' intermodal transportation 
        facility, California
  --Fort Worth Transit Authority Buses and Bus Facilities, 
        Texas
  --Fort Worth Independent Transportation Network for elderly 
        and mobility impaired needs, Texas
  --Gainesville Joint Communications Technology Project, 
        Florida
  --Gary, Adam Benjamin intermodal center, Indiana
  --Galveston buses and bus facilities, Texas
  --Galveston Intermodal Terminal, Texas
  --Georgetown University fuel cell bus program
  --Georgia DOT bus and bus facilities
  --Georgia Regional Transportation Authority CNG buses
  --Glacier Park Red Bus fleet, Montana
  --Great Falls Transit district buses and bus facilities, 
        Montana
  --Greater Lafayette Public Corporation--Wabash Landing buses 
        and bus facilities, Indiana
  --Greater New Haven electric trolleys, Connecticut
  --Greater Minnesota Transit Authorities buses and bus 
        facilities
  --Hampton Roads transit bus and bus facilities, Virginia
  --Harrison County multimodal project, Mississippi
  --Hartford/New Britain busway, Connecticut
  --Hershey intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania
  --Highbridge pedestrian walkway, New York
  --Hillsborough Transit Authority bus tracking system, Florida
  --Homer, Alaska Maritime Wildlife Refuge intermodal and 
        welcome center
  --Honolulu bus and bus facility improvements, Hawaii
  --Hood River County bus and bus facility, Oregon
  --Hot Springs, Arkansas national park intermodal parking 
        facility
  --Houston Main Street Liveable Communities Initiative, Texas
  --Huntsville Intermodal Transit Facility, Alabama
  --Huntsville Space & Rocket Center intermodal center, Alabama
  --I-5 Joint Powers Authority transit centers project, 
        California
  --Indianapolis communications system and passenger amenities 
        upgrades, Indiana
  --Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation bus and bus 
        facilities, Indiana
  --Inglewood Market Street transit center and buses, 
        California
  --Iowa City intermodal facility, Iowa
  --Jackson JATRAN buses, Mississippi
  --Jefferson City van and equipment purchase, Missouri
  --Johnstown intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania
  --Kansas City Area Transit Authority radio system 
        replacement, Missouri
  --Kennedy Center public access project, Washington, DC
  --King County Eastgate Park and Ride, Washington
  --King County Metro buses and bus facilities, Washington
  --King County Metro transit security enhancements, Washington
  --King County transit corridor improvements, Washington
  --King County transit oriented development projects/transit 
        amenities, Washington
  --Lafayette multi-modal facility, Louisiana
  --Lake Tahoe CNG buses and fleet conversion, Nevada
  --Lakeview buses, Oregon
  --Lamar County vans, Alabama
  --Lane Transit District buses and bus facility, Oregon
  --Larkspur transit park and ride, Marin County, California
  --Las Cruces/New Mexico State University bus purchase
  --Lawrence bus and bus facilities, Kansas
  --Little Rock Rivermarket/College Station livable 
        communities, Arkansas
  --Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority bus and 
        maintenance facilities, California
  --Livermore intermodal transfer facility, California
  --Long Beach Central Bus Garage, New York
  --Los Angeles buses, California
  --Los Angeles Municipal Transit Operators' Coalition buses, 
        California
  --Los Lunas Buses and Bus Facilities, New Mexico
  --Lowell Regional Transit Authority bus service hub 
        relocation, Massachusetts
  --Macon intermodal facility at Union Station, Georgia
  --MARC midday storage facility in Washington Terminal, 
        Maryland
  --Maryland Statewide buses and bus facilities
  --Mason City maintenance facility, Iowa
  --Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority buses and bus 
        facilities, Massachusetts
  --Mesa bus maintenance facility, Regional Public 
        Transportation Authority, Arizona
  --Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority pedestrian and 
        streetscape improvements, Oklahoma
  --Miami Beach electrowave facility/intermodal transit system, 
        Florida
  --Minneapolis Metro Transit Uptown Transit Hub, Gateway 
        Garage Annex, and bus shelters, Minnesota
  --Mississippi County bus replacement, Missouri
  --Mississippi River ferry reconstruction, Bellches, Louisiana
  --Missoula Ravalli Transportation Management Association 
        buses, Montana
  --Missouri River pedestrian crossing, Omaha, Nebraska
  --Mobile waterfront terminal complex, Alabama
  --Modesto bus maintenance facility, California
  --Monroe Center bus facility, New Jersey
  --Monrovia trolley system, California
  --Montana statewide bus service coordination computer-aided 
        dispatch equipment
  --Monterey-Salinas Transit Buses and bus facility, California
  --Monterey-Salinas Transit marina transit station, California
  --Montgomery County farebox technology, Maryland
  --Montgomery, Moulton Street Intermodal Facility, Alabama
  --Mukilteo multimodal terminal project preliminary 
        engineering, Washington
  --Napa multimodal train station, California
  --New Haven trolley cars and related equipment, Connecticut
  --New Jersey Transit alternative fuel buses
  --New Jersey Transit bus terminal renovation
  --New London park and ride pedestrian access and high-speed 
        rail/ferry facility, Connecticut
  --New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal renovation, Louisiana
  --Newark Arena bus improvements, New Jersey
  --Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses, New York
  --Norfolk buses, Virginia
  --North Carolina statewide buses and bus facilities
  --Norwich bus terminal and pedestrian access, Connecticut
  --OATS buses and vans, Missouri
  --Occupational Center for Central Kansas bus maintenance 
        facility
  --Oceanside parking transit facility, California
  --Oklahoma City bus transfer center, Oklahoma
  --Oklahoma Transit Association bus and bus facilities
  --Olympia Intercity Transit radio system equipment, 
        Washington
  --Orlando Lynx bus maintenance facility, Florida
  --Paducah area transit system bus and bus facilities, 
        Kentucky
  --Palmdale multimodal facility, California
  --Park City, Salt Lake City, Ogden City, West Valley City, 
        Provo City, and Orem City intermodal facilities, Utah
  --Pasadena Blue Line intermodal centers, California
  --Philadelphia SEPTA Paoli Bus Transportation Center, 
        Pennsylvania
  --Philadelphia, Frankford Transportation Center, Pennsylvania
  --Philadelphia, SEPTA Callowhill Bus Garage, Pennsylvania
  --Philomath buses, Oregon
  --Phoenix area Regional Public Transportation Authority bus 
        fleet advanced ITS, Arizona
  --Phoenix Regional Public Transportation Authority bus 
        replacement, Arizona
  --Phoenix South Central Avenue transit facility, Arizona
  --Picayune multimodal center, Mississippi
  --Pierce Transit base expansion, Washington
  --Pittsfield intermodal transportation center, Massachusetts
  --Placer County CNG bus program, California
  --Port Authority of Allegheny County Bus and Bus Facilities, 
        Pennsylvania
  --Port Ayers Transit Station improvements, Texas
  --Port McKenzie intermodal facilities, Alaska
  --Prince William County and Potomac Rappahannock bus 
        replacement, Virginia
  --Ray County bus and bus facilities, Missouri
  --Redmond buses, Oregon
  --Reno County Bus and Bus facilities, Kansas
  --Reno/Sparks bus transfer facilities, Nevada
  --Renton/Port Quendall transit project, Washington
  --Reston East Park and Ride project, Virginia
  --Rhode Island Public Transit Authority buses and bus 
        facilities
  --Richmond Downtown Transit Plaza, Virginia
  --Ripley County buses and bus facilities, Missouri
  --Rogue Valley buses, Oregon
  --Rushline Corridor Transit improvements, Minnesota
  --Sacramento buses and bus facilities, California
  --Salem Area Transit District buses, Oregon
  --Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics transit bus loan 
        program, Utah
  --Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Paralympics Games equipment and 
        operating assistance, Utah
  --Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics park and ride lots, 
        Utah
  --Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics spectator bus 
        facilities, Utah
  --Salt Lake City hybrid electric vehicle acquisition, Utah
  --San Bernardino OmniTrans transit center planning and 
        construction, California
  --San Bernardino-Santa Fe depot restoration, California
  --San Diego East Village Intermodal Transit improvements, 
        California
  --San Fernando Valley east-west bus rapid transit project, 
        California
  --San Francisco Larkspur park and ride, California
  --San Francisco Midday Bus storage facility, California
  --San Fransisco MUNI buses, equipment and facilities, 
        California
  --San Joaquin Regional Transit District buses and bus 
        facilites, California
  --San Joaquin Regional Transit District expansion of Wilson 
        Way/Lindsay Street facility, California
  --San Joaquin Regional Transit District ITS, California
  --Sandy buses, Oregon
  --Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority bus 
        procurement, California
  --Santa Clarita transit maintenance facility, California
  --Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District MetroBase project 
        bus consolidation facility, California
  --Santa Fe buses and bus facilities, New Mexico
  --Scott County bus and bus facilities, Missouri
  --Sequim, Challam Transit systems facilities, Washington
  --Shelby County vans for elderly, Alabama
  --Ship Creek pedestrian and bus facilities and intermodal 
        center/parking garage, Alaska
  --Silver Spring Intermodal Center (MARC), Maryland
  --Sioux City multimodal ground transportation center, Iowa
  --Sioux City Trolley system, Iowa
  --Sonoma County Transit bus facility expansion, California
  --Sound Transit buses, Washington
  --South Amboy Regional Intermodal Transportation Initiative, 
        New Jersey
  --South Bend Public Transit (TRANSPO) bus fleet replacement, 
        Indiana
  --South Clackamas Transportation District bus, Oregon
  --South Corridor Transit Center and park and ride facilities 
        in Clackamas County, Oregon
  --South Metro Area Rapid Transit maintenance/operations 
        facility, Oregon
  --Southeast Missouri Transportation Service bus and bus 
        facilities
  --Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation clean fuels 
        bus purchase and technical assistance, Georgia and 
        Alabama
  --Springfield Intermodal Center, Massachusetts
  --St. Bernard Parish intermodal facilities, Louisiana
  --St. Cloud Metropolitan Transit Commission replacement of 
        buses, Minnesota
  --St. George Ferry Terminal, New York
  --St. Joseph bus replacement, Missouri
  --St. Louis Bi-State Development Authority bus and bus 
        facilities, Missouri
  --St. Louis Care Cab elderly and disabled vehicles, Missouri
  --State of Alabama buses and bus facilities
  --State of Arkansas rural and small transit bus and van 
        replacements
  --State of Colorado buses and bus facilities
  --State of Delaware buses and bus facilities
  --State of Florida buses and bus facilities
  --State of Idaho buses and bus facilities
  --State of Illinois buses and bus facilities
  --State of Iowa buses and bus facilities and rural special 
        needs buses
  --State of Louisiana buses and bus facilities
  --State of Maine bus and bus facilities
  --State of Michigan buses and bus facilities
  --State of Mississippi rural transit vehicles and regional 
        transit centers
  --State of Missouri bus and bus facilities
  --State of New Mexico buses and bus facilities
  --State of North Carolina buses and bus facilities
  --State of North Dakota buses and bus facilities
  --State of Ohio buses and bus facilities
  --State of Oklahoma buses and bus facilities
  --State of South Carolina buses and bus facilities
  --State of Tennessee buses and bus facilities
  --State of Utah regional park and ride lots
  --State of Washington combined small transit system request, 
        bus and bus facilities
  --State of West Virginia buses and bus facilities
  --State of Wisconsin buses and bus facilities
  --Staten Island Ferry Whitehall intermodal ferry terminal, 
        New York
  --SunLine Transit fuel cell buses, California
  --Sunset Empire Transit District improvements to Clatsop 
        County Intermodal Facility, Oregon
  --Sunset Interchange HOV ramp construction, Washington
  --Tahoe Regional Planning Authority CNG buses, California
  --Temecula bus shelters, California
  --Texas Rural Transit Vehicle Fleet Replacement Program
  --Tillamook County District transit facilities, Oregon
  --Topeka Transit Off-street transfer center, Kansas
  --Towamencin Township Multimodal Transportation Center, 
        Pennsylvania
  --Transit Authority of River City buses, Kentucky
  --Triskett Bus Garage rehabilitation, Cleveland, Ohio
  --Tucson intermodal transportation center at Union Pacific 
        Depot, Arizona
  --Tucson Sun Tran buses and bus facilities, Arizona
  --Tuscaloosa interdisciplinary science building parking and 
        intermodal facility, Alabama
  --Twin Cities Metro Bus Program, Minnesota
  --Union County bus, Oregon
  --University of Alabama Birmingham fuel cell buses
  --University of North Alabama buses and bus facilities
  --University of South Alabama buses and bus facilities
  --Upland commuter rail station, California
  --Utah Transit Authority and Park City Transit bus fleet 
        replacement
  --Vacaville bus transfer center, California
  --Vacaville-Bella Vista park and ride, California
  --Vermont Statewide paratransit
  --Waco Transit Administration and Maintenance Facility, Texas
  --Wasco County buses, Oregon
  --Washoe County buses and bus Facilities, Nevada
  --Waterloo multimodal project, Iowa
  --West Lafayette bus and bus related projects, Indiana
  --West Side Manhattan Ferry Terminal, New York
  --Wichita Transit replacement buses, Kansas
  --Wilkes-Barre intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania
  --Williamsburg natural gas buses, Virginia
  --Ybor City streetcar intermodal station, Florida
  --Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority replacement buses, California
    State of Michigan buses and bus facilities.--Despite 
unanimously supported agreements among the Michigan Public 
Transit Association (MPTA), its members, and the Michigan 
Department of Transportation (MDOT) that Section 5309 bus funds 
to Michigan transit agencies be distributed through MDOT, 
designations of funds to individual transit agencies continue 
to be sought and proposed apart from that agreement. The 
Committee directs that any fiscal year 2001 discretionary bus 
funds for projects in Michigan be distributed through MDOT in 
accordance with the MPTA-MDOT agreement.

                      fixed guideway modernization

    The Committee recommends a total of $1,058,400,000 for the 
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under TEA21 all 
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table 
itemizes the fiscal year 2001 rail modernization allocations by 
State:

Fiscal year 2001 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization

                                                        Fiscal year 2001
        State                                                     budget

Arizona.................................................      $1,647,509
California..............................................     103,024,219
Colorado................................................       1,316,293
Connecticut.............................................      39,832,898
Delaware................................................         815,489
District of Columbia....................................      50,073,588
Florida.................................................      14,923,383
Georgia.................................................      18,915,713
Hawaii..................................................         675,797
Illinois................................................     123,609,547
Indiana.................................................       8,270,772
Louisiana...............................................       2,924,550
Maryland................................................      24,432,619
Massachusetts...........................................      68,265,209
Michigan................................................         475,146
Minnesota...............................................       3,102,796
Missouri................................................       2,032,627
New Jersey..............................................      92,448,909
New York................................................     341,976,036
Ohio....................................................      16,779,438
Oregon..................................................       3,096,250
Pennsylvania............................................     104,311,846
Puerto Rico.............................................       2,125,512
Rhode Island............................................       1,562,007
Tennessee...............................................          76,738
Texas...................................................       5,547,080
Virginia................................................       1,065,723
Washington..............................................      16,444,335
Wisconsin...............................................         689,971
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................   1,050,462,000
Three-quarter percent oversight.........................       7,938,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total appropriation...............................   1,058,400,000

                               NEW STARTS

    The bill provides $1,058,400,000 for new starts. These 
funds are available for major investment studies, preliminary 
engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management, 
oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions. 
Under section 3009(g) of TEA21, there is an 8-percent statutory 
cap on the amount made available for activities other than 
final design and construction--that is, alternatives analysis, 
environmental impact statements, preliminary engineering, major 
investment studies, and other predesign and preconstruction 
activities. Within the total of $1,058,400,000 for new systems, 
no more than $84,672,000 may be allocated for these activities.
    The Committee has included bill language that delineates a 
number of eligible new fixed guideway system projects under 
both of these funding categories, and directs the Federal 
Transit Administrator to submit to the congressional 
appropriations and authorizing committees, on or before 
February 1, 2001, a grant recommendation list choosing from 
among the projects listed in the appropriations bill. The 
Committee is aware that the administration's budget request 
includes a list of requested projects, but believes that the 
Department should reassess its recommendations in light of the 
number of authorized projects which have been deemed eligible 
for funding, both in TEA21 and this appropriations legislation.
    The following new fixed guideway systems and extensions to 
existing systems are eligible to receive funding for final 
design and construction:
    2002 Winter Olympics spectator transportation systems and 
facilities
    Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects
    Atlanta--MARTA North Line extension completion
    Austin Capital Metro Light Rail
    Baltimore Central Light Rail Double Tracking
    Boston North-South Rail Link
    Boston--South Boston Piers Transitway
    Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail line
    Charlotte North-South Transitway project
    Chicago METRA commuter rail consolidated request
    Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood Brown Line capacity 
expansion
    Chicago Transit Authority Douglas Blue Line
    Clark County, Nevada RTC fixed guideway project
    Cleveland Euclid Corridor improvement project
    Dallas Area Rapid Transit North Central light rail
    Denver Southeast corridor project
    Denver Southwest corridor project
    Fort Lauderdale Tri-County commuter rail project
    Fort Worth Railtran corridor commuter rail project
    Galveston Rail Trolley extension
    Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska commuter rail project
    Houston Metro Regional Bus Plan
    Kansas City Southtown corridor
    Little Rock, Arkansas river rail project
    Long Island Rail Road East Side access project
    Los Angeles Mid-city and Eastside corridors
    Los Angeles North Hollywood extension
    MARC expansion projects--Penn-Camden lines connector and 
midday storage facility
    MARC-Brunswick line in West Virginia, signal and crossover 
improvements
    Memphis Medical Center extension project
    Minneapolis--Twin Cities Transitways corridor projects
    Nashua, New Hampshire to Lowell, Massachusetts commuter 
rail
    Nashville regional commuter rail
    New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Light Rail
    New Orleans Canal Street Streetcar corridor project
    New Orleans Desire Street corridor project
    Newark-Elizabeth rail link
    Oceanside-Escondido, California light rail
    Orange County, California transitway project
    Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley metro project
    Phoenix metropolitan area transit project
    Pittsburgh North Shore-central business district corridor 
project
    Pittsburgh Stage II Light Rail transit
    Portland Interstate MAX light rail transit
    Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill regional rail service
    Rhode Island--Pawtucket and T.F. Green commuter rail/
maintenance facility
    Sacramento south corridor light rail extension
    Salt Lake City--University light rail line
    Salt Lake City North/South light rail project
    Salt Lake-Ogden-Provo regional commuter rail
    San Bernardino MetroLink
    San Diego Mission Valley East light rail
    San Francisco BART extension to the airport project
    San Jose Tasman West light rail project
    San Juan-Tren Urbano
    Seattle-Sound Transit Central Link light rail project
    Seattle-Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project
    Spokane-South Valley Corridor light rail project
    St. Louis Metrolink Cross County connector
    St. Louis/St. Clair County Metrolink light rail extension
    Stamford Urban Transitway, Connecticut
    Tampa Bay regional rail project
    Washington Metro Blue Line--Largo extension
    West Trenton, New Jersey rail project

    The following new fixed guideway systems and extensions to 
existing systems are eligible to receive funding for 
alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering:
    Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque mass transit project
    Atlanta--MARTA West Line extension study
    Ballston, Virginia Metro access improvements
    Baltimore regional rail transit system
    Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor
    Boston Urban Ring
    Burlington-Bennington, Vermont commuter rail project
    Calais, Maine Branch Line regional transit program
    Colorado/Eagle Airport to Avon light rail system
    Colorado/Roaring Fork Valley rail project
    Columbus-Central Ohio Transit Authority north corridor
    Dallas Area Rapid Transit Southeast Corridor Light Rail
    Des Moines commuter rail
    Detroit Metropolitan Airport light rail project
    Draper, West Jordan, West Valley City & Sandy City, Utah 
light rail extensions
    Dulles Corridor, Virginia innovative intermodal system
    El Paso/Juarez People mover system
    Fort Worth trolley system
    Harrisburg-Lancaster capital area transit corridor 1 
regional light rail
    Hollister/Gilroy Branch Line extension
    Honolulu bus rapid transit
    Houston advanced transit program
    Indianapolis Northeast-Downtown corridor project
    Johnson County, Kansas I-35 Commuter Rail Project
    Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail extension
    Los Angeles San Fernando Valley Corridor
    Los Angeles San Diego LOSSAN corridor project
    Massachusetts North Shore Corridor project
    Miami south busway extension
    New Orleans commuter rail from Airport to downtown
    New York City 2nd Avenue Subway study
    Northern Indiana south shore commuter rail
    Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania passenger rail 
project
    Potomac Yards, Virginia transit study
    Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro
    Portland, Maine marine highway program
    San Francisco BART to Livermore extension
    San Francisco MUNI 3rd Street light rail extension
    Santa Fe-Eldorado rail project
    Stockton, California Altamont commuter rail project
    Vasona light rail corridor
    Virginia Railway Express commuter rail
    Whitehall ferry terminal project
    Wilmington, Delaware downtown transit connector
    Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    There is a total of $1,058,400,000 available for transit 
new starts funding in fiscal year 2001. The administration's 
request includes $744,293,000 for projects with current or 
pending FTA full funding grant agreements with FTA, 70 percent 
of the total available funds. Additionally, the 
administration's request proposes allocating $211,174,990 for 
12 new starts projects that are currently in preliminary 
engineering or final design. The administration expects these 
projects to complete the engineering and environmental review 
process by the start of fiscal year 2001. FTA anticipates 
signing full funding grant agreements with these projects some 
time during fiscal year 2001. The estimated federal share over 
the life of these new projects is $2,955,230,000. If Congress 
follows the administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request, 
the entire commitment authority amount provided in TEA21 for 
the new starts program will be committed. There will be no 
further room under the TEA21 guaranteed program level for any 
new full funding grant agreements beyond those outlined in the 
budget request. The Committee objects to closing off the new 
starts pipeline two full years before the expiration of the 
authorizing period; to do so is unresponsive to changing 
project conditions and to the expressed needs of the transit 
community and their elected representatives.
    Full funding grant agreements.--The Committee has a strong 
inclination to honor the FTA's full funding grant agreements 
with new starts grantees, provided that there are not dramatic 
cost, scope, or schedule changes that would have a negative 
impact on the grantee's ability to meet its responsibilities 
under the FFGA schedule. The Committee takes an active interest 
in the progress and status of all new starts projects, most 
particularly in the FFGA projects, since they represent such a 
large proportion of the total discretionary funding stream. The 
annual oversight responsibility of the Appropriations Committee 
is to protect present and anticipated federal investments.
    Central Florida commuter rail.--The Committee directs that 
the balance of previously appropriated funds for the Orlando 
light rail project shall be made available for the Central 
Florida commuter rail project, which is part of the Central 
Florida Light Rail system as authorized in Public Law 105-178, 
section 3030(a)(60). This recently-proposed project for 
commuter rail in the I-4 corridor would use diesel multiple 
unit technology, which is an eligible fixed guideway 
technology.

                          Discretionary Grants


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

               (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account)

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     350,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     350,000,000

    The bill includes $350,000,000 to liquidate obligations 
incurred under contract authority previously provided in 
section 5338(b) of 49 U.S.C.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............................................     $15,000,000     $60,000,000     $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\.......................................      20,000,000     130,000,000     150,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      20,000,000      80,000,000     100,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.

    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the Job Access 
and Reverse Commute Grants program, the level guaranteed under 
the TEA21 transit category firewall. This program is meant to 
help welfare reform efforts succeed by providing enhanced 
transportation services for low-income individuals, including 
former welfare recipients, traveling to jobs or training 
centers.
    The program makes competitive grants to qualifying 
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental 
authorities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations in urbanized 
areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants may not be 
used for planning or coordination activities.
    The Committee does not approve the request for $50,000,000 
additional job access and reverse commute grant program funds, 
to be provided by a transfer from the revenue aligned budget 
authority funds. The Committee does not approve bill language 
proposed by the department that would have set aside $5,000,000 
each for tribal governments and the Mississippi Delta region 
within this program. Indian tribes and transit providers in the 
Mississippi Delta region are currently eligible for this 
program.
    The Committee recommends the following allocations of job 
access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 
2001:

Alameda and Contra-Costa Counties, California...........        $500,000
Archuleta County, Colorado..............................          75,000
Broome County Transit, New York.........................         250,000
Capital District Transit Authority, New York............         250,000
Central Kenai Peninsula public transportation...........         500,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority..........................       1,000,000
Corpus Christi RTA, Texas...............................         550,000
Des Moines, Dubuque, Sioux City, and rural areas 3, 4, 
    9, and 12, Iowa.....................................       1,600,000
Dona Ana County, New Mexico.............................         250,000
Easter Seals West Alabama work transition programs......         850,000
Greater Erie Community Action Committee, Pennsylvania...         400,000
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, Indiana.       1,000,000
Las Cruces, New Mexico..................................         260,000
Matanuska-Susitna borough, M.A.S.C.O.T..................          60,000
Meramec Community transit programs, Missouri............         150,000
Mobile, Alabama.........................................         250,000
Monterey, California....................................         150,000
North Oakland County, Michigan..........................         250,000
OATS job access programs, Missouri......................         750,000
Paterson-New Jersey Community Development Corporation...         762,000
Philadelphia SEPTA, Pennsylvania........................       3,000,000
Pittsburgh Port Authority of Allegheny County, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       2,000,000
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority...................       1,000,000
Rhode Island Community Food Bank transportation.........         100,000
Santa Clara County, California..........................         500,000
Sitka, Alaska transit expansion program.................         400,000
Southern Illinois RIDES.................................         150,000
State of New Mexico.....................................       1,000,000
State of Illinois.......................................       1,000,000
State of Alabama........................................       1,500,000
State of Maryland.......................................       2,400,000
State of Oklahoma.......................................       3,000,000
State of Washington WorkFirst transportation initiative.       2,000,000
State of West Virginia..................................       1,500,000
State of Wisconsin......................................       3,000,000
State of Vermont........................................       1,500,000
Portland Tri-Met, Oregon................................       1,840,000
Troy State University, Alabama--Rosa Parks Center.......       2,000,000
Tysons/Dulles Corridor, Virginia........................         500,000
Washoe County, Nevada...................................       1,000,000
Ways to Work family loan program, Southeastern United 
    States..............................................       2,000,000
York County, Maine......................................         900,000

                        other general provisions

    The Committee has included the following general provisions 
affecting transit programs:
    Sec. 311. This general provision has been carried in the 
appropriations bill for many years. It allows FTA to update 
account names and transfer the associated funds to the new 
account structure. This bookkeeping authority is necessary, 
given that the Transportation Equity Act has restructured the 
mass transit program.
    Sec. 321. This general provision expands the eligible uses 
of funds made available for Alaska or Hawaii ferry boats or 
ferry terminals pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(2)(B). Section 
3009(k)(3) of TEA21 makes $10,400,000 available for Alaska or 
Hawaii ferry boat systems for each of fiscal years 1999 through 
2003. The last two years' appropriations acts have honored this 
set-aside. However, none of these funds have been obligated to 
date and this general provision, which is similar to a 
provision included in last year's appropriations act, will 
increase the flexibility of these funds so they can be utilized 
for their intended purpose.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

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

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $12,042,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\ (mandatory)...................      13,004,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,400,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $25,000 for TASC pursuant to section 
319 of Public Law 106-69; also excludes reduction of $46,000 pursuant to 
section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Assumes enactment of authorizing legislation.

    The administration has proposed to restructure the Saint 
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation as a performance-based 
organization (PBO). In 1996, the National Performance Review 
first identified the Corporation as one of nine PBO candidates. 
As a PBO, the Corporation's funding mechanism would change from 
annual appropriations to a mandatory formula-based payment that 
primarily is determined by a five-year average of international 
tonnage moved through the Seaway. Consequently, the 
administration did not seek appropriated funds for the Seaway 
and instead is requesting a mandatory payment of $13,004,000 
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill includes an appropriation of $12,400,000 instead 
of the mandatory payment that was requested. Although the 
Administration submitted a legislative proposal and financial 
plan that would establish the Corporation as a performance-
based organization (PBO) during the 106th Congress, the 
Congress has not taken action on this legislation. Until 
enactment of legislation authorizing the Seaway as a PBO, the 
Committee will continue to fund the Corporation according to 
current law.
    The Committee recommendation includes $12,004,000 to fully 
fund the operations and maintenance of the Corporation. The 
Administration also requested $1,000,000, as well as $900,000 
in offsetting collections, for capital improvements. The 
Committee defers $604,000 due to budgetary constraints. The 
Committee recommendation provides sufficient funding for the 
Corporation's highest capital priorities and the projects 
recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after its 
survey and evaluation of the Corporation's lock and maintenance 
practices. The Committee notes, however, that the capital plan 
for fiscal year 2001 is significantly greater than previous 
years' appropriations and the projected costs for the remaining 
four years of the five-year capital plan.
    Although the Committee finds merit in the PBO proposal, the 
committee remains concerned about certain provisions of the 
legislation to establish the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation as a PBO. As an organization funded through a 
mandatory funding mechanism, Congress would no longer have a 
direct role in determining the level of funding for the 
Corporation or directing the use of its funds. This would 
severely undermine Congress' ability to exercise its 
responsibility to conduct oversight over the agency and 
allocate funding within broader policy and fiscal goals, such 
as balancing the Federal budget. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the administration to submit future Saint Lawrence 
Seaway Development Corporation budget requests consistent with 
current law until Congress takes action on PBO authorization 
legislation.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

    The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was 
established by the Secretary of Transportation's organizational 
changes dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research, 
analytical, and technical development arm of the Department for 
multimodal research and development, as well as special 
programs. Particular emphasis is given to pipeline 
transportation and the transportation of hazardous cargo by all 
modes. In 2001, resources are requested for the management and 
execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety, 
Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, program and 
administrative support. Funds are also requested for the 
emergency preparedness grants program. RSPA's two reimbursable 
programs--Transportation Safety Institute [TSI] and the Volpe 
National Transportation Systems Center [VNTSC]--support 
research safety and security programs for all modes of 
transportation.

                     Research and Special Programs

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $32,061,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\...............................      42,531,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,370,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $296,000 for TASC pursuant to section 
319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Does not includes reduction of $4,722,000 in proposed user fees.

    The Committee has provided a total of $34,370,000 for the 
``Research and special programs'' account, $8,161,000 less than 
the administration's request.
    Consistent with the Committee's views on the 
administration's new user fee proposals contained in the fiscal 
year 2001 budget submission expressed in the Office of the 
Secretary portion of this report, the Committee does not 
approve the proposed new user fees and associated funding 
offsets for the hazardous materials safety program.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                   2000 enacted     Fiscal year      Committee
                                                                        \1\        2001 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety......................................     $17,710,000     $18,773,000     $18,620,000
    (FTE).......................................................         (125.5)           (129)           (129)
Emergency transportation........................................      $1,378,000      $2,375,000      $1,801,000
    (FTE).......................................................             (7)           (9.5)             (8)
Research and technology.........................................      $3,397,000      $9,416,000      $3,740,000
    (FTE).......................................................            (11)            (10)             (9)
Program and administrative support..............................      $9,576,000     $11,967,000     $10,209,000
    (FTE).......................................................            (45)            (47)            (47)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, research and special programs......................     $32,061,000     $42,531,000     $34,370,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect $296,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.

                       hazardous materials safety

    The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [OHMS] administers 
a nationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the 
Secretary's duty to protect the Nation from the risks to life, 
health, and property that are inherent in the transportation of 
hazardous materials by water, air, highway, and railroad. OHMS 
plans, implements, and manages the hazardous materials 
transportation program consisting of information systems, 
research and analysis, inspection and enforcement, rulemaking 
support, training and information dissemination, and emergency 
procedures.
    The Committee recommends $18,620,000 for hazardous 
materials safety, which is $153,000 less than the 
administration's request. The Committee recommendation for the 
OHMS includes funding to annualize costs associated with 7 new 
hazardous materials safety positions approved in fiscal year 
2000 (+3.5 full time equivalents). Administrative expenses and 
PC&B total $12,670,000; adequate funds are provided for cost of 
living and locality pay adjustments and merit increases. The 
Committee has decreased the funding for the international 
standards program $23,000 below the request, which is a slight 
increase above the program's current services funding level. 
The following shows the Committee's recommended funding levels 
for each of the hazardous materials office activities:

Personnel compensation and benefits.....................     $11,400,000
Administrative expenses.................................       1,270,000
Contract programs.......................................       3,680,000
Registration program....................................       1,070,000
Research and development................................       1,200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety.......      18,620,000

                        Emergency transportation

    Emergency transportation [ET] programs provide support to 
the Secretary of Transportation for his statutory and 
administrative responsibilities in the area of transportation 
civil emergency preparedness and response. This program 
develops and coordinates the Department's policies, plans, and 
programs, in headquarters and the field to provide for 
emergency preparedness.
    ET is responsible for implementing the Transportation 
Department's National Security Program initiatives, including 
an assessment of the transportation implications of the 
changing global threat. The Office also coordinates civil 
emergency preparedness and response for transportation services 
during national and regional emergencies, across the entire 
continuum of crises, including natural catastrophes such as 
earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados, and international and 
domestic terrorism. The Office of Emergency Transportation 
develops crisis management plans to mitigate disasters and 
implements these plans nationally and regionally in an 
emergency.
    The Committee recommends $1,801,000 for emergency 
transportation, which is $574,000 less than the 
administration's request. The administration has requested 5 
new positions for the Emergency Transportation office (+2.5 
FTE, one-half year funding for each requested position). The 
Committee recommendation includes funding for one FTE, or 2 new 
positions, a regional emergency transportation manager and an 
operations chief. The office's crisis management response 
program has been increased $270,000 above the current services 
level, to support emergency response training and exercises 
based at headquarters and the 13 regional coordinators' 
offices. The following shows the Committee's recommended 
funding distribution for the Office of Emergency 
Transportation.

Personnel compensation and benefits...........................  $936,000
Administrative expenses.......................................   100,000
Contract programs.............................................   530,000
Research and development......................................   235,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, Office of Emergency Transportation............... 1,801,000

                        Research and technology

    The Committee recommends $3,740,000 for the Office of 
Research and Technology, $5,676,000 less than requested by the 
administration. The funds provided will help the Department 
coordinate and strengthen its responsibilities under TEA21, and 
will help support the R&T corporate management strategy 
specified in the Department's strategic plan, allow RSPA to 
support the intergovernmental transportation research 
coordination responsibilities of the National Science and 
Technology Council, and support a limited intermodal research 
program. The following shows the Committee's recommended 
funding distribution for the Office of Research and Technology:

Personnel, compensation, and benefits...................     $1,100,000 
Administrative expenses.................................        105,000 
Research and development................................      2,535,000 
Advanced vehicle technologies program (reimbursable from 

    FHWA)...............................................................
University Transportation Center grants (from FHWA and 
    FTA)................................................    (33,250,000)
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      3,740,000 

    Personnel, compensation and benefits.--The Committee does 
not approve the two new requested positions to support the 
university marine transportation research grants program, but 
approves the new FHWA reimbursable position to support human-
centered systems research in the fatigue area, and confirms 
that an agency-wide reorganization moved two Transportation 
Safety Institute positions formerly in the Office of Research 
and Technology to the Office of Program Support. Therefore, the 
FTE level within the R&T office has gone down from 11 to 9, and 
PC&B funding is $107,000 less than the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level.
    Research and development program initiatives.--The National 
Transportation Safety Board has recommended to the Department 
of Transportation that research be conducted on the role of 
fatigue in the transportation industry. Consistent with that 
recommendation, the Committee has provided $300,000 more than 
the level requested for R&D planning and management to support 
long-term, cross-cutting research on transportation operator 
fatigue management. The Committee denies the Office of Research 
and Technology's request to initiate two new programs for 
transportation infrastructure assurance research and a 
university marine transportation research grant program.
    Advanced vehicle technologies program.--The administration 
has proposed funding the advanced vehicle technologies program 
(AVTP), a Department of Defense offshoot, from FHWA research 
and technology program funds at a level of $20,000,000. The 
Committee does not approve this proposed funding, on the 
grounds that the program is not within the TEA21 funding 
firewall, which would necessitate taking the funds from some 
other guaranteed program or out of scarce general funds in 
order to provide Department of Transportation support for the 
program.

                   Program and administrative support

    The program support function provides legal, financial, 
management, and administrative support to the operating offices 
within RSPA. These support activities include executive 
direction (Office of the Administrator), program and policy 
support, civil rights and special programs, legal services and 
support, and management and administration.
    The Committee has provided $10,209,000 for program and 
administrative support, $1,758,000 less than the 
adminstration's request. The following shows the Committee's 
recommended funding distribution for RSPA program support:

Personnel compensation and benefits...........................$5,219,000
Administrative expenses....................................... 3,560,000
Contract programs............................................. 1,430,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, program and administrative support...............10,209,000

    Contract program adjustments.--The Committee does not 
approve the requested increases for employee development or for 
the Garrett Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures 
program. However, the Committee recommendation provides 
$1,200,000 for information resource management and business 
modernization, a $393,000 increase above current service 
levels.

                            Pipeline Safety


                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)

                    (Oilspill Liability Trust Fund)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Pipeline
                                                                    safety fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\ \2\....................................     $31,400,000      $5,479,000     $36,879,000
Budget estimate, 2001...........................................      42,874,000       4,263,000      47,137,000
Committee recommendation \3\....................................      34,394,000       8,750,000      43,144,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $198,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Pipeline safety funding includes $1,400,000 from reserve fund balances.
\3\ Pipeline safety funding includes $2,500,000 from reserve fund balances.

    The Research and Special Programs Administration is 
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. 
Funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety is made available 
from two primary sources: the pipeline safety fund, comprised 
of user fees assessed on interstate pipeline operators; and the 
oil spill liability trust fund, a revolving fund comprised of 
an environmental tax on petroleum and oil spill damage recovery 
payments. The Pipeline Safety Program promotes the safe, 
reliable, and environmentally sound transportation of natural 
gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. This national program 
regulates the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and 
emergency response procedures pertaining to gas and hazardous 
liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural gas facilities. 
Also included is research and development to support the 
Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aid to State agencies 
that conduct a qualified pipeline safety program and to others 
who operate one-call programs. The Committee recommendation for 
distribution of OPS funds by funding source is displayed below:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Pipeline    Oil spill
                       Budget activity                           safety     liability     Reserve       Total
                                                                  fund     trust  fund      fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses:
    Personnel compensation and benefits.....................   $8,950,000     $800,000  ...........   $9,750,000
    Administrative expenses.................................    3,941,000      545,000  ...........    4,486,000
Contract Programs:
    Information and analysis................................      800,000      400,000  ...........    1,200,000
    Risk assessment and technical studies...................      650,000      600,000  ...........    1,250,000
    Compliance..............................................      200,000      100,000  ...........      300,000
    Training and information dissemination..................      571,000      400,000  ...........      971,000
    Emergency notification..................................      100,000  ...........  ...........      100,000
    Damage prevention/public education campaign.............      300,000      200,000  ...........      500,000
    Implementing the Oil Pollution Act......................  ...........    2,443,000  ...........    2,443,000
    Research and Development................................    2,494,000      650,000  ...........    3,144,000
Grants:
    State safety grants.....................................   12,888,000    1,112,000  ...........   14,000,000
    One call grants.........................................    1,000,000  ...........  ...........    1,000,000
    Damage prevention grants................................  ...........    1,500,000   $2,500,000    4,000,000
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Totals................................................   31,894,000    8,750,000    2,500,000   43,144,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Pipeline safety reserve fund.--The Committee recommends 
$2,500,000 to be derived from amounts previously collected in 
pipeline user fees from interstate liquid and natural gas 
transmission companies, which are maintained in a reserve fund 
by RSPA. The current balance of the pipeline safety reserve 
fund (as of March 5) is $15,461,000. The fund takes in user fee 
collections, pays program costs, and also makes adjustments to 
collections due to over or underpayments, so the balance varies 
over the course of each fiscal year. RSPA maintains that a 
reserve fund balance that is sufficient to sustain Office of 
Pipeline Safety (OPS) operations through the second quarter, 
when the agency collects user fees to replenish the fund, is 
necessary to prevent disruption of OPS programs and services. 
RSPA estimates that level to be approximately 34 percent of the 
office's total program funding. However, the Committee is 
confident that RSPA can manage its programs to allow for a 
larger drawdown of the reserve fund, and directs the 
Administrator to perform a detailed analysis of the pipeline 
safety fund billing and collections cycle and OPS program 
disbursements, in order to allow the maximum use of reserve 
funds without triggering the Anti-Deficiency Act. This analysis 
shall be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations before August 4, 2000 and a copy of the report 
shall be forwarded to the U.S. General Accounting Office. The 
Committee further directs the Comptroller General to review 
RSPA's pipeline safety user fee reserve fund analysis, and to 
prepare a response to the report that verifies the accuracy of 
the financial analysis and makes recommendations to the 
Department of Transportation and to the Appropriations 
Committee on improvements to the billing, collections, and 
disbursement cycle that would support a more efficient use of 
these previously collected funds. This review, with 
departmental comments, shall be submitted to the Committees on 
Appropriations by October 31, 2000, at which time the Committee 
expects DOT to expeditiously initiate a rulemaking for the 
fiscal year 2002 user fee collections cycle.
    Oil spill liability trust fund.--The Committee recommends 
$8,750,000 to be derived from the oil spill liability trust 
fund for implementation of OPS responsibilities under the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA], $4,487,000 more than the 
administration's request.
    According to RSPA, the total amount within the budget 
request that could legally be associated with OPA program 
requirements in $11,473,000. The Committee is dismayed that the 
administration has chosen in its budget presentation to 
increase user fees by $12,874,000--43 percent--over the current 
year, while utilizing so little of the allowable OPA 
environmental program funds.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year--
                                                            ---------------------------------      Committee
                          Program                              2000 enacted                   recommendation \3\
                                                                 \1\ \2\       2001 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses.........................................     $12,821,000     $14,059,000       $14,236,000
Contract Programs..........................................       4,221,000       4,922,000         4,321,000
Implementing the Oil Pollution Act.........................       2,443,000       2,443,000         2,443,000
Research and Development...................................       1,894,000       2,144,000         3,144,000
Grants.....................................................      15,500,000      23,569,000        19,000,000
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Totals...............................................      36,879,000      47,137,000        43,144,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $198,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes $1,400,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.
\3\ Includes $2,500,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.

    Operating expenses.--The Committee recommendation approves 
two of the four new requested pipeline inspector positions at 
one-half work year per position. This will bring the total 
number of field inspectors to 54. The Committee recommendation 
also provides adequate funding for the requested fiscal year 
2000 and 2001 cost of living and locality pay adjustments and 
merit increases. Within these funds, $800,000 shall be provided 
to Washington State to match the State legislature's 
supplemental appropriation for pipeline safety activities. 
These Federal funds shall be used to supplement State funding 
for pipeline safety activities and may not be used to supplant 
State funding.
    Contract programs.--The Committee recommendation holds OPS 
contract programs at the current services level, due to budget 
constraints and increases in other areas of the program. 
However, the requested increase for the damage prevention 
public education campaign is approved, from $400,000 to 
$500,000. The Committee commends OPS on the Dig Safely campaign 
and on the report pertaining to damage prevention best 
practices, entitled ``Common Ground.'' Dig Safely is a national 
campaign to educate excavators, facility operators, public 
works employees and the general public about the importance of 
damage prevention for underground facilities. The Committee 
supports the OPS budget request to provide seed money to help 
establish a non-profit organization that will foster a shared 
responsibility for the protection of underground facilities, 
develop and conduct public awareness and education programs, 
and pursue the study and publication of damage prevention best 
practices.
    Research and development.--The Committee recommendation 
supports a continued current services OPS research program, and 
approves the proposed $250,000 increase to adapt ``smart pig'' 
technology to detect axially oriented mechanical damage. The 
Committee has also provided an additional $1,000,000 for 
airborne environmental laser mapping technology research and 
engineering to support improved leak detection, analysis and 
response by Federal, State and industry pipeline safety 
officials.
    Grants.--The OPS manages four different grants programs: 
State pipeline safety grants, risk management grants, one call 
grants, and damage prevention grants. The administration 
requested a significant increase for the State pipeline safety 
grants, from an enacted level of $13,000,000 to a requested 
level of $17,519,000. RSPA and the States have agreed to 
attempt to provide 50 percent of the States' pipeline safety 
program funding from the Federal Government, but in the fiscal 
year 1999 distribution of State grants, the average Federal 
grant represented 44 percent of total State hazardous liquids 
and natural gas program costs. The Committee has increased the 
State pipeline safety grant program level to $14,000,000 in an 
effort to close the gap between the current Federal grant share 
of States' costs and the 50 percent goal. The risk management 
grants program was established to fund a pipeline industry risk 
management pilot program. In fiscal year 2001, OPS will be in a 
monitoring stage of the risk management demonstration and has 
requested only $50,000 for this effort. The Committee 
recommends that the agency perform these monitoring activities 
within available operating expenses. One call grants are funded 
at the requested level of $1,000,000; and funding for the 
broad-based damage prevention grants, which address third-party 
damage to not only pipelines, but all underground utilities, is 
provided at a level of $4,000,000, $1,000,000 less than the 
level requested by the administration.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (Emergency Preparedness Fund)

Appropriations, 2000....................................        $200,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................         200,000
Committee recommendation................................         200,000

    The hazardous materials transportation law (title 49 U.S.C. 
5101 et seq.) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a 
reimbursable emergency preparedness grants program; (2) monitor 
public sector emergency response training and planning and 
provide technical assistance to States, territories, and Indian 
tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national 
training curriculum for emergency responders. These activities 
are financed by receipts received from the hazardous materials 
shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the 
emergency preparedness fund. The hazardous materials 
transportation law provides permanent authorization for the 
emergency preparedness fund for planning and training grants, 
monitoring and technical assistance, and for administrative 
expenses. An appropriation of $200,000 in budget authority, 
also from the emergency preparedness fund, provides for the 
training curriculum for emergency responders.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    Bill language is included that limits the obligation of 
emergency preparedness training grants to $13,227,000 in fiscal 
year 2001. The Committee's recommendation reflects the State 
grants total funding that would be represented if the 
administration's fiscal year 2000 requested level was met. This 
recommended level provides the following:

State grants (a 48 percent increase above fiscal year 
    1999 allocations)...................................     $12,127,000
Public sector training grants...........................         250,000
Monitoring/technical assistance.........................         150,000
Administrative support..................................         200,000
North American Emergency Response Guidebook.............         500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      13,227,000

    GAO evaluation of Hazardous Materials Emergency 
Preparedness (HMEP) grants program.--In November 1999, the 
chairmen of the House and Senate Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittees requested a GAO report on the extent to which the 
Department of Transportation's HMEP grants duplicate private 
sector initiatives which provide training for responding to 
hazardous materials emergencies. This report will be issued by 
July 31, 2000. However, while the GAO study was ongoing, RSPA 
promulgated a final rulemaking which substantially increases 
hazardous materials registration fees and greatly expands the 
number of new hazardous materials registrants who have never 
before had to pay such a registration fee (from a current 
26,000 registrants to an expanded program of 44,000 
registrants). The Committee is dismayed that the Department 
expedited its rulemaking process in order to release a final 
rule increasing these fees, while the underlying issues of how 
much of an increase is required and whether duplicative private 
sector services exist were still being studied by the GAO. The 
effective date of the final rule was May 1, 2000. The general 
registration requirements provide that all registrants, both 
current and new, must submit a registration statement and 
accompanying fee not later than June 30. The bill includes a 
provision which delays this deadline until September 30, to 
allow Congress and the Department of Transportation to review 
the results of the pending GAO report.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................     $44,840,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      48,050,000
Committee recommendation................................  \2\ 49,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $224,000 for TASC pursuant to section 
319 of Public Law 106-69; also does not reflect reduction of $170,000 
pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113. Does not include 
reimbursements of $3,500,000 from the FHWA and FTA pursuant to Public 
Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes transfers.

    The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of 
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective 
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise 
audits and investigations relating to the programs and 
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and 
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and 
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; 
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (4) keep 
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding 
problems and deficiencies.
    OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office 
of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and the Office of 
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The assistant 
inspectors general for auditing and investigations are 
supported by headquarters and regional staff.
    The Committee recommends $49,000,000. The recommended level 
includes funding for the inspector general to conduct their 
oversight mission mandated under the Inspector General Act, 
support the Department's priorities in the areas of safety, 
strategic investment in transportation infrastructure, and 
commonsense government, to provide an objective and credible 
voice on other issues of modal and Departmentwide concern and 
to respond to emerging issues of congressional concern.
    The Inspector General is to be commended for the timeliness 
and quality of the Office of Inspector General work product. 
Unlike most of the agencies in the Department, the OIG delivers 
reports and communications by the requested time, addresses the 
questions or issues concerned, and generally illuminate issues 
for congressional, public, or executive branch consideration. 
The Committee recommendation reflects the value the Committee 
places on the OIG contribution.
    FAA personnel reform.--In fiscal year 1996, Congress 
exempted the FAA from most provisions of Title 5 of the United 
States Code and other Federal personnel rules and regulations. 
This ``personnel reform'' gave the FAA the unprecedented 
opportunity to develop and implement a new personnel management 
system unique to the demands of the FAA. In providing this 
reform, Congress mandated that the new system, at a minimum, 
provide greater flexibility in the hiring, training, 
compensation, and location of personnel. Now, four years later, 
the FAA's success in meeting those requirements and the 
effectiveness of those changes is unknown. However, the costs 
of the FAA's operations continues to rise and shows no signs of 
subsiding. Accordingly, the Committee requests that the 
Department of Transportation Inspector General review and 
report to the Committee on the agency's success in meeting the 
mandated requirements of personnel reform and determine if 
those efforts should be continued.
    Defense Contract Audit Agency Audits.--In 1996, the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) required 397 audits of 
contractors doing work for the DOT. The work was performed 
primarily by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) under a 
reimbursable agreement. This was the last year that the audits 
were funded by the DOT Office of the Inspector General. Because 
of the increasing demand for such audits and the resulting 
burden this placed on the budget of the Inspector General's 
office, the responsibility for funding and requesting such 
audits was shifted to the DOT operating administrations by the 
Congress. Since that time reliance on DCAA audits has dropped 
as evidenced by the diminishing number of audits performed. In 
1999, DCAA issued only 68 audit reports related to DOT 
contractors. To properly protect the government's interest, 
audits of contractors performing work for the DOT must be 
performed at a level representing a reasonable subset of the 
Department's contracted activity. These audits aid in 
determining the reasonableness of proposed prices prior to 
award and the appropriateness of charges on cost-type 
contracts. The Committee expects that the operating 
administrations will get the need contract audit support to 
maintain the Committee's confidence in the operating 
administrations' oversight of contractor activities. The 
Committee directs the OIG to assist in the monitoring of this 
situation during fiscal year 2001.
    Audit of Flight Delays.--Last year, the Committee requested 
the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) to review the causes of flight delays to help the 
Department, the air carriers, and the Congress better 
understand, address, and communicate the nature, causes, and, 
ultimately, potential mitigating actions to improve utilization 
of system capacity, the consumer's understanding of delays, and 
to better focus the FAA's, air carriers', and the Congress' 
investments in all aspects of the aviation system. The audit, 
released in June 2000, sheds a great deal of light on some of 
the troubling aspects of the current delay reporting systems, 
the lack of commonality between reporting parameters, the 
shortcomings of current information on the causes of delays.
    Although the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reporting 
focus (beginning and end points of a flight) and the FAA 
Operations Network (OPSNET) reporting focus (aircraft delayed 
for more than 15 minutes after coming under FAA's control) 
differ, both reporting regimes record increasing flight delays 
and increasing duration of those delays.
    The OIG audit found that most delays took place on the 
ground in the form of longer taxi-out and taxi-in times and 
that the incidence of taxi-out time of 2 hours or more 
increased substantially. The OIG found that much of that 
increase in delays is masked within the increase in the air 
carriers' flight schedule times--and estimated that these 
masked delays added almost 130 million minutes of travel time 
for passengers. In addition, the OIG found that the rate of 
flight cancellations was increasing. Significantly, the OIG 
found that causal data for delays varied between the BTS and 
OPSNET systems, with neither system or the carriers' data 
providing a comprehensive picture of the cause of delays and 
cancellations. The OIG identified six key factors influencing 
the number of delays and cancellations. The Committee 
anticipates engaging in a dialogue with the FAA, the OIG, and 
the carriers to foster increased attention to the causes of 
delays and envisions a follow-on effort to address the 
recommendations made in the OIG audit.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Required          Allowed
                                             Appropriation      offsetting        offsetting     Total potential
                                                                collections      collections         funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\..................      $15,400,000  ................       $1,600,000      $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001.....................  ...............     ($17,954,000)  ...............      (17,954,000)
Committee recommendation..................       17,000,000         (954,000)  ...............       17,954,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $12,000,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69; also does
  not reflect reduction of $58,000 pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.

    The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 
1996, by Public Law 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Committee 
Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend 
toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, 
the act abolished the ICC, eliminated certain functions that 
had previously been implemented by the ICC, transferred core 
rail and certain other functions to the Board, and transferred 
motor licensing and certain other motor functions to the FHWA. 
The Board is specifically responsible for the regulation of the 
rail and pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing 
regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the 
Board, through its exemption authority, is able to promote 
deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail 
reforms made by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been 
continued.
    The administration's fiscal year 2001 program request is 
$17,954,000 to perform key functions under the ICCTA, including 
rail rate reasonableness oversight; the processing of rail 
consolidations, abandonments, and other restructuring 
proposals; and the resolution of motor carrier undercharge 
matters. Under the administration's proposal this amount would 
be derived solely from user fees collected pursuant to 31 
U.S.C. 9701 from the beneficiaries of the Board's activities. 
However, such a proposal would require enactment of legislation 
and promulgation of new rules that are unlikely to be in place 
in time to ensure undisrupted funding for the Board. A possible 
legislative vehicle for such a user fee-based structure would 
be the reauthorization legislation which the authorizing 
committees may consider later this year or next year.
    The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for activities of 
the Board. This amount will be augmented by the collection of 
$954,000 in user fees. The Board anticipates collecting up to 
$900,000 from these fees.
    The Committee's recommendation will fund a total of 143 
full-time staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board 
collects the full $954,000 in user fees. This increase in FTE 
above the current level of 140 will provide the Board with the 
discretion to hire staff in specific offices to replace 
tenured, retirement-eligible staff prior to their anticipated 
retirement date. Between now and September 30, 2002, 34 percent 
of the Board's employees will be eligible for voluntary 
retirement. The Committee believes that it is important to 
allow this FTE ceiling increase to give the Board flexibility 
to fill positions before the anticipated retirement dates of 
these more senior staff.
    March 2000 hearings.--On March 7-10, 2000, the Surface 
Transportation Board (STB) held a series of public hearings 
about major rail consolidations and the future of the rail 
network. The hearings focused on the STB's merger policy and 
the downstream service effects which Class I railroad mergers 
have had on rail service. The Committee directs the STB to 
prepare a report which: (1) identifies the concerns that were 
raised in the March 2000 hearings, (2) details the actions that 
the STB will undertake to address these concerns, and (3) 
indicates where the STB lacks statutory authority to 
effectively address these concerns. This report shall be 
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 
the Senate Commerce Committee, and the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee before April 1, 2001.

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................      $4,633,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       4,795,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,795,000

\1\ Does not include reduction of $18,000 pursuant to section 301 of 
Public Law 106-113.

    The Committee recommends $4,795,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
the funding level requested by the administration.
    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting 
accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was 
reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, 
Public Law 102-569. Under this authorization, the Access 
Board's functions are to ensure compliance with the 
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to develop guidelines 
for and technical assistance to individuals and entities with 
rights or duties under titles II and III of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum 
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public 
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities 
and vehicles, State and local government facilities, children's 
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board 
also provides technical assistance to Government agencies, 
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses 
on the removal of accessibility barriers.
    The Committee's recommendation provides adequate funding to 
support 32.8 FTE, 2 FTE more than the fiscal year 2000 staffing 
level, consistent with the Board's budget request.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $57,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................      62,942,000
Committee recommendation................................      59,000,000

\1\ Excludes the President's budget request for $10,000,000 in new user 
fees.

    The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the 
National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent 
Federal agency to promote transportation safety by conducting 
independent accident investigations. In addition, the act 
authorizes the Board to make safety recommendations, conduct 
safety studies, and oversee safety activities of other 
Government agencies involved in transportation. The Board also 
reviews appeals of adverse actions by the Department of 
Transportation with respect to airmen and seamen certificates 
and licenses.
    The Board has no regulatory authority over the 
transportation industry. Thus, its effectiveness depends on its 
reputation for impartial and accurate accident reports, 
realistic and feasible safety recommendations, and on public 
confidence in its commitment to improving transportation 
safety.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill includes $59,000,000 for the National 
Transportation Safety Board. The Committee recommendation is 
$2,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2000 and 
$3,942,000 below the budget request. The Committee does not 
approve the $2,708,000 that was requested for partial year 
funding for 25 new positions. The remaining $1,234,000 is 
reduced from the budget estimate without prejudice due to 
budgetary constraints. The Committee is confident the Safety 
Board can manage to the level of funding recommended herein by 
adjusting non-pay inflation, restraining travel that is not 
incidental to accident investigations, and implementing a 
variety of management initiatives. Also, the Committee has 
included in other appropriations bills $24,739,000 in 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2000 to provide 
immediate financial relief for the Safety Board.
    User Fees.--The Committee denies the request to collect 
$10,000,000 in user fees. It is the Committee's understanding 
that the Safety Board does not have the authority or the 
resources to collect user fees. Furthermore, the Committee is 
concerned that requiring the NTSB to levy fees on the 
industries it investigates will undermine industry confidence 
in the independence of the Safety Board. The Committee, 
however, would entertain proposals to seek reimbursement from 
foreign governments for the costs incurred during 
investigations conducted at the request of that government, if 
consistent with U.S. foreign policy goals.
    NIOSH study.--Within available funds, NTSB should continue 
its participation in the interagency initiative on aviation 
safety in Alaska with the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
and other Federal, State, and private parties at existing 
levels.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee concurs with the general provisions that 
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
as proposed in the budget, with some changes, deletions, and 
additions. These are noted below:
    Sec. 305. Modifies a requested provision to prohibit the 
use of funds for the salaries and expenses of more than 104 
political and Presidential appointees to the Department of 
Transportation.
    Sec. 309. Retains a provision prohibiting the release of 
personal information, including a social security number, 
medical, or disability information, and photographs from a 
driver's license or motor vehicle record without express 
consent. The administration proposed deleting this provision.
    Sec. 310. This provision regarding the allocation of 
Federal-aid Highway Program funds is continued with 
modifications to reflect the passage of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21].
    Sec. 315. Retains provision prohibiting the use of funds to 
award multiyear contracts for production end items that include 
certain specified provisions. The administration proposed 
deleting this provision.
    Sec. 318. Retains provision prohibiting funds to compensate 
in excess of 320 technical 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 administration proposed 
deleting this provision.
    Sec. 319. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted that reduces the funds provided for the 
Transportation Administrative Service Center and provides 
additional funds for programs authorized under section 1069(y) 
of Public Law 102-240.
    Sec. 321. Includes with modification a provision from 
fiscal year 2000 Act which expands the eligible uses of funds 
made available for Alaska and Hawaii ferry boats or ferry 
terminals. The administration proposed deleting this provision.
    Sec. 322. Includes with modification provision allowing the 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics to credit the Federal-aid 
highway account with proceeds from the sale of data products. 
The administration had requested that this provision be made 
permanent law.
    Sec. 323. Includes provision that prohibits the use of 
funds in this act for activities designed to influence Congress 
on legislation or appropriations except through proper, 
official channels. The administration proposed deleting this 
provision.
    Sec. 324. Includes a provision requiring compliance with 
the Buy American Act. The administration proposed deleting this 
provision.
    Sec. 325. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted that limits the amount available for 
advisory committees to $1,500,000.
    Sec. 326. Modifies a requested provision regarding rebates, 
refunds, incentive payments, and minor fees received by the 
Department from travel management centers, charge card 
programs, and other sources, making such funds available until 
December 31, 2001.
    Sec. 328. Modifies provision requested by the 
administration relating to funding for the Amtrak Reform 
Council.
    Sec. 329. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted, which was carried in previous 
appropriations acts, providing a limitation on transfers of 
funds among the offices of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation.
    Sec. 331. Retains a provision to increase the Federal share 
for Americans with Disabilities Act-related equipment for over-
the-road buses. The administration proposed deleting this 
provision.
    Sec. 332. Includes a provision which allows the Department 
of Transportation to enter into a fractional aircraft ownership 
demonstration.
    Sec. 333. Includes a provision from the fiscal year 2000 
appropriations act which prohibits the use of funds in this Act 
unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full 
business days before any discretionary grant agreement totaling 
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department or its modal 
administrations. The administration proposed deleting this 
provision.
    Sec. 334. Includes a provision which amends section 3030(b) 
of Public Law 105-178 to authorize the Wilmington Downtown 
transit corridor and Honolulu Bus Rapid Transit projects.
    Sec. 335. Includes a provision which prohibits the use of 
funds in this act to finalize the rulemaking proposed in Docket 
No. FMCSA-97-2350-953.
    Sec. 336. Includes a provision which expands the exemption 
from Federal axle weight restrictions presently applicable only 
to public transit buses to all over-the-road buses and directs 
that a study and report concerning applicability of maximum 
axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses and public 
transit vehicles be submitted to the Congress.
    Sec. 337. Includes a provision which prohibits the use of 
funds in this act from being used to implement the Kyoto 
Protocol prior to its ratification.
    Sec. 338. Includes a provision which prohibits the 
submission of a budget request that assumes revenues or 
reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees 
proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the 
submission of the President's Budget unless additional spending 
reductions are identified in the event the user fees proposals 
are not enacted prior to the date of a committee of conference 
for fiscal year 2001 appropriations act.
    Sec. 340. Prohibits funds to be used to adopt guidelines or 
regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide Federal 
Aviation Administration ``without cost'' buildings, 
maintenance, or space for FAA services. However, the 
prohibition does not apply to negotiations concerning ``below-
market'' rates for those items.
    Sec. 341. Includes a provision which requires the Coast 
Guard to submit a quarterly report to the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees on major Coast Guard acquisition 
projects.
    Sec. 342. Includes a provision which requires States to 
adopt a .08 blood alcohol content law, and which outlines 
highway funding sanctions beginning in fiscal year 2004 for 
States that are not in compliance.
    Sec. 343. Includes a provision that allows FAA to waive 
restrictive terms in a deed of conveyance so that an Oklahoma 
university may make use of revenues derived from certain 
airport land only for weather-related and educations purposes 
that include benefits for aviation.
    Sec. 344. Includes a provision which clarifies the 
alignment of the Ports-to-Plains corridor facility in the 
States of Texas and Oklahoma.

  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

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

United States Coast Guard:
    Operating expenses..................................  $3,039,460,000
    Acquisition, construction, and improvements.........     407,748,000
    Environmental compliance and restoration............      16,700,000
    Retired pay.........................................     778,000,000
    Reserve training....................................      80,371,000
    Research, development, test, and evaluation.........      21,320,000
Federal Railroad Administration: Railroad safety........      99,390,000
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.............      13,004,000
Research and Special Programs Administration: Research 
    and Special Programs................................      75,214,000
Surface Transportation Board............................      17,000,000
National Transportation Safety Board....................      59,000,000

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered, an original fiscal year 2001 Transportation 
Appropriations bill, subject to amendment and subject to the 
section 302 budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 28-0, a 
quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Kyl
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin

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

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

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 1023. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RESTRICTION.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Over-the-Road Buses and Public Transit Vehicles.--
            (1) Temporary exemption.--The second sentence of 
        section 127 of title 23, United States Code, relating 
        to axle weight limitations for vehicles using the 
        Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense 
        Highways, shall not apply, for the period beginning on 
        October 6, 1992, and ending on October 1, 2003, [to any 
        vehicle which] to--
                    (A) any over-the-road bus; or
                    (B) any vehicle that
        is regularly and exclusively used as an intrastate 
        public agency transit passenger bus.
            [(2) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on 
        the maximum axle weight limitations on the Dwight D. 
        Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
        established under section 127 of title 23, United 
        States Code, or under State laws, as they apply to 
        public transit vehicles. The study shall determine 
        whether or not public transit vehicles should be 
        exempted from the requirements of section 127 or State 
        laws or if such laws should be modified with regard to 
        public transit vehicles. In making such determination, 
        the Secretary shall consider current transit vehicle 
        design standards, the implications of the Americans 
        with Disabilities Act and Clean Air Act requirements on 
        such design standards, and the potential impact of 
        revised design standards on transit ridership capacity, 
        operating and replacement costs, air quality concerns, 
        and highway wear and tear.
            [(3) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
        submit to the Congress a report on the result of the 
        study conducted under paragraph (2), together with 
        recommendations.]
            (2) Study and report concerning applicability of 
        maximum axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses 
        and public transit vehicles.--
                    (A) Study and report.--Not later than July 
                31, 2002, the Secretary shall conduct a study 
                of, and submit to Congress a report on, the 
                maximum axle weight limitations applicable to 
                vehicles using the Dwight D. Eisenhower 
                National System of Interstate and Defense 
                Highways established under section 127 of title 
                23, United States Code, or under State law, as 
                the limitations apply to over-the-road buses 
                and public transit vehicles.
                    (B) Determination of applicability of 
                vehicle weight limitations.--
                            (i) In general.--The report shall 
                        include--
                                    (I) a determination 
                                concerning how the requirements 
                                of section 127 of that title 
                                should be applied to over-the-
                                road buses and public transit 
                                vehicles; and
                                    (II) short-term and long-
                                term recommendations concerning 
                                the applicability of those 
                                requirements.
                            (ii) Considerations.--In making the 
                        determination described in clause 
                        (i)(I), the Secretary shall consider--
                                    (I) vehicle design 
                                standards;
                                    (II) statutory and 
                                regulatory requirements, 
                                including--
                                            (aa) the Clean Air 
                                        Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
                                        seq.);
                                            (bb) the Americans 
                                        with Disabilities Act 
                                        of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
                                        12101 et seq.); and
                                            (cc) motor vehicle 
                                        safety standards 
                                        prescribed under 
                                        chapter 301 of title 
                                        49, United States Code; 
                                        and
                                    (III)(aa) the availability 
                                of lightweight materials 
                                suitable for use in the 
                                manufacture of over-the-road 
                                buses;
                                    (bb) the cost of those 
                                lightweight materials relative 
                                to the cost of heavier 
                                materials in use as of the date 
                                of the determination; and
                                    (cc) any safety or design 
                                considerations relating to the 
                                use of those materials.
                    (C) Analysis of means of encouraging 
                development and manufacture of lightweight 
                buses.--The report shall include an analysis 
                of, and recommendations concerning, means to be 
                considered to encourage the development and 
                manufacture of lightweight buses, including an 
                analysis of--
                            (i) potential procurement 
                        incentives for public transit 
                        authorities to encourage the purchase 
                        of lightweight public transit vehicles 
                        using grants from the Federal Transit 
                        Administration; and
                            (ii) potential tax incentives for 
                        manufacturers and private operators to 
                        encourage the purchase of lightweight 
                        over-the-road buses.
                    (D) Analysis of consideration in 
                rulemakings of additional vehicle weight.--The 
                report shall include an analysis of, and 
                recommendations concerning, whether Congress 
                should require that each rulemaking by an 
                agency of the Federal Government that affects 
                the design or manufacture of motor vehicles 
                consider--
                            (i) the weight that would be added 
                        to the vehicle by implementation of the 
                        proposed rule;
                            (ii) the effect that the added 
                        weight would have on pavement wear; and
                            (iii) the resulting cost to the 
                        Federal Government and State and local 
                        governments.
                    (E) Cost-benefit analysis.--The report 
                shall include an analysis relating to the axle 
                weight of over-the-road buses that compares--
                            (i) the costs of the pavement wear 
                        caused by over-the-road buses; with
                            (ii) the benefits of the over-the-
                        road bus industry to the environment, 
                        the economy, and the transportation 
                        system of the United States.
            (3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                    (A) Over-the-road bus.--The term ``over-
                the-road bus'' has the meaning given the term 
                in section 301 of the Americans with 
                Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181).
                    (B) Public transit vehicle.--The term 
                ``public transit vehicle'' means a vehicle 
                described in paragraph (1)(B).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1105. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (c) * * *
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(38) The Ports-to-Plains Corridor from the Mexican 
        Border via I-27 to Denver, Colorado.]
            (38) The Ports-to-Plains Corridor from Laredo, 
        Texas to Denver, Colorado as follows:
                    (A) In the State of Texas the Ports-to-
                Plains Corridor shall generally follow--
                            (i) I-35 from Laredo to United 
                        States Route 83 at Exit 18;
                            (ii) United States Route 83 from 
                        Exit 18 to Carrizo Springs;
                            (iii) United States Route 277 from 
                        Carrizo Springs to San Angelo;
                            (iv) United States Route 87 from 
                        San Angelo to Sterling City;
                            (v) From Sterling City to Lamesa, 
                        the Corridor shall follow United States 
                        Route 87 and, the corridor shall also 
                        follow Texas Route 158 from Sterling 
                        City to I-20, then via I-20 West to 
                        Texas Route 349 and, Texas Route 349 
                        from Midland to Lamesa;
                            (vi) United States Route 87 from 
                        Lamesa to Lubbock;
                            (vii) I-27 from Lubbock to 
                        Amarillo; and
                            (viii) United States Route 287 from 
                        Amarillo to the Oklahoma border.
                    (B) In the State of Oklahoma, the Ports-to-
                Plains Corridor shall generally follow United 
                States Route 287 from the Texas border to the 
                Colorado border. The Corridor shall then 
                proceed into Colorado.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

    AN ACT To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway 
safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) * * *
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (71) Dane County Corridor--East-West Madison 
        Metropolitan Area.
            (72) Wilmington Downtown transit corridor.
            (73) Honolulu Bus Rapid Transit project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3038. RURAL TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Federal Share of Costs.--The Federal share of costs 
under this section shall be provided from funds made available 
to carry out this section. The Federal share of the costs for a 
project shall not exceed [50] 90 percent of the project cost.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount of    Committee    Amount of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
 Resolution 2001: Subcommittee on Transportation and Related
 Agencies:
    General purpose discretionary...........................          641          641          573      \1\ 573
    General purpose non-defense discretion-  ary............       12,640       12,640       15,400       15,090
    Highways................................................  ...........  ...........       26,920       26,920
    Mass transit............................................  ...........  ...........        3,852        3,852
    Mandatory...............................................          739          739          737          737
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 19,224
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       17,920
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        7,723
    2003....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,639
    2004 and future year....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,852
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2001           NA          740           NA        8,437
 in bill....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2001
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     2000         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         2000
                                                                                                                        appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses:
    Immediate Office of the Secretary.........................            1,867             2,031             1,800               -67              -231
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary..................              600               587               500              -100               -87
    Office of the General Counsel.............................            9,000            11,172             9,000   ................           -2,172
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy..............            2,824             3,132             2,500              -324              -632
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and                    7,650             7,702             7,000              -650              -702
     International Affairs....................................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.            6,870             7,241             6,500              -370              -741
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs            2,039             2,176             2,000               -39              -176
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......           17,767            20,139            17,800               +33            -2,339
    Office of Public Affairs..................................            1,800             1,714             1,500              -300              -214
    Executive Secretariat.....................................            1,102             1,181             1,181               +79   ................
    Board of Contract Appeals.................................              520               496               496               -24   ................
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....            1,222             1,192             1,192               -30   ................
    Office of Intelligence and Security.......................            1,454             3,494   ................           -1,454            -3,494
    Office of the Chief Information Officer...................            5,075             6,929             6,000              +925              -929
    Office of Intermodalism...................................            1,062   ................  ................           -1,062   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           60,852            69,186            57,469            -3,383           -11,717

Office of Civil Rights........................................            7,200             8,726             8,000              +800              -726
Transportation planning, research, and development............            3,300             5,258             5,300            +2,000               +42
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................              -10   ................  ................              +10   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................            3,290             5,258             5,300            +2,010               +42

Transportation Administrative Service Center..................         (148,673)         (163,811)         (173,278)         (+24,605)          (+9,467)
Minority business resource center program.....................            1,900             1,900             1,900   ................  ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (13,775)          (13,775)          (13,775)  ................  ................
Minority business outreach....................................            2,900             3,000             3,000              +100   ................
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................              -18   ................  ................              +18   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................            2,882             3,000             3,000              +118   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Office of the Secretary..........................           76,152            88,070            75,669              -483           -12,401

          ATB rescissions.....................................              -28   ................  ................              +28   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................           76,124            88,070            75,669              -455           -12,401

                          Coast Guard

Operating expenses............................................        2,481,000         2,858,000         2,398,460           -82,540          -459,540
    Defense function..........................................          300,000           341,000           641,000          +341,000          +300,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................        2,781,000         3,199,000         3,039,460          +258,460          -159,540

Acquisition, construction, and improvements:
    Vessels...................................................          134,560           257,180           145,937           +11,377          -111,243
        Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission............           -1,478   ................  ................           +1,478   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Net subtotal........................................          133,082           257,180           145,937           +12,855          -111,243

    Aircraft..................................................           44,210            43,650            41,650            -2,560            -2,000
    Other equipment...........................................           51,626            60,313            54,304            +2,678            -6,009
    Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities........           63,800            61,606            68,406            +4,606            +6,800
    Personnel and related support.............................           50,930            55,151            55,151            +4,221   ................
    Integrated Deepwater Systems..............................           44,200            42,300            42,300            -1,900   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, A C and I (excl rescissions)..................          389,326           520,200           407,748           +18,422          -112,452

Environmental compliance and restoration......................           17,000            16,700            16,700              -300   ................
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................              -65   ................  ................              +65   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................           16,935            16,700            16,700              -235   ................

Alteration of bridges (highway trust fund)....................           15,000   ................           15,500              +500           +15,500
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................              -57   ................  ................              +57   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................           14,943   ................           15,500              +557           +15,500

Retired pay...................................................          730,327           778,000           778,000           +47,673   ................
Reserve training..............................................           72,000            73,371            80,371            +8,371            +7,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation...................           19,000            21,320            21,320            +2,320   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Coast Guard......................................        4,023,653         4,608,591         4,359,099          +335,446          -249,492

          ATB rescissions.....................................           -1,600   ................  ................           +1,600   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................        4,022,053         4,608,591         4,359,099          +337,046          -249,492

                Federal Aviation Administration

Operations (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)....................        5,900,000         6,592,235         6,350,250          +450,250          -241,985
    Air traffic services......................................       (4,648,907)       (5,210,434)       (5,039,391)        (+390,484)        (-171,043)
    Aviation regulation and certification.....................         (640,162)         (691,979)         (691,979)         (+51,817)  ................
    Civil aviation security...................................         (131,474)         (144,328)         (138,462)          (+6,988)          (-5,866)
    Research and acquisitions.................................         (174,083)         (196,497)         (182,401)          (+8,318)         (-14,096)
    Commercial space transportation...........................           (6,560)          (12,607)          (10,000)          (+3,440)          (-2,607)
    Regional coordination.....................................          (95,321)  ................          (99,347)          (+4,026)         (+99,347)
    Human resources...........................................          (52,809)  ................          (49,906)          (-2,903)         (+49,906)
    Financial services........................................          (38,981)  ................          (43,000)          (+4,019)         (+43,000)
    Staff offices.............................................          (73,093)         (336,390)          (95,764)         (+22,671)        (-240,626)
    Essential air service.....................................          (32,000)  ................  ................         (-32,000)  ................
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)......        2,075,000         2,495,000         2,656,765          +581,765          +161,765
    Rescission................................................         (-30,000)  ................  ................         (+30,000)  ................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway              156,495           184,366           183,343           +26,848            -1,023
 Trust Fund)..................................................
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................       (1,750,000)       (1,960,000)       (3,200,000)      (+1,450,000)      (+1,240,000)
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (1,950,000)       (1,950,000)       (3,200,000)      (+1,250,000)      (+1,250,000)
        Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission............         (-54,362)  ................  ................         (+54,362)  ................
    Rescission of contract authority..........................  ................  ................         -579,000          -579,000          -579,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................       (1,895,638)       (1,950,000)       (2,621,000)        (+725,362)        (+671,000)
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration..................        8,131,495         9,271,601         9,190,358        +1,058,863           -81,243

          (Limitations on obligations)........................       (1,950,000)       (1,950,000)       (3,200,000)      (+1,250,000)      (+1,250,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources.........................      (10,081,495)      (11,221,601)      (12,390,358)      (+2,308,863)      (+1,168,757)
          ATB rescissions.....................................         (-54,362)  ................  ................         (+54,362)  ................

          Rescission..........................................          -30,000   ................         -579,000          -549,000          -579,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................       (9,997,133)      (11,221,601)      (11,811,358)      (+1,814,225)        (+589,757)

                Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses \1\.....................         (376,072)         (315,834)         (386,658)         (+10,586)         (+70,824)
Limitation on transportation research.........................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................      (26,245,000)      (26,603,806)      (26,603,806)        (+358,806)  ................
        Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission............        (-105,260)  ................  ................        (+105,260)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Net subtotal........................................      (26,139,740)      (26,603,806)      (26,603,806)        (+464,066)  ................

    (Revenue aligned budget authority) (RABA).................       (1,456,350)       (3,058,000)       (3,058,000)      (+1,601,650)  ................
    (RABA transfer under Title III)...........................  ................        (-598,000)  ................  ................        (+598,000)
    (Adjustment)..............................................  ................         (255,000)  ................  ................        (-255,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, limitation on obligations.....................      (27,701,350)      (29,318,806)      (29,661,806)      (+1,960,456)        (+343,000)

    (Exempt obligations)......................................       (1,206,702)       (1,039,148)       (1,039,148)        (-167,554)  ................
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................      (26,000,000)      (28,000,000)      (28,000,000)      (+2,000,000)  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Federal Highway Administration...................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................

          (Limitations on obligations)........................      (27,701,350)      (29,318,806)      (29,661,806)      (+1,960,456)        (+343,000)
          (Exempt obligations)................................       (1,206,702)       (1,039,148)       (1,039,148)        (-167,554)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources.........................      (28,908,052)      (30,357,954)      (30,700,954)      (+1,792,902)        (+343,000)

          ATB rescissions.....................................        (-105,260)  ................  ................        (+105,260)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................      (28,802,792)      (30,357,954)      (30,700,954)      (+1,898,162)        (+343,000)

          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses)    ................          (92,194)          (92,194)         (+92,194)  ................
 \2\..........................................................
National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................         (105,000)         (187,000)         (177,000)         (+72,000)         (-10,000)
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (105,000)         (177,000)         (177,000)         (+72,000)  ................
    (RABA transfer under Title III)...........................  ................          (10,000)  ................  ................         (-10,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, limitation on obligations.....................         (105,000)         (187,000)         (177,000)         (+72,000)         (-10,000)
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin...............  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................

          (Limitations on obligations)........................         (105,000)         (279,194)         (269,194)        (+164,194)         (-10,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources.........................         (105,000)         (279,194)         (269,194)        (+164,194)         (-10,000)

        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research (highway trust fund)..................           87,400           142,475           107,876           +20,476           -34,599
Operations and research (highway trust fund):
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................          (72,000)          (72,000)          (72,000)  ................  ................
    (RABA transfer under Title III)...........................  ................          (70,000)  ................  ................         (-70,000)
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................          (72,000)         (142,000)          (72,000)  ................         (-70,000)
National Driver Register (highway trust fund).................            2,000             2,000             2,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and research.......................         (161,400)         (286,475)         (181,876)         (+20,476)        (-104,599)

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................         (206,800)         (213,000)         (213,000)          (+6,200)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations):
        Highway safety programs (Sec. 402)....................         (152,800)         (155,000)         (155,000)          (+2,200)  ................
        Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405).......          (10,000)          (13,000)          (13,000)          (+3,000)  ................
        Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec.           (36,000)          (36,000)          (36,000)  ................  ................
         410).................................................
        State Highway safety data grants (Sec. 411)...........           (8,000)           (9,000)           (9,000)          (+1,000)  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
          Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin........           89,400           144,475           109,876           +20,476           -34,599

              (Limitations on obligations)....................         (278,800)         (355,000)         (285,000)          (+6,200)         (-70,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total budgetary resources.....................         (368,200)         (499,475)         (394,876)         (+26,676)        (-104,599)

                Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations.........................................           94,288           103,211            99,390            +5,102            -3,821
    Offsetting collections (user fees)........................  ................          -77,300   ................  ................          +77,300
Railroad research and development.............................           22,464            26,800            24,725            +2,261            -2,075
    Offsetting collections (user fees)........................  ................          -25,500   ................  ................          +25,500
Rhode Island Rail Development.................................           10,000            17,000   ................          -10,000           -17,000
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................              -38   ................  ................              +38   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................            9,962            17,000   ................           -9,962           -17,000

Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment project (advance                     (60,000)  ................  ................         (-60,000)  ................
 appropriations, fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003)...............
Next generation high-speed rail...............................           27,200            22,000            24,900            -2,300            +2,900
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................             -103   ................  ................             +103   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................           27,097            22,000            24,900            -2,197            +2,900

Alaska Railroad rehabilitation................................           10,000   ................           20,000           +10,000           +20,000
West Virginia Rail development................................  ................  ................           15,000           +15,000           +15,000
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................              -38   ................  ................              +38   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................            9,962   ................           35,000           +25,038           +35,000

Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.          571,000           521,476           521,000           -50,000              -476
Expanded intercity rail passenger service fund (RABA transfer
 under Title III):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................  ................         (468,000)  ................  ................        (-468,000)
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................         (468,000)  ................  ................        (-468,000)
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration..................          734,952           587,687           705,015           -29,937          +117,328

          (Limitations on obligations)........................  ................         (468,000)  ................  ................        (-468,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources.........................         (734,952)       (1,055,687)         (705,015)         (-29,937)        (-350,672)

          ATB rescissions.....................................             -179   ................  ................             +179   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................          734,773         1,055,687           705,015           -29,758          -350,672

                Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses.......................................           12,000            12,800            12,800              +800   ................
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit               (48,000)          (51,200)          (51,200)          (+3,200)  ................
 Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Administrative expenses.......................          (60,000)          (64,000)          (64,000)          (+4,000)  ................

Formula grants................................................          619,600           669,000           669,000           +49,400   ................
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund): (Limitation on on               (2,478,400)       (2,676,000)       (2,676,000)        (+197,600)  ................
 obligations).................................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Formula grants................................       (3,098,000)       (3,345,000)       (3,345,000)        (+247,000)  ................

University transportation research............................            1,200             1,200             1,200   ................  ................
University transportation research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass             (4,800)           (4,800)           (4,800)  ................  ................
 Transit Acct) (limitation on obligations)....................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, University transportation research............           (6,000)           (6,000)           (6,000)  ................  ................

Transit planning and research (general fund)..................           21,000            22,200            22,200            +1,200   ................
Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass                 (86,000)          (87,800)          (87,800)          (+1,800)  ................
 Transit Account): (Limitation on obligations)................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Transit planning and research.................         (107,000)         (110,000)         (110,000)          (+3,000)  ................

    Rural transportation assistance...........................           (5,250)           (5,250)           (5,250)  ................  ................
    National Transit Institute................................           (4,000)           (4,000)           (4,000)  ................  ................
    Transit cooperative research..............................           (8,250)           (8,250)           (8,250)  ................  ................
    Metropolitan planning.....................................          (49,632)          (52,114)          (52,114)          (+2,482)  ................
    State planning and research...............................          (10,368)          (10,886)          (10,886)            (+518)  ................
    National planning and research............................          (29,500)          (29,500)          (29,500)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................         (107,000)         (110,000)         (110,000)          (+3,000)  ................

    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................            (-243)  ................  ................            (+243)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................         (106,757)         (110,000)         (110,000)          (+3,243)  ................

Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation       (4,929,270)       (5,016,600)       (5,016,600)         (+87,330)  ................
 of contract authorization)...................................
Capital investment grants (general fund)......................          490,200           529,200           529,200           +39,000   ................
Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit          (1,966,800)       (2,116,800)       (2,116,800)        (+150,000)  ................
 Account) (limitation on obligations) \1\.....................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Capital investment grants.....................       (2,457,000)       (2,646,000)       (2,646,000)        (+189,000)  ................

    Fixed guideway modernization..............................         (980,400)       (1,058,400)       (1,058,400)         (+78,000)  ................
    Buses and bus-related facilities \3\......................         (496,200)         (529,200)         (529,200)         (+33,000)  ................
    New starts................................................         (980,400)       (1,058,400)       (1,058,400)         (+78,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (2,457,000)       (2,646,000)       (2,646,000)        (+189,000)  ................

    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................         (-17,404)  ................  ................         (+17,404)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................       (2,439,596)       (2,646,000)       (2,646,000)        (+206,404)  ................

Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit               (1,500,000)         (350,000)         (350,000)      (-1,150,000)  ................
 Account) (liquidation of contract authorization).............

Job access and reverse commute grants (general fund)..........           15,000            20,000            20,000            +5,000   ................
    (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on           (60,000)          (80,000)          (80,000)         (+20,000)  ................
     obligations).............................................
        (RABA transfer under Title III).......................  ................          (50,000)  ................  ................         (-50,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants.....          (75,000)         (150,000)         (100,000)         (+25,000)         (-50,000)
                                                               =========================================================================================
          Total, Federal Transit Administration...............        1,159,000         1,254,400         1,254,400           +95,400   ................

              (Limitations on obligations)....................       (4,644,000)       (5,066,600)       (5,016,600)        (+372,600)         (-50,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total budgetary resources.....................       (5,803,000)       (6,321,000)       (6,271,000)        (+468,000)         (-50,000)

              ATB rescissions.................................         (-17,647)  ................  ................         (+17,647)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Net total.....................................       (5,785,353)       (6,321,000)       (6,271,000)        (+485,647)         (-50,000)

         Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)....           12,042   ................           12,400              +358           +12,400
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................              -46   ................  ................              +46   ................
    Mandatory proposal........................................  ................          (13,004)  ................  ................         (-13,004)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net total...............................................           11,996            13,004            12,400              +404              -604

         Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs:
    Hazardous materials safety................................           17,710            18,773            18,620              +910              -153
    Emergency transportation..................................            1,378             2,375             1,801              +423              -574
    Research and technology...................................            3,397             9,416             3,740              +343            -5,676
    Program and administrative support........................            9,576            11,967            10,209              +633            -1,758
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, research and special programs.................           32,061            42,531            34,370            +2,309            -8,161

    Offsetting collections (user fees)........................  ................           -4,722   ................  ................           +4,722
Pipeline safety:
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................           30,000            42,874            31,894            +1,894           -10,980
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................            5,479             4,263             8,750            +3,271            +4,487
    Pipeline safety reserve...................................           (1,400)  ................           (2,500)          (+1,100)          (+2,500)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pipeline safety program (incl reserve)........          (36,879)          (47,137)          (43,144)          (+6,265)          (-3,993)
Emergency preparedness grants:
    Emergency preparedness fund...............................              200               200               200   ................  ................
    Limitation on obligations (emergency preparedness fund)...  ................  ................          (13,227)         (+13,227)         (+13,227)
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Research and Special Programs Administration.....           67,740            85,146            75,214            +7,474            -9,932

                  Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses.........................................           44,840            48,050            10,500           -34,340           -37,550
    (By transfer).............................................  ................  ................          (38,500)         (+38,500)         (+38,500)
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................             -170   ................  ................             +170   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net total...............................................           44,670            48,050            10,500           -34,170           -37,550
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, program funding..................................           44,670            48,050            49,000            +4,330              +950
                                                               =========================================================================================
                 Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           17,000            17,954            17,000   ................             -954
    Offsetting collections....................................           -1,600           -17,954              -954              +646           +17,000
    Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................              -58   ................  ................              +58   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net total...............................................           15,342   ................           16,046              +704           +16,046

                      General Provisions

Transportation Administrative Service Center reduction (Sec.            -15,000   ................            1,533           +16,533            +1,533
 319).........................................................
Amtrak Reform Council (Sec. 326)..............................              750               980               495              -255              -485
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Net total, title I, Department of Transportation........       14,368,343        16,089,000        15,231,605          +863,262          -857,395

          Current year, fiscal year 2001......................      (14,308,343)      (16,089,000)      (15,231,605)        (+923,262)        (-857,395)
              Appropriations..................................      (14,340,424)      (16,089,000)      (15,810,605)      (+1,470,181)        (-278,395)
              Rescissions.....................................         (-32,081)  ................        (-579,000)        (-546,919)        (-579,000)
          Advance appropriations..............................          (60,000)  ................  ................         (-60,000)  ................

          (By transfer).......................................  ................  ................          (38,500)         (+38,500)         (+38,500)
          (Limitations on obligations)........................      (34,679,150)      (37,437,600)      (38,432,600)      (+3,753,450)        (+995,000)
          (Rescissions of limitations on obligations).........        (-177,269)  ................  ................        (+177,269)  ................
          (Exempt obligations)................................       (1,206,702)       (1,039,148)       (1,039,148)        (-167,554)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total budgetary resources.....................      (50,076,926)      (54,565,748)      (54,703,353)      (+4,626,427)        (+137,605)
                                                               =========================================================================================
                  TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

  Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................            4,633             4,795             4,795              +162   ................

             National Transportation Safety Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           57,000            62,942            59,000            +2,000            -3,942
    Offsetting collections....................................  ................          -10,000   ................  ................          +10,000
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title II, Related Agencies.......................           61,633            57,737            63,795            +2,162            +6,058
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Grand total.............................................       14,429,976        16,146,737        15,295,400          +865,424          -851,337

          Current year, fiscal year 2001......................      (14,369,976)      (16,146,737)      (15,295,400)        (+925,424)        (-851,337)
              Appropriations..................................      (14,402,057)      (16,146,737)      (15,874,400)      (+1,472,343)        (-272,337)
              Rescissions.....................................         (-32,081)  ................        (-579,000)        (-546,919)        (-579,000)
          Advance appropriations..............................          (60,000)  ................  ................         (-60,000)  ................

          (By transfer).......................................  ................  ................          (38,500)         (+38,500)         (+38,500)
          (Limitation on obligations).........................      (34,679,150)      (37,437,600)      (38,432,600)      (+3,753,450)        (+995,000)
          (Rescissions of limitation on obligations)..........        (-177,269)  ................  ................        (+177,269)  ................

          (Exempt obligations)................................       (1,206,702)       (1,039,148)       (1,039,148)        (-167,554)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total budgetary resources.....................      (50,138,559)      (54,623,485)      (54,767,148)      (+4,628,589)        (+143,663)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 enacted includes $76,058 for motor carrier safety, limitation on administrative expenses.
\2\ Provided under FHWA limitation on administrative expenses in fiscal year 2000.
\3\ $6,000,000 provided in Title II--Other Appropriations Matters in Public Law 106-113.

NOTE: Fiscal year 2000 rescissions included in Net total lines.


                                  
