[Senate Report 106-55]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 126

106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     106-55

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



 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  2000

                                _______
                                

                  May 27, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______


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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1143]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1143) 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 
and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the bill do pass.



Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2000

Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $14,224,022,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2000........................  14,745,147,000
Fiscal year 1999 enacted................................  14,353,303,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                    SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                        Office of the Secretary

Immediate Office of the Secretary................................    10
Office of the General Counsel....................................    11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.....................    11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
  Affairs........................................................    11
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.........................................    13
Executive Secretariat............................................    14
Contract Appeals Board...........................................    14
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization...........    14
Office of Intelligence and Security..............................    14
Office of the Chief Information Officer..........................    14
Office of Intermodalism..........................................    15
Office of Civil Rights...........................................    15
Transportation planning, research, and development...............    15
Transportation Administrative Service Center.....................    16
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund.........    17
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................    22
Minority business outreach.......................................    22

                            U.S. Coast Guard

Operating expenses...............................................    29
Acquisition, construction, and improvements......................    33
Environmental compliance and restoration.........................    37
Alteration of bridges............................................    38
Retired pay......................................................    38
Reserve training.................................................    39
Research, development, test, and evaluation......................    39
Boat safety......................................................    41

                    Federal Aviation Administration

Operations.......................................................    44
Facilities and equipment.........................................    52
Research, engineering, and development...........................    75
Grants-in-aid for airports.......................................    80

                     Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administration expenses............................    86
Federal-aid highways.............................................    87
Magnetic levitation transportation...............................   100
Appalachian development highway system...........................   101

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics

National motor carrier safety program............................   103

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research..........................................   107
Highway traffic safety grants....................................   111

                    Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations............................................   113
Office of the Administrator......................................   115
Railroad safety..................................................   115
Railroad research and development................................   115
Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Program......................   117
Next generation high-speed rail..................................   117
Alaska railroad rehabilitation...................................   119
Rhode Island rail development....................................   119
Capital Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
  (Amtrak).......................................................   120
Amtrak Reform Council............................................   123

                     Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses..........................................   125
Formula grants...................................................   126
University transportation research...............................   131
Transit planning and research....................................   132
Trust fund share of expenses.....................................   135
Capital investment grants........................................   135
Job access and reverse commute grants............................   150
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]...........   150

              St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance.......................................   151

              Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs....................................   153
Pipeline safety..................................................   156
Emergency preparedness grants....................................   158

                      Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses............................................   160

                      Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses............................................   161

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: 
  Salaries and expenses..........................................   163
National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses......   163

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions...............................................   165
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   167
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   167
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   168
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   171

  Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds

    In addition to the appropriation of $13,985,072,000 in new 
budget authority for fiscal year 2000, 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 2000, estimated obligation 
limitations total $33,733,150,000.

                     program, project, and activity

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

             transportation equity act for the 21st century

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

               the government performance and results act

    The Government Performance and Results Act [Results Act] 
requires Federal agencies to develop strategic plans and annual 
performance plans and reports. The Department's first multiyear 
strategic plan was submitted September 30, 1997. The Committee 
is fully committed to support the Department as it seeks to 
implement the requirements of the Results Act.
    The Committee commends the Department for its aggressive 
implementation of the Results Act. In the performance plan for 
fiscal year 2000 that was delivered to Congress on February 1, 
1999, performance measures have been identified for all of the 
Department's major programs. A total of 61 performance goals 
have been established. These goals are stated in terms of 
effects on the American public, and many reflect ambitious 
target levels of performance.
    The Department provided the performance plan coincident 
with the budget justifications. This year's performance plan 
links the agencies' strategies and initiatives to individual 
goals and identifies interagency coordination of goals, as the 
Committee recommended last year. The performance plan also 
provides the context for each goal in a short paragraph titled 
``Why we act,'' along with several years of historical data in 
most cases. The plan highlights special challenges that the 
agency faces in achieving each of its goals, and includes an 
appendix with substantially more information on the data and 
limitations for each measure. The Committee is pleased to see a 
continuation and expansion of the separate discussion of 
management challenges the Department faces. While not required 
by the act, this is a useful and appropriate addition to the 
plan that underscores the importance of management in achieving 
strategic goals. This section tracks with recent reports from 
the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office.
    The Department's activities under the Government 
Performance and Results Act are clearly a work in progress. The 
Department has made significant strides in assessing GPRA's 
potential for strategically aligning the varied and numerous 
programs under the Department's jurisdiction. However, although 
the plan identifies strategies to help achieve the Department's 
long-term goals, the plan does not adequately describe how 
those strategies will lead to realization of the long-term 
goals or the relative contributions of each strategy. 
Generally, this is a shortcoming reasonably expected to be 
addressed as the GPRA process evolves and becomes more 
integrated in the policy, budget, and regulatory formulation 
and identification processes. However, the Committee continues 
to encourage the Department to focus in particular on 
improvements to management to achieve outcomes as this has been 
a historically weak area for the Department. For example, the 
Committee encourages greater refinement of goals with specific 
and quantifiable measures to provide greater definition and 
focus for budgetary, regulatory, and administrative actions.
    For clarity, the performance plan should resist identifying 
activities of agencies or offices under strategic goals unless 
there is a discussion of such an organization's primary 
contributions toward those goals in the body of the plan. 
Elimination of the mention of these organizations as opposed to 
activities will provide greater focus on the priorities in the 
strategic goal (if mention of such organization is gratuitous), 
or will prompt reevaluation of the organizations' roles in the 
achievement of the strategic goal. The performance plan has 
expanded its discussion of the data supporting performance 
measures, and acknowledges limitations in the quality of that 
data. These will be critical to the credibility of the agency's 
performance reporting. The Committee remains concerned about 
the quality of supporting data and data systems, and urges the 
Department to more fully document shortcomings in its data as 
well as possible solutions.
    The performance plan still has the feel of a document 
designed to cover the current panoply of activities ongoing or 
anticipated for the Department. As the process and the plan 
mature, the Committee anticipates that the performance plan 
will become a management document rather than a reporting 
document.
    The Committee recognizes that implementation will be an 
iterative process, likely to involve several appropriations 
cycles, and will support the efforts of the Department to 
improve its performance plan. We will consider the Department's 
progress in addressing weaknesses in its annual performance 
plan in tandem with its funding requests. To this end, we urge 
the Department to examine the program activities currently 
supporting its budget requests in light of the Department's 
strategic goals and to determine whether any changes or 
realignments would facilitate a more accurate and informed 
presentation of budgetary information. The performance plan 
included only one change to the budget structure of the 
Department. The Committee again encourages the Department to 
examine the program activities currently supporting its budget 
requests in light of the Department's strategic goals and to 
determine whether any changes or realignments would facilitate 
a more accurate or helpful presentation of budgetary 
information. The Department is encouraged to consult with the 
Committee as it considers such revisions prior to finalizing 
any requests pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will 
consider any requests with a view toward ensuring that fiscal 
year 2000 and subsequent budget submissions display amounts 
requested against program activity structures that bear clear 
relationships to performance goals.
    Year 2000 conversion.--For some time, the Committee has 
been concerned that the Department would have difficulty 
overcoming its late start in Y2K remediation of over 600 
mission-critical systems. However, the Committee notes the 
significant progress that has been made over the last year. As 
of the first week in May, over 90 percent of the Department's 
mission-critical systems were Y2K compliant, including 100 
percent of the systems operated by the Federal Highway 
Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the 
Federal Transit Administration, the Maritime Administration, 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Office 
of the Inspector General, the Office of the Secretary, the 
Research and Special Programs Administration, the St. Lawrence 
Seaway Development Corporation, the Surface Transportation 
Board, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and the 
Transportation Administrative Service Center.
    In particular, the Committee has closely followed the 
progress of the Federal Aviation Administration's Y2K efforts. 
With over 400 mission-critical systems in the FAA inventory, 
the problem is monumental. As of the first week in May, over 92 
percent of FAA's mission-critical systems were Y2K compliant. 
All of the FAA mission-critical systems being repaired had 
completed renovation and validation phase activities, and were 
either fully implemented or well into required implementation 
phase activities. While earlier completion would have been 
desirable, the complexity of this challenge must be underscored 
and completion of the task requires extensive and careful 
testing. To date, the FAA has been on target to complete Y2K 
remediation by its projected date of June 30, 1999. The 
Committee must also note, however, that remediation and testing 
is not the completion of the task. In addition, the FAA must 
undertake the additional step of contingency planning in the 
event that not everything works as expected on January 1, 2000. 
The Committee expects status reports on contingency planning to 
be included in the regular reports that the FAA provides to the 
Committee.
    The Committee is pleased that the Coast Guard's legacy 
Vessel Traffic System at Valdez, Alaska, was certified Y2K 
compliant in April 1999, rather than waiting until October 1999 
as initially scheduled. The Vessel Traffic System is 
responsible for tracking vessel movements in Prince William 
Sound.
    As of the first week in May, the Coast Guard had completed 
work on 88 percent of its 74 mission-critical systems, and all 
but five systems are projected to be completed by June 1999. 
The five systems yet to be completed are: The Short Range Aids 
to Navigation-Aid Control Monitoring System (SRAN ACMS); the 
SRAN Master Unit; the SRAN Remote Transfer Unit; the Command 
and Control Personal Computer (C\2\PC); and the Communications 
System 2000 (COMSYS 2000).
    The Committee has been advised that because the remediation 
schedules must be coordinated around operational activities, 
the Coast Guard projects that the three SRAN units and the 
C\2\PC will be compliant by September 1999. Also, the Committee 
understands that the COMSYS 2000 remediation will be completed 
prior to the Year 2000, but there is no specific date because 
the remediation depends on AT&T's upgrade of their own 
telecommunications equipment.
    Despite the Department's Y2K progress, the Committee urges 
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to continue to closely 
monitor agency progress until all mission-critical systems are 
compliant. In addition, as noted above for the FAA, the agency 
must prepare comprehensive continuity of operations plans in 
order to prepare for system failures that could potentially 
disrupt vital services.
    Year 2000 Compliance.--The Department of Transportation 
shall report in detail on the specific use of year 2000 
conversion emergency funds provided by the Omnibus Consolidated 
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 and any 
other act. This report shall demonstrate how all of the funds 
obligated as of January 1, 2000 were directly applied to the 
year 2000 conversion of federal information technology systems. 
For any funds which were used for purposes other than the year 
2000 conversion, the report

shall explain the use of such funds and specify the provision 
which gave the Department the authority to spend the funds for 
other purposes. The report shall also estimate what portion of 
the emergency funds were used for technology which would have 
occurred in 1999 or 2000 even without year 2000 crisis. The 
report shall be delivered to the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 
Technology Problem, the Senate Committee on Governmental 
Affairs, and the Senate Committee on the Budget by May 15, 
2000.

                          budgetary firewalls

    The Committee notes that there has been some talk this year 
about creating special budgetary treatment for the programs and 
activities of the FAA. Mention is made of taking the aviation 
trust fund off-budget or creating budgetary ``firewalls'' 
around some or all of the aviation accounts. The Committee 
believes that such budget treatment is unnecessary and unwise. 
While passenger enplanements have increased steadily in the 
past several years, the growth has not kept pace with the 
increase in the federal budget for aviation programs, and the 
growth in the federal investments in equipment modernization 
and airport improvements and air traffic operations have 
substantially outstripped the growth in aircraft operations. 
When the investment in the airport capital plant represented by 
Passenger Facility Charges is considered, the increase in total 
investment is even more compelling compared to workload growth. 
The Coopers and Lybrand financial study conducted only two 
years ago severely criticized the FAA as an organization, was 
appalled at their inability to account for costs, and labeled 
the organization the equivalent of a dysfunctional family. In 
addition, the Government Performance and Results Act 
evaluations consistently place the FAA at or near the bottom in 
terms of well run government agencies. The Committee believes 
that an organization with as many financial and management 
difficulties as the FAA should not even be considered by 
Congress for insulation from budget, appropriations, or any 
other oversight. Clearly this is an agency in need of reform, 
not special dispensation.
    Firewalling aviation spending would impede oversight and 
contribute to FAA's already poor record in controlling costs. 
Virtually every outside observer of the FAA believes that the 
FAA has a difficult time setting realistic budget requirements 
and has a terrible history of controlling costs. The budget 
problems at the Federal Aviation Administration are problems of 
management and cost control, not budget treatment.
    Last year, Congress firewalled the Highway and Transit 
accounts and in the 9 months since the President signed that 
legislation, the Administration has proposed four non-technical 
legislative changes or packages of changes to that law, the OMB 
and CBO have had to revise their budget and scoring conventions 
to make the firewalls reconcile (they still don't reconcile), 
and the House authorizing Committee is already discussing 
revisiting that authorization legislation in the coming fiscal 
year. The creation of firewalls is not a mechanism to be 
employed lightly--the application of firewalls to an intensely 
complex and operational organization like the FAA presupposes 
Congressional consideration that midcourse corrections will be 
unnecessary, budget execution issues are minor, and the 
organization is capable of making difficult decisions and 
holding itself accountable for such decisions and other 
shortcomings in financial management and procurement execution. 
The FAA cannot meet such a test.
    The argument is also made that a firewall is necessary to 
make sure that the Airport and Airways trust fund is spent. 
That contention is without basis. Since its creation, fewer 
dollars have been generated by the taxes and fees that 
capitalize the Airport and Airways trust fund than the Congress 
has appropriated for the aviation accounts--and that doesn't 
even account for non-transportation expenditures that benefit 
aviation constituencies. For example, the Department of Defense 
has spent almost $9,000,000,000 to date on the GPS 
constellation that is the backbone of satellite navigation for 
aviation in the future.
    The challenges facing the aviation industry and the FAA 
cannot be solved by changing budgetary treatment of the 
aviation accounts--that solution defies the facts, reason, and 
the treatment that the FAA has enjoyed in the current budget 
process.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

    Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of 
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment 
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The 
Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the 
Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General 
Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for 
transportation policy, aviation and international affairs, 
budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration. 
These secretarial offices have policy development and central 
supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall 
planning and direction of the Department of Transportation, 
including staff assistance and general management supervision 
of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of 
the Department.
    The Committee recommends a total of $59,362,000 for the 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $45,000 for 
reception and representation expenses.
    The Committee is concerned about the continued level of 
vacancies in the Office of the Secretary and notes that many of 
the positions have been open for over a year. Accordingly, the 
appropriation for salaries and expenses has been adjusted 
downward to reflect current staffing levels generally across 
the Office of the Secretary. This adjustment is made without 
prejudice and will be reassessed before final enactment of this 
bill.
    In addition, the Committee is increasingly concerned about 
the apparent reticence on the part of the Office of 
Congressional Affairs to brief all impacted Committees of the 
Congress in a timely fashion of administration proposals 
directly relating to issues and accounts under those 
committees' jurisdiction. This concern comes directly on the 
heels of a constant stream of concerns by Members of Congress 
that matters of constituent interest are not relayed to all 
members of a State delegation in an even-handed and timely 
fashion. Unless these deficiencies are remedied immediately, 
the Committee will reconsider the need for a departmentwide 
Office of Congressional Affairs, and may resolve to transfer 
some of the functions to other offices in the Office of the 
Secretary and devolve the congressional liaison functions to 
the individual modal administrations.

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

    The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary 
responsibility for overall policy development, central 
supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the 
overall planning and direction of the Department.
    The Committee recommends $1,900,000, which is consistent 
with the fiscal year 1999 appropriation with controls placed on 
travel and PC&B growth. The Committee expects that the funding 
will be sufficient for the Immediate Office of the Secretary 
and expects that any shortfall can be accommodated by slight 
reductions in benefits and travel. The funding provided will 
allow for 17 positions.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

    The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the 
primary responsibility of assisting the Secretary in the 
overall planning and direction of the Department. The Committee 
has recommended a total of $600,000 for the Immediate Office of 
the Deputy Secretary. The Committee's recommendation provides 
for a staffing level of seven positions.

                     Office of the General Counsel

    The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the 
Department of Transportation and the final authority within the 
Department on all legal questions. The General Counsel's Office 
provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary, 
coordinates and reviews the legal work of the Chief Counsels' 
Offices of the operating administrations, and generally 
performs the full range of legal services involved in 
administering an executive department with national and 
international responsibilities.
    The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Office of the 
General Counsel. At this funding level, the Committee expects 
that the Office will be able to fund 82 staff positions.

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

    The Assistant Secretary for Policy is the primary policy 
officer of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary 
for analysis, development, articulation, and review of policies 
and plans for domestic transportation.
    The Committee recommends $2,900,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Policy. This funding level is 
sufficient to fund the current onboard staff.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

    The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs is responsible for administering the economic 
regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and 
provides departmental leadership and coordination on 
international transportation policy issues relating to 
maritime, trade, technical assistance, and cooperation 
programs. As overseer of airline economic regulations, the 
Assistant Secretary is responsible for international aviation 
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness 
and licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, and 
special investigations such as airline delays and computer 
reservations systems [CRS].
    The Committee has provided $7,700,000, which will provide 
sufficient resources to fund 86 positions.
    Aviation competition guidelines.--When Congress passed the 
Airline Deregulation Act, it decided that the marketplace, and 
not regulators, should set airline prices and schedules. That 
landmark action has generated enormous benefits for the air 
traveling public. However, the Subcommittee on Transportation 
Appropriations has been very concerned about barriers to entry 
and the health of airline competition which may distort the 
competitive landscape. The subcommittee has held a number of 
hearings over the past 2 years and one of the clear messages 
which has emerged from these hearings is that it is critically 
important to have a truly free market so that everyone, big and 
small, can compete. Where there is strong competition in the 
airline industry, the consumers are the primary beneficiaries. 
What should also be clear is that there is no prospect of 
support from the Committee to reregulate the airline industry.
    As a possible way of providing greater certainty to the 
airlines as to what constitutes anticompetitive activity, the 
Committee encourages the Department to consider a process in 
which the Department, upon receiving a complaint, would 
consider within a specified time period whether such alleged 
activity should be referred to the Department of Justice or 
whether it was a permissible competitive activity. Such an 
approach would provide greater certainty for air carriers and 
could provide an efficient mechanism for focusing the 
Department of Justice's attention on the most suspect of 
activities. The Committee believes that such a process can be 
accommodated within current staffing resources given the staff 
resources available due to the completion of authorization last 
year of the surface transportation program. Accordingly, the 
Committee would reject a request for additional resources for 
the creation of an analytical or legal capability within the 
Department of Transportation that would also, by necessity, 
have to be constituted at the Department of Justice.
    The Committee urges the Department of Transportation to 
work with interested Committees of the Congress, the Department 
of Justice, and the airlines to implement existing laws and 
enforcement practices to protect the economy from 
anticompetitive conduct.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

    The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the 
principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development, 
review, and presentation of the Department's budget resource 
requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of the 
Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this 
Office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation 
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to 
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution 
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of 
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for 
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to 
advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes 
necessary to improve program effectiveness.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary and the Assistant 
Secretary for Budget and Programs to increase the budget and 
programs staff participation in department, industry, and 
budget execution oversight activities. The greater the 
integration of the budget formulation and execution processes 
with the activities of the department and the fulfillment of 
the agencies' missions, the better the quality of the 
department's financial, management, and resource allocation 
decisions. The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary to 
report monthly on the status of all outstanding reports and 
reporting requirements, including how delinquent 
Congressionally mandated 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. In addition, the Committee 
directs the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and 
programs to work with the affected modal administrations and 
the Office of Inspector General to facilitate the timely 
transfer of funds between the relevant offices.
    The Committee recommends a total of $6,870,000 for the 
Office of Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. At this 
level, the Committee has provided funding for 49 positions and 
included $45,000 for reception and representation expenses for 
the Secretary.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

    The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises 
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental 
activities and on all Department legislative initiatives and 
other relationships with Members of the Congress; promotes 
effective communication with other Federal agencies and 
regional Department officials, and with State and local 
governments and national organizations for development of 
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences, 
awareness, and needs are brought into the decisionmaking 
process.
    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. This level holds 
travel below fiscal year 1998 levels and provides funding for 
23 positions.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration is the principal 
adviser to the Secretary on departmental administrative 
management matters, and is responsible for personnel and 
training, management policy, employment ceiling control 
systems, automated systems policy, administrative operations, 
real and personal property management, acquisition management, 
grants management, internal departmental financial systems, and 
ADP facilities and services.
    The Committee recommends $18,600,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration which includes the OST 
portion of rent. The Committee has provided a level that will 
support the current staffing levels with a slight reduction in 
travel and training activities.

                        Office of Public Affairs

    The Director of Public Affairs is the principal adviser to 
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news 
media on public affairs questions. The Office issues news 
releases, articles, factsheets, briefing materials, 
publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides 
information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the 
public and news media on transportation programs and issues.
    The Committee recommends $1,800,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, which will support current staffing levels.

                         Executive Secretariat

    The Executive Secretariat provides and organizes staff 
service for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to assist them 
in carrying out their management functions and facilitate their 
responsibilities for formulating, coordinating, and 
communicating major policy decisions. It controls and 
coordinates internal and external material directed to the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary and ensures that their decisions 
and instructions are implemented.
    The Committee recommends a funding level of $1,110,000 for 
the Executive Secretariat.

                         Contract Appeals Board

    The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals 
is to provide an independent forum for the trial and 
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor 
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as 
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601.
    The Committee has provided $560,000 for the Contract 
Appeals Board. This level is sufficient to maintain the current 
staffing level.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for 
small and disadvantaged business participation in the 
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective 
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15 
of the Small Business Act, as amended.
    The Committee recommends $1,222,000, which is sufficient 
funding to maintain current staffing levels.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

    The Office of Intelligence and Security within the Office 
of the Secretary coordinates security and intelligence policies 
and strategies among the modes of transportation and serves as 
liaison with other Government intelligence and law enforcement 
agencies.
    The Committee recommends 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

    The Committee recommends $5,100,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer. This level is sufficient to maintain 
the current staffing level of 15 positions.

                        Office of Intermodalism

    The Committee recommends the Office of Intermodalism be 
funded from within the administrative expenses provided for the 
Federal Highway Administration.

                         Office of Civil Rights

    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity 
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for 
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small 
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as 
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the 
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and 
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In 
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing 
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally 
operated and federally assisted transportation programs.
    The Committee has provided a funding level of $7,200,000 
for the Office of Civil Rights.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................      $9,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       6,275,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,300,000

\1\ Does not include reduction of $21,000 for TASC pursuant to section 
320 of Public Law 105-277.

    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.
    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 directs the Secretary to report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 
March 31, 2000, on the identified initiatives in this area and 
the actions taken to implement those efforts.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, 1999 \1\....................................  ($124,124,000)
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................   (229,953,000)
Committee recommendation................................    159,953,000 

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $15,000,000 pursuant to section 320 of 
Public Law 105-277.
\2\ Proposed without limitations. Includes DOT and non-DOT entities.

    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.
    The budget proposes that the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting 
and Cartography be transferred to TASC in 2000.
    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 $159,953,000. 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, 1999 \1\................................   ($50,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000 (mandatory authority) \2\.........    (50,000,000)
Committee recommendation (mandatory authority)..........    (50,000,000)

\1\ Transfer from FAA facilities and equipment.
\2\ From overflight fees.

    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 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. The administration proposes to change this program to 
permit financing of fee shortfalls through any appropriated 
funding of the Department.
    Many EAS points are located in remote rural areas: 55 of 74 
communities served by the Essential Air Service Program are 
more than 100 highway miles from the nearest small, medium, or 
large hub airport. Twenty-seven 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 Committee has retained the general provision which 
limits the number of communities that receive EAS funding by 
excluding points in the 48 contiguous United States that are 
located fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest large or 
medium hub airport, or that require a subsidy in excess of $200 
per passenger unless such a point is more than 210 miles from 
the nearest large or medium hub airport.
    The following table reflects the points currently receiving 
service and the annual rates as of the end of February 1999. 
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.
    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 two of the 27 subsidized 
communities in Alaska have road access to other air service. 
Thus, the Alaskan communities are clearly among the most 
isolated in the Nation. In fact, many are islands and would be 
all but cut off from the rest of the world without air service. 
Second, any subsidy-per-passenger calculation would be highly 
misleading, at best. While subsidy-per-passenger may be used as 
a crude measure of cost benefit in the lower 48, in many of the 
subsidized EAS markets the principal traffic being carried on 
the EAS flights is food being delivered to the bush community. 
Thus, the whole community benefits--indeed is fully dependent 
on--the EAS flights, not just the few who may actually travel 
on the flights.

                                    EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Average daily
                                                 Estimated     enplanements at   Current annual
                                                 mileage to    EAS point (year   subsidy rates     Subsidy per
             States/communities                 nearest hub         ending        (February 1,      passenger
                                              (small, medium,   September 30,        1999)
                                               or large) \1\        1998)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA:
    Kingman.................................              101              6.8         $432,564          $101.97
    Page....................................              280             13.0          595,469            73.34
    Prescott................................              102             28.9          432,564            23.90
ARKANSAS:
    El Dorado/Camden........................              108              6.5          943,347           231.50
    Harrison................................              142              4.3        1,049,612           392.67
    Hot Springs.............................               53             12.6        1,049,612           133.17
    Jonesboro...............................               79              9.7          943,347           155.77
CALIFORNIA:
    Crescent City...........................              234             18.3          189,043            16.52
    Merced..................................              114             12.4          750,890            96.60
COLORADO:
    Alamosa.................................              162             14.1          950,262           107.63
    Cortez..................................              258             40.2          408,227            16.21
    Lamar...................................              163              4.2        1,009,635           380.85
HAWAII: Kamuela.............................               39              2.4          335,454           225.89
ILLINOIS:
    Mattoon.................................              126              2.4          218,783           142.72
    Mt. Vernon..............................               92              1.3          479,699           594.42
IOWA: Ottumwa...............................               85              3.5          529,274           241.68
KANSAS:
    Dodge City..............................              149             17.1          611,661            57.10
    Garden City.............................              201             32.3          246,666            12.19
    Goodland................................              189              3.4          833,383           393.66
    Great Bend..............................              120              8.5          639,096           119.86
    Hays....................................              180             18.2        1,108,781            97.33
    Liberal/Guymon..........................              145             13.0          191,077            23.42
    Topeka..................................               71             16.4          367,662            35.74
MAINE:
    Augusta/Waterville......................               71             12.4          596,806            77.01
    Bar Harbor..............................              157             27.4          596,806            34.83
    Rockland................................               80             20.6          596,806            46.38
MICHIGAN:
    Ironwood/Ashland........................               59              6.8          357,588            84.26
    Manistee................................              115              4.0          408,638           164.31
MINNESOTA:
    Fairmont................................              121              3.8          793,272           331.22
    Fergus Falls............................              186          ( \2\ )          ( \2\ )          ( \2\ )
    Mankato.................................               75          ( \2\ )          ( \2\ )          ( \2\ )
MISSOURI:
    Cape Girardeau..........................              138             31.4          278,560            14.18
    Fort Leonard Wood.......................              130             14.8          337,124            36.32
    Kirksville..............................              137              4.2          450,736           171.38
MONTANA:
    Glasgow.................................              280              5.3          671,032           203.04
    Glendive................................              223              2.8          671,032           384.55
    Havre...................................              248              4.3          671,032           251.70
    Lewistown...............................              125              3.0          671,032           360.00
    Miles City..............................              146              3.5          671,032           306.97
    Sidney..................................              273              7.6          671,032           140.35
    Wolf Point..............................              293              4.5          671,032           240.34
NEBRASKA:
    Alliance................................              256              5.7          797,133           223.35
    Chadron.................................              311              6.4          797,133           199.38
    Hastings................................              162          ( \2\ )          ( \2\ )          ( \2\ )
    Kearney.................................              181             14.8          833,383          ( \2\ )
    McCook..................................              271              8.4        1,308,444           249.61
    Norfolk.................................              109              5.3          793,272           239.51
NEVADA: Ely.................................              237              2.0          634,137           504.08
NEW MEXICO:
    Alamogordo/Holloman AFB.................               91             12.7          777,127            97.76
    Clovis..................................              103             14.4          926,594           102.51
    Silver City/Hurley/Deming...............              133              8.8          872,204           158.52
NEW YORK:
    Massena.................................              118              9.7          266,371            43.90
    Ogdensburg..............................              123              5.0          266,371            84.37
    Watertown...............................               65              7.9          266,371            54.12
NORTH DAKOTA:
    Devils Lake.............................              396             10.4          793,272           122.34
    Dickinson...............................              319             12.9          247,255            30.53
    Jamestown...............................              302             11.3          793,272           112.54
OKLAHOMA:
    Enid....................................               84              8.3          767,398           147.46
    Ponca City..............................               81             10.2          767,398           120.23
PENNSYLVANIA: Oil City/Franklin.............               86             35.9          243,923            10.86
SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Brookings...............................               57              8.3          793,272           152.17
    Mitchell................................               69          ( \2\ )          ( \2\ )          ( \2\ )
    Yankton.................................               81              6.4          793,272           199.41
TEXAS: Brownwood............................              138              5.3          807,717           243.00
UTAH:
    Cedar City..............................              178             23.4          577,538            39.44
    Moab....................................              236              8.1          769,572           152.69
    Vernal..................................              174             11.7          280,854            38.29
VERMONT: Rutland............................               69             13.0          596,806            73.27
WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses  Lake.............              108             32.3          219,483            10.84
WEST VIRGINIA:
    Beckley.................................              173              6.3          627,512           159.79
    Princeton/Bluefield.....................              137              6.3          627,512           159.07
WYOMING:
    Laramie.................................              144             31.3          494,617            25.22
    Rock Springs............................              184             29.4          363,993            19.76
    Worland.................................              164              7.8          494,617           101.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1997 passenger data.
\2\ Hiatus in service.


                                               GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS
                                     [Dollars and square feet in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year 1998 actual    Fiscal year 1999 estimate       Fiscal year 2000
                             --------------------------------------------------------     President's budget
       Administration                                                                ---------------------------
                                 Funding     Square feet     Funding     Square feet     Funding     Square feet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway                    $17,480         1,077       $17,922         1,076       $20,275           909
 Administration.............
National Highway Traffic             4,234           217         4,042           206         4,657           222
 Safety Administration......
Federal Railroad                     2,930           123         3,084           112         3,302           127
 Administration.............
Federal Transit                      3,307           155         3,500           157         3,824           157
 Administration.............
Federal Aviation                    68,549         4,098        74,830         4,221        87,415         4,467
 Administration.............
U.S. Coast Guard............        35,730         2,367        35,285         1,870        35,610         1,870
St. Lawrence Seaway                    198             7           192             7  ............  ............
 Development Corporation....
Maritime Administration.....         4,351           286         4,333           258         4,200           258
Research and Special                 2,075           106         1,965            98         2,389           110
 Programs Administration....
Office of Inspector General.         2,350           110         2,436           100         2,436           100
Office of the Secretary of           6,237           239         6,713           229         6,713           225
 Transportation (OST).......
Transportation                       6,715           294         5,000           250        10,278           415
 Administrative Service
 Center.....................
Bureau of Transportation               660            24           750            25           855            27
 Statistics.................
Surface Transportation Board         1,468            57         1,569            57         1,613            58
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Department of         156,284         9,160       161,621         8,666       183,567         8,945
       Transportation.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       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 2000, 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. The limitation on direct loans under the 
Minority Business Resource Center is at the administration's 
requested level of $13,775,000.
    Of the funds appropriated, $1,500,000 covers the direct 
subsidy costs for loans not to exceed $13,775,000; and, 
$400,000 is for administrative expenses to carry out the Direct 
Loan Program.

                       Minority Business Outreach

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $2,900,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       2,900,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,900,000

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

                           General Provisions

    Political and Presidential appointees.--The Committee has 
included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), which is similar 
to general provisions that have been included in previous 
appropriations acts, which limits the number of political and 
Presidential appointees within the Department of 
Transportation. The Committee is recommending that the ceiling 
for fiscal year 2000 be 100 personnel.
    Advisory committees.--The Committee has retained a general 
provision (sec. 000) which would limit the amount of funds that 
could be used for the expenses of advisory committees utilized 
by the Department of Transportation. The limitation specified 
is $1,000,000.
    Rebates, refunds, and incentive payments.--The Department 
receives funds from various Government programs at different 
time intervals (that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly). For 
example, under the General Services Administration's Travel 
Management Center [TMC] Program, rebate checks received from 
the travel contractor are distributed monthly to each element 
of the Department in proportion to net domestic airline sales 
arranged by the contractor. Past expenditures have to be 
analyzed to determine the proper sources to refund which can be 
a time-consuming process. The staff time and cost associated 
with the precise accounting for each such refund is 
prohibitive. To alleviate the need to specifically identify the 
source for each repayment the Committee has included language 
(sec. 329) that allows a fair and sensible allocation of the 
rebates and miscellaneous and other funds.
    Departmental Aircraft.--The Committee is 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 limited business aircraft requirements of the 
FAA, the Office of the Secretary, and to a lesser extent, the 
Coast Guard. Accordingly, the Committee has included bill 
language 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 utilizes those resources for more critical priorities. 
Fractional ownership provides access to an entire fleet of 
aircraft, availability of a mix of aircraft types and sizes, 
all on very short notice. 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 
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.

                                 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 
$1,668,000,000. 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 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 which 
directs that in the fiscal year 2000 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 makes the 
administration fiscally accountable for its user fee proposals.
    Reductions and emergency supplementals in fiscal year 1999 
appropriations.--In fiscal year 1999, reductions were made to a 
number of accounts due to the limitation or reduction imposed 
in the Transportation Administrative Service Center. In 
addition, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public 
Law 105-277 included emergency supplemental appropriations and 
funding for Y2K conversions. In the Senate Committee report, 
each account head shows the amount appropriated in Division A 
of Public Law 105-277 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 1999 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS
                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Public Law 105-277
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Law 105-
                                                            Division A                                                  Division B                                      262
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriations
                 Account                                                                                                 Title III                                 transfer from        Net
                                                                                                                      Appropriations                               DOD National    appropriation
                                           Section 101(g)    GP 320 TASC    Secs. 111-      Title I       Title II     transfer from    Title IV    Title V Drug      Defense
                                                                                116        Readiness   Antiterrorism   Ofc of Pres.     Hurricane   interdiction   Sealift Fund
                                                                                                                      Y2K Conversion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
    Salaries and expenses................         60,490          -1,367   ............  ............  .............          7,754   ............  ............  ..............         66,877
    Transportation planning, research,             9,000             -21   ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............          8,979
     and development.....................
    Office of Civil Rights...............          6,966            -113   ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............          6,853
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................  ..............         -1,501   ............  ............  .............          7,754   ............  ............  ..............  ..............
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
U.S. Coast Guard:
    Operating expenses (includes $300          2,700,000          -2,794   ............       100,000  .............         31,773   ............        16,300  ..............      2,845,279
     million for defense related
     activities).........................
    Acquisition, construction, and               395,465   ..............  ............       100,000  .............  ..............        12,600       117,400  ..............        625,465
     improvements........................
    Reserve training.....................         69,000   ..............  ............         5,000  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............         74,000
    Research, development, test, and              12,000   ..............  ............         5,000  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............         17,000
     evaluation..........................
    Alteration of bridges................         14,000   ..............  ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............         28,800          42,800
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................  ..............         -2,794   ............       210,000  .............         31,773         12,600       133,700         28,800   ..............
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Operations...........................      5,562,558          -4,863   ............  ............  .............         28,798   ............  ............  ..............      5,586,493
    Facilities & Equipment...............      1,900,000   ..............  ............  ............        100,000        122,133   ............  ............  ..............      2,122,133
    Research, Engineering and Development        150,000   ..............  ............  ............  .............            367   ............  ............  ..............        150,367
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.........................  ..............         -4,863   ............  ............        100,000        151,298   ............  ............  ..............  ..............
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration:
    Limitation on administrative expen-         (327,413)        (-2,646)  ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............       (324,767)
     ses.................................
    Federal-aid highways (obligation          25,511,000          -2,854   ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............     25,508,146
     limitation).........................
    Surface transportation projects,       ..............  ..............       100,000  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............        100,000
     Massachusetts.......................
    Appalachian development highway        ..............  ..............       100,000  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............        100,000
     system, Alabama.....................
    Appalachian development highway        ..............  ..............        32,000  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............         32,000
     system, West Va.....................
    Surface transportation projects,       ..............  ..............       100,000  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............        100,000
     Arkansas............................
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.........................  ..............         -2,854        332,000  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............  ..............
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety                  161,400            -974   ............  ............  .............            752   ............  ............  ..............        161,178
 Administration: Operations and research
 and NDR (trust).........................
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Office of the Administrator..........         21,215            -369   ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............         20,846
    Alaska railroad rehabilitation.......         10,000   ..............        28,000  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............         38,000
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................  ..............           -369         28,000  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............  ..............
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration:
    Administrative expenses (approps. and         54,000            -912   ............  ............  .............            250   ............  ............  ..............         53,338
     oblig. limitation)..................
    Discretionary grants (rescission of    ..............  ..............      -392,000  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............       -392,000
     contract authority).................
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.........................  ..............           -912       -392,000  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............  ..............
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp:             11,496             -20   ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............         11,476
 Operations and Maintenance..............
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
Research and Special Programs
 Administration:
    Research and special programs........         29,280            -314   ............  ............  .............            282   ............  ............  ..............         29,248
    Pipeline safety......................         34,648            -210   ............  ............  .............            150   ............  ............  ..............         34,588
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
      Subtotal...........................  ..............           -524   ............  ............  .............            432   ............  ............  ..............  ..............
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
Office of the Inspector General: Salaries         43,495            -179   ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............         43,316
 and expenses............................
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
Bureau of Transportation Statistics \1\..        (31,000)          (-208)  ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............        (30,792)
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board: Salaries            13,400             -10   ............  ............  .............  ..............  ............  ............  ..............         13,390
 and expenses............................
                                          ======================================================================================================================================================
      Total changes, Department of         ..............        -15,000        332,000       210,000        100,000        192,259         12,600       133,700         28,800   ..............
       Transportation....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BTS reductions in parenthesis included under Federal-aid highways.

                            U.S. COAST GUARD


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The U.S. Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established 
on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter 
Service and the Lifesaving Service. In 1939, the U.S. 
Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed 
by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The 
Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities the enforcement 
of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of 
safety of life and property at sea; assistance to navigation; 
protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a 
state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the 
Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2).
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$3,957,203,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal 
year 2000. The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                           Program                            ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 1999 enacted    2000 estimate   recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses \1\ \2\...................................       2,700,000        2,941,039        2,772,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements \3\ \4\..........         395,465          350,326          370,426
Environmental compliance and restoration.....................          21,000           19,500           12,450
Alteration of bridges \5\....................................          14,000   ...............          14,000
Retired pay (mandatory)......................................         684,000          730,327          730,327
Reserve training \6\.........................................          69,000           72,000           72,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation \6\..............          12,000           21,709           17,000
Boat safety (mandatory)......................................         (64,000)         (64,000)         (64,000)
Denali Commission expenses...................................           4,000   ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       3,899,465        4,134,901        3,988,203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Excludes $116,300,000 in
  emergency supplemental appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Fiscal year 1999 enacted amount includes $300,000,000 in defense discretionary funding; fiscal year 2000
  estimate includes $334,000,000; fiscal year 2000 Committee recommended amount includes $534,000,000, each
  amount for national security activities of the Coast Guard and scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\3\ Includes $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 in asset sales. Excludes $217,400,000 emergency supplemental
  appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\4\ Fiscal year 2000 estimate includes $41,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance tax fees (proposed
  legislation).
\5\ Excludes $28,800,000 by transfer from DOD.
\6\ Excludes $5,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations.

                           Operating Expenses


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 General            Trust             Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\..................................    $2,675,000,000       $25,000,000    $2,700,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\.................................     2,916,039,000        25,000,000     2,941,039,000
Committee recommendation \3\..............................     2,747,000,000        25,000,000     2,772,000,000
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority..............        60,000,000  ................        60,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total available funds...............................     2,776,000,000        25,000,000     2,832,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
  Excludes reductions for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277; and excludes $116,300,000
  supplemental appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $334,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\3\ Includes $534,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).

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

                    committee funding recommendation

    The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating 
expenses is $2,772,000,000, including $25,000,000 from the 
oilspill liability trust fund and $534,000,000 from function 
050 for the Coast Guard's defense-related activities.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year
                                    1999        Budget       Committee
                                enacted \1\    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel resources:
    Military pay and benefits.    1,285,598    1,359,891      1,268,022
    Civilian pay and benefits.      202,972      220,631        211,091
    Military health care......      123,395      139,070        133,395
    Permanent change of              63,160       66,028         63,160
     station [PCS] and related
     travel and transportation
    Training and education....       65,634       71,793         70,634
    Recruiting................        6,095       10,877          6,716
    FECA/UCX..................       11,091       11,091         11,091
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, personnel            1,757,945    1,879,381      1,764,109
       resources..............
                               =========================================
Operating funds and unit level
 maintenance:
    Atlantic area command.....      109,646      109,616        104,146
    Pacific area command......      110,057      117,990        112,490
    District commands:
        1st district..........       40,401       40,429         40,401
        7th district..........       44,555       45,454         44,555
        8th district..........       28,020       28,483         28,483
        9th district..........       17,580       17,418         17,418
        13th district.........       13,165       13,721         13,165
        14th district.........        8,435        7,332          7,332
        17th district.........       20,402       20,174         20,402
    Headquarters directorates.      184,674      205,871        184,674
    Headquarters managed units       39,360       42,096         37,360
    Other activities..........        6,854        6,888          6,854
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, operating funds        623,149      655,472        617,280
       and unit level
       maintenance............
                               =========================================
Depot level maintenance:
    Aircraft maintenance......      150,337      156,862        150,337
    Electronic maintenance....       35,783       38,079         35,783
    Ocean engineering and           101,478      102,792        101,478
     shore facility
     maintenance..............
    Vessel maintenance........      103,013      108,453        103,013
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, depot level            390,611      406,186        390,611
       maintenance............
                               =========================================
Readiness and overseas               28,295  ...........  ..............
 operations supplemental......
Counter-drug and interdiction        16,300  ...........  ..............
 supplemental.................
TASC reduction................       -2,794  ...........
                               =========================================
      Total appropriation.....    2,813,506    2,941,039      2,772,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $2,794,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law 105-
  277. Includes supplemental appropriations of $116,300,000 for
  emergency expenses. Does not include supplemental funding for Y2K.

Note.--Fiscal year 1999 enacted and fiscal year 2000 request include
  $300,000,000 and $334,000,000, respectively, for national security
  activities, budget function 050 (defense).

                          personnel resources

    Military pay and benefits.--The bill includes 
$1,268,022,000 for military pay and allowances. This is 
$60,424,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. This 
amount fully funds the 4.8 percent pay raise that the Senate 
passed earlier this year; it also provides all funds requested 
for special pay, including retention incentives and DoD parity 
compensation, to slow the exodus of highly trained, qualified 
personnel from the Coast Guard.
    The Coast Guard is to be commended for the progress that 
has been made over the past several years to streamline and 
increase the efficiency of the uniformed services. Staffing 
continues to lag behind recruiting and retention goals, as 
qualified individuals find other employment in a thriving 
economy and as personnel leave the Coast Guard due to the 
extraordinary pace of operations. However, the 5-year FTE 
utilization experience of the Coast Guard indicates that they 
continue to run behind requested levels and accordingly, the 
Committee recommends a reduction in the FTE levels and a 
commensurate reduction in the military pay and benefits 
request.
    Military health care.--The Committee has provided 
$133,395,000 for military health care, an increase of 
$10,000,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. With other 
additional resources, military health care funding for fiscal 
year 2000 is $151,395,000, an increase of $12,325,000 above the 
budget request. Of the amount made available for health care, 
$3,000,000 is to be used to continue dependent and Coast Guard 
retiree enrollment in the Uniformed Services Family Health 
Plan.
    Training and education.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee recommends limiting training and education funding. 
The Coast Guard has excessive infrastructure and should 
consider consolidating its training to optimize utilization for 
a smaller force. As part of its streamlining effort, the Coast 
Guard conducted a study in 1995 that recommended closing the 
west coast training center. The Committee recommends that the 
Coast Guard close this facility and relocate all basic, 
advanced, and specialty training conducted there to the other 
four training centers. This consolidation results in a fiscal 
year 2000 savings of $10,000,000 not including non-recurring 
closure costs.
    Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport.--The Committee has been 
informed that the Coast Guard has been cooperating with state 
and local officials to transfer Coast Guard property to Sitka 
Airport as part of the airport's expansion plan. The Committee 
encourages the Coast Guard to continue to negotiate with state 
and local officials and make every effort to find a solution 
that is acceptable to all parties.

               operating funds and unit level maintenance

    National security.--The Committee's recommendation includes 
$534,000,000 from the defense function for Coast Guard support 
of national security activities. The Coast Guard plays a key 
role in support of military missions under the U.S. Atlantic 
and Southern Commands in support of drug interdiction missions, 
refugee and immigration support, and enforcement and joint 
military training.
    The Coast Guard is a cost-effective force which is 
multimissioned. Its ships, aircraft, shore units, and people 
have four primary roles: maritime safety, maritime law 
enforcement, marine environmental protection, and national 
defense. These roles are complementary and contribute to the 
Coast Guard's unique niche within the national security 
community. The value of the Coast Guard forces and their 
mission experience was clearly evident by their active 
participation in Operations Desert Shield/Storm in the Persian 
Gulf, and more recently, in Operation Desert Thunder in the 
Persian Gulf and Operations Restore/Uphold Democracy in Haiti. 
The Coast Guard has deployed forces to support the current NATO 
operations in Yugoslovia. The Coast Guard is one of the five 
Armed Forces, and is a full partner on the joint national 
security team. To be a credible partner, the Coast Guard must 
maintain a high state of operational readiness. Many parts of 
the Coast Guard's budget contain funding requests that, if cut, 
would severely impair the Coast Guard's operational readiness 
and, therefore, its ability to meet national security 
commitments.
    Headquarters Directorates.--The Committee recommends 
$184,674,000, the same level of funding that was provided in 
fiscal year 1999. The recommendation is below the budget 
request due to budget constraints and are made without 
prejudice.
    Mackinaw.--The bill includes funding for continued 
operation and maintenance of the icebreaking cutter Mackinaw 
during fiscal year 2000.
    Drug interdiction activities.--The Committee has provided 
the requested $521,000,000 for the war on drugs. It should be 
left to the Commandant's discretion how the drug interdiction 
activities funding is to be distributed. The Committee believes 
that this area is perfectly suited for application of 
performance measures and evaluation of program impacts.
    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 $183,000 to continue efforts by the 
nonprofit organization comprised of numerous fire departments 
on both sides of the Columbia River. The funding will be 
utilized to provide specialized communications, firefighting 
training and equipment, and to implement the oilspill response 
contingency plan for the Columbia River.
    Ballast water management program.--The Committee 
recommended funding level includes $3,000,000 to implement the 
nationwide ballast water management program.
    Vessel Maintenance.--The Committee requests the Coast Guard 
to provide a list of the locations where Coast Guard performs 
non-depot level maintenance or alters and modifies its vessels. 
The report should list all locations by Coast Guard district 
and by region and is to be received by July 30, 1999.

                        DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE

    The Committee recommends $390,611,000 for depot level 
maintenance for vessels, aircraft, electronic equipment, and 
shore facilities. This is the same amount as the enacted level 
for fiscal year 1999 and is $15,757,000 below the budget 
estimate. The reduction is due to fiscal constraints.

                             bill language

    Secretary's discretionary transfer authority.--The bill 
includes language that permits the Secretary to transfer up to 
$60,000,000 from Federal Aviation Administration operations to 
Coast Guard operating expenses for the purposes of providing 
additional funds for drug interdiction activities or activities 
related to the Office of Intelligence and Security.
    User fees.--The bill includes language that prohibits the 
planning, finalization, or implementation of any regulation 
that would promulgate new maritime user fees not specifically 
authorized by law after the date of enactment of this act.
    Notwithstanding this provision in the fiscal year 1999 
conference report (Public Law 106-277), the budget request 
proposed to collect $41,000,000 from a new user fee on 
navigational services provided by the Coast Guard. The 
Committee has rejected the administration's proposal to raise 
taxes on transportation users year after year. Nevertheless, 
the administration continues to employ this tired budget 
gimmick because it presents a budget in which funding for the 
Coast Guard is artificially high.
    The bill includes a general provision to make the 
administration fiscally accountable for proposing unauthorized 
user fees. The bill directs the Department to identify a 
specific spending offset for each dollar collected by a new 
user fee in the fiscal year 2001 budget submission.
    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.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\........................................    $375,465,000     $20,000,000   $395,465,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\.......................................     330,326,000      20,000,000    350,326,000
Committee recommendation........................................     350,426,000      20,000,000    370,426,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1,000,000 in asset sales. Excludes $217,400,000 emergency supplemental appropriations. Excludes
  supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $41,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees.

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

                        committee recommendation

    The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal year 1999  Fiscal year 2000     Committee
                                                                enacted \1\      estimate \2\     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels....................................................          219,923           165,760           123,560
Aircraft...................................................           35,700            22,110            33,210
Other equipment............................................           36,569            53,726            52,726
Shore facilities and aids to navigation....................           54,823            55,800            63,800
Personnel and related support..............................           48,450            52,930            52,930
Deepwater replacement project \3\..........................      \3\ (20,000)          (44,200)           44,200
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................          395,465           350,326           370,426
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1,000,000 in asset sales. Excludes $217,400,000 in supplemental appropriations. Excludes
  supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $41,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees.
\3\ The budget estimate proposes to fund the Deepwater project in vessels.

                                vessels

    The Committee recommends $123,560,000 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
                                           2000 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquire vessels and equipment:
    Seagoing buoy tender [WLB]                    77,000          77,000
     replacement........................
    47-foot motor lifeboat [MLB]                  24,360          24,360
     replacement project................
Coastal patrol boat [CPB]...............           1,000  ..............
    Follow-on for polar icebreaker                 1,900           1,900
     replacement........................
Stern loading buoy boat replacement.....           5,000           5,000
    Survey and design--cutters and boats             500             500
Mackinaw replacement....................  ..............           3,000
Surface search radar replacement project           4,000           4,000
Deepwater capability replacement........          44,200  ..............
Repair, renovate, or improve existing
 vessels and small boats:
    Configuration management............           3,700           3,700
    Polar class icebreaker reliability             4,100           4,100
     improvement project [RIP]..........
                                         -------------------------------
      Total (new program level).........         165,760         123,560
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mackinaw replacement.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 
to complete concept design on replacement vessel, including a 
multi-purpose alternative, for icebreaking operations on the 
Great Lakes. The Committee remains concerned about the 
projected long lead time for delivery of a replacement vessel 
and urges the Coast Guard to expeditiously complete the 
alternative of analysis and cost benefit analysis and proceed 
to next acquisition key decision point.

                                aircraft

    For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends 
$33,210,000. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are distributed as 
follows:

                                AIRCRAFT
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee
                                           2000 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC-130 engine modification..............  ..............           1,100
HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring.......           3,360           3,360
HH-65A engine re-power program..........  ..............          10,000
Long range search aircraft capability              5,900           5,900
 preservation...........................
HH-65A helicopter mission unit computer            3,650           3,650
 unit replacement.......................
HU-25 aircraft avionics improvements....           2,900           2,900
HH-60J navigation upgrade...............           3,800           3,800
HC-130 side looking airborne radar                 2,500           2,500
 [SLAR].................................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................          22,110          33,210
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HH-65 Helicopter.--At the request of the Committee, the 
Coast Guard has documented the need to improve the engine 
performance of the HH-65 helicopter as its operational weight 
has increased and to increase horsepower by 23 percent. The 
bill includes $10,000,000 to initiate the engine re-power 
program.
    HC-130 engine modification.--In the interest of crew safety 
and reduced maintenance cost savings, other military services 
have applied oil debris detection systems with a residue burn 
off capability to their aircraft. This system provides on-board 
detection which alerts air crews of the debris which can cause 
catastrophic engine failure. The Committee has included 
$1,100,000 to install this system on the entire Coast Guard HC-
130 fleet. The Committee expects that this will be a one-time 
cost and all HC-130 can be retrofit with the modification in 
fiscal year 2000.

                            other equipment

    The Committee recommends $52,726,000. The following table 
displays the project allocations:

                             OTHER EQUIPMENT
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee
                                           2000 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system [FLS]............           6,000           6,000
Ports and waterways safety system                  4,500           4,500
 [PAWSS]................................
Marine information for safety and law             10,500          10,500
 enforcement [MISLE]....................
Defense message system [DMS]                       3,477           3,477
 impementation..........................
Loran-C continuation....................           1,000  ..............
Human resources information system......           1,100           1,100
Personnel management information system/           4,400           4,400
 joint uniform military pay system II...
Aviation logistics management                      2,700           2,700
 information system [ALMIS].............
National distress system modernization..          16,000          16,000
Commercial satellite communication                 4,049           4,049
 upgrade................................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................          53,726          52,726
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Loran-C.--Loran-C is a reliable and cost-effective 
navigation system that virtually every mode of transportation 
uses, and the Committee supports assigning the Coast Guard the 
responsibility to continue to operate and maintain the Loran 
system. The Committee is pleased that the department views the 
need to upgrade aging Loran equipment and infrastructure as a 
department-wide, requiring funding from several agencies. 
Accordingly, the Committee has deleted funding in this account 
for the modernization of Loran-C and has funded system upgrades 
elsewhere in the bill.
    National Distress System.--The Committee has provided 
$16,000,000 for the National Distress and Response System 
(NDRS) modernization project. The Committee urges the Coast 
Guard to expeditiously develop an upgraded system and determine 
which components of the modernized national distress system 
should be leased or purchased.

                shore facilities and aids to navigation

    The program level recommended is $63,800,000.

                 SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year       Committee
                                         2000 estimate    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore--General:
    Survey and design shore projects..           6,000            6,000
    Minor AC&I shore construction                6,000            6,000
     projects.........................
    Coast Guard housing...............           7,800            7,800
Shore--Air stations:
    Renovate air station hangar,                 8,300            8,300
     Kodiak...........................
    Air station Miami--renovate fixed            3,500            3,500
     wing hangar......................
    Air station ramp structural                  3,800            3,800
     improvements--Elizabeth City, NC.
Shore--Centers/groups/stations:
    Construction patrol boat                     3,100            3,100
     maintenance facility.............
    Relocate CG marine safety office             1,000            1,000
     and station--Cleveland, OH.......
    Modernize CG Station Shinnecook--            3,500            3,500
     Hampton Bays, NY.................
    Homeporting of drug interdiction             2,800            2,800
     assets...........................
    Upgrade educational facilities, CG           5,000            5,000
     Academy..........................
    Unalaska pier.....................  ...............           8,000
Aids to navigation facilities:                   5,000            5,000
 Waterways aids-to-navigation projects
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................          55,800           63,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           DEEPWATER PROJECT

    In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard initiated 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 will be the most expensive acquisition program in the 
Coast Guard's history. It promises to be the most complex 
acquisition and perhaps the most controversial. 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.
    The Committee remains concerned that this project is not 
affordable within the current budget constraints. The cost of 
the Deepwater project is projected to grow substantially and is 
projected to reach as much as $500,000,000 annually after the 
contract is awarded in fiscal year 2002. The Inspector General 
and General Accounting Office testified to the Committee that 
the current projected cost of the Deepwater project will 
outstrip the Office of Management and Budget target for Coast 
Guard capital spending. Furthermore, there would not be 
sufficient funds available for any other AC&I program under 
current projections.
    The Committee recommendation establishes a new account for 
the Deepwater Project and has included up to $60,000,000 to 
continue concept exploration in fiscal year 2000. The bill 
includes $44,200,000 as requested and permits the Coast Guard 
to use an additional $15,800,000 at the discretion of the 
Commandant. The bill directs proceeds from the sale of 
identified excess property into this account to provide a 
dedicated revenue stream to supplement funding for the 
acquisition of the deepwater system. The Committee is concerned 
that the only way to realize the potential of the deepwater 
concept is to identify a funding mechanism source to create 
necessary resources for this program.

                     PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

    The program level recommended is $52,930,000. Within the 
amount provided, $52,930,000 shall be for core acquisition 
costs.
    The Committee has provided the full amount requested for 
AC&I personnel and related support.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year      Committee
      Personnel and related support        2000 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct personnel costs..................          51,180          51,180
Core acquisition costs..................           1,750           1,750
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................          52,930          52,930
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $21,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      19,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,450,000

    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 Committee commends the Coast Guard for its progress in 
cleaning its contaminated facilities. The remaining backlog of 
restoration projects has decreased from $132,000,000 at the end 
of fiscal year 1993 to the current estimate of $60,000,000. The 
Committee is aware that for the past several fiscal years, the 
Coast Guard has used only approximately 59 percent of the funds 
in this account for environmental compliance and restoration. 
The Committee recommends that $12,450,000 be available only to 
continue the environmental restoration and compliance-related 
activities of the Coast Guard.

                         Alteration of Bridges


                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................     $14,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................      14,000,000

\1\ Excludes $28,800,000 by transfer from DOD, Public Law 105-262.
\2\ The budget estimate proposes $11,000,000 for altering bridges 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 Committee directs that, of the funds provided, 
$7,000,000 shall be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway 
bridge in Brunswick, GA; $2,000,000 to the EJ&E railroad bridge 
in Morris, IL; $2,000,000 to the John F. Limehouse bridge in 
Charlestown, SC; and, $3,000,000 to the Florida Ave. bridge in 
New Orleans, LA.

                              Retired Pay

Appropriations, 1999 (mandatory)........................    $684,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 (mandatory).......................     730,327,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory)....................     730,327,000

    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 
33,462 in fiscal year 2000, as compared with an estimated 
32,199 in fiscal year 1999 and 31,088 in fiscal year 1998.
    The budget estimate proposed indefinite budget authority 
instead of a fixed amount for this mandatory entitlement 
program. The Committee, however, believes that Coast Guard 
retired pay should remain subject to appropriations and does 
not recommend amending current law to provide indefinite budget 
authority.

                            Reserve Training

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................     $69,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      72,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      72,000,000

\1\ Excludes $5,000,000 emergency supplemental appropriations.

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     President's      Committee
                   Functional program element                       1999 levels   request (7,600  recommendation
                                                                        \1\           SELRES)     (8,000 SELRES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial training................................................           2,466           2,581           2,581
Continuing training.............................................          45,565          43,844          43,844
Operation and maintenance support...............................          15,374          15,672          15,672
Program management and administration...........................          10,595           9,903           9,903
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          74,000          72,000          72,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 supplemental appropriations.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\........................................      $8,500,000      $3,500,000     $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...........................................      18,209,000       3,500,000      21,709,000
Committee recommendation........................................      13,500,000       3,500,000      17,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $5,000,000 emergency supplemental appropriations.

    The Coast Guard's Research and Development Program seeks to 
improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries 
out its varied operational missions and to increase the 
knowledge base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory 
responsibilities.
    The Committee recommendation includes $17,000,000 for 
research, development, test, and evaluation distributed as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal year
                               Fiscal year      2000         Committee
                                1999 \1\      estimate    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program areas:
    Search and rescue                  875         1,162          1,162
     capability.............
    Waterways safety and             2,116         1,444          1,444
     management and aids to
     navigation.............
    Marine safety...........         3,198         3,108          3,108
    Support interagency ship           289           159            159
     structure committee....
    Marine environmental             1,694         2,263          2,263
     protection.............
    Comprehensive law                1,129         3,213          3,213
     enforcement............
    Technology investment...         4,350         6,235          2,302
    Personnel, program               3,349         4,125          3,349
     support, and operations
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................        17,000        21,709         17,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 supplemental appropriations.

    The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 
research, development, test and evaluation programs.
    Marine Environmental Protection.--Within the amount 
provided for Marine environmental protection, the Committee has 
included not less than $1,500,000 to continue the development 
and testing of methods to verify the occurrence of ship ballast 
exchange to ensure that alien aquatic species are not 
introduced into American waterways.
    Comprehensive Law Enforcement.--The Committee has funded 
the requested amount and recommends that the Coast Guard focus 
its research efforts in this area on the development and 
exploitation of technologies that will improve current gaps in 
detecting, identifying, and classifying targets. Within the 
funds provided for Comprehensive Law Enforcement, the Committee 
has included $1,500,000 to apply previously developed submarine 
acoustic monitoring technology to counter-drug operations. 
Funds should be allocated to an academic research laboratory 
that can develop a fully automated monitoring system that 
utilizes acoustic sensors with satellite transmitters, shore-
based receivers, and electronic target processors to improve 
the identification and interdiction of vessels trafficking 
illegal drugs and other contraband.
    Technology Investment.--Although supportive of the Coast 
Guard strategy to leverage technology whenever practicable, the 
Committee is concerned that many of the projects within this 
account already are being explored in major acquisition 
programs, including the Integrated Deepwater Systems 
procurement. The Committee, therefore, reduces the funding for 
technology investment to $2,302,000 and encourages the Coast 
Guard to better focus its work in this area.
    Personnel, Program Support, and Operations.--The Committee 
provides $3,349,000, the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level. The Committee is concerned about the growth in RDT&E 
management overhead and asserts that the amount provided is 
manageable if the Coast Guard initiates necessary management 
directives to reduce administrative and support expenses.

                              Boat Safety


                     (aquatic resources trust fund)

Appropriations, 1999 (mandatory)........................     $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 (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 for a guaranteed funding level of $64,000,000 annually 
for this program. No additional appropriations are necessary 
for fiscal year 2000.

                           General Provisions

    Land conveyance, Coast Guard Station New Castle.--The bill 
includes a provision permitting the transfer of Coast Guard 
Station New Castle to the University of New Hampshire.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 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 2000 amounts to $11,235,652,000. The following table 
summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                            -----------------------------------     Committee
                          Program                                                2000 budget     recommendation
                                                               1999 enacted       estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.................................................    \1\ 5,562,558    \2\ 6,039,000         5,857,450
    Direct appropriation...................................  ...............       (4,539,000)       (5,857,450)
    Secretary's discretionary transfer authority...........  ...............  ................           60,000
    User fees: Budget authority (mandatory)................  ...............           40,000            40,000
Facilities and equipment...................................    \3\ 1,900,000        2,319,000         2,045,652
Research, engineering, and development.....................      \4\ 150,000          173,000           150,000
Airport improvement program................................    \5\ 1,660,000        1,600,000         2,000,000
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................        9,278,558       10,171,000        10,093,102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277; excludes supplemental funding for
  Y2K.
\2\ Includes $1,500,000,000 new user fees proposed in President's budget request.
\3\ Excludes $100,000,000 emergency supplemental funding for explosive detection systems; excludes supplemental
  funding for Y2K.
\4\ Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\5\ Original obligation limitation for AIP in fiscal year 1999 was $1,995,000,000.

    The FAA is a complex and multilayered organization that 
consistently defies 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.
    There has been a great deal of discussion recently about 
the ``looming crisis'' at the FAA and with the pending 
``gridlock'' in the skies due to insufficient FAA funding. This 
klaxon cry is not new--it has been a common refrain over the 
past 15 years which seems to increase in volume every time the 
Administration proposes a new capital plan or reauthorization 
bill, or every time Congress undertakes the reauthorization of 
the Federal Aviation Administration's programs. But the crisis 
always seems to recede the closer we look at it, or the closer 
we get to the projected ``gridlock'' deadline. Does that mean 
that the vast number of studies, conferences and think-tanks 
that have weighed in on this topic are off base--clearly not. 
Without question, air traffic has increased, and capacity 
management challenges have also increased, but the airlines', 
the airports', and the FAA's ability to grow capacity and more 
efficiently manage traffic loads has also increased. The system 
works and will continue to evolve as the nature of air traffic 
demands grow and change. Congress, once again, needs to make 
sure that we don't respond to projections of dynamic growth in 
the industry with static capacity growth models. For the past 
several years, the Committee has focused our 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, 
the FAA is making progress with the possible exception of 
controller productivity and the FAA Administrator has testified 
that the new controller agreement is expected to generate new 
productivity improvements on that front.
    While the claim is often made that the FAA's difficulties 
are because the agency lacks a reliable revenue stream, the 
facts simply don't bear that out--99.8 percent of the FAA's 
budget over the past five years has been appropriated and 
approved by Congress. Over the past three years, FAA's 
appropriation has grown by 17.6 percent. By comparison, over 
the same time frame, FDA's funding grew 12.1 percent, NASA's 
budget went down 1.6 percent, and the budget for Defense 
declined by 1.7 percent. Clearly, FAA has fared better than 
most in the budget process.
    It's also important to note that FAA's budget growth has 
come in an environment where their workload has only been 
growing between 1 and 3 percent per year. The FAA's recently 
released Aerospace Forecasts fiscal years 1999-2010 reported 
that domestic enplanements (not operations) increased by 2.1 
percent in 1998. The FAA moves airplanes, not passengers and 
operations are only projected to grow at an average 2.1 percent 
over the next ten years. 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 is 
projected to continue to outpace the growth in the FAA's 
workload. Unfortunately, the missing piece of the equation is 
the corresponding productivity gains and cost saving measures 
on the part of the FAA. The FAA must do better.
    The President's budget request for the FAA proposed almost 
a 6 percent growth over last year's appropriation including new 
user fees. On top of the last three years' growth, FAA's budget 
will have grown by over 25 percent over four years. 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--or compared to the agency's 
workload growth or the virtual absence of any meaningful cost 
savings. In short, the budget request is generous and 
aggressive. The question shouldn't be whether we are spending 
enough on the FAA, the question should be whether it will be 
spent wisely and whether increased spending will translate into 
increased productivity and aviation safety.
    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 priorities are 
becoming more aligned with the Committee's focus. However, some 
of the continuing problems with the Agency's two largest 
procurements, STARS and WAAS, fuel concern that the agency 
hasn't turned the corner yet 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.
    In addition, the Committee is concerned that recent 
Congressional pressures to ``firewall'' parts of the 
Transportation budget in order to insulate certain portions of 
the budget from having to compete with other Federal spending 
are counterproductive. These efforts seem more designed to 
increase resources to one part of the Department of 
Transportation for the sake of increased investment without 
assessing whether such ``investment'' will actually increase 
efficiency, safety, or improve productivity. Clearly, the 
experience with the Advance Automation Suite, the STARS, WAAS, 
MLS, OASIS, and several other procurements demonstrate that 
money alone is not the answer to squeezing increased efficiency 
and productivity from the air traffic system.
    The case is unquestionably the same with the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP). The fiscal year 1999 obligation 
limitation level set by the Congress last year was the highest 
ever--before considering the additional investment in airport 
infrastructure made possible by the Passenger Facility Charge 
(PFCs) revenues. Interestingly, a cursory analysis of the last 
20 years of AIP spending indicates that an increased percentage 
of the program is committed to landside rather than airside 
projects. The Committee questions whether a dramatic increase 
in funding would somehow change the trend in this program.
    In short, the FAA has thrived in the regular budget and 
appropriations process and the leadership of the FAA utilizing 
the increased procurement and personnel authority granted by 
Congress several years ago is beginning to improve the FAA's 
performance. Expenditures on FAA programs continue to exceed 
the taxes paid into the aviation trust fund demonstrating the 
import 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 from having to 
compete with other budget priorities.

                               Operations

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................  $5,562,558,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................   4,539,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,857,450,000

\1\ Excludes reduction of $4,863,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law 
105-277; excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Excludes $1,500,000,000 user fees to be appropriated.

    FAA's ``Operations'' appropriation provides funds for the 
operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of 
the air traffic control and navigation systems and activities. 
It also covers the administration and management of the 
regulatory, airports, commercial space, medical and 
engineering, and development programs.
    User fees.--The administration proposed to collect almost 
$1,500,000,000 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 also estimates collecting $40,000,000 in 
overflight fees in fiscal year 2000. 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.
    Operations.--The activities of the operations accounts 
comprise seven main areas consistent with FAA's reorganization 
to bring together functions and activities that support the 
provision of a single, major service and to establish a single 
executive responsible for that service.
    Air traffic services.--Provides for the operations and 
maintenance of the national air traffic control and navigation 
system and the installation of air traffic and navigation 
equipment. Air traffic services consists of five subactivities: 
air traffic, NAS logistics, systems maintenance, leased 
telecommunications, and flight inspections.
    Aviation regulation and certification.--Promotes aviation 
safety and ensures compliance with safety and certification 
standards for air carriers, commercial operators, air agencies, 
airmen, and civil aircraft, including aircraft registration; 
develops and administers safety standards for airworthiness of 
aircraft and components. Includes accident investigation, 
aviation medicine, aviation rulemaking, and the suspected 
unapproved parts office.
    Aviation security.--Provides for the overall planning, 
direction, management, evaluation, and enforcement of civil 
aviation security; supports efforts covering the investigation 
and interdiction of illegal drugs and the assessment of foreign 
airports.
    Research and acquisition.--Responsible for all research, 
prototyping, system development, and acquisition activities. 
Includes the William J. Hughes Technical Center.
    Administration of airports.--Provides for the 
administration of airport grants and the safety inspection and 
certification of the Nation's airports.
    Commercial space transportation.--Facilitates and promotes 
commercial space launches by the U.S. private sector and 
licenses and regulates commercial launches, launch site 
operations, and certain payloads.
    Staff offices.--Funds the Office of the Administrator and 
the Deputy Administrator, and offices that report directly to 
the Administrator and provide executive direction; operations 
and communications control; civil rights; government and 
industry affairs; policy, planning, and international aviation; 
legal counsel; financial services; human resources; repair and 
center operations; and public affairs. Also includes the 
administrative functions that establish policy and direct and 
develop programs in the areas of FAA aircraft use and 
management, building space management, budget and accounting, 
business information and consultation, human resource 
management, and technical and management training; includes the 
regional administrators and the Aeronautical Center Director.
    The bill includes $5,857,450,000 for the operations 
activities of the Federal Aviation Administration from the 
airport and airway trust fund.
    As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to 
the Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are 
insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic 
control system.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            1999 program       2000 budget      recommendations
                                                           level \1\ \2\         estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services...................................          4,343,042      \3\ 4,696,487          4,681,246
Aviation regulation and certification..................            629,509            667,631            629,509
Aviation security......................................            123,301            144,642            133,301
Research and acquisition...............................             73,994            183,740            156,533
Administration of airports.............................             48,449             50,608  .................
Commercial space transportation........................              6,146              6,838              6,146
Administration.........................................            259,283  .................  .................
Staff offices..........................................             73,971            289,054            250,715
Accountwide adjustments................................  .................  .................  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................          5,562,558          6,039,000          5,857,450
                                                        ========================================================
User fees..............................................             43,000          1,540,000
Appropriated funds.....................................          5,519,558          4,543,000          5,857,450
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority...........  .................  .................             60,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total available funds............................          5,562,558          6,133,000          5,917,450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,863,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277.
\2\ Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\3\ Includes $1,500,000,000 in proposed user fee taxes.

                          air traffic services

    The Committee recommends a total of $4,681,246,000 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 fiscal year 1998 appropriated level. 
Initially, the appropriation could be adjusted downward for the 
estimated $50,000,000 in overflight fees that were not 
forthcoming in fiscal years 1998 or 1999 but are anticipated at 
a level of $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. 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. In addition, substantial controller 
staff years in this appropriation are directly attributable 
solely to union activities and over $37,000,000 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 $20,000,000 growth in 
backfill overtime staffing and the seemingly suboptimal timing 
of the generous allotment of staff-years for union activities, 
or interim incentive pay which should no longer be necessary, 
or the increased cost of moving away from the current 
supervisor structure and ratio, removing the cost of 
administrative services aircraft or even adjusting the base to 
reflect the actual fiscal year 1999 baseline, the FAA should 
pursue efficiencies that would result from a greater 
coordination of activities in this area and reductions have 
been assumed for the minimum of $18,000,000 in NAS plan handoff 
costs that will not occur and for the oceanic and contract 
tower 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 in last year's 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 should 
provide some guidance for the FAA as resource constraints are 
accommodated.
    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 operations per hour at en route 
centers are less than 3 per controller hour, and current 
average operations per hour at air traffic control towers are 
less than 6 per controller hour. Those averages would seem to 
indicate that there is some room for improvement in controller 
efficiency or staffing coordination.
    The Committee 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 decision to impose 
agency-wide spending restrictions on activities funded by the 
operations appropriation. 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 certification and maintenance.--The Committee is 
concerned about the cost and manpower required to maintain and 
certify older, more remotely located radar systems. It is the 
Committee's understanding that technology allows for remote 
maintenance and certification of these radar systems by 
continuously measuring a radar's critical performance 
parameters and automatically transmits the test results over a 
standard phone line to a designated Maintenance Control Center. 
In essence, this technology gives older generation radars 
advanced RMM capability.
    Contract tower program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $52,100,000 for the contract tower program as well as 
$5,000,000 for a contract tower cost-sharing program. These 
funds are in addition to those 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. The Committee believes that this 
new program will enable small airports to have their tower 
staffed with an FAA certified air traffic controller; thereby 
ensuring the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.
    The Committee notes that the FAA contract tower program 
continues to receive overwhelming support from aviation users 
and airports as a cost-effective way to enhance aviation 
safety. As a result, the Committee continues to fully support 
this program and innovative initiatives such as the contract 
tower cost-sharing program for certain airports. Therefore, the 
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the contract 
tower cost-sharing program and resources funding the original 
contract tower program at $52,100,000 to continue the base 
contract tower program and that allow the program to be 
extended to other visual flight rule (VFR) air traffic control 
towers operated by the FAA (former Level II and III air traffic 
control towers as previously classified by FAA). Within 60 days 
of enactment of this Act, the FAA Administrator is directed to 
provide to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee a plan 
proposing the extension of the contract tower program to those 
VFR towers. 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 the 
former level II and III VFR towers, the Committee believes that 
savings from expanding the program to these towers offer 
potential savings of as much as $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 
with even greater savings in subsequent fiscal years.
    In addition, the FAA is directed to continue operation of 
the contract towers at Olympia, WA; Greenville Municipal 
Airport, MS; Huntsville, AL; and Lea County Airport, NM under 
this program. Further, the Committee directs the FAA to work 
with the local Mississippi officials to establish contract 
towers at Olive Branch Airport and the Tupelo Airport, to work 
with local and state officials to provide contract tower and 
operational assistance for the transferred air facility at 
Adak, with local and military officials to explore contract 
tower operations at Ft. Sill Army Radar Operation Control, to 
work with local officials for contract tower service for Felts 
Field, Washington, and with local Indiana officials for 
contract tower service for Muncie/Delaware County Airport.
    The Committee urges the FAA to work with the communities to 
explore alternatives, such as sharing tower operating costs, to 
maintain tower operations.
    Contract tower oversight.--In May 1998, the Department of 
Transportation Office of Inspector General (OIG) provided an 
audit report on the contract tower program. While the report 
found the quality of service between contract and FAA-operated 
towers to be comparable, it did note that some contract towers 
had not been staffed at contract specified levels, and that 
some contractors had been compensated for services that had not 
been provided. The OIG recommended that the FAA take steps to 
recoup the overpayments, ensure that contract terms are adhered 
to, and institute a formal review process. The Committee 
directs the FAA to report on the progress of implementing the 
OIG recommendations and requests that the OIG report on the 
staffing levels at Outagamie County Regional Airport in 
Appleton, Wisconsin to include an assessment of whether 
staffing levels are adequate for aircraft operations at the 
airport.
    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, the Committee recommendation includes 
funding for a GPS approach for Bert Mooney Airport in Butte, 
MT.
    National airspace redesign.--The Committee directs not less 
than $11,000,000 to support the administration's initiative to 
comprehensively review and design the domestic and oceanic 
airspace within the United States. The Committee directs the 
FAA to concentrate the administration's initial efforts on the 
eastern region, particularly on the redesign of the New York/
New Jersey metropolitan airspace, consistent with the 
administration's plans. These initial efforts will support the 
planning and design challenges in the New York/New Jersey 
region's airspace, the most complex and densely traveled 
airspace in the world. The airspace in this region is some of 
the most congested in the nation and the current airspace 
design is quite sensitive to delays if weather or other delay 
contributing factors occur. The FAA is encouraged to take 
advantage of new technologies such as satellite navigation and 
aircraft capabilities, and new flight paths in the redesign 
effort and to explore best practices from other congested 
airspace to identify tools to better manage traffic and 
capacity in this critical air transportation metropolitan 
airspace.
    The national and regional redesign will take advantage of 
new technologies, such as satellite navigation and aircraft 
capabilities, and new flight paths. The Committee encourages 
the administration to ensure that the final result of the 
redesign will deliver the greatest safety, efficiency and 
environmental benefits to system operators, users and citizens 
near airports, particularly those who are affected by air 
noise.
    The Committee requires the FAA to submit quarterly reports 
on the status of the Newark Delay Reduction Initiatives 
continuing from last year's conference report.
    Oceanic Traffic Services.--The FAA has had difficulty in 
modernizing the Oceanic services function and 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. 
Consistent with the spirit of the Administration's request to 
move to a PBO for air traffic services, the Committee allows 
the contracting out of the oceanic function. This function is 
discreet and operationally discernible from other FAA air 
traffic services and facilities and could be an ideal candidate 
for incrementally moving toward a PBO, privatized, or more 
competitive air traffic services model for the FAA. A 1997 GRA 
study commissioned by the FAA Oceanic Integrated Product Team 
estimated the cost of the Oceanic operation at almost 
$200,000,000 (1995 data). The Committee requests quarterly 
reports providing updates on this initiative and the 
anticipated timeframe for increased efficiency due to 
modernization and operations under an oceanic services 
contract.
    Leased telecommunication services/RCL.--In prior-years' 
reports the Committee has expressed concern about 
underutilization of the radio communications link [RCL], which 
is owned by FAA and is one of the largest microwave networks in 
the country. The alternative to increased use of the RCL is 
reliance on leased telecommunications. The Committee directed 
FAA to transfer to the radio communications link as much of the 
existing workload as possible to better utilize that resource. 
The Committee understands that FAA plans to use RCL circuits 
rather than increasing reliance on leased circuits from a 
private vendor.
    Notwithstanding this intention on the part of the FAA, the 
Committee has concluded that FAA is likely to continue to 
underutilize its radio communications link [RCL] network in 
favor of leased telecommunications by virtue of the fact that 
the FAA has failed to follow through on this plan in the past. 
The Committee suggests that FAA accommodate constrained air 
traffic services appropriations by disposing of a part of its 
underutilized RCL network and taking staffing savings. The 
Committee requests semiannual reports commencing in July 1999 
from the FAA on the status of plans to more fully utilize RCL 
or to decommission it.
    Training.--The Committee notes the difficulty that the FAA 
has had in balancing training management and administration 
between culture changing activities, proficiency training, and 
general human resource development training activities, among 
others. The Committee encourages the agency to redouble its 
efforts to address the training issues identified by the Office 
of Inspector General and to continue to report to the 
Committees on Appropriations on a semiannual basis. Due to 
resource constraints, the FAA will clearly have to make choices 
between various training priorities. The Committee continues to 
note the importance of air traffic controller proficiency and 
developmental training and concurs in the agency decision not 
to divert this funding for other activities.
    Rocky Mountain Emergency Services Training Center.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Rocky 
Mountain Emergency Services Training Center (RMESTC) in Helena, 
Montana.
    Precision runway monitor at Newark International Airport.--
The Committee directs the Administrator to continue to work 
with the appropriate local authorities toward the installation 
of Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) at Newark International 
Airport.
    FAA data bases.--Over time, FAA has invested substantial 
resources in the development and maintenance of a large number 
of data bases. The growth and proliferation of data bases is a 
consequence of a number of factors including the wide scope of 
FAA's responsibilities, its organizational structure, and the 
widely differing dynamics of various components of the aviation 
industry. However, responsibility and/or control over the data 
bases is not currently centralized; instead it is spread among 
the various lines of business and other organizational elements 
who are the prime users of the data collected. There is little 
agencywide data integration. As such, FAA is becoming 
increasingly data rich and information poor.
    Accordingly, the Committee continues to encourage the FAA 
to develop a data management plan that leads to optimized data 
sharing among FAA organizational elements; better control over 
the costs of data base management; the capability to review and 
analyze data on a subject as well as a functional basis; and 
enhanced capability of senior management to resolve time 
critical questions and issues that may cut across agency 
organizational elements.
    In the fiscal year 1999 report, the FAA was directed to 
report to the Committees on Appropriations on progress toward a 
data management plan. The Committee is encouraged by the FAA 
response to that direction and looks forward to the anticipated 
report in October 1999 on the development of an integrated, 
agencywide data management plan. Such a plan is a major 
undertaking, but it is vital for strategic and policy planning. 
The FAA has taken an important first step in focusing on the 
importance of data management with the appointment of the Chief 
Information Officer (CIO) and with the creation of a framework 
and methodology for moving forward on the plan.

                 Aviation regulation and certification

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $629,509,000.
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.--The United States currently 
maintains approximately 60 percent of the worldwide 
manufacturing capacity of UAVs. However, there are no 
standardized regulatory criteria under which manufacturers can 
develop and build UAVs, or operational procedures that allow 
them to test and operate UAVs outside restricted airspace on 
military test ranges. It appears to be timely for the FAA to 
begin addressing the integration of UAVs into the National 
Airspace System. The Committee urges the FAA to work with the 
highly qualified team of experts at the Physical Sciences 
Laboratory at New Mexico State University to study the issue of 
wider use of UAVs and what work needs to be done to incorporate 
UAVs into the National Airspace System.

                           Aviation Security

    The Committee recommends $133,301,000, an increase of 
$10,000,000 over fiscal year 1999.

                        Research and Acquisition

    The Committee recommends $156,533,000.

                       Administration of Airports

    The Committee recommends $48,449,000 provided elsewhere in 
the bill.

                    Commercial Space Transportation

    The Committee recommends $6,146,000.

                             Staff Offices

    The Committee recommends $250,715,000, consistent with the 
presentation in the President's budget request adjusted to 
reflect budgetary constraints.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Reprogrammings.--The Committee continues to have concerns 
with the inspector general's findings of major variances in 
amounts proposed for reduction by budget line item to actual 
amounts reprogrammed. The FAA should not make changes to 
congressionally approved reprogramming notices, without 
congressional concurrence. To increase oversight in this area, 
the Administrator is directed to provide the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations with line by line accounts of all 
future reprogramming actions taken subsequent to approval by 
Congress.
    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 1995-99. It was requested by the administration for 
fiscal year 2000.
    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 2000.
    Contract tower program.--The Committee has included 
language for a contract tower cost-sharing program.
    Secretary's discretionary transfer funds.--The Committee 
has included language that provides authority for the Secretary 
to transfer up to $60,000,000 from Coast Guard operating 
expenses, for the purpose of air traffic control operations and 
maintenance to enhance aviation safety and security.
    Oceanic Services Function.--The Committee has included 
language permitting the FAA to contract out the Oceanic 
services function.

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................  $1,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   2,319,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,045,652,000

\1\ Excludes $100,000,000 emergency supplemental for explosives 
detection systems. Also excludes supplemental funding of Y2K.

    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 $41,000,000,000 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. 
Earlier this 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.''
          ``FAA has taken a number of steps to overcome 
        problems with past modernization efforts. Most notably, 
        the agency has moved away from its prior practice of 
        taking on large, complex projects all at once and is 
        now acquiring new systems by using a more incremental 
        approach. In addition, the agency is no longer making 
        unilateral decisions about air traffic control 
        modernization. Instead, it has been working actively 
        with the aviation community to make decisions more 
        collaboratively. Furthermore, FAA has begun to address 
        some of the root causes of its modernization problems 
        by implementing processes to help (1) improve its 
        ability to estimate and account for project costs, (2) 
        develop a complete architecture (blueprint) for 
        modernizing the National Airspace System, (3) reduce 
        the risks associated with software development, and (4) 
        reform the organization's culture, including providing 
        incentives to make managers more accountable. While FAA 
        has delivered some of its major systems, it must be 
        recognized that many of these projects encountered 
        difficulties in meeting their original cost and 
        schedule goals, and the baselines were subsequently 
        revised.''

    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, most of those core issues are 
arguable 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 
early signs are that those efforts are having marginal success. 
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 implementation                           Year of last-site implementation
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           System name             1983 NAS                                                    1983 NAS
                                     plan      1991 CIP    1993 CIP    1998 CIP    1999 CIP      plan      1991 CIP    1993 CIP    1998 CIP    1999 CIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Automation System (AAS)        1990        1991        1991     ( \1\ )     ( \1\ )        1994        2001        2004     ( \1\ )     ( \1\ )
    Display System Replacement    ..........  ..........  ..........        1998        1998  ..........  ..........  ..........        2000        2000
     (DSR)......................
    Standard Terminal Automation  ..........  ..........  ..........        1998     ( \2\ )  ..........  ..........  ..........        2005     ( \2\ )
     Replacement System (STARS).
Tower Automation Program (TAP)..  ..........  ..........  ..........     ( \3\ )     ( \3\ )  ..........  ..........  ..........     ( \3\ )     ( \3\ )
Air Route Surveillance Radar            1988        1993        1994        1996        1996        1991        1996        1996        1999        1999
 (ARSR-4).......................
Airport Surface Detection               1987        1992        1993        1993        1993        1990        1994        1996        1999        1999
 Equipment  (ASDE-3)............
Automated Weather Observing             1986        1989        1989        1989        1989        1990        1997        1997        2002        2002
 System (AWOS)/Automated Surface
 Observing System (ASOS)........
Central Weather Processor (CWP).        1990        1991        1991        1991        1991        1991        1998    \4\ 1992    \4\ 1993    \4\ 1993
Flight Service Automation System        1984        1991        1991        1991        1991        1989        1995        1994        1995        1995
 (FSAS).........................
Mode-S..........................        1988        1993        1994        1994        1994        1993        1996        1996    \5\ 1999    \5\ 1999
Radio Microwave Link (RML)              1985        1986        1986        1986        1986        1989        1994        1993        1993        1993
 Replacement and Expansion......
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar       ( \6\ )        1993        1994        1994        1994     ( \6\ )        1996        1996        2001        2000
 (TDWR).........................
Voice Switching and Control             1989        1995        1995        1995        1995        1992        1997        1997        1997        1997
 System (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\ The Tower Automation Program (TAP) has been terminated.
\4\ Dates denoted are for MWP I only. The CWP-RWP segment has been eliminated as a continuation of the CWP Program, and has been merged with MWP II into
  the Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) Program.
\5\ Dates denoted are for Interim Beacon Interrogator (IBI) Last-Site Implementation.
\6\ The 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. Recent delays are due to
                                 environmental issues at Ajo, Arizona
                                 and typhoon damage at Mount Santa Rosa,
                                 Guam which are the last sites.
Airport surface detection       Original delays occurred because FAA and
 equipment [ASDE-3].             the contractor underestimated software
                                 complexity. FAA changed some
                                 requirements, and testing uncovered
                                 some performance problems. Software
                                 development, establishing remote
                                 towers, site selection/preparation, and
                                 the addition of seven systems have
                                 delayed the program.
Automated weather observing     Site prep, installation, and maintenance
 system [AWOS]/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 years 1997-98
                                 congressional direction.
Central weather processor       Early software development problems and
 [CWP].                          software discrepancies during testing
                                 delayed the system in early stages. The
                                 program was descoped to just the CWP-
                                 MWP I segment, which is now fully
                                 implemented.
Flight service automation       Original delays occurred because of
 system [FSAS].                  software development and testing
                                 problems with the Model I system.
                                 Program implementation is complete.
Mode S........................  Problems in developing hardware and
                                 software during initial phases delayed
                                 the system, and software problems
                                 caused a delay in first-site
                                 implementation. Implementation of the
                                 last-site has moved due to en route
                                 interface requirements and site
                                 preparation delays.
Radar microwave link [RML]      In the early stages, site acquisition
 replacement and expansion.      and prep problems delayed the system.
                                 Other delays occurred because of a
                                 change in the prime contractor and due
                                 to problems encountered during
                                 operational test and evaluation.
                                 Program implementation is complete.
Terminal doppler weather radar  Site availability and land acquisition
  [TDWR].                        problems have delayed last-site
                                 implementation. Recent delays are
                                 associated with land procurement and
                                 environmental issues at the last 2
                                 sites (Chicago-Midway and New York).
Voice switching and control     Early delays were due to the two
 system [VSCS].                  prototype contractors having technical
                                 difficulties in meeting FAA's
                                 requirements for system reliability.
                                 Additional delays occurred because of
                                 software development and integration
                                 problems during the upgrade of the
                                 prototype to a production model. The
                                 implementation schedule has not changed
                                 since the 1991 CIP. The last-site
                                 implementation was achieved on schedule
                                 in February 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill includes an appropriation of $2,045,652,000 for 
the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of 
the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows:

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year  Fiscal year
             Title                  1999     2000 budget     Committee
                                  enacted      estimate   recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, TEST
        AND EVALUATION

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY                52,566.0     33,166.1       33,166.1
 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING....
                               =========================================
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES          26,300.0     23,862.0       21,062.0
 IMPROVEMENTS.................
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION...........  ...........     10,055.0       10,055.0
OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM.....  ...........     10,000.0       10,000.0
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL)       39,000.0     27,855.0       27,855.0
 APPLICATIONS.................
NEXT GENERATION VHF A/G         ...........      9,640.0        2,625.0
 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.........
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (ATM)..     51,200.0  ...........  ..............
CONFLICT PROBE................     41,000.0  ...........  ..............
HOST REPLACEMENT..............     20,000.0  ...........  ..............
NAS INFORMATION SYSTEMS.......  ...........        500.0  ..............
FREE FLIGHT PHASE ONE.........  ...........    184,800.0      202,800.0
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE          177,500.0    266,712.0      274,397.0
       PROGRAMS...............
                               =========================================
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS)...     99,200.0     58,900.0       58,900.0
                               =========================================
AFSS VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT.  ...........      3,000.0        1,000.0
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM  ...........      4,000.0  ..............
 FOR GPS (LAAS)...............
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM   ...........     65,200.0  ..............
 (WAAS).......................
NEXT GENERATION NAVIGATION         92,000.0  ...........      118,100.0
 SYSTEMS......................
NEXT GENERATION LANDING            34,175.0  ...........       18,000.0
 SYSTEMS......................
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--LANDING/          126,175.0     72,200.0      137,100.0
       NAVAIDS................
                               =========================================
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITY--     5,290.0      1,322.5        1,322.5
 BUILDING LEASE...............
NAS IMPROVEMENT OF SYSTEM           2,000.0      2,000.0  ..............
 SUPPORT LABORATORY...........
TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITIES...      7,000.0      7,000.0       11,477.5
INDEPENDENT OPERATIONAL TEST        3,500.0      3,500.0  ..............
 SUPPORT......................
UTILITY PLANT MODIFICATIONS...  ...........      2,477.5  ..............
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, RDT&E              17,790.0     16,300.0       12,800.0
       EQUIPMENT AND
       FACILITIES.............
                               =========================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 1........    473,231.0    447,278.1      516,363.1
                               =========================================
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES
         AND EQUIPMENT

LONG RANGE RADAR (LRR)              5,700.0  ...........  ..............
 PROGRAM--REPLACE/ESTABLISH...
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION...........    194,692.4    198,055.0      153,200.0
NEXT GENERATION WEATHER RADAR       4,900.0      6,900.0        4,900.0
 (NEXRAD).....................
AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS              1,000.0      1,000.0  ..............
 MANAGEMENT...................
WEATHER AND RADAR PROCESSOR        20,000.0     12,872.0        5,800.0
 (WARP).......................
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL)          600.0      1,000.0  ..............
 APPLICATIONS.................
ARTCC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS/       54,000.0     54,000.0       36,900.0
 PLANT IMPROVEMENTS...........
VOICE SWITCHING AND CONTROL        10,000.0     17,500.0       18,500.0
 SYSTEM (VSCS)................
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT........     35,000.0     42,000.0       15,000.0
CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS             1,850.0      2,000.0          850.0
 SUPPORT......................
DOD BASE CLOSURE--FACILITY          1,000.0      3,900.0        3,300.0
 TRANSFER.....................
BACK-UP EMERGENCY                   8,500.0      4,500.0        1,580.0
 COMMUNICATIONS (BUEC)........
AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION RFI        1,600.0      1,700.0        1,700.0
 ELIMINATION..................
VOLCANO MONITOR...............      2,000.0  ...........        2,000.0
ATC BEACON INTERROGATOR            14,800.0     45,400.0       23,000.0
 (ATCBI) REPLACEMENT..........
ATC EN ROUTE RADAR FACILITIES.      4,100.0      3,700.0        2,700.0
EN ROUTE COMMS AND CONTROL          2,000.0      3,230.4        1,430.0
 FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT.......
RCF FACILITIES--EXPAND/         ...........      6,700.0        6,700.0
 RELOCATE.....................
FAA TELECOMMUNICATIONS          ...........      6,100.0        6,100.0
 INFRASTRUCTURE...............
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE          361,742.4    410,557.4      283,660.0
       PROGRAMS...............
                               =========================================
TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR      4,300.0      9,300.0        8,300.0
 (TDWR)--PROVIDE..............
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS)...    100,000.0    136,340.0      136,340.0
TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL       63,625.0     76,000.0       75,500.0
 FACILITIES--REPLACE..........
CONTROL TOWER/TRACON               17,722.2     21,982.7       21,982.7
 FACILITIES--IMPROVE..........
TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH              10,300.0      9,900.0       10,900.0
 REPLACEMENT (TVSR)/ETVS......
EMPLOYEE SAFETY/OSHA AND           22,000.0     29,700.0       22,000.0
 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STDS
CHICAGO METROPLEX.............  ...........      1,500.0          700.0
NEW AUSTIN AIRPORT AT               2,500.0      1,500.0        1,500.0
 BERGSTROM....................
POTOMAC METROPLEX.............  ...........     17,100.0        5,800.0
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPLEX.     17,900.0     31,000.0       17,500.0
ATLANTA METROPLEX.............     15,000.0     13,000.0        7,700.0
NAS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT      20,000.0      8,900.0        5,500.0
 SYSTEM (NIMS)................
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR          5,000.0  ...........        5,000.0
 (ASR-9)......................
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION           5,600.0      2,400.0          500.0
 EQUIPMENT (ASDE-3)...........
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY        9,800.0     11,700.0       11,700.0
 SYSTEM (AMASS)...............
VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT          3,000.0      3,000.0        1,200.0
 PROGRAM......................
TERMINAL DIGITAL RADAR (ASR-       62,200.0    136,070.0      105,000.0
 11)..........................
WEATHER SYSTEMS PROCESSOR.....     11,900.0     24,000.0       24,000.0
DOD/FAA ATC FACILITIES              1,000.0      1,000.0        1,600.0
 TRANSFER.....................
PRECISION RUNWAY MONITORS.....      3,300.0      3,300.0        3,300.0
TERMINAL RADAR (ASR)--IMPROVE.      2,773.4      3,838.8        3,838.8
TERMINAL COMMUNICATIONS             1,119.8      1,124.0        1,124.0
 IMPROVEMENTS.................
RCE EQUIPMENT.................  ...........      3,400.0        3,400.0
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--TERMINAL          379,040.4    546,055.5      474,385.5
       PROGRAMS...............
                               =========================================
AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING         9,900.0      8,080.0        9,900.0
 SYSTEM (ASOS)................
OASIS.........................     19,250.0     21,486.0       10,000.0
FLIGHT SERVICE FACILITIES           1,364.4      1,577.3        1,364.4
 IMPROVEMENT..................
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION              2,000.0      2,000.0        2,000.0
 MODERNIZATION................
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--FLIGHT SERVICE     32,514.4     33,143.3       23,264.4
       PROGRAMS...............
                               =========================================
VOR/DME/TACAN NETWORK PLAN....      4,700.0      2,000.0        2,000.0
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM       ...........      8,200.0  ..............
 (ILS)--ESTABLISH/UPGRADE.....
ILS--REPLACE MARK 1A, 1B, AND       2,100.0      1,000.0  ..............
 1C...........................
LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT           3,000.0      2,200.0        2,200.0
 SYSTEM (LLWAS)...............
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR).....      2,000.0      2,000.0        2,000.0
GULF OF MEXICO OFFSHORE             2,400.0  ...........  ..............
 PROGRAM......................
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM   ...........     42,900.0  ..............
 (WAAS).......................
NDB SUSTAIN...................      1,000.0      1,000.0        1,000.0
NAVIGATIONAL AND LANDING AIDS--     2,761.8      3,146.8        6,400.0
 IMPROVE......................
APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM            5,000.0      2,700.0        5,700.0
 IMPROVEMENT (ALSIP)..........
PRECISION APPROACH PATH             2,500.0      1,000.0  ..............
 INDICATORS (PAPI)............
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT..      1,200.0      1,200.0        1,200.0
VISUAL NAVAIDS................        400.0      1,000.0        3,500.0
TACTICAL LANDING SYSTEMS......      3,000.0  ...........  ..............
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES  ...........        900.0          900.0
 AUTOMATION (IAPA)............
GPS AERONAUTICAL BAND.........  ...........     17,000.0  ..............
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--LANDING AND        30,061.8     86,246.8       24,900.0
       NAVIGATIONAL AIDS......
                               =========================================
ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMM      3,500.0      3,600.0        3,600.0
 SYSTEM (ANICS)...............
FUEL STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT      10,600.0     10,500.0       10,500.0
 AND MONITORING...............
FAA BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT--       4,000.0      4,000.0        4,000.0
 IMPROVE/MODERNIZE............
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS--         17,500.0     17,500.0       17,500.0
 SUSTAIN/SUPPORT..............
AIR NAVAIDS AND ATC FACILITIES      2,000.0      2,000.0        2,000.0
 (LOCAL PROJECTS).............
AIRCRAFT RELATED EQUIPMENT          2,000.0      5,000.0        1,840.0
 PROGRAM......................
COMPUTER AIDED ENG GRAPHICS         1,000.0      4,300.0        3,000.0
 (CAEG) REPLACEMENT...........
AIRPORT CABLE LOOP SYSTEMS--    ...........      1,000.0  ..............
 SUSTAIN......................
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--OTHER ATC          40,600.0     47,900.0       42,440.0
       FACILITIES.............
                               =========================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 2........    843,959.0  1,123,903.0      848,649.9
                               =========================================
    NON-ATC FACILITIES AND
           EQUIPMENT

NAS MANAGEMENT AUTOMATION             800.0      1,100.0          800.0
 PROGRAM (NASMAP).............
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT     17,000.0     22,500.0       22,500.0
AVIATION SAFETY ANALYSIS           11,600.0     16,400.0       11,600.0
 SYSTEM (ASAS)................
OPERATIONAL DATA MANAGEMENT         1,000.0        600.0          600.0
 SYSTEM (ODMS)................
FAA EMPLOYEE HOUSING--PROVIDE.      8,000.0      8,000.0        8,000.0
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEM AND        2,300.0      3,000.0        2,300.0
 FACILITIES...................
TEST EQUIPMENT--MAINTENANCE           500.0      1,000.0        1,000.0
 SUPPORT......................
INTEGRATED FLIGHT QUALITY           3,000.0      5,000.0        4,000.0
 ASSURANCE....................
SAFETY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS         3,500.0      5,200.0        3,500.0
 SUBSYSTEM (SPAS).............
NATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY DATA       1,800.0      1,500.0        1,500.0
 CENTER.......................
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM      9,700.0      5,000.0        2,000.0
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS...    100,000.0     97,500.0      100,000.0
FACILITY SECURITY RISK              1,000.0     11,500.0       11,500.0
 MANAGEMENT...................
INFORMATION SECURITY..........      4,000.0     10,325.0        4,000.0
NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS     ...........      1,000.0        1,000.0
 (RCOM).......................
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--SUPPORT           164,200.0    189,625.0      174,300.0
       EQUIPMENT..............
                               =========================================
AERONAUTICAL CENTER TRAINING       12,000.0      3,200.0  ..............
 AND SUPPORT FACILITIES.......
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS)        400.0      1,500.0  ..............
 TRAINING FACILITIES..........
DSR TRAINING SIMULATOR (MARC).      4,000.0  ...........  ..............
                               -----------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--TRAINING           16,400.0      4,700.0  ..............
       EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES.
                               =========================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 3........    180,600.0    194,325.0      174,300.0
                               =========================================
        MISSION SUPPORT

SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND             28,960.0     27,300.0       22,200.0
 DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT..........
PROGRAM SUPPORT LEASES........     27,500.0     31,100.0       31,100.0
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES....      5,600.0      5,600.0        5,600.0
MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL         14,800.0     14,600.0       14,600.0
 CENTER--LEASE................
IN-PLANT NAS CONTRACT SUPPORT       2,000.0      2,800.0        2,800.0
 SERVICES.....................
TRANSITION ENGINEERING SUPPORT     41,800.0     40,900.0       38,700.0
FREQUENCY AND SPECTRUM              1,500.0      3,000.0        3,000.0
 ENGINEERING--PROVIDE.........
PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION         2,500.0      3,200.0        3,200.0
 MOVES........................
FAA SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE.......      1,000.0      2,500.0        2,330.0
TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPPORT         47,550.0     48,800.0       47,143.0
 CONTRACT (TSSC)..............
RESOURCE TRACKING PROGRAM.....        500.0      1,500.0        1,000.0
CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION       57,000.0     63,400.0       60,100.0
 SYSTEM DEV. (MITRE)..........
Y2K COMPUTER ISSUES...........     25,000.0  ...........  ..............
Y2K COMPUTER ISSUES               122,133.0  ...........  ..............
 (EMERGENCY)..................
                               -----------------------------------------
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 4........    376,343.0    244,700.0      231,773.0
                               =========================================
PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES    248,000.0    308,793.9      274,566.0
                               =========================================
      TOTAL...................  2,122,133.0  2,319,000.0    2,045,652.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             engineering, development, test, and evaluation

    The Committee recommends $516,361,100 for various 
engineering, development, test, and evaluation activities.

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. In 
particular, the Committee encourages the FAA to focus on the 
problem posed by runway incursions funded at $3,978,200 within 
this subactivity. The development of a low cost surface 
detection system could greatly contribute to confidence on the 
part of industry and controllers that runway incursions can be 
identified immediately and managed accordingly. Such confidence 
would facilitate overall system efficiency in a cascading 
fashion by maximizing throughput at congested and critical 
facilities during times of inclement weather.

En route programs

    Aviation Weather Services Improvements.--The Committee 
recommends $21,062,000. This funding is to continue the full 
scale software development and testing activities, begin 
algorithm testing, and other developmental and testing 
activities. Weather is the major contributor to delays and is a 
major contributor to accidents. The ITWS program supported by 
this funding holds the promise for improving weather 
information integration both to controllers and airline 
industry users for planning activities. However, the program is 
running behind schedule due to software development delays and 
does not require $3,800,000 of the budget request for Nims 
Interface and Telecommunication funds in fiscal year 2000.
    En Route Automation.--The Committee expectation provides 
the full budget request for Activity 1, but encourages the FAA 
to proceed slowly with development of additional functional 
builds to this system.
    Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications.--The Committee 
recommends $27,855,000 for Aeronautical Data Link applications. 
This activity is a critical component of the ``Free Flight 
Phase I'' initiative which is anticipated to provide 
significant efficiencies and benefits to the user community. 
The Committee directs the FAA to provide a cost benefit 
analysis of FAA deployment of the national HID/NAS LAN as 
compared to contracting out for that capability from the 
private sector.
    Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communication System.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $2,625,000 for this digital 
communications upgrade initiative and directs the FAA to 
provide the Committee with an analysis of TDMA as opposed to 
CDMA technology for this functional capability for the agency.
    NAS Information Systems.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for this activity. The justification describes 
activities better performed in the Operations budget.
    Free Flight Phase One Integration.--The Committee provides 
$2,000,000 more than the full request for the Free Flight Phase 
One initiative and commends the Administrator for her 
leadership and involvement of the industry in this initiative. 
The Free Flight Phase One concept is incremental in nature and 
should provide the industry and controllers with critically 
needed efficiency tools. The Committee recommendation includes 
resources for the expansion of the Departure Spacing Program 
(DSP) through the installation of equipment at Teterboro, White 
Plains, Islip Tower, and the Air Traffic Control System Command 
Center. In addition, the Committee recommendation provides 
$16,000,000 in Free Flight Phase One for the Safe Flight 2000 
program of which $6,000,000 is for the Capstone Initiative and 
$11,000,000 is for the Ohio River Valley ADS-B Initiative.

Terminal programs

    Terminal Automation Program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes the full request for the Terminal Automation Program 
(STARS) for both activity 1 and activity 2. It appears that the 
Committee concerns expressed in last year's report were 
prescient:

        ``. . . the Committee is increasingly concerned about 
        program slippages, cost growth, and the severity of the 
        computer-human interface problems. The Committee 
        reiterates its concern that procurements like STARS, 
        WAAS, and the deepwater capability replacement program 
        are beyond the capability of the Department to manage 
        given the complexity of the systems and the critical 
        nature of the external factors that influence program 
        development.''

    The STARS program is a candidate for a case study in how 
not to manage a major procurement. The initial contract was 
awarded in September 1996 as a commercial-off-the-shelf/non-
developmental item [COTS/NDI]-based automated radar terminal 
system for use in terminal radar approach control facilities. 
The concept behind the STARS procurement was to maximize the 
use of a commercially available system, and augment that 
commercial system with a minimum of software development. This 
strategy was pursued because the FAA experience with software 
intensive development acquisitions have resulted in large cost 
increases, multiple rebaselinings and major schedule slippages. 
The initial contractor proposal estimated that 916,000 lines of 
software code could be used from its existing system and that 
119,000 lines of new software code would be developed. The 
Department of Transportation Inspector General reported in 
February 1999, that 370,000 lines of new software code would 
need to be developed and that FAA now considers STARS to be a 
software development system. Clearly, either the initial STARS 
procurement strategy was flawed, the program execution was 
flawed, the FAA failed to establish adequate safeguards to 
requirements creep, the contract mechanism was inappropriate to 
the complexity of the acquisition, and/or the FAA still has not 
discovered how to manage software dependent programs.
    The magnitude of the schedule slippages, cost escalations, 
and (most recently) procurement strategy shifts are entirely 
the consequence of the FAA's seeming inability to set 
requirements and manage the contractor to acquisition 
completion. The experience with computer-human interface 
``CHI'' required modifications should lead the FAA to the 
realization that procurements to replace entire systems should 
be abandoned and that the most ambitious FAA acquisition for 
terminal or tracon automation should focus on replacing 
components of a system rather than the entire system. 
Conversely, the Committee believes that the poor performance in 
the procurement arena should compel the FAA to evaluate the 
relative merits of contracting out any aspect of the air 
traffic management function possible including both technology 
refreshment and operation as a way to mitigate procurement 
risk.
    The recent FAA decision to install ``stop-gap'' ARTS Color 
Displays (ACD's) at five major centers without a clear and full 
identification of the associated costs a few months after 
committing to an Early Display Configuration (EDC) of the STARS 
display does not instill confidence on the Committee's part 
that the FAA is managing this program to set requirements, 
modified requirements, or has any sensitivity to managing the 
ultimate costs of this modernization program. Further, the 
Committee is concerned that proceeding with this new ``stop-
gap'' strategy without a clear and full identification of the 
associated costs is imprudent. In addition, the Committee is 
concerned that the ACD's do not contain many, if not most, of 
the CHI modifications deemed essential by the controllers and 
the FAA for the STARS EDC displays as safety critical. Either 
the CHI changes are safety critical or they are not--but 
clearly the CHI standards for ACD's at the five priority 
facilities should be no less than that required for STARS EDC. 
The Committee directs the FAA to report to Congress not later 
than September 1, 1999 on the total cost of the five ACD 
installations compared to what the cost would be for the 
equivalent installation of STARS color displays. The report 
should also identify those CHI changes required for STARS which 
do not exist as features in the ACD, and the cost of bringing 
the ACD to the same level of compliance.
    The FAA has announced that the Syracuse, NY and El Paso, TX 
Terminal Radar Approach Control Centers (TRACONS) will receive 
the Early Display Configuration (EDC) of STARS in late 1999 and 
early 2000, respectively, while parallel development continues 
on the full STARS. As an interim measure, the FAA plans to 
install stop-gap ARTS Color Displays (ACD) for the New York and 
Reagan Washington National TRACONS in the summer and fall of 
2000. The FAA also intends to purchase on an unspecified 
timeline ACD's for the Dallas-Fort Worth and the new Northern 
California and North Georgia TRACONS.
    The Committee understands that the final STARS schedules 
and program costs will be known by the FAA in late-summer 1999, 
and shares the FAA's strong commitment to expeditious full 
STARS implementation, including at those TRACONS where ACD 
installation is planned on an interim basis. While the STARS 
EDC will be on-line in Syracuse and El Paso by early 2000, the 
stop-gap ACD's for two TRACONS will not be operational until 
later in 2000. The Committee expects the FAA to continue 
development of EDC displays for all configurations including 
the ARTS IIIE, and to give consideration to installing them in 
TRACONS scheduled to receive ACD's should the FAA learn that 
the announced schedule at the New York and Reagan Washington 
National TRACONS will slip beyond summer and fall of 2000.

Landing and navigational aids programs

    AFSS Voice Switch Replacement.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for this activity to initiate the award of a 
contract and related program support activity.
    Next Generation Navigation Systems.--The Committee 
recommends $118,100,000 for next generation navigation systems, 
to be distributed as follows:

Wide Area Augmentation System...........................    $108,100,000
Loran-C navigation system...............................      10,000,000

    Although the Committee continues to be concerned by the 
risk associated with the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) 
as expressed in previous Committee reports, the Committee is 
somewhat heartened by the FAA decision to retain Loran-C for a 
minimum of at least eight more years. The Committee continues 
to be concerned about the confusion that surrounds the WAAS 
program. Rather than providing a clear path for the WAAS 
program, the Johns Hopkins study described a system 
architecture that envisioned 30 satellites, increased signal 
strength, the addition of the second civil frequency, the 
removal of selective availability, and the possibility of 
additional ground stations. While the navigation system of the 
future is clearly primarily satellite based, it may be equally 
clear that it is not exclusively satellite based--or that that 
should be the goal. Fortunately, the slavish preoccupation that 
the FAA and some in the industry had with ``sole means'' 
appears to have been replaced with the recognition that a more 
probable option includes some form of ground-based navigation 
aids, notably Loran-C or inertial navigation systems. Further, 
what is increasingly clear is that the navigational system of 
the future in developing required navigation performance should 
address the concerns expressed about jamming, intentional or 
unintentional interference with satellite based signals, radio 
propagation, satellite or ground-based system failure, the to-
date undefined risks associated with the ionosphere, and the 
cost effectiveness of the system. A recent paper presented to 
the Air Navigation Commission of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO) concluded that: ``more stringent 
required navigation performance criteria are required for sole-
service and these should be developed before any reduction in 
the provision of the ground-based infrastructure for navigation 
creates a de facto GNSS sole-service.'' For the third 
consecutive year, the Committee recommendation reiterates the 
Committee's commitment to pursuing satellite based navigation 
capability by providing the full amount of the Administration 
request for WAAS.
    The Committee continues to support steps to ensure that 
loran will be available to meet ongoing user navigation safety 
and efficiency requirements. Loran provides important 
multimodal navigation capabilities, well-proved, cost-
effective, and significant safety and efficiency benefits. The 
Committee continues to be convinced that support of the loran 
infrastructure is prudent to meet continuing requirements for 
the technology, particularly in light of the difficultly the 
FAA is experiencing with WAAS. Clearly, a GPS/loran alternative 
to WAAS is to use Loran-C to provide a level of redundant 
radionavigation capability. Various levels of dependence on 
Loran could be established such as exclusive reliance on Loran-
C or relying on the basic backup network of VOR/DME's for IRU/
FMC-equipped aircraft and Loran-C for all other aircraft. Such 
an alternative may have significant cost and operational 
advantages in both the short and longer term and failure to 
maintain the investment in loran infrastructure at this time 
would be irresponsible.
    Next Generation Landing Systems.--The Committee recommends 
$18,000,000 for next generation navigation systems, to be 
distributed as follows:

Tactical Landing Systems (TLS)..........................      $2,000,000
Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS)...................       2,000,000
Instrument Landing Systems..............................      14,000,000

    TLS.--Demonstrations of the tactical landing system 
indicate that the technology may have applications in specific 
situations. Using existing aircraft avionics, the TLS is 
designed to provide both guidance commands and safety alerts to 
pilots. The Committee recommendation for next generation 
landing systems includes $2,000,000 to continue evaluation and 
demonstration of this technology as directed in prior 
appropriations bills.
    ILS.--The Committee, consistent with continued concern 
about the WAAS program cost effectiveness and schedule, 
recommends an increase in the ILS procurement and installation 
program. Priority consideration should be given to Harry Brown 
Airport, Saginaw, MI; Newark Airport (for LDA with glideslope), 
NJ; Baton Rouge Regional Airport, LA; Evanston, WY; Cedar 
Rapids, IA; St. George, AK; North Las Vegas Airport, NV; St. 
Louis Lambert International Airport, MO; McComb Airport, MS; 
and Atlantic City, NJ.
    LAAS/Cedar Rapids.--The Committee recommends that, if 
certified, the FAA accept the LAAS at Cedar Rapids, IA and 
operate it at that location.

En route programs

    Technical Center Facilities.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for both laboratory improvements and for 
ongoing capital reinvestment in the technical center 
facilities.
    Independent Operational Test Support.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the relevant funding for testing and 
test support within the lines of the programs to be tested. 
Funding is more appropriately included within the program to 
properly reflect total system costs.

              air traffic control facilities and equipment

    En Route Automation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
all components of the request for En Route Automation in full 
except the Oceanic modernization request. The Committee 
recommendation is for the FAA to contract out the modernization 
and operation of the Oceanic facilities. The FAA has already 
canceled phase two of the Oceanic modernization project and FAA 
actions to reprogram fiscal year 1998 funds and to reduce the 
fiscal year 1999 budget raise questions as to the viability of 
this initiative as currently configured. Moreover, many FAA 
officials involved with the project have argued for a revision 
of the project's scope already. The Committee is encouraged by 
the quality of the current program management and is confident 
in the FAA's ability to manage the contracting out of all or 
part of this function. The justification for Oceanic for fiscal 
year 1999 indicates that a long term acquisition strategy is 
timely for this program and the Committee believes that the 
difficulties in this program in the past, and the discreet 
nature of the oceanic missions make the entire program (or a 
subset of the facilities) an ideal candidate for contracting 
out. The Committee believes that industry is supportive of this 
approach, is aware of at least three potential competitors for 
such a service, and believes that this concept can be 
implemented to Oceanic facilities incrementally or in their 
entirety. The Committee is further interested in the 
contracting out of the modernization and operation of this 
function as a potential new model for specialized air traffic 
services.
    Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD).--The Committee 
recommends $4,900,000 for Next Generation Weather Radar 
upgrades, $2,000,000 below the budget request. The FAA has the 
Committee's approval to seek contributions from the National 
Weather Service and the U.S. Air Force who share the FAA's 
interest in seeking a system modification that addresses the 
anomalous propagation problem existent in the present system.
    Air Traffic Operations Management.--The Committee 
recommendation does not include the budget request for air 
traffic operations management as the fiscal year 1999 
justification indicated that the fiscal year 1999 appropriation 
completed the initiative.
    Weather and Radar Processor (WARP).--The Committee 
recommends $5,800,000 to complete Stage 1/2 deployments under 
the WARP contract. Consideration of the balance of the request 
is deferred pending development of a timetable for integration 
of the proposed enhanced WARP capabilities with new NAS systems 
and Free Flight Phase 1.
    Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications.--The Committee 
recommends the entire request for activity 1 funding for ADL 
but the Committee does not recommend any activity 2 funding for 
ADL as the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for activity 2 was 
for the same purpose.
    ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.--The 
Committee recommends $36,900,000, the budget request level less 
the $17,100,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for the 
Honolulu CERAP. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 
2000 includes $9,600,000 for the Honolulu CERAP consistent with 
the request.
    Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS).--The Committee 
recommends $19,500,000 for the VSCS software and switch 
upgrades, $1,000,000 above the request.
    Air Traffic Management.--The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000 for this initiative as most of the activities 
funding under this heading in fiscal year 1999 have been 
reconstituted into other headings in the Facilities and 
Equipment account. The budget justification for air traffic 
management does not justify the same level of funding given 
that development.
    Critical Communications Support.--The Committee recommends 
$850,000 for critical communications support, the same level as 
fiscal year 1999. If additional requirements emerge during 
fiscal year 2000, the Committee is open to a reprogramming from 
other communication modernization accounts.
    DOD Base Closure--Facility Transfer.--The Committee 
recommends $3,300,000 for DOD Base Closure--Facility Transfer, 
$2,300,000 more than fiscal year 1999. The Committee directs 
the FAA to include a future requirement estimate in subsequent 
budget justifications. Although future estimates might increase 
or decrease with outyear closures or decisions obviating the 
need for FAA assumption of certain facilities, it would be 
helpful to the Committee to have the FAA's best assessment of 
future requirements in this area.
    Back-up Emergency Communications (BUEC).--The Committee 
recommends $1,580,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal 
year 1999.
    Air/ground Communication RFI Elimination.--The Committee 
recommends $1,700,000 for this activity, the same level as the 
budget request. The Committee is concerned, however, with the 
substantial increase in the projected outyear costs in this 
area and encourages the FAA to assess whether other 
technologies provide more cost effective solutions to this 
requirement.
    Volcano Monitor.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for 
the monitoring of volcanoes in international flight routes. The 
Committee is concerned by the lack of a budget request for this 
activity and has found suitable budget savings to make room for 
this critical safety investment.
    ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI) Replacement.--The Committee 
recommendation is for $23,000,000, an increase of $8,200,00 
over fiscal year 1999 levels. This level is sufficient to 
procure ATCBI-6 replacement interrogators for 25 facilities. 
Due to the slippages in the STARS program, this number of 
interrogators should allow the FAA to replace ATCBI at the most 
critical facilities and also move forward on those facilities 
where STARS equipment will be deployed first. The Committee is 
aware that an additional 100 facilities will require ATCBI-6 
equipment to complete the replacement program.
    ATC En Route Radar Facilities.--The Committee 
recommendation of $2,700,000 is a $1,000,000 increase over 
fiscal year 1999 appropriated levels if adjusted for proposed 
reprogramming action. The Committee directs the FAA to provide 
a future requirement estimate for this program with the fiscal 
year 2001 budget justification.
    En Route Comms and Control Facilities Improvement.--The 
Committee recommends $1,430,000 for this activity and notes 
that sustaining activities are more properly budgeted in the 
Operations account.

Terminal programs

    Terminal Doppler Weather Radar.--The Committee has provided 
$8,300,000, $1,000,000 less than the budget request. This 
reduction is possible because land acquisition problems 
continue to plague the program making deployment of a system 
impossible during fiscal year 2000.
    Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The 
Committee has provided $75,500,000 for this activity, 
$11,875,000 more than appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Of the 
funds available for this activity, $700,000 is for Phase I; 
$1,800,000 is for Phase II; $35,200,000 is available for Phase 
III; and $35,100,000 is available for Phase III. The Committee 
directs $1,000,000 for the Martin State Airport control tower; 
$500,000 for the Pangborn Memorial air traffic control tower; 
$1,000,000 for the construction of an air traffic control tower 
at Paine Field; $1,250,000 for Birmingham International 
Airport; $2,354,000 for North Las Vegas air traffic control 
tower; and $1,000,000 for a replacement tower at Billings Logan 
International Airport. Further, the Committee directs 
$1,000,000 for initial construction of a replacement tower at 
Corpus Christi and directs the FAA to explore with the city of 
Corpus Christi the financing and construction of a replacement 
FAA-designed tower and terminal radar approach control facility 
including an arrangement to acquire the facility from the city 
by 2002.
    Airport traffic control tower [ATCT]/TRACON facilities.--
The Committee recommends $21,982,726 to upgrade and improve 
various terminal facilities and equipment on a continuing basis 
to provide an acceptable level of safe service and to meet 
current and future operational requirements. The Committee 
recommendation includes $200,000 for control tower 
communications equipment upgrades at Manchester Airport, NH.
    Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR/ETVS).--The 
Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 above the budget 
request to expedite the purchase and installation of Rapid 
Deployment Voice Switches (RDVS).
    Employee Safety/OSHA and Environmental Compliance 
Standards.--The Committee recommendation includes $22,000,000, 
the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The Committee 
directs the FAA to provide greater detail in the fiscal year 
2001 budget justification for this program as well as an 
explanation of why the outyear costs estimates are escalating 
so rapidly. Further, if the agency believes additional funding 
is necessary or warranted in fiscal year 2000 and can be 
justified, the agency should submit a reprogramming request.
    Chicago Metroplex.--The Committee recommends $700,000 for 
completion of resectorization and for equipment upgrades. The 
Committee is aware of the FAA's efforts to improve radar system 
redundancies for the Chicago TRACON and Chicago O'Hare 
International Airport Traffic Control Tower during a time of 
serious budget constraints. The Committee recognizes the need 
for a reliable back up system that will help ensure controller 
efficiency and effectiveness. The Committee recommends that the 
FAA continue to work to provide a reliable back up radar 
system, acceptable for terminal separation standards, for use 
by Chicago O'Hare International Airport facilities.
    Potomac Metroplex.--The Committee recommends $5,800,000 in 
fiscal year 2000 funding for this project for Engineering, EIS/
Airspace study, program management expenses, and other costs.
    Northern California Metroplex.--The Committee recommends 
$17,500,000 for all items except budget justification activity 
task 6. Given the status of the STARS procurement, activity 
task 6 can be deferred for at least one fiscal year, and the 
Committee is skeptical whether it is necessary at all. In 
addition, the Committee is concerned by the escalation in the 
completion cost of this project which has increased by almost 
100 percent since the submission of the fiscal year 1999 
budget. The Committee is extremely concerned that the agency 
does not have a better handle on the cost to complete this 
close to the end of the project.
    Atlanta Metroplex.--The Committee recommends $7,700,000 for 
all items except budget justification activity task 3 for 
reasons similar to those mentioned for the Northern California 
Metroplex.
    NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS).--The Committee 
recommends $5,500,000 for the NAS Infrastructure Management 
System rebaselining and restructuring effort for fiscal year 
2000. This program was proposed as a substantial source for 
reprogramming in fiscal year 1999 and is currently under an 
investment analysis and rebaselining review. The Committee 
recommendation should be sufficient to complete those 
initiatives and the Committee will consider the rebaselined 
program for fiscal year 2001.
    Airport surveillance radar [ASR-9].--The Committee provides 
$5,000,000 and urges the FAA to evaluate the benefits of siting 
ASR-9 systems to serve the Eagle County Regional Airport, CO; 
the Mid-Delta Regional Airport, Greenville, MS; and Bethel, AK.
    Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-3).--The 
Committee recommends $500,000 for completion of this program as 
justified in the fiscal year 1999 budget justification. The 
Committee is open to a reprogramming if additional funding is 
required to bring the program to final completion.
    Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS).--The Committee 
recommendation provides the entire budget request for this 
program although there are significant inconsistencies between 
the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 justifications. The 
Committee believes that addressing the potential safety and 
efficiency consequences of not remedying runway incursions 
justifies a preliminary recommendation of $11,700,000. However, 
the FAA is directed to provide a report by July 1, 1999 
reconciling the cost estimates in the two justifications and 
explaining how this program complements the runway incursion 
initiatives elsewhere in this account.
    Voice Recorder Replacement Program.--The Committee 
recommends $1,200,000 for the voice recorder replacement 
program, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999 after 
adjustment for proposed reprogramming by the FAA.
    Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends 
$105,000,000 for the ASR-11 terminal radar program which is 
approximately the fiscal year 2000 budget request adjusted for 
the proposed reprogramming amount for the ASR-11 program in 
fiscal year 1999 and a reduction for site surveys that are 
unnecessary in fiscal year 2000 due to related program 
slippages. Clearly, the difficulties that the FAA has had with 
the STARS procurement translate into program flexibility for 
the ASR-11 procurement, but the Committee is concerned that the 
program not become a source for slippages in other accounts. 
The need to modernize terminal radars is too important to 
compress the required funding stream any more than the current 
program architecture envisions. The Committee acknowledges the 
report from the FAA regarding surveys and cost effectiveness of 
several proposed radar sites and encourages the FAA to redeploy 
replaced radars at some of the facilities that cannot justify 
an ASR-11 deployment on a cost effectiveness basis. In 
addition, the Committee requests that the FAA provide a 
recommendation for the most cost effective permanent radar 
solution for central Oregon (Deschutes and Jefferson Counties); 
the mountainous region between Butte, Helena, and Bozeman, MT; 
and Provo and Salt Lake City International Airport in Salt Lake 
City, UT. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to explore 
the acquisition of an ATCBI-5 radar at Keahole-Kona 
International Airport pending the ASR-11 survey and design work 
for that airport. Further, the FAA report on the cost 
effectiveness of a site noted in last year's report assessed 
the cost effectiveness of siting an ASR-11 at Provo. The 
Committee directs the analysis to be reevaluated with the 
awareness that such a siting of an ASR-11 would be of primary 
benefit to air traffic to Salt Lake City International Airport 
with complementary secondary benefits to Provo.
    DOD/FAA ATC Facilities Transfer.--The Committee recommends 
$1,600,000 for this activity, a $600,000 increase over fiscal 
year 1999. This funding is sufficient to assure the 
continuation of operations for Ft. Sill Army Radar operations 
and for the assumption of air traffic services currently being 
provided by the military at Minot AFB, ND and to complete the 
transfer of approach control services from Patrick AFB, FL.

Flight service programs

    Automated surface observing system [ASOS].--The 
administration requested $8,080,000 for ASOS. The Committee has 
provided $9,900,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 
1999. The Committee encourages the FAA to continue 
commissioning systems procured through fiscal year 1998 and for 
related program management costs. The Committee continues to be 
concerned that the FAA has not adequately funded the program 
for several years. Adequate funding was not provided for 
connectivity lines, controller equipment, or operation and 
maintenance funds. That oversight has left the FAA short of 
assets to fund ASOS systems for nontowered airports. The FAA, 
the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], and user 
aviation associations have identified over 200 sites which 
should be equipped with ASOS. In particular, the Committee 
urges consideration of expediting the installation and 
commissioning of the ASOS system for Caledonia County State 
Airport, VT and Henderson Executive Airport, NV.
    Oasis.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Oasis 
program which the Committee understands may again be facing 
delays. The Committee is aware of the difficulty the FAA has 
had with the prototype systems and directs the agency not to 
obligate any additional appropriated funds until such time as 
the Department of Transportation and the program office have 
conducted a review of the procurement and program requirements 
to assess the viability of the current program structure. 
Further, the Committee expects the FAA to use appropriated 
funds to conduct necessary stopgap work on the existing systems 
and expects adequate staffing levels to be maintained until 
such time as Oasis is a viable replacement program.
    Flight Service Facilities Improvement.--The Committee 
recommends $1,364,400, the same level appropriated in fiscal 
year 1999.

Landing and navigational aids programs

    Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--The Committee 
recommends a reduction in this account consistent with the 
treatment of this program elsewhere in this account.
    Navigational and landing aids.--The Committee recommends 
$6,400,000 for this activity. The additional increase in the 
funding level over the fiscal year 1999 level is for continued 
development work on a low cost next generation precision 
gyroscope utilizing silicon manufacturing technologies. In this 
development effort, the Committee directs the FAA to continue 
to work with the involved institutions to facilitate the 
expedited development of a lower cost gyroscope for application 
in navigation systems. The reduction from the budget request 
can be accommodated in task 13. The Committee directs the FAA 
to give priority consideration to the St. Louis-Lambert 
International Airport for navigational aids related to the 
expansion project for which the FAA has issued an LOI. This may 
be handled by the signing of a reimbursable agreement between 
the FAA and St. Louis Lambert International Airport.
    Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP).--The 
Committee recommends $5,700,000 for this navigational and 
landings aids, $3,000,000 over the budget request and $700,000 
over the fiscal year 1999 level. The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for the installation of ALSF-2 systems at Salt 
Lake City International Airport and LaCrosse Municipal Airport, 
to make lighting improvements at McCarran International 
Airport, and to initiate a survey of lighting improvements 
necessary at Harrisburg International Airport, and for an 
assessment of airfield lighting requirements in rural Alaska.
    Distance Measuring Equipment.--The Committee recommends 
$1,200,000 for the procurement and installation of DME systems. 
The recommendation includes funding for the relocation and 
upgrade of the DME at Las Vegas.
    Visual Navaids.--The Committee recommends $3,500,000 and 
has aggregated the Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) 
line and the visual navaid line. The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for the procurement and installation of 
Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI's) as well as Runway 
End Identification Lights (REIL's), and specifically for the 
installation of PAPI on runways 4L and 4R at Newark Airport.
    GPS Aeronautical Band.--The Committee recommendation 
provides no funding for this line consistent with the treatment 
of WAAS and Next Generation Navigational Systems elsewhere in 
this account. Until the WAAS program has been restructured and 
rebaselined, it is premature for an effort of this magnitude.

Other ATC facilities programs

    Air Navaids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects).--The 
Committee recommendation provides the full budget request level 
for this program, but directs the FAA to budget for this as an 
operations and maintenance item in the future.
    Aircraft Related Equipment Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,840,000 for activity tasks 1, 4, and 
6.
    Computer Aided Engineering Graphics (CAEG) Replacement.--
The Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000, an increase 
of $2,000,000 over fiscal year 1999 for the replacement and 
modernization of the computer aided engineering and graphics 
modules.
    Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustain.--The Committee 
recommendation does not provide the requested $1,000,000 
without prejudice. The Committee would favorably consider a 
reprogramming request for this project from an appropriate 
facilities or communications program.

Nonair traffic control facilities and equipment

    NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP).--The Committee 
recommends $800,000, the same level as appropriated in fiscal 
year 1999.
    Hazardous Materials Management.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the full budget request for the cleanup 
and management of FAA facilities with hazardous materials 
issues. The Committee directs the FAA to present a listing of 
anticipated projects for both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 
2001 with the fiscal year 2001 budget justification.
    Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $11,600,000, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for Phase 1 of the Airport/Air Carrier 
Information Reporting System (AAIRS) and the Operations 
Specifications Subsystem (OPSS) at a minimum. The Committee 
directs the FAA to provide a greater breakout of individual 
initiative cost and benefits with the fiscal year 2001 budget 
justification and to provide a report by November 1, 1999 of 
the positions that can be eliminated due to the efficiencies 
generated by ASAS modernization of data tracking.
    Logistics Support System and Facilities.--The Committee 
provides $2,300,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 
1999.
    Integrated Flight Quality Assurance.--The Committee 
provides $4,000,000 for completion of a virtual data pool 
development and initiate the development of data sharing 
protocols, $1,000,000 more than appropriated in fiscal year 
1999.
    Safety Performance Analysis Subsystem (SPAS).--The 
Committee recommendation provides $3,500,000, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
    National Aviation Safety Data Center.--The Committee 
recommendation provides the entire $1,500,000 requested for the 
new data management equipment, but requests a report from the 
FAA describing the system to be procured before obligation of 
the funding.
    Performance Enhancement System.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $2,000,000 for this program that is to 
integrate data into the OASIS system. The Committee is open to 
an appeal on this item if the FAA can justify the resources 
given the current status of the OASIS program.
    Explosive Detection Systems.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $100,000,000 for this program, the same level 
appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
    Facility Security Risk Management.--The Committee 
recommendation provides the entire budget request for this 
program. The Committee directs the FAA to provide more detail 
on activity tasks 8, 9, and 10 to the Subcommittee by July 1, 
1999.
    Information Security.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $4,000,000 for this program, the same level as fiscal 
year 1999.
    NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM).--The Committee 
recommendation includes the entire budget request and directs 
the FAA to evaluate the potential for ultra wide bandwidth 
technology as part of the replacement of outdated radio 
equipment. The FAA is directed to report to the Committee on 
the relative merits of the technologies under consideration by 
August 1, 1999.

Training, equipment, and facilities

    The Committee recommendation includes no funding for the 
budget request items in this area without prejudice. The 
projects requested in this area can be deferred without 
compromising efficiency, safety, or operational proficiency.

Mission support

    System Engineering and Development Support.--The Committee 
recommendation provides a 6 percent cost escalation in system 
engineering technical assistance prime contractor services cost 
over fiscal year 1999 rates, which translates to a program 
level of $22,200,000 for fiscal year 2000 based on the 
utilization rates in the justification.
    In-plant NAS Contract Support Service.--The Committee 
recommendation provides the full budget request for NAS 
Contract Support Services. The Committee directs the FAA to 
provide a program by program breakout of the contract costs 
associated with the application of this program.
    Transition Engineering Support.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $38,700,000 for this contract service 
program, a slightly greater than 6 percent escalation in staff 
year costs over fiscal year 1999 levels.
    FAA Corporate System Architecture.--The Committee 
recommendation provides the full budget request with the 
exception of activity task 5.
    Technical Services Support Contract (TSSC).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $47,143,000.
    Resource Tracking Program.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $1,000,000, a doubling of the fiscal year 1999 
appropriated level.
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Dev. (MITRE).--The 
Committee recommendation provides $60,100,000, half the 
requested increase in MITRE services and roughly a 6 percent 
growth over fiscal year 1999 levels.

                        major equipment activity


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


              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.............  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.....................  September 1999.......  December 1999.
Louisville....................  August 1998..........  May 1999.
Reagan Washington National....  February 1996........  November 1999.
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...........  May 1999.
Las Vegas \4\.................  March 1999...........  December 1999.
New York-LaGuardia............  June 1999............  December 1999.
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\ Assets redirected from Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Orlando, Orange
  County.

                Terminal air traffic control facilities

    Funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in 
previous years:
  St. Louis (TRACON), MO
  Portland, OR
  Houston (Hobby), TX
  Chicago (O'Hare), IL
  Chicago (Midway), IL
  Pontiac, MI
  Albany, NY
  Birmingham, AL
  Little Rock, AR
  North Las Vegas, NV
  St. Louis (ATCT), MO
  Louisville (Standiford Field), KY
  Worchester, MA
  Covington, KY
  Newark, NJ
  Grand Canyon, AZ
  Seattle (ATCT), WA
  LaGuardia, NY
    Phase III for terminal air traffic control facilities started in 
fiscal year 1998 and before:
  Boston, MA
  Roanoke, VA
  Port Columbus, OH
    Phase II funding for terminal air traffic control facilities 
started in fiscal year 1999 and before:
  Atlanta, GA
  
    Phase I funding for terminal air traffic control facilities to be 
replaced in fiscal year 2000:
  Swanton, OH
  

Personnel and related expenses

    Personnel and Related Expenses.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $274,566,000, disallowing the requested 
increases in the base for travel, other objects, and selected 
portions of the requested PC&B increase. Other reductions were 
taken based on inconsistencies between the President's request 
and Committee recommended levels resulting in a recommended 
level 9 percent above fiscal year 1999 appropriated levels.

                         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, 1999 \1\................................    $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     173,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

\1\ Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.

    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 encourages the FAA to provide slightly 
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 provide cost breakouts for 
the individual initiatives within each budget item.
    The bill includes $150,000,000 for research, engineering, 
and development. The Committee suggests the following 
allocation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal Year      Fiscal Year       Committee
                         Program Name                            1999 Enacted    2000 Estimate    Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure:
    System planning & resource management....................       $1,164,000       $1,294,000       $1,164,000
    Technical laboratory facility............................        9,730,000       11,075,000       11,075,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development..........        4,890,000        4,900,000        4,900,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.............................................       15,784,000       17,269,000       17,139,000
                                                              ==================================================
Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology:
    Safe Flight 21...........................................  ...............       16,000,000  ...............
    Winglet efficiency/wake vortex...........................  ...............  ...............        4,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................  ...............       16,000,000        4,000,000
                                                              ==================================================
Weather:
    Hazardous weather program................................       15,084,000       12,665,000       13,665,000
    Juneau, AK...............................................        3,600,000        3,100,000        3,100,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................       18,684,000       15,765,000       16,765,000
                                                              ==================================================
Aircraft Safety Technology:
    Aircraft systems fire safety.............................        4,750,000        5,528,000        4,750,000
    Advanced materials/structural safety.....................        1,734,000        2,338,000        2,338,000
    Propulsion and fuel systems..............................        2,831,000        3,126,000        3,126,000
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research...............        2,619,000        3,844,000        3,844,000
    Aging aircraft...........................................       14,694,000       15,998,000       18,094,000
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research........        1,787,000        1,981,000        1,981,000
    Aviation safety risk analysis............................        6,471,000        6,824,000        6,824,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................       34,886,000       39,639,000       40,957,000
                                                              ==================================================
System Security Technology:
    Explosives and weapons detection.........................       41,700,000       40,676,000       37,500,000
    Airport security technology integration..................        2,708,000        2,285,000        2,285,000
    Aviation security human factors..........................        5,282,000        5,256,000        5,256,000
    Aircraft hardening.......................................        2,000,000        5,001,000        2,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................       51,690,000       53,218,000       47,041,000
                                                              ==================================================
Human Factors & Aviation Medicine:
    Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors.       11,000,000       10,142,000        9,142,000
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors......       10,000,000       11,236,000        8,000,000
    Aeromedical research.....................................        4,065,000        4,829,000        3,065,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................       25,065,000       26,207,000       20,207,000
                                                              ==================================================
Environment and Energy.......................................        2,891,000        3,481,000        2,891,000
Innovative/Cooperative Research..............................        1,000,000        1,421,000        1,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation....................................      150,000,000      173,000,000      150,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The objectives of and Committee recommendations for the 8 
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 1999.
    FAA technical laboratory facility.--The administration's 
request was $11,075,000 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 Advance 
Aviation System Development within the Facilities and Equipment 
appropriation.

             capacity and air traffic management technology

    Objectives: To ensure that air traffic management 
operations safety is maintained and then improved, to increase 
system capacity and utilization of existing airspace and 
airport resources, and to accommodate greater user flexibility 
and efficiency.
    Safe Flight 21.--The Committee recommendation includes the 
appropriation for this activity within the appropriation for 
Free Flight Phase 1.
    Winglet efficiency/wake vortex.--The Committee recommends 
$4,000,000 for research, prototyping, and flight testing into 
this technology that reduces fuel consumption and reduces the 
severity of wake vortex creation potentially allowing more 
efficient spacing of aircraft.

                                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.
    Hazardous weather program/Socrates.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,300,000 for continued research and 
testing into possible applications of the Socrates technology. 
The funding will permit progress to be made toward testing and 
evaluating a Socrates eight-beam system. In addition, the 
recommended level includes $500,000 toward the initial proof of 
concept, and design and development work of an Ice Monitoring 
and Detection (IMADS) system based on passive polarization 
technology.

                       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. To 
support the continuation of that partnership, the Committee 
recommendation includes more than $3,000,000 for support of 
AANC, $2,800,000 for CASR, $4,200,000 for the Engine Titanium 
Consortium, and substantial other funds to support the efforts 
of the Air Assurance Center of Excellence.
    Aircraft systems fire safety.--The Committee recommends 
$4,750,000 for this budget item, the same level appropriated in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Aging aircraft.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$18,094,000, for aging aircraft research. The Committee 
recommendation includes direct support of more than $3,000,000 
for the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Validation Center which 
is substantially below the activity level in fiscal year 1998 
and slightly less than $3,000,000 for activities at the Center 
for Aviation System Reliability.
    Aviation Safety Risk Analysis.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $6,824,000, the same level as requested 
by the administration.

                       system security technology

    Objectives: To enhance the security of passengers and crews 
in all aspects of aircraft, airports, and related ATC 
facilities by developing systems that prevent or deter 
terrorist activities.
    Explosives and weapons detection.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $37,500,000. This level recognizes the 
need to continue to pursue emerging technologies as well as the 
availability of a second certified explosive detection system. 
The Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 
for the Safe Skies initiative to accelerate research and 
development of explosives and biological agents being conducted 
by the Institute of Biological Detection Systems and $5,000,000 
into Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis technologies.
    Aircraft hardening.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$2,000,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
    Airport Security Human Factors.--The Committee provides the 
full request for airport security human factors and underscores 
the importance of this work to the integrity of the entire 
security effort. Screeners, who operate the equipment in 
airports, are absolutely critical in providing effective 
airport security. Technology, while critical, is only optimally 
effective if operated properly. Work on the selection and 
training of screeners as well as systemic data analysis of 
performance is critical to fielding systems that can address 
the threat.

                  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.
    Human Factors & Aviation Medicine.--During hearings for 
fiscal year 2000 FAA appropriations, the Committee submitted a 
question related to whether there was any scientific or medical 
reason why the United States should not ``cautiously increase 
the retirement age to age 63'' like other countries have for 
commercial aviation. The text of the question follows:

          The Age 60 Rule was instituted in 1959 without the 
        benefit of medical or scientific studies and without 
        public comment. The EEOC has essentially eliminated age 
        discrimination rules in all facets of commercial 
        aviation with the exception of FAR Part 121 and Part 
        135 carriers. Other countries--Great Britain, Germany, 
        France, Austrailia, etc.--have modified their age 60 
        restrictions. Japan began a study on the age sixty 
        issue and discontinued it after finding no safety or 
        operational reasons to maintain age 60 as a mandatory 
        retirement age. The most recent pilot aging study was 
        the Hilton Systems Technical Report 8025 (known 
        generally as the Hilton Study) undertaken by Lehigh 
        University and Hilton Systems, Inc to ``conduct 
        statistical analysis on historical data to investigate 
        the relationship between pilot age and accident 
        rates.'' The report concluded: ``we saw no hint of an 
        increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air 
        carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.'' In spite 
        of this study, the Age 60 Rule not only remains in 
        effect, it was expanded in 1995 to include Part 135 
        pilots in spite of no record of any age-related 
        accidents or incidents in the affected pilot group. 
        Clearly, the United States seems to be moving against 
        the international aviation community and contrary to 
        our own national trends on age discrimination rules. 
        Can you provide any medical or scientific reason why 
        the United States should not follow the findings of the 
        Hilton Study and ``cautiously increase the retirement 
        age to age 63?''

    The answer from the FAA indicated that, ``While science 
does not dictate the age of 60, that age is within the age 
range during which sharp increases in disease mortality and 
morbidity occur.'' and `` * * * In late 1990, FAA initiated its 
most recent study of the issue, aimed at consolidating 
available accident data and correlating it with the amount of 
flying by pilots as a function of age. This resulted in the 
March 1993 Hilton study report, `Age 60 Project, Consolidated 
Database Experiments, Final Report', which found `no hint of an 
increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers 
as they neared their 60th birthday'' but noted that there were 
no data available on scheduled air carrier pilots beyond age 
60.'' The Committee directs the FAA to conduct a survey of all 
available non-scheduled commercial (and non-commercial, if 
available) data concerning the relative accident data 
correlated with the amount of flying by pilots as a function of 
their age for pilots of age 60-63 and comparing it with all 
four year groupings of scheduled commercial pilots (and non-
commercial pilots, if available) declining from age 60, i.e., 
56-59, 55-58, 54-57, * * * to 21-24. etc. In addition, compare 
the discernable groups in their entirety and track accident 
frequency as a function of age. The Committee directs the FAA 
to deliver this report no later than January 1, 2000. No more 
than half the funds appropriated in the Human Factors and 
Aviation Medicine program may be obligated for other than this 
initiative until delivery of the report.
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The 
Committee recommends $8,000,000.
    Aeromedical research.--The Committee recommends $3,065,000.
    Environment and Energy.--The Committee recommends 
$2,891,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
    Innovative/Cooperative Research.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for innovative and cooperative research, the same 
level appropriated in fiscal year 1999.

                         environment and energy

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

                         strategic partnerships

    Objectives: To maximize the total effectiveness of 
research, engineering, and development by incorporating the 
efforts of other Government agencies, the industry, and 
universities. The Committee recommends $1,000,000, the same 
level appropriated in fiscal year 1999.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,750,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,750,000,000

    The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 
authorizes a program of grants to fund airport planning and 
development and noise compatibility planning and projects for 
public use airports in all States and territories.
    The Committee recommends $1,750,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the 
Committee's obligation limitation on airport programs for 
fiscal year 2000 for the reported Senate reauthorization 
proposal, and for the payment of previous years' obligations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Obligation limitation, 1999.............................($1,950,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (1,600,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (2,000,000,000)

    The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2000 
for grants-in-aid to airports is $2,000,000,000 and is intended 
to be sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing 
airport safety, ensuring that airport standards can be met, 
maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing 
additional capacity.
    The Airport Improvement program for fiscal year 2000 is not 
yet authorized. For fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated an 
obligation limitation of $1,950,000,000. This represents the 
highest appropriated level in history, and when combined with 
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) receipts at applicable airport 
in excess of $1,600,000,000, total resources available for 
airport improvement and investment should have topped 
$2,550,000,000. Unfortunately, the Airport Improvement Program 
has been the subject of three legislative extensions and will 
terminate on August 6, 1999 unless the program is reauthorized 
or extended a fourth time for the remaining 55 days of the 
year. Clearly, small airports have had a difficult time bidding 
airport improvement projects in fiscal year 1999 due to the 
uncertain status of the federal program.
    The Committee recommendation establishes a new program 
level for fiscal year 2000 of $2,000,000,000 and rescinds the 
inapplicable obligation limitation for the unauthorized 
program. The Committee is committed to restructuring the 
program consistent with a reauthorization program, if 
reauthorization is completed prior to enactment of the fiscal 
year 2000 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
bill.
    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, 1999, 302 airports have been approved for 
collection of PFC's in the amount of $23,100,000,000. During 
calendar year 1998 it is estimated that airports collected 
$1,444,000,000 in PFC charges and $1,469,000,000 is estimated 
to be collected in calendar year 1999. 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. DOT estimates 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. The administration 
has proposed to raise the statutory cap on the maximum PFC that 
may be charged.
    It is interesting to note the trends in where airport 
investment dollars are flowing. Of the PFC revenue streams 
approved from 1992-98, 26 percent of the total resources have 
been committed to specifically airside projects, while 40 
percent have been committed specifically to landside projects. 
When AIP program funds are included, the mix moves to 36 
percent for landside projects and 41 percent for airside 
projects. Accordingly, the limited experience with PFC projects 
when balanced with AIP program funds tend to strike a rough 
balance between the two broad categories of projects. As our 
airport infrastructure matures, the Committee expects that both 
airside and landside capacity enhancements will become 
increasingly expensive and the marginal cost benefit of 
purchasing increased capacity will in all likelihood decline. 
Clearly, we must be more and more focused on which airport 
infrastructure investments to make to maximize system capacity 
and to ensure air connectivity for the entire project. In the 
absence of a reauthorized airport program, the Committee has 
attempted to address those two priorities in the recommendation 
and would anticipate airport investment overall to continue to 
grow with PFC airports gradually increasing their investment in 
airside projects.

                            airport programs

    The Committee has carefully considered a broad array of 
discretionary grant requests that can be expected in fiscal 
year 2000. 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:

Brookhaven-Lincoln County Airport, MS
Aberdeen Regional Airport, SD
Abilene Regional Airport, TX
Anaconda Airport, MT
Anchorage International Airport, AK
Bangor International Airport, ME
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport/Ryan Field, LA
Birmingham International Airport, AL
Bishop Airport, MI
Boeing Field/King County International Airport, WA
Brewton Airport, AL
Burlington International Airport, VT
Butler County Airport, PA
Caledonia Airport, VT
Cherry Capital Airport, MI
Chignik Lagoon Airport, AK
Chippewa County International Airport, MI
City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, CO
Clarks Point Airport, AK
Dane County Regional Airport, WI
DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, GA
Delta County Airport, MI
Dickinson Municpal Airport, ND
Dothan Airport, AL
Erie International Airport, PA
Eufuala Airport, AL
Fairbanks, International Airport, AK
Felts Field Airport, WA
Ford Airport, MI
Forks Airport, WA
Glacier Park International Airport, MT
Golden Triangle Regional Airport, MS
Governor's Regional Airport, GA
Great Falls International Airport, MT
Grosse Ile Municipal Airport, MI
Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport, MS
Gwinnett County Airport, GA
Halifax Regional Airport, NC
Hamilton/Marion County Airport, AL
Harnett County Airport, NC
Hattiesburg-Laurel Regional Airport, MS
Hawkins Field Airport, MS
Helena Regional Airport, MT
Herber City Municiple Airport, UT
Holy Cross Airport, AK
Houghton County Memorial Airport, MI
Huntsville International Airport/Jones Field, AL
Indiana County/Jimmy Stewart Airport, PA
Jackson International Airport, MS
James M Cox Dayton International Airport, OH
Johnston International Airport, NC
Juneau International Airport, AK
Kotzebue Airport, AK
Kent County International Airport, MI
Key Field Airport, MS
Lancaster Airport, PA
Las Cruces Municipal Airport, NM
Lea County Airport, NM
Lehigh Valley International Airport, PA
Lenawee County Airport, MI
Logan-Cache Airport, UT
Louisiana Regional Airport, LA
Madison County Airport, AL
Mammoth Lakes Airport, CA
Manistee County Blacker Airport, MI
March AFB Airport, CA
McGrath Airport, AK
Miami International Airport, FL
Mingo County Airport, WV
Mobile Regional Airport, AL
Monroe Municipal Airport, LA
Montgomery Regional Airport/Dannelly Field, AL
Moorehead City Airport, MN
New Orleans International Airport, LA
Nome Airport, AK
Northwest Alabama Regional Airport, AL
Oakland-Pontiac Airport, MI
Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT
Olive Branch Airport, MS
Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS
Atka Airport, AK
Pittsburgh International Airport, PA
Provo Municipal Airport, UT
Pryor Field Airport, AL
Reading Municipal, General Carl A Spaatz Field, PA
Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV
Richard B. Russell Field, GA
Rickenbacker International Airport, OH
Russellville Municipal Airport, AL
Russian Mission Airport, AK
Salt Lake City International Airport, UT
Sawyer Airport, MI
Shelby County Airport, AL
Sheldon Point Airport, AK
Spokane International Airport, WA
Springfield/Branson Regional Airport, MO
Statesboro County Airport, GA
Stennis International Airport, MS
Tishomingo County Airport, MS
Tooele Valley Airport, UT
Tulip City Airport, MI
Tunica Municipal Airport, MS
Waynesboro Municipal Airport, MS
Wendover Airport, UT
Westmoreland County Airport, PA
Whitefield Airport, NH
Wilkes County Airport, NC
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, PA
Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, PA

                           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.
    The Committee appreciates the complexity of assessing a 
project's impact on systemwide capacity but believes that FAA 
should do its best in this regard before committing future AIP 
funds under a LOI.
    The Committee in the past was concerned that FAA had not 
exercised sufficient control over the use of LOI's. 
Accordingly, to maintain program integrity and ensure LOI 
commitments are met, the Committee repeats its recommendation, 
as Congress reauthorizes this program, that FAA be granted the 
authority to award new LOI's only after scheduled and 
recommended LOI payments fall to less than 50 percent of AIP 
discretionary funds.
    Current letters of intent assume the following fiscal year 
2000 grant allocations:

Alaska: Anchorage Internationl..........................      $4,950,000
Arkansas: Fayetteville (northwest Arkansas).............       7,000,000
California: Sacramento Metro............................       1,600,000
Florida:
    Fort Myers Southwest Florida international..........       2,000,000
    Orlando International...............................       6,343,000
Georgia: Hartsfield Atlanta International...............       8,363,000
Illinois:
    Mid-America, Belleville reliever....................      14,000,000
    Chicago Midway......................................       8,000,000
Kentucky:
    Greater Cincinnati..................................       5,000,000
    Louisville..........................................       3,525,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan..........................      16,640,000
Mississippi: Golden Triangle............................          34,000
Missouri: St. Louis Lambert International...............      13,813,000
Nevada:
    Reno/Tahoe International............................       7,600,000
    Las Vegas-Henderson Sky Harbor......................       2,540,000
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State...................       6,528,000
South Carolina: Hilton Head.............................         383,000
Tennessee: Memphis International........................       6,800,000
Texas:
    New Austin at Bergstrom.............................       6,430,000
    Midland.............................................       1,327,000
Utah: Salt Lake City International......................       9,000,000
Virginia: Reagan Washington National....................      12,643,000
Washington: Seattle-Tacoma International................      11,600,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     156,119,000

    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.
    Orlando International Airport, FL.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to 
the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority's application for a 
letter of intent for construction of a north crossfield taxiway 
connecting the two west runways (18L/36R and 18R/36L) with the 
existing east runway. The Committee is informed that 
substantial safety and capacity benefits will accrue from the 
completion of this project.
    Unauthorized use of airport lands.--The Committee is 
concerned about the recent findings of the General Accounting 
Office that lands acquired for airport purposes through Federal 
grants or the Federal Surplus Property Act have been used for 
other purposes in violation of grant and transfer because of 
FAA's nominal on-site monitoring efforts and over reliance on 
self certifications of compliance by airports. Some of the 
latter were found to be fallacious and there was inconsistent 
application of FAA's own enforcement guidelines across FAA 
field offices, according to the GAO. As a result, the actual 
scope of the problem remains unknown.
    Accordingly, within 6 months from the passage of this Act, 
the Committee directs the FAA to conduct an on-site survey of 
all airports with lands acquired through grants or surplus 
property transfers and report to the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committee on the survey results including, the 
scope of unauthorized land use changes, the proposed 
enforcement and corrective actions, and changes made to FAA's 
guidelines for use by FAA field offices to assure more 
consistent and complete monitoring and enforcement. After the 
initial report, the FAA shall include with its annual budget 
submissions a status report on both enforcement and corrective 
actions taken, and the number and types of airports to be 
surveyed in the ensuing fiscal year, including the number of on 
site surveys, for each field or regional office responsible.
    Max Westheimer Airport.--The Committee is aware of the 
Norman, Oklahoma community's interest in putting the property 
located at the Max Westheimer Airport into productive aviation-
related, academic and other uses. The Committee urges the FAA 
to work with the local community to achieve a solution that is 
mutually beneficial to all involved interests.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The principal missions of the Federal Highway 
Administration are: administration, in cooperation with the 
States, of the Federal-aid highway program; regulation and 
enforcement of Federal requirements relating to the safety of 
operation and equipment of commercial motor carriers engaged in 
interstate or foreign commerce; and governance of the safety in 
movement over the Nation's highways of dangerous cargoes such 
as explosives, flammables, and other hazardous materials.
    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $28,883,455,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2000. The 
following table summarizes the fiscal year 1999 program levels, 
the fiscal year 2000 program request and the Committee's 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                             Program                               1999 program     2000 budget   recommendation
                                                                       level         estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appalachian development highway system \1\......................        132,000   ..............  ..............
Federal-aid highways limitation \2\.............................     25,511,000      27,312,230      27,701,350
    Limitation on administrative expenses \3\...................       (327,413)       (344,616)       (370,000)
        Office of Motor Carrier Administrative expenses \4\.....        (53,375)        (55,418)        (55,418)
Exempt Federal-aid obligations..................................      1,424,047       1,132,000       1,132,000
Emergency relief supplemental obligations.......................        115,965   ..............  ..............
Miscellaneous appropriations \5\................................        200,000   ..............  ..............
Motor carrier safety............................................        100,000         105,000         105,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     27,483,012      28,549,230      28,883,455
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2000, TEA21 provides $450,000,000 contract authority for ADHS within Federal-aid highways.
\2\ Includes Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program.
\3\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277.
\4\ Included within limitation on administrative expenses. Does not reflect administrations May 1999 budget
  amendment proposing $50,000,000 increase for Office of Motor Carriers.
\5\ Includes $100,000,000 each for Massachusetts and Arkansas.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................  ($327,413,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   (344,616,000)
Committee recommendation \2\............................   (370,000,000)

\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 
105-277.

    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 following table reflects the fiscal year 1999 level, 
the level requested by the administration, and the Committee's 
recommendation:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--
                             ----------------------------    Committee
           Program                           2000 budget  recommendation
                               1999 level     estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses
 (except OMC):
    Salaries and benefits...       192,091       200,979        224,363
    Travel..................         9,473         9,473          9,473
    Transportation..........           656           663            663
    GSA rent................        17,922        20,275         20,275
    Communications, rent,            9,369         9,465          9,465
     and utilities..........
    Printing................         1,609         1,609          1,609
    TASC....................        18,880        19,054         19,054
    Supplies................         2,079         2,079          2,079
    Equipment...............         3,862         4,362          4,362
    Other...................        18,097        21,239         21,239
    TASC reduction..........        -2,646  ............  ..............
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............       271,392       289,198        312,582
                             ===========================================
Motor carrier safety
 administrative expenses:
    Salaries and benefits...        41,610        43,052         45,052
    Travel..................         3,480         3,480          3,480
    Transportation..........           110           111            111
    Communications, rent,              395           399            399
     and utilities..........
    Printing................           558           564            564
    Other services..........         5,140         5,730          5,730
    Supplies................           275           275            275
    Equipment...............         1,807         1,807          1,807
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............        53,375        55,418         57,418
                             ===========================================
      Total.................       324,767       344,616        370,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$370,000,000 for this appropriation. The Committee has also 
included language to require the FHWA to provide $29,000,000 
for critical highway safety initiatives and audits and 
investigation of highway programs. Accordingly, because of this 
provision, the Committee provides the FHWA the flexibility to 
allocate the committee recommendation among such expenses as 
ADP, permanent change of station, travel, transportation, and 
nonmandatory bonuses and incentives.
    This spending is manageable within the LAE due to the 
recommended increase in the account and the elimination of 
$10,000,000 in one time costs in fiscal year 1999 that do not 
carry to fiscal year 2000. In addition, the Administration 
budget request presents administrative expenses in excess of 
$26,000,000 below the Committee recommended level. The 
Committee expects the FHWA to focus on program delivery, 
initiate development effort on the new community/federal 
information partnership program in the last quarter of fiscal 
year 2000 from funding within the base, restrain travel, 
printing, training, and resist an increase in rent for the 
NASSIF facility unless substantial improvements are made to the 
facility by the landlord. Such actions will allow the FHWA more 
than adequate resources to fund all ingrade increases, all 
mandatory and requested non-mandatory pay increases, 
establishment of an office of intermodalism within Federal 
Highways, and remaining non-salary administrative costs if 
those initiatives remain priorities.
    Motor carrier operations.--The Committee recommends 
$57,418,000 for motor carrier operations. This recommendation 
includes a $2,000,0000 transfer from LAE for investigations and 
audits and does not include any funding for a truck and bus 
safety summit outside the Washington, DC area.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1999

                                                         $24,000,000,000

Budget estimate, 2000

                                                          26,000,000,000
Committee recommendation
                                                          26,300,000,000

    This activity comprises the majority of all federally aided 
programs through which the States are financially and 
technically aided to continue a national highway system that 
meets the transportation needs of the Nation in terms of 
capacity and safety.
    All programs included within the Federal-aid account are 
financed from the highway trust fund. Authorizations in the 
form of contract authority are enacted in substantive 
legislation. These authorizations are apportioned and/or 
allocated to the States and generally remain available for 
obligation over a 4-year period. Liquidating cash 
appropriations are subsequently requested to fund outlays 
resulting from obligations incurred under contract authority.
    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $26,300,000,000 for the Federal-aid highways program.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (Limitation on Obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1999 \1\

                                                       ($25,511,000,000)

Budget estimate, 2000

                                                        (27,312,230,000)

Committee recommendation

                                                        (27,701,350,000)

\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 
105-277.

    The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of 
$27,701,350,000 for the Federal-aid highway program for fiscal 
year 2000.
    The following table shows the estimated amount each State 
will receive in total Federal-aid highway funds for fiscal year 
2000:

Federal-aid highway funds

                        [In thousands of dollars]

        STATES                                                    AMOUNT

Alabama.................................................         514,148
Alaska..................................................         308,181
Arizona.................................................         415,724
Arkansas................................................         337,191
California..............................................       2,318,987
Colorado................................................         294,973
Connecticut.............................................         386,713
Delaware................................................         111,905
Dist. of Columbia.......................................          98,768
Florida.................................................       1,187,961
Georgia.................................................         916,932
Hawaii..................................................         130,803
Idaho...................................................         196,204
Illinois................................................         849,160
Indiana.................................................         639,812
Iowa....................................................         301,714
Kansas..................................................         293,256
Kentucky................................................         438,683
Louisiana...............................................         428,329
Maine...................................................         134,457
Maryland................................................         399,519
Massachusetts...........................................         472,512
Michigan................................................         816,991
Minnesota...............................................         376,788
Mississippi.............................................         306,799
Missouri................................................         619,870
Montana.................................................         253,611
Nebraska................................................         195,078
Nevada..................................................         184,033
New Hampshire...........................................         131,019
New Jersey..............................................         649,202
New Mexico..............................................         250,273
New York................................................       1,301,042
North Carolina..........................................         717,748
North Dakota............................................         165,608
Ohio....................................................         939,002
Oklahoma................................................         390,514
Oregon..................................................         311,359
Pennsylvania............................................       1,269,827
Rhode Island............................................         152,168
South Carolina..........................................         407,639
South Dakota............................................         184,310
Tennessee...............................................         581,687
Texas...................................................       1,918,601
Utah....................................................         197,066
Vermont.................................................         115,318
Virginia................................................         648,737
Washington..............................................         457,851
West Virginia...........................................         283,603
Wisconsin...............................................         505,118
Wyoming.................................................         176,411
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      25,683,211
Territories.............................................           5,748
Allocation Reserve......................................       2,651,391
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      28,340,350

                Transportation Research and Development

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

    Within the $27,312,230,000 obligation limitation that the 
Administration proposed that not more than $641,450,000 be made 
available for transportation research programs, including the 
surface transportation program, technology deployment program, 
training and education, intelligent transportation systems, 
university transportation research, and MAGLEV; $31,000,000 for 
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics; and $20,000,000 for 
the advanced vehicles technologies program. The Committee 
recommends a total limitation of $391,450,000 on research and 
development activities. These funds shall be distributed as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget         Committee
                                          estimate, 2000  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface transportation research.........         185,000          97,000
Technology deployment program...........         100,000          40,000
Training and education..................          28,000          16,000
University transportation research......          27,250          27,250
Intelligent transportation systems......         271,200         211,200
National advance driver simulator.......      \1\ 10,000  ..............
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................         641,450         391,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded from revenue aligned budget authority.

                   intelligent transportation systems


                      (limitation on obligations)

    The Committee recommends a total limitation of $211,200,000 
to be distributed as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget         Committee
                                          estimate, 2000  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent transportation systems:
    Research and development............          94,150          35,550
    Operational tests...................          19,150           6,650
    Evaluation..........................           7,500           7,000
    Architecture and standards..........          14,000          14,000
    Mainstreaming.......................          14,400           6,000
    Program support.....................           9,000           9,000
    ITS Deployment Incentives Program...         113,000         113,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, ITS........................         271,200         211,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research and Development.--Within the funds provided for 
R&D, the Committee's allowance includes $7,300,000 for 
commercial vehicle operations research, which is $800,000 more 
than requested. Those additional funds will advance critical 
safety data systems, such as SAFER/CVIEW and ASPEN, and further 
test the Safer Data mailbox project that allows for the 
electronic retrieval of information on prior inspections of 
commercial motor vehicles and drivers. The mailbox technology 
provides a valuable tool used by enforcement officers to reduce 
highway crashes and fatalities involving trucks and buses. 
Using the information provided, state safety personnel 
concentrate inspections on previously identified high-risk 
carriers and drivers, especially those who do not correct out-
of-service defects identified in previous inspections.
    The Safer Data mailbox project allows state enforcement 
officials working at the roadside to gain access to near real-
time inspection information. One of the greatest needs for that 
information is to assist officers working in the border states 
who are ensuring that safety requirements are met as specified 
in NAFTA. Historical safety information is lacking on carriers 
from adjoining countries, making quick retrieval of safety 
information most critical. Past inspection records in the 
mailbox system may be the only information available for making 
critical safety and inspection decisions at the border. The 
Committee expects FHWA to continue to advance this project and 
ensure that it is made available to all states, especially 
border states. FHWA shall work with a border state to serve as 
a lead technology distribution agent. The lead state would 
provide technical assistance to all states interested in 
advancing and deploying the Safer Data mailbox system.
    The Committee recognizes the unique positioning of Drexel 
University because it is ideally located within 15 miles of 
interstate highways, major bridges, parkways, intercity and 
light commuter rail, rapid transit systems, bus systems, an 
international port, and an international airport. The Committee 
urges the Administrator to work with Drexel University to focus 
on the link between intelligent transportation systems and 
transportation infrastructure.
    Intelligent vehicle initiative [IVI].--The Committee urges 
the Director of the Joint Program Office to ensure that the 
primary Federal role in the IVI is focused on expediting the 
innovation of integrated crash avoidance technologies for 
passenger vehicles. In view of the substantial human factors 
research, performance specification work, crash avoidance and 
information systems integration, and cost/benefit assessment 
work that remains to be completed, an IVI program focused on 
those critical safety issues is of foremost importance. Such 
activities as automation of transit vehicles, snow removal 
systems, and other highway maintenance vehicles and research on 
nonsafety components of the IVI shall receive a much lower 
priority than critical safety objectives.
    Evaluation.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for 
program evaluation studies and recognizes the importance of 
continuing to evaluate the benefits and costs of various ITS 
projects and tracking progress on those projects. Of the funds 
provided, up to $1,000,000 is available for the testing and 
development of a smart Commercial Drivers License utilizing 
smart card and biometric elements to enhance safety and 
efficiency.
    Architecture and standards.--The Committee recommends 
$14,000,000, for architecture and standards work. The Committee 
understands that the Department has proposed a national 
standard under a mandate in the TEA21 legislation based on the 
use of an active radio frequency identification (RFID) 
technology for Commercial Vehicle Operations utilizing 
Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC). This is of concern 
because it minimizes, if not ignores, the significant presence 
of passive RFID technology equipment in transportation 
operations nationwide. As many states utilize an alternative 
passive system for transportation-related DSRC functions, 
particularly electronic toll collection, concerns have been 
shared with the Committee over not creating an architecture 
that precludes the application of passive RFID technologies in 
the search for a standard under the TEA21 mandate. The 
Committee directs the department to establish a program to test 
passive technology and incorporate the results into the 
department's development and implementation of a national 
architecture and standards regime. The Committee believes that 
the congressional mandate to establish a national standard was 
not meant to preclude different types of technology, but rather 
to create an architecture that would permit different 
technologies to mature and to create an architecture that 
permits regional, interregional, and national interoperability. 
The Committee urges the department to pursue a set of national 
standards in that spirit and requests a report on the results 
of efforts in this area with the fiscal year 2001 budget 
submission.
    Mainstreaming.--The Committee believes that the Department 
was spending too much of scarce ITS resources trying to 
convince planners, the engineering community, and others of the 
benefits of ITS. There is substantial literature documenting 
the benefits of using ITS; numerous training courses and 
programs are well underway; and the ITS concept is beginning to 
be mainstreamed in the transportation community. Consequently, 
the Committee's allowance provides $6,000,000, the same level 
provided in fiscal year 1999. Remaining mainstreaming funds 
shall be used to provide technical assistance on the planning, 
procurement, and implementation of integrated ITS technologies, 
offer guidance on the use of the national architecture, and 
supplement critical training not available from the private 
sector or universities.
    The Committee is pleased that the Department has changed 
the scope and nature of the ``mainstreaming'' activity and 
supports initiatives to provide direct technical and 
procurement assistance to states and other governmental 
entities planning, evaluating, or deploying ITS.
    National ITS Program Plan.--The Committee looks forward to 
receiving as soon as possible an update of the National ITS 
Program Plan, which will be prepared in a manner consistent 
with the requirements of Section 5205 of the TEA21.
    ITS deployment projects.--The Committee action provides a 
limitation of $113,000,000 for ITS deployment projects. The 
funds provided are for deployment projects in the areas listed 
below. The amounts associated with each area represent the 
minimum amount such area shall receive.

                                                               Committee
        ITS deployment projects                           recommendation

Southeast Michigan......................................      $4,000,000
Salt Lake City, UT......................................       6,500,000
Branson, MO.............................................       1,500,000
St.Louis, MO............................................       2,000,000
Shreveport, LA..........................................       2,000,000
State of Montana........................................       3,500,000
State of Colorado.......................................       4,000,000
Arapahoe County, CO.....................................       2,000,000
Grand Forks, ND.........................................         500,000
State of Idaho..........................................       2,000,000
Columbus, OH............................................       2,000,000
Inglewood, CA...........................................       2,000,000
Fargo, ND...............................................       2,000,000
Albuquerque/State of New Mexico interstate projects.....       2,000,000
Dothan/Port Saint Joe...................................       2,000,000
Santa Teresa, NM........................................       1,500,000
State of Illinois.......................................       4,800,000
Charlotte, NC...........................................       2,500,000
Nashville, TN...........................................       2,000,000
Tacoma Puyallup, WA.....................................         500,000
Spokane, WA.............................................       1,000,000
Puget Sound, WA.........................................       2,200,000
State of Washington.....................................       4,000,000
State of Texas..........................................       6,000,000
Corpus Christi, TX......................................       2,000,000
State of Nebraska.......................................       1,500,000
State of Wisconsin rural systems........................       1,000,000
State of Wisconsin......................................       2,400,000
State of Alaska.........................................       3,700,000
Cargo Mate, Northern NJ.................................       2,000,000
Statewide Transcom/Transmit upgrades, NJ................       6,000,000
State of Vermont rural systems..........................       2,000,000
State of Maryland.......................................       4,500,000
Washoe County, NV.......................................       2,000,000
State of Delaware.......................................       2,000,000
Reno/Tahoe, CA/NV.......................................       1,000,000
Towamencin, PA..........................................       1,100,000
State of Alabama........................................       1,300,000
Huntsville, AL..........................................       3,000,000
Silicon Valley, CA......................................       2,000,000
Greater Yellowstone, MT.................................       2,000,000
Pennslyvania Turnpike, PA...............................       7,000,000
Portland, OR............................................       1,500,000
Delaware River, PA......................................       1,500,000
Kansas City, MO.........................................       1,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     113,000,000

                    Highway Research and Development

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2000
                                           2000 estimate  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety..................................          12,000          13,000
Pavements...............................          12,500          13,700
Structures..............................          16,100          15,500
Environment.............................           6,000           6,000
Policy..................................           5,200           4,000
Planning and real estate................           4,000           4,000
Motor carrier...........................           6,400           6,000
Highway operations......................             700             700
Freight.................................             500             500
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................          63,400          63,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the appropriate research areas, FHWA is directed to 
fund each of the research activities or programs specified in 
various sections of TEA21.
    Safety.--The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for safety 
research and development activities. The Committee supports 
research and demonstration activities to advance technology and 
best practices understanding of lighting and signing to improve 
the driving performance of older drivers as well as research 
into the use of UV lights and flourescent materials to improve 
night time visibility, to help identify lane markings and 
pedestrians at night. The Committee expects that the additional 
funds recommended will be used to expedite work on projects 
delayed to pay for construction of the NADS. Within the 
recommendation, the Committee has included $100,000 for FHWA, 
working with industry suppliers and the FRA, to conduct the 
necessary research and to incorporate guidance in the National 
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for highway/rail 
grade crossing pre-signal operations, and to advance a new 
traffic signal warrant for preemption requirements. The 
research and guidance materials will assist engineers by 
ensuring appropriate design, timing and interface between 
highway and railroad signal equipment. Of the funds provided, 
up to $750,000 shall be available to evaluate and deploy a 
nationwide Highway Watch Program to improve roadway safety.
    Pavements.--The Committee recommends $13,700,000 for 
pavements research. The Committee is encouraged by the 
potential benefits for highway construction--including lower 
construction and maintenance costs, higher riding quality, and 
a longer life-cycle of new and reconstructed highways--
resulting from the use of geosynthetic materials. Therefore, 
the Committee has included $400,000 for geosynthetic material 
research at the Western Transportation Institute at Montana 
State University.
    The Committee also directs FHWA to conduct further research 
into polymer additives for pavements. The Committee is aware 
that recent performance measurements have shown in various 
limited applications to increase the expected life of asphalt 
pavement. Therefore, the Committee has included $1,500,000 to 
conduct extensive research into this area. Of this amount, 
$1,250,000 shall be for the pavement research related to 
developing low cost pavement with flexibility to tolerate frost 
heaves in extreme climates. Further, the Committee encourages 
the FHWA to work with an academic and industry-led national 
consortium and fund with available balances, an additional 
polymer additive project to demonstrate the use of polymer 
additives in pavement for civil infrastructure purposes.
    The Committee is aware of the Federal Highway 
Administration's pavement design analysis work that utilizes 
the fundamental properties of the various pavement materials, 
analytical packing algorithms and granular mechanics, coupled 
with state-of-the-art imaging techniques and computational 
modeling and builds on the work performed at the University of 
Mississippi. The Committee directs the FHWA to continue to 
cooperate and work with the researchers there to develop 
concepts and technologies that will lead to better constructed 
and longer lasting high quality pavements.
    The Committee recognizes the potential for the use of 
silica fume to decrease the national waste material stream and 
increase the durability and quality of concrete structures and 
pavement. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that 
$1,000,000 be used to evaluate and promote the benefits of 
using silica fume high performance concrete, and that the 
Administrator of the FHWA report on its findings to the 
Committee no later than September 30, 2001. The Committee 
directs the Administrator to work with a representative 
national organization of the silica fume industry to carry out 
this project.
    For the purpose of constructing a segment of highway for 
research purposes, utilizing a binder composed of polymer 
additives currently being tested by the FHWA, the State of 
South Carolina may utilize funds allocated to it under the 
congestion mitigation and air quality program, consistent with 
current law. The Committee is aware and applauds such a 
cooperative arrangement between FHWA and the State of South 
Carolina--effectively leveraging the use of Federal research 
dollars by creating practical ``laboratories'' for selected 
research initiatives on our nation's roadways. The Committee is 
aware that research into this binder has not been completed, 
but that recent performance measurements conducted by FHWA have 
shown significant increases in the expected life of pavement 
utilizing this binder. The Committee also makes available 
$1,250,000 for research costs associated with this project and 
directs the FHWA to work with the South Carolina State 
University and Clemson University, where there exists 
significant transportation engineering capabilities, to further 
the goals of this research.
    Structures.--The Committee recommends $15,500,000 for 
structures research. The Committee believes that a unique 
opportunity to conduct research exists during the Interstate 15 
reconstruction project and other transportation projects in the 
Salt Lake Valley, UT. The research performed during the 
reconstruction of I-15 and other projects will provide the 
country with a detailed analysis of the load capacities of 
deteriorated bridge structures, seismic retrofitting, new 
nondestructive evaluation techniques, and many other valuable 
areas of research. The Committee has included $1,500,000 for 
this research and because of the urgency of this research, 
directs the FHWA to make these funds available to the Utah 
Department of Transportation and the Utah Transportation Center 
in a timely manner to ensure the execution of this research. 
The Committee is interested in research to develop advanced 
engineering and wood composites for bridge construction and has 
provided $1,200,000 for that purpose within this program. In 
addition, the FHWA is encouraged to work with Cal State 
University at San Diego on advanced composite material for 
bridges and up to $1,000,000 is available for that purpose. As 
the Department pursues research in the testing of structures 
and composites, the Committee recommends the seismic expertise 
of the Structural Engineering Technology Laboratories and the 
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and urge the 
department to consider the applicability and benefits of 
establishing a earthquake simulation facility at the Nevada 
Test Site for full-scale earthquake testing applications. The 
Committee is aware of the composite, structures, and highway 
engineering work ongoing at the West Virginia University and 
has provided $2,000,000 for structures and pavement funds for 
the establishment of a Center of Excellence at the WVU 
Constructed Facility Center. The Committee recommendation also 
includes $1,000,000 for the deployment of technology to prevent 
and mitigate alkali silica reactivity utilizing lithium salts 
as previously authorized through 23 USC Sections 5001(a)(2) 
relating to technology deployment and 5001(c)(2) relating to 
bridge research and construction.
    The Committee recognizes the specialized expertise of the 
Lehigh University's Center for Advanced Technology for Large 
Structural Systems (ATLASS) in the field of large scale 
structure, such as bridges and encourages the Administrator to 
continue to working with Lehigh University on this research.
    Environment Research.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000 
for research on environmental issues affecting highway 
operations and construction, the requested amount. The unique 
goal of the National Environmental Respiratory Center to 
research the health effects of combined pollutants or 
contaminants is relevant to the Department's focus on 
environmental and health consequences of pollutants generated 
by transportation emissions. To understand the aggregate health 
effects of real-world, highly complex mixtures of air 
contaminants, NERC will develop identical health data across 
several complex, man-made mixtures, including those from 
transportation sources. The Committee urges the Department of 
Transportation to collaborate with the National Environmental 
Research Center on its research strategy so that national 
transportation system design and policy has the benefit of this 
important data.
    The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the UNI 
Native Vegetation Center. The Native Vegetation Center operates 
as a clearinghouse and information center for the use of native 
vegetation in the upper Midwest, it produces seed stocks for 
commercial sellers and in some cases provides seed to state and 
local highway authorities. Using native prairie seed not only 
provides scenic advantages, it lowers maintenance because it 
does not require mowing, weed spraying or other erosion 
prevention measures.
    Policy.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for policy 
research. Of the funds provided, the FHWA shall develop a 
comprehensive program of intermodal logistics training and 
operational testing to enhance the safe and efficient movement 
of freight through the state intermodal corridors and 
facilities.
    Cross State Line Planning.--The Committee is aware of the 
difficulty of conducting and coordinating preliminary planning 
for highway improvements and regional connectors for facilities 
that cross state lines. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 
FHWA to study this issue and propose tools or processes that 
will facilitate the preliminary planning process in the absence 
of a Memorandum of Understanding between the affected states.
    Planning and real estate.--The Committee's allowance 
includes $4,000,000 for planning and real estate research. The 
Committee understands that $2,500,000 is programed in the 
research account to begin work on an initiative to model data 
in a large scale simulation that moves individual carriers and 
freight loads over the nation's multimodal transportation 
system. The Committee is very interested in this work and 
requests that the department keep the Committee abreast of 
progress in this area. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is 
currently developing the National Transportation Network 
Analysis Capability (NTNAC), under the sponsorship of the 
Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Defense. The 
objective of this research is to study and understand the 
national transportation system as a single, integrated, 
multimodal system. Efforts under the NTNAC have resulted in the 
completion of the proof-of-principle phase, demonstrating the 
potential of creating on a national scale a network analysis 
capability for rail and highway transportation. This phase has 
confirmed the ability for the NTNAC to provide guidance for 
policy and investment decisions, reduce delays and congestion, 
and analyze the nation's demand for petroleum-based fuels. With 
the successful conclusion of the proof-of-principle phase, the 
Committee requests that the Department of Transportation serve 
as the lead agency in the next phase of the NTNAC--the 
development of a full scale simulation capability. The 
Committee requests that DOT provide support for this important 
next step of the NTNAC, including the introduction of maritime 
and aviation interests into the NTNAC. DOT's active role and 
support will provide the NTNAC with the resources and 
capability to complete these efforts, resulting in the first 
analytical system that represents the U.S. transportation 
system as a single, integrated, intermodal system.
    Economic Development Highways.--The Committee is interested 
in some recent studies that demonstrate the degree of new and 
sustainable economic development generated by new or 
substantially improved highway facilities through economically 
disadvantaged regions. The Committee directs the Department to 
identify the multistate regions that have persistent 
unemployment levels lower than the national average and the 
highway facilities that currently serve the population base in 
such a region.
    Motor Carrier.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the 
motor carrier research program. The Executive Director of FHWA 
shall ensure that the budget justification for this research 
area is improved substantially. Future budget requests will 
delineate the specific projects that will be funded and the 
exact amounts that are requested for each project. In addition, 
terminating projects and their associated baseline amounts and 
all continuing projects and associated funding amounts will be 
specified. Of the funds provided in this account, $500,000 are 
for the truck driving center safety initiative at Crowder 
College, MO. Total expenses from any DOT funding source for the 
international conference on motor carrier research shall be 
limited to less than $60,000. Up to $1,000,000 available to 
study the effects of shift changes on truck driver alertness.
    Because of a variety of concerns, the Committee last year 
directed FHWA to request the Transportation Research Board 
(TRB) to review the motor carrier research program. A committee 
of experts assembled by TRB found that the program is neither 
needs based nor objectively prioritized. TRB concluded that 
OMCHS was placing insufficient attention on research pertaining 
to crash prevention and countermeasures. The Committee directs 
that the fiscal year 2000 budget program be redesigned to 
implement each of the recommendations offered by the TRB. 
Before obligating any of the fiscal year 2000 funds, the 
Committee directs that a revised motor carrier safety research 
plan be submitted to both the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations that demonstrates that crash causation analysis 
will become a priority; that OMCHS will expedite its efforts to 
develop a motor carrier crash causation database that will 
provide the information required to better plan future research 
projects; and that OMCHS has realigned its R&D program to 
achieve cost-effective safety benefits, paying particular 
attention to opportunities to reduce the largest number of 
commercial motor vehicle-involved crashes through R&D. The 
Committee expects that the fiscal year 2001 budget submittal to 
continue implementing this revised strategy.
    Interstate rest areas.--There is increasing concern that 
due to increasing rehabilitation, liability, and maintenance 
costs, many states are experiencing difficulty operating 
Interstate rest areas and many are considering closing them. 
Some states are pursuing commercialization as a solution and 
others are considering privatization. This is an area where the 
Federal government could contribute through informing states 
about best practices in solving these types of issues and in 
providing leadership in developing standards or guidelines. The 
Committee directs the FHWA to study the issue and provide 
recommendations as to methods for states to ensure competitive 
alternatives for interstate travelers and to provide 
uniformity, rest area signage standards, oasis identification 
conformity. In addition, the Committee directs the FHWA to 
study and report to the Committee the effects of shift changes 
on truck driver alertness.
    Electronic Control Module Technology.--The Committee is 
aware of the potential benefits of electronic control module 
technology in trucks. Electronic control modules store data, 
such as vehicle speed and brake pedal and throttle position, 
that could prove useful to law enforcement investigations of 
crashes on our nation's highways and roads and prevent future 
loss of life in much the same way that flight data recorders 
contribute to airplane crash investigations. The Committee 
requests that the FHWA work with interested parties to explore 
a standard of protocol for access to and the relevant data to 
be recorded in this area and report back to the Committee by 
June 2000. It is the Committee's expectation that in the 
development of any such safety enhancement tool, any standards 
or protocols would follow high standards of privacy and would 
only apply to instances in which law enforcement had secured a 
warrant with the intention of investigating a serious crash.
    Freight.--The Committee recommends $500,000 for freight 
research. Within the recommended amount, the Committee urges 
the agency to continue research to improve multimodal 
connections for freight and high value shipments in a manner 
consistent with passenger services.

                     TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM

    Center for Advanced System Technology.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for the Center for Advanced Simulation 
Technology, Long Island, NY, of which not less than $1,000,000 
shall be made available to Auburn University for a 
transportation management program. These funds will be used to 
develop outreach initiatives involving technology transfer, 
technical assistance and training related to transportation 
management, traffic control, and simulation and human factors.

       CONSTRUCTION OF FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES

                      (limitation on obligations)

    The Committee has provided a limitation on obligations of 
$38,000,000 for the new construction of ferry boat and ferry 
terminal facility program. The Committee notes that the 
authorization of this program reserves $20,000,000 of the total 
amount for projects within the marine highway system. Within 
the $18,000,000 not reserved for this purpose, the Committee 
urges priority consideration for Penn's Landing ferry, PA 
$2,000,000 is provided for a ferry upgrade at McCelland and 
wood landing sites which is part of the Lewis and Clark Trail. 
In addition, $3,000,000 shall be provided to the State of 
Hawaii to initiate an intra-island ferry service from Barbers 
Point to Honolulu Harbor. In addition, $1,000,000 is provided 
for the New Bedford, MA, ferry terminal.

                    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 2000, the RABA adjustment is $1,456,350,000. 
The budget request proposes to reallocate a portion of the RABA 
to Administration priorities in environmental programs, 
transit, highway safety, research and rail. Of the 
$1,456,350,000 adjustment, $452,120,000 would be transferred to 
other modes, and $1,004,230,000 would remain within the 
federal-aid for highways program.
    The Committee recommendation rejects that approach in favor 
of an approach that passes the automatically increased funding 
generated by the greater than anticipated gas tax receipts and 
estimates of gas tax receipts directly to the states consistent 
with each state's individual guaranteed share under Section 
1105 of TEA21. Such an approach maximizes the resources flowing 
to each state and avoids the diversion of funds that would 
otherwise occur as the following table illustrates.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Full RABA
                             State                                Admin. Distr.   TEA21 Distr.      committee
                                                                                                  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................           8,853          26,776           28,994
Alaska.........................................................           7,435          15,619           17,485
Arizona........................................................          12,811          21,404           24,341
Arkansas.......................................................           6,429          17,563           18,808
California.....................................................         101,652         121,069          131,672
Colorado.......................................................           8,956          15,346           17,174
Connecticut....................................................          14,339          19,941           21,872
Delaware.......................................................           3,214           5,786            6,664
Dist. of Columbia..............................................           2,838           5,192            5,721
Florida........................................................          26,467          61,049           68,189
Georgia........................................................          20,049          47,344           52,155
Hawaii.........................................................           3,548           6,804            7,382
Idaho..........................................................           4,604          10,222           10,632
Illinois.......................................................          28,471          44,480           47,824
Indiana........................................................          12,747          33,088           36,312
Iowa...........................................................           5,771          15,790           17,230
Kansas.........................................................           5,610          15,396           16,748
Kentucky.......................................................           8,799          22,807           24,945
Louisiana......................................................           7,682          22,291           24,069
Maine..........................................................           3,542           7,001            7,656
Maryland.......................................................          15,650          20,821           22,866
Massachusetts..................................................          19,259          24,746           26,446
Michigan.......................................................          19,479          42,421           46,131
Minnesota......................................................           9,608          19,730           21,061
Mississippi....................................................           5,901          16,012           17,423
Missouri.......................................................          13,308          32,348           34,931
Montana........................................................           5,460          12,984           14,956
Nebraska.......................................................           4,238          10,167           11,587
Nevada.........................................................           5,085           9,500           10,656
New Hampshire..................................................           3,538           6,844            7,238
New Jersey.....................................................          27,746          33,960           36,439
New Mexico.....................................................           5,235          12,976           14,273
New York.......................................................          48,541          67,928           72,713
North Carolina.................................................          13,671          37,146           40,912
North Dakota...................................................           3,947           8,576            9,794
Ohio...........................................................          25,601          48,838           53,317
Oklahoma.......................................................           7,057          20,342           22,438
Oregon.........................................................           6,663          16,378           17,199
Pennsylvania...................................................          31,880          66,704           68,972
Rhode Island...................................................           4,232           7,849            8,853
South Carolina.................................................           7,482          21,044           23,404
South Dakota...................................................           4,260           9,615           10,306
Tennessee......................................................          11,199          30,282           32,984
Texas..........................................................          48,403          99,070          110,258
Utah...........................................................           4,937          10,296           11,129
Vermont........................................................           3,224           5,990            6,764
Virginia.......................................................          14,912          33,682           37,111
Washington.....................................................          11,394          23,984           25,806
West Virginia..................................................           5,548          14,936           15,406
Wisconsin......................................................          11,684          26,148           28,733
Wyoming........................................................           4,096           9,146           10,367
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................................         697,054       1,335,430        1,456,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Magnetic Levitation Transportation


                     TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM

                      (Limitation on obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1999....................................   ($15,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................    (20,000,000)

    Section 1218 of TEA21 provides $20,000,000 in highway trust 
funds contract authority for Maglev preconstruction activities 
in fiscal year 2000. The administration budget proposes to 
reallocate these funds to Advanced Vehicles Techology Research, 
and to provide $20,000,000 of revenue aligned budget authority 
for Maglev within the transportation research and development 
program.
    The Committee recommendation provides $20,000,000 for the 
magnetic levitation technology deployment program, of which not 
more than $500,000 shall be available to the Federal Railroad 
Administration for administrative expenses and technical 
assistance. Within the funds made available under this heading, 
the Committee provides $6,000,000 for the high-speed intercity 
magnetic levitation project between Philadelphia and 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, $1,000,000 for the Segmented Rail 
Phased Induction Electric Magnetic Motor (SERAPHIM) project, 
$2,000,000 for the Las Vegas-Southern California maglev system, 
and $1,000,000 for the Southern California Association of 
Governments Los Angeles International Airport to March Air 
Force Base magnetic levitation program.

           NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................     $7,500,000 
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................     10,400,000 
Committee recommendation................................     (5,000,000)

\1\ Fiscal year 1999 funds were provided within the Coast Guard's 
acquisition, construction, and improvement account, for both the 
completion of the coastal DGPS system and for the ground-based NDGPS.
\2\ Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority.

    In 2000, the administration has requested $10,400,000 in 
transferred revenue aligned budget authority funds to enable 
installation of nationwide differential global positioning 
system [NDGPS] transmitters by enhancing the existing Coast 
Guard network throughout the United States. In fiscal year 
1999, NDGPS funding was included in the Coast Guard's 
``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' account, for 
continued installation of DGPS transmitters throughout the 
United States, toward the enhancement of the existing Coast 
Guard DGPS network, which is now operating only in areas along 
the coasts and navigable inland waterways.
    In general, the Committee is concerned that investment in 
the near-term would accrue to many other Federal agencies and 
commercial interests. The Committee maintains that DGPS-related 
expenses should not be derived solely from the Federal highway 
trust fund or other DOT accounts. Recognizing the importance of 
DGPS to a wide array of strategic national purposes, the 
Secretary will need to obtain funding from other Federal 
agencies and sources as well as other modal administrations. 
The Committee notes that the Department of Transportation was 
directed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations as part of the fiscal year 2000 budget 
justification identifying the long-term costs, benefits, and 
cost sharing that might be reasonably expected for DGPS. To 
date, this report has not been received by the Committees on 
Appropriations. No fiscal year 2000 funds provided in this Act 
shall be obligated by the Department of Transportation on the 
nationwide differential global positioning system program until 
this report has been submitted to the Committees on 
Appropriations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the 
NDGPS program, for both capital and operating expenses. These 
funds will provide for the installation of 4 new GWEN site 
installations in fiscal year 2000, for a total of 22 sites to 
be operating at the end of the fiscal year. Other capital costs 
include equipment, weather forecasting systems, and an upgrade 
to the control station. The operations component of the funds 
will provide for property management of all 63 national GWEN 
sites, and operations and maintenance of the initial 22 online 
stations. The bill includes language which transfers the funds 
provided to the Federal Railroad Administration, the DOT lead 
agency for this program.

                 Appalachian Development Highway System

    The Committee recommendation includes $450,000,000 for 
construction of unfinished segments of the Appalachian 
development highway system [ADHS]. The ADHS connects largely 
rural, underdeveloped areas in 13 States. Its completion is 
critical to the economic development of these often-ignored 
areas. In many cases, the unfinished segments of the ADHS are 
high-accident locations in the Appalachian States, so the 
Committee believes continued construction will have a high 
payoff in highway safety benefits.
    Given the current funding schedule and without inflationary 
increases, it would take at least another 13 years to complete 
the system, putting the completion date at 46 years from its 
inception in 1965. Given the hazardous conditions of many of 
the roads on and around the unfinished segments of the ADHS, 
and the commitment of the Congress to the people of Appalachia, 
this delay is unacceptable. Additional funds should be found to 
expedite the completion of overdue system in a reasonable and 
accellerated timeframe.

                     FEDERAL LANDS highways program

    The Committee is very concerned with the degree to which 
funding awards have been made in the past on a partisan basis 
in the Public Lands Program. The General Accounting Office has 
noted that the administration has awarded more projects and 
total funding to projects in Democratic districts, even though 
States requested more funds for projects in Republican 
districts. The Committee directs FHWA to move toward a merit-
based approach in funding public lands projects, and to refine 
criteria for the funding of projects under this program. The 
Secretary shall report to both the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees semiannually concerning the execution 
of the program.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to make available the 
following amounts for the following projects:

Bear River Migratory bird refuge access road and Soldier 
    Hollow Road improvements in Wasatch County, UT......      $3,000,000
Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area, NJ.......       4,000,000
Glacier National Park North Fork Road from Columbia 
    Falls to Camas Creek, MT............................       2,400,000
Kenai Peninsula road improvements.......................         500,000
New River Gorge National River, pave and realign Cunard 
    Road, WV............................................         960,000
Donlin Creek access road, AK............................         500,000
New Mexico Route 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass, NM..............         500,000
Lemhi Pass Road upgrade from Highway 324 to Sacajewea 
    Campground, MT......................................       2,000,000
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Skilak Loop Road.........       4,000,000
Chugach National Forest, Bird Creek road widening and 
    public safety project...............................       1,000,000
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Shoreline Drive 
    improvements, WV....................................       2,400,000
John Day Highway safety improvements at Blue Mountain 
    Summit, OR..........................................       2,700,000
Highway 323 upgrade between Alzada and Ekalaka, MT......       2,200,000
SR 248 reconstruction from US 40 to Park City, UT.......       3,700,000
Historic Columbia River Highway, rebuild Starvation 
    Creek to Viento State Parks.........................         500,000
Sitka Road Harbor mountain bypass.......................       1,000,000
Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site..................       2,200,000
Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge,...................       1,700,000
Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge.................         400,000

                  BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS


                      (limitation on obligations)

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................   ($31,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................    (31,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (31,000,000)

\1\ Excludes reduction of $208,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of 
Public Law 105-277.

    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 
2000, the Committee recommends a funding level of $31,000,000.
    BTS offices include the Director, Statistical Programs and 
Services, Transportation Studies, and the Office of Aviation 
Information [OAI]. In addition, effective January 1, 1996, the 
responsibility to collect motor carrier financial data was 
transferred to the BTS after the sunset of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission.
    The Office of Aviation Information collects and compiles 
financial and traffic (passenger and cargo) data. This 
information provides the Government with uniform and 
comprehensive economic and market data on individual airline 
operations. This program includes a small field office located 
in Anchorage, AK, which provides consumers and the Government 
with airline data related to essential air service and the 
intra-Alaskan mail rate program. The statistical aviation data 
compiled by OAI includes: airline passenger traffic statistics, 
ontime performance data by carrier, financial performance and 
certification data, fuel purchase and consumption, and other 
business and consumer directed statistics. These statistics are 
vitally important to the Federal Government and the aviation 
industry. In some cases, it is statutorily required that these 
statistics be used by the Federal Aviation Administration and 
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in allocation of 
trust funds, aviation bilateral negotiations, and other Federal 
transportation policy decisionmaking.
    Railroad rationalization and diversion analysis.--The 
Committee directs that of the funds provided, not more than 90 
percent may be obligated prior to the delivery of the report 
requested under this section in the fiscal year 1999 Senate 
report.

                 National Motor Carrier Safety Program


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     105,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     105,000,000

    This program was first authorized by the Surface 
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. It provides grants to 
States for improved enforcement of Federal and State motor 
carrier safety rules. It has been shown that added enforcement 
of truck safety rules reduces truck-related accidents and 
fatalities. The major objective of this program is to reduce 
the number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor 
vehicles.
    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $105,000,000.

                      (limitation on obligations)

Appropriations, 1999....................................  ($100,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   (105,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (105,000,000)

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$105,000,000 for the national motor carrier program and a 
program level of $155,000,000 consistent with the President's 
revised budget request.
    The Committee recommends the following allocation of motor 
carrier safety funds:

Basic motor carrier safety grants.......................     $95,881,250
Performance-based incentive grant program...............       8,431,250
Border and high priority initiatives....................       9,500,000
State training and administration.......................       2,187,500
Information systems and strategic planning..............      39,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     155,000,000

    Covered Bridges.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$10,000,000 for the Covered Bridge program authorized under 
TEA21.
    2002 Winter Olympic Games.--The Committee recognizes the 
critical nature of the following transportation projects for 
the success of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The Committee 
recommends that the Secretary give priority consideration to 
these projects: I-80: Kimball Junction--Modification/
Reconstruction; I-80: Silver Creek Junction--Modification/
Reconstruction; SR 248 Reconstruction: US 40 to Park City; 
Soldier Hollow Improvements: Wasatch County; I-15 
Reconstruction: 10800 South to 600 North; and I-215: 3500 
South--Interchange Reconfiguration.
    Commercial Drivers License Program.--The Commercial Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 established the federal Commercial 
Driver's License (CDL) program. Despite self-congratulatory 
statements from the FHWA regarding the success of the CDL 
program, it is clear from several recent fatal accidents, as 
well as from testimony before the Committee, that great efforts 
need to be made by the OMCHS to satisfy the intent of the 1986 
Act.
    An ``effectiveness study'' performed for the OMCHS 
indicates several stark vulnerabilities that undermine the 
goals of the CDL program. They include the fact that a majority 
of states do not use the Commercial Driver License Information 
System (CDLIS) to screen the personal information of applicants 
for non-CDL licenses to determine if the applicant has been 
issued a CDL by another state. ``In such states,'' according to 
the effectiveness study, ``it is possible a CDL holder could 
obtain a non-CDL, in addition to his or her CDL. Also, some 
states do not use the CDLIS to screen reinstated CDLs.'' The 
study also pointed up the fact that a frighteningly high 
percentage of drivers who have had their CDLs withdrawn due to 
safety violations appear willing to risk further sanctions and 
continue to operate commercial vehicles without a license. All 
of these vulnerabilities constitute clear violations of the 
core principles underlying the CDL program.
    The uneven performance by the states in implementing these 
principles was highlighted by recent testimony by the DOT 
Inspector General (IG). According to the IG:

          ``New York State does not pull a person's past 
        licensing history when he or she applies for a 
        commercial driver's license. If a driver is convicted 
        of DUI while operating a commercial motor vehicle, that 
        driver's license is revoked. If the driver is DUI in a 
        personal vehicle, he or she loses personal driving 
        privileges and maintains commercial driving privileges. 
        In contrast, in Pennsylvania if convicted of DWI while 
        driving a personal vehicle, the entire driver's license 
        is suspended. If convicted of DWI while driving a 
        commercial vehicle, the commercial license is revoked 
        for one year. For more than one DWI offense, the 
        license is permanently revoked.''

    Recent fatal accidents involving motor coach operators in 
New Jersey and Louisiana, as well as the recent Amtrak 
collision with a truck at Bourbonnais, Illinois, further point 
up severe deficiencies in the CDL program. A total of thirty 
bus passengers were killed between the December, 1998 bus crash 
in Sayreville, New Jersey and the May, 1999 bus crash in New 
Orleans, Louisiana. That compares to a total of 21 fatalities 
for the four-year period that preceded the New Jersey crash. 
While the NTSB has yet to report on the final cause of each of 
these crashes, it is noteworthy that, in the case of the New 
Jersey crash, the bus operator had his license suspended 
multiple times, both for speeding and for the unsafe operation 
of his bus. He was allowed to have his license reinstated only 
after attending driving school. In the case of the New Orleans 
crash, it has been reported that the driver had a record of 
persistent drug abuse for several years. He had failed five 
random drug tests and had been fired from three separate jobs, 
including jobs with two transit companies. According to these 
reports, the night before the fatal crash the driver had 
arrived by ambulance at a local hospital barely conscious and 
suffering from severe dehydration and low blood pressure. In 
the case of the Bourbonnais truck accident, the IG testified 
before the Committee that ``the truck driver was using a permit 
issued to him when his commercial license was suspended because 
he received three speeding tickets within an unacceptable time 
period. Under these circumstances, the suspension had not had 
meaningful effect.''
    Importantly, the current deficiencies of the CDL program 
have been identified by the motor carrier industry itself. In 
recent testimony before Congress, the President of the American 
Trucking Associations stated that:

          ``OMCHS must ensure that all states are accurately 
        reporting out-of-state driver convictions to the 
        driver's state of licensure, and doing so in a timely 
        fashion. OMCHS must also ensure that driver convictions 
        are not hidden from an employer's view in the system, 
        as is the case in at least 15 states. It is essential 
        that a CDL record reflect a driver's complete history 
        while driving a commercial vehicle. There is no better 
        predictor of future driving behavior than past driving 
        behavior. OMCHS must use all of the tools at its 
        disposal, including the withholding of a state's 
        highway funds, to ensure states' compliance with the 
        established elements of the CDL program.''

    The Committee believes that the OMCHS must take immediate 
and aggressive steps to strengthen the CDL program and address 
the deficiencies identified by its own internal studies, by the 
IG, and by other groups including the motor carrier industry. 
Rather than serving as apologists for the states, the OMCHS 
should be using all tools at its disposal, including the ones 
cited by the industry, to demand improved performance by the 
states. Toward that end, the Committee directs the Federal 
Highway Administrator to submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations on an annual basis that 
specifically outlines each vulnerability he identifies within 
the CDL program, the remedies he intends to promulgate to 
address each vulnerability, specific deadlines for 
implementation of each remedy, the specific manner in which he 
will measure the effectiveness of each remedy, and the specific 
steps he will take if the remedy is found to be ineffective. 
The first such report shall be due at the end of the second 
quarter of fiscal year 2000.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March 1970, 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 405(b), 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
                           Program                               1999 enacted     Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                     \1\         2000 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research......................................    $161,400,000   \2\ $199,450,00  \3\ $161,400,00
                                                                                             0                0
National driver register (HTF)...............................      (2,000,000)      (2,000,000)      (2,000,000)
Highway traffic safety grants (firewall).....................     200,000,000      206,800,000      214,300,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................     361,400,000      406,250,000      375,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions of $974,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Also excludes
  supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $124,450,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
\3\ From firewall and discretionary highway trust fund sources.

                        Operations and Research

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century provides 
$72,000,000 of contract authority from the highway trust fund 
to finance NHTSA's fiscal year 2000 operations and research 
activities under title 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included 
within the firewall guarantee for highway spending, and is not 
subject to appropriations. The bill includes an authorization 
subject to appropriations of $89,400,000 for operations and 
research activities under sections 30104 and 32102 of title 49 
U.S.C. and chapter 303 of title 49 U.S.C. for fiscal year 2000. 
Thus, the total authorized level for fiscal year 2000 for NHTSA 
operations and research activities is $161,400,000.
    The administration, however, has requested to transfer 
$125,450,000 of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) from 
the Highway Trust Fund firewall to support NHTSA's operations 
and research account. This proposal disregards the spirit and 
letter of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to 
increase federal investment in our nation's highway and transit 
systems. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century is 
the product of a delicate compromise, and the Committee is 
dismayed that the administration would propose to disregard its 
core provisions only a year after the President signed it into 
law. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is 
opposed to the diversion of RABA funds away from its intended 
purposes.
    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 provides an appropriation of 
$161,400,000 to be distributed as follows:

                                                               Committee
        Program                                           recommendation

Safety performance......................................     $14,249,000
Safety assurance........................................      20,972,000
Highway safety..........................................      57,617,000
Research and analysis...................................      61,625,000
National driver register................................       2,000,000
Office of the Administrator.............................       4,493,000
General administration..................................      10,417,000
Grant administration reimbursement......................      -9,973,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     161,400,000

    Agencywide adjustments.--Due to budgetary constraints and 
the Committee's view that additional funds should be allocated 
to safety programs, the Committee does not include the $890,000 
requested for new permanent staff positions and denies the 
request to increase the number of FTE's from 621 to 635. The 
Committee also has reduced $1,376,000 for operating expenses. 
The Committee is confident that NHTSA can reduce cost growth in 
its headquarter operating expenses by limiting travel to the 
fiscal year 1999 level and implementing a variety of management 
initiatives, such as restraining rent, computer support, and 
administrative support.

                      safety performance standards

    New Car Assessment Program.--The bill includes $2,830,000 
to evaluate vehicle performance in crash tests and provide 
vehicle safety and crash test information to the public. The 
Committee recommends providing the same level of funding as the 
fiscal year 1999 level and is $362,000 more than the 
administration's revised budget request. The Committee expects 
NHTSA to conduct enough crash tests to provide consumer 
information on the majority of vehicles. The Committee denies 
the request to expand NCAP beyond the fiscal year 1999 test 
procedures.
    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.

                        highway safety programs

    Impaired Driving.--The Committee commends NHTSA for 
focusing research on the costs, benefits, and impacts of 0.08 
Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) laws and its efforts to 
reduce impaired driving by young adults between 21 and 34 years 
old. Sufficient funds are included in the fiscal year 2000 
Committee recommendation to continue research on the 
effectiveness of 0.08 BAC laws. There is a similar need for 
research that would assist state legislators as they decide 
whether to adopt repeat offender and open container statutes. 
Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 
states that have not enacted such laws by October 1, 2000 lose 
federal construction funds. NHTSA should be prepared to report 
next year on the progress made in each area.
    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, more 
worthy agency programs and safety grants.
    Emergency Medical Services.--In 1998, NHTSA began a 
collaborative effort to develop a national standards curriculum 
for emergency medical services personnel on the pre-hospital 
treatment of severe head injury. There are approximately 1.6 
million severe head injuries annually, the majority of which 
are caused by motor vehicle accidents. Within the emergency 
medical services program, the Committee has included $1,000,000 
to initiate the third phase of the head injury pre-hospital 
protocols. Pre-hospital management of traumatic brain injury 
through a comprehensive education and training program for the 
first 14 states will be serviced by training centers in 
Northern Virginia (Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, 
Pennsylvania, Kentucky and the District of Columbia) and 
Birmingham, Alabama (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, 
South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee). This 
educational effort will be directed toward the EMS trainers at 
the local level, the EMS Medical Directors of each ambulance 
company, the State EMS Directors, State EMS Advisory Committee, 
and each state's Commissioner of Health. The Committee 
encourages NHTSA to continue to work with the Aitken 
Neuroscience Center during this phase of the program.
    Highway Safety Research.--The Committee is concerned with 
the increased occurrence of aggressive driving by motorist, 
especially in the Washington capital region. To address this 
persistent problem, the Committee has included $2,000,000 for 
the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, on behalf of 
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, to 
development and implement a regional education and driver 
modification program. The Committee also is concerned about the 
overall lack of attention given to rural motor vehicle 
accidents and the unique aspects of assessing and treating 
trauma patients in rural areas. Some factors that are unique to 
rural crash victims are greater travel distances, delayed 
notification of emergency medical services, inadequate 
physician training, and proximity to appropriate trauma 
centers. The Committee has included $1,750,000 to initiate a 
project at the University of South Alabama that utilizes a 
multi-disciplinary team to manage rural vehicular trauma 
victims. As part of the project, other factors relevant to care 
of rural vehicular trauma patients should be considered, 
including the role of aeromedical evacuation, facilitation of 
consultation with trauma surgeons through telemedicine, 
facilitation of interstate transport, and outreach to local 
community hospitals.
    Driver's License Identification.--The Committee has 
included bill language similar to the fiscal year 1999 
conference report which delays implementation of a provision 
requiring states to display social security numbers on driver's 
licenses and conform with federal uniform features for driver's 
licenses. The Committee has deleted $264,000 that was 
associated with this program out of concern for individual 
privacy and the preemption of state authority.
    Emerging Issues.--The Committee continues to be concerned 
about children who gain access to the trunk of a vehicle and 
are not able to escape, even if they entered through the back 
seat inside the passenger compartment. Many of these children 
die from suffocation, heat stroke, or hypothermia. Within the 
funds provided for emerging issues, the Committee directs NHTSA 
to thoroughly study this issue. The report should provide data 
on the number of trunk entrapments that resulted in death, 
analyze historical trends, and if possible, to compile, and 
recommend strategies, including truck latch release buttons, to 
reduce such incidents. The report is requested by March 31, 
2000.

                         research and analysis

    Biomechanics.--The Committee has included full funding for 
the Crash Injury Reduction and Engineering Network (CIREN). The 
Committee continues to support the effort to link eight trauma 
centers to vehicle engineers in order to study the cause, 
effects and results of crashes. The network consists of centers 
located at: R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, 
Maryland; the University of Medicine & Dentistry, Newark, New 
Jersey; the Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC; 
the Lehman Injury Research Center at the University of Miami 
School of Medicine, Miami, Florida; the University of Michigan 
Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; the Harborview Injury 
Prevention Center, Seattle, Washington; the San Diego County 
Trauma System, San Diego, California; and the Mercedes-Benz 
CIREN Center.
    The Committee also has provided $2,200,000 to fund the 
development of a comprehensive, integrated research program in 
injury sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham 
(UAB). The injury sciences program will develop new and 
improving methods of preventing, treating, and mitigating the 
effects of injuries associated with motor vehicle accidents. 
The program will focus on three aspects of crash impact 
research: modify driver behavior to reduce the likelihood of a 
vehicle accident, minimize the risk of crash injuries in the 
event of a crash, and reduce the risk or mortality and 
morbidity, including diffuse axonal injury.
    State Data Program.--The Committee has included $1,000,000 
for the Yellowstone County Traffic Safety Commission which is 
developing with the assistance of Montana State University a 
network linking emergency medical service (EMS) data with the 
Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) to evaluate 
traffic safety protocols and highway management. Data in the 
system will be used to further assess the effect of occupant 
protection systems, impact of speed limits on highway safety, 
and the validity of various EMS protocols in crash survival.

                        national driver register

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

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     206,800,000
Committee recommendation................................     214,300,000

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
authorized the following State grant programs: Highway Safety 
Program, the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive 
Grant Program, the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program, 
and the State Highway Safety Data Grant Program. Under the 
Highway Safety Program, grant allocations are determined on the 
basis of a statutory formula established under 20 U.S.C. 402. 
Individual States use this funding in national priority areas 
established by Congress which have the greatest potential for 
achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes, 
fatalities, and injuries. The Alcohol-Impaired Driving 
Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program encourages States to 
enact stiffer laws and implement stronger programs to detect 
and remove impaired drivers from the roads. The occupant 
protection program encourages States to promote and strengthen 
occupant protection initiatives. The State Highway Safety Data 
Grants Program encourages States to improve their collection 
and dissemination of important highway safety data.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation 
of contract authorization of $206,800,000 for the payment of 
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant 
programs.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century also 
established the child passenger protection education grant 
program which is subject to appropriations. All of the evidence 
indicates that between 70 and 90 percent of child safety seats 
are incorrectly installed or otherwise misused. The Committee 
supports providing grants that train safety professionals on 
all aspects of proper child restraint use and educate the 
public on the installation, selection, and placement of child 
safety seats. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes 
$7,500,000 to fully implement the section 405(b) grant program.
    The Committee has included a provision prohibiting the use 
of section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or 
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for 
State, local, or private buildings or structures.

                       limitation on obligations

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year    Fiscal year 2000      Committee
                                                               1999 enacted       estimate       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs....................................     $150,000,000     $152,800,000      $152,800,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures  grants...........       35,000,000       36,000,000        36,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants.......................       10,000,000       10,000,000        10,000,000
Child passenger protection education grants \1\............  ...............       (7,500,000)       (7,500,000)
State highway safety data grants...........................        5,000,000        8,000,000         8,000,000
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................      200,000,000      206,800,000       206,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The budget request proposes to fund child passenger occupant protection education grants with funds from
  revenue aligned budget authority transferred to NHTSA operations and research.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 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 $729,653,000 for the activities of the 
Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2000. This is 
$17,049,000 less than the budget request. In addition to these 
appropriated Federal funds, $1,091,810,000 will be paid to 
Amtrak in fiscal year 1999 by the Secretary of the Treasury 
pursuant to section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                          Program                                                2000 budget     recommendation
                                                            1999 enacted \1\      estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations \2\.................................  ................      $95,462,000       $91,789,000
Office of the Administrator...............................      $21,215,000   ................  ................
Railroad safety...........................................       61,488,000   ................  ................
Railroad research and development \3\.....................       22,364,000        21,800,000        22,364,000
Next generation high-speed rail...........................       20,494,000        12,000,000        20,500,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation............................       38,000,000   ................       14,000,000
Rhode Island rail development.............................        5,000,000        10,000,000        10,000,000
Capital grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation.      609,230,000       570,976,000       571,000,000
    Amtrak Reform Council \4\.............................         (450,000)         (750,000)         (950,000)
    RABA rail initiatives \5\.............................  ................       35,400,000   ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...........................      777,791,000       745,638,000       729,653,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277; also excludes funds paid to
  Amtrak pursuant to section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
\2\ Fiscal year 2000 includes $66,461,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\3\ Fiscal year 2000 includes $21,300,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\4\ The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent oversight commission. Funding is provided through a general
  provision, and is not part of the FRA budget.
\5\ 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.

                         Safety and Operations

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................   ($85,574,000)
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................     95,462,000 
Committee recommendation................................     91,789,000 

\1\ Reflects comparable funding appropriated in the following 4 
accounts: Office of the Administrator; Railroad Safety; a portion of the 
Research and Development account; and a portion of the Next Generation 
High Speed Rail account.
\2\ Includes $66,461,000 proposed rail safety user fees.

    The Administration is proposing restructuring the Federal 
Railroad Administration salary and expense accounts by 
consolidating all of FRA's corporate resources from four 
separate appropriations into a single appropriation titled 
Safety and Operations. 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 presentation of all FRA staffing and operations 
in a single account is consistent with account structures in 
other DOT agencies, and would allow FRA to track its program 
and support costs separately. The Committee supports this 
restructuring, but maintains its authority to set and control 
staffing levels associated with the four primary personnel 
functions at FRA.
    The following table reflects the comparable fiscal year 
1999 funding and the fiscal year 2000 Committee recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year      Fiscal year
                                                                 Fiscal year     2000 projected   2000 Committee
                                                                 1999 enacted       request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator (includes contract support, ARR        $20,846,000      $28,379,000      $26,405,000
 liabilities, TASC reduction)................................
    (FTE)....................................................            (152)            (156)            (153)
Railroad safety..............................................      $61,488,000      $63,860,000      $62,254,000
    (FTE)....................................................            (558)            (573)          (559.5)
Administration of research and development...................       $2,646,000       $2,601,000       $2,550,000
    (FTE)....................................................           (18.5)             (19)           (18.5)
Administration of high speed rail............................         $594,000         $622,000         $580,000
    (FTE)....................................................              (5)            (5.5)              (5)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total Safety and Operations............................      $85,574,000      $95,462,000      $91,789,000
          (FTE)..............................................          (733.5)          (753.5)            (736)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the total program level of $91,789,000, the FRA 
Administrator is provided the flexibility to shift 
administrative and personnel funds within the four offices 
(Office of the Administrator, railroad safety, administration 
of research and development, and administration of high-speed 
rail), within a ten percent limitation of the amounts specified 
above. Shifts of administrative funds in excess of that 
limitation shall require the approval of both the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    The bill includes a provision which transfers $1,000,000 in 
safety and operations funds to the Department of Transportation 
Office of Inspector General, for audits and investigations of 
rail-related issues and systems.
    Budget presentation.--To ensure that the Committee is given 
adequate information to exercise appropriate oversight of FRA's 
resources and staff allocations, the Committee directs that FRA 
include in the fiscal year 2001 budget justification staffing 
and dollar breakouts of the safety and operations offices, as 
displayed above. In addition, the supporting documentation in 
the fiscal year 2001 budget justification shall be of the same 
level of detail as that specified in the fiscal year 1999 
budget.
    Staffing increases.--The FRA has requested 15 new positions 
in fiscal year 2000, for a total of $2,788,000 in associated 
personnel costs. The Committee recommendation provides funding 
for 4 of these requested positions: 3 new positions in the area 
of railroad safety (+$288,000). One of the new railroad safety 
positions shall be for a highway engineer to increase the 
capabilities of the agency in grade crossing safety.
    Information technology initiative.--FRA requested 
$1,542,000 for hardware, software and personnel (2 new 
positions) for new information technology systems. The 
Committee has provided funding for 1 new position and half of 
the requested funding for associated hardware, software, and 
contractor consulting costs for the upgraded telecommunications 
infrastructure (+$771,000).
    The Committee directs the FRA to submit a detailed spending 
plan indicating the total costs and improvements necessary to 
upgrade the agency's information technology systems. This plan 
shall include a timetable and project benchmarks, with all 
fiscal year 2001 and out year costs specified by activity. This 
plan shall be submitted as a supplemental justification in the 
FRA fiscal year 2001 budget justification.
    Travel.--A total increase of $770,000 above the enacted 
level is requested for staff travel. Some of this increase is 
associated with new safety inspection and enforcement staff 
brought on board in fiscal year 1999 and some is associated 
with the requested new staffing positions, as well as an 
overall increase in travel. The Committee supports flexibility 
for FRA safety-related staff travel throughout and among the 
regions but has decreased this request by $415,000, based on 
fewer new staff than were requested by the administration.
    Operation Lifesaver.--The Committee recommends $950,000 for 
Operation Lifesaver, which is $650,000 above the 
administration's requested level. The Federal Highway 
Administration provides $500,000 annually from the Surface 
Transportation Program safety set-aside to cover Operation 
Lifesaver salaries, benefits and overhead costs. Of the 
appropriated funds provided herein, $600,000 is provided to 
support Operation Lifesaver's 49 active State programs and 
national safety initiatives. The Committee has also included 
$350,000 to support initial work on a new, national, multi-year 
public service campaign to increase awareness of highway-rail 
grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. The Committee 
stresses the importance of implementing a unified campaign that 
has the financial and technical support of the railroad 
industry, FRA, and the law enforcement community.
    Grade crossing safety.--In addition to the grant to 
Operation Lifesaver, FRA plans to utilize approximately 
$2,500,000 from the safety and operations account for grade 
crossing safety activities, supporting such activities as a 
police officer detail, outreach to law enforcement and judicial 
organizations, and supporting the national highway-rail 
crossing inventory. The Committee fully endorses these 
activities. In addition, within available safety and operations 
funds other than those already identified to support grade 
crossing safety, the Committee directs that $350,000 be made 
available to initiate an evaluation assessing the costs, 
benefits, and impacts of state grade crossing safety laws. 
These evaluations should be coordinated with and help establish 
the basis for FRA's initiative to develop model state laws to 
promote grade crossing safety. The National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) has extensive experience in 
evaluating state traffic laws, and should manage this effort, 
with assistance provided by FRA and the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA). In this evaluation, ``best practices'' 
and innovative strategies used by states or local communities 
to improve grade crossing safety should be identified, and 
successful enforcement, education, and engineering activities 
should be highlighted. The Committee also requests that in the 
course of this analysis, FRA, FHWA and NHTSA encourage states 
to use a portion of their Section 402 highway safety grant 
funds to improve grade crossing safety.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................     $21,215,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         ( \2\ )
Committee recommendation................................         ( \2\ )

\1\ Excludes reduction of $369,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of 
Public Law 105-277
\2\ Funding is presented in the proposed safety and operations account.

                            Railroad Safety

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $61,488,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................         ( \1\ )

\1\ Funding is presented in the proposed safety and operations account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Railroad Research and Development

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $22,364,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\ \2\...........................      21,800,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,364,000

\1\ Excludes administrative expenses to be funded in the proposed safety 
and operations account.
\2\ Includes $21,300,000 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 
$22,364,000 for railroad research and development, $564,000 
more than the administration's requested level.

                        committee recommendation

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

Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials...........     $10,114,000
Track and vehicle track interaction.....................       6,950,000
Safety of high speed ground transportation..............       4,800,000
R&D facilities..........................................         500,000

    Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials.--The 
Committee recommends a program funding level of $10,114,000, 
which is $1,064,000 more than the administration's request. 
Within this amount, $1,500,000 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. This is an ongoing test program that is jointly 
administered by the FRA and the Association of American 
Railroads (AAR).
    Additionally, within this amount, three safety research 
programs will be funded: $500,000 for the Center for Advanced 
Vehicle Technologies at the University of Alabama, to develop 
vehicle proximity alert systems and other sensor and 
electromagnetic devices that address crossing safety train/
vehicle combination issues; and $500,000 for research to be 
performed jointly by Marshall University and the University of 
Nebraska. This research shall focus on real time monitoring of 
track subsurface stability; detection of track ``weak spots'' 
and the development of metallurgical manufacturing techniques 
to minimize such ``weak spots''. Additionally, within this 
amount, $500,000 shall be provided for a Montana State 
University at Bozeman pilot program to provide real-time 
diagnostic monitoring of rail rolling stock using differential 
global positioning system technology.
    Track and vehicle-track interaction.--The Committee 
recommends a program funding level of $6,950,000, $500,000 less 
than the administration's request. Within this amount, $500,000 
shall be used to work with the University of Missouri-Rolla on 
advanced composite materials use in repairing and 
rehabilitating rail bridges. Aging rail bridges are 
increasingly being required to handle heavier axial loads and 
higher train speeds. The University of Missouri-Rolla has 
played a leading role in exploring new technologies in advanced 
composite materials that will help prolong the functional 
lifespan of bridges and reduce maintenance costs in the long 
term.
    The FRA requested $500,000 in new/expanded program funding 
for testing of an on-board locomotive communications bus to 
foster interoperability of positive train control (PTC) 
systems. This project was initiated in fiscal year 1997 under a 
cooperative agreement with Conrail on behalf of themselves, 
Norfolk Southern and CSX railroads, and is now in the third 
phase, which involves intensive testing of on-board wiring 
harness and communications software protocols which interface 
with four different automatic train control systems on Norfolk 
Southern rail line between Harrisburg, PA and Manassas, VA. The 
Committee strongly supports this ongoing project, but has moved 
the program funding from the ``Railroad research and 
development'' account to the ``Next generation high-speed 
rail'' account, in order to consolidate all the PTC program 
elements within the same office.
    Safety of high-speed ground transportation.--The Committee 
recommends a program funding level of $4,800,000, the same 
level as the administration's request.
    Research and development facilities.--The Committee 
recommends a funding level of $500,000 for R&D facilities, the 
same level as the administration's request. The Committee has 
not yet received a response from FRA to the directive in Senate 
Report 105-249 that FRA include in the fiscal year 2000 budget 
justification a description of FRA's track research vehicle 
needs, and an analysis of whether the FRA could utilize the AAR 
track research vehicle that is current onsite at TTC. The 
Committee directs that FRA not obligate any of the fiscal year 
2000 research and development facilities funds provided herein 
for T-6 track research vehicle-related expenses until this 
analysis has been submitted to the Committee in letter form.

       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 2000.
    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, 1999....................................     $20,494,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............................      12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,500,000

\1\ Excludes administrative expenses to be funded in the proposed safety 
and operations account.

    The Committee has provided $20,500,000 in general fund 
appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT] 
Program. The amount provided is $8,500,000 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.
    High-speed rail crossing improvement program.--In section 
1103 of TEA21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year from 
surface transportation program safety funds is made available 
for the elimination of rail-highway crossing hazards. A limited 
number of rail corridors are eligible for these funds. Of these 
set-aside funds, the Committee directs that $1,000,000 be used 
to mitigate grade crossing hazards on the gulf coast corridor 
between Mobile, AL and New Orleans, LA, $1,000,000 be used to 
mitigate grade crossing hazards on the Stampede Pass rail 
corridor near Yakima, Washington, and $1,000,000 be used to 
mitigate grade crossing hazards on the Midwest Regional 
Corridor within the State of Wisconsin. In addition to the 
automatic set-aside funding, $15,000,000 in general funds is 
authorized to be appropriated for these purposes. The 
administration has proposed that $15,000,000 from transferred 
revenue aligned budget authority funds be used for high-speed 
rail grade crossing mitigation. Section 7201 of TEA21 provides 
a more general authorization of the high-speed rail program at 
a total level of $35,000,000 in general funds each year through 
fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee recommends the following funding levels for 
the Next generation high-speed rail programs:

Train control systems...................................      $7,300,000
High-speed non-electric locomotives.....................       8,000,000
Grade crossing hazard mitigation........................       4,000,000
Track/structures technology.............................       1,200,000

    Train control systems.--The administration has proposed 
that $10,000,000 from transferred revenue aligned budget 
authority funds be used for two positive train control 
demonstration projects: a flexible block high-speed train 
control system on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor ($7,000,000); 
and an incremental train control system on a segment of the 
Detroit-Chicago corridor ($3,000,000).
    The Committee has provided a total of $7,300,000 for 
positive train control demonstration projects. Of these funds, 
no less than $5,000,000 shall be for the Alaska Railroad 
positive train control project (discussed below) and no less 
than $1,000,000 shall be for the Transportation Safety Research 
Alliance (TSRA) advanced integrated technology system, which 
will provide continuous direction, movement, and highway 
crossing controls for the rail freight industry.
    Alaska Railroad positive train control research and 
implementation.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the 
third and final phase of the Alaska Railroad's ongoing efforts 
to implement a collision avoidance positive train control 
system over the entire Alaska Railroad system. These funds will 
help fund a satellite-based communications and tracking system 
that will provide positive train separation for all locomotives 
and track vehicles, and precision train control with movement-
pass planning capabilities. This project, once completed, will 
be more than a demonstration project--it will be a fully 
operational PTC system, providing the FRA and rail industry 
with an invaluable baseline reference for other positive train 
control system development projects.
    High-speed nonelectric locomotives.--The Committee has 
provided a total of $8,000,000 for the high-speed, nonelectric 
locomotive program. This is $1,200,000 more than 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 $5,000,000 for the ALPS program.
    Grade crossing hazard mitigation.--The Committee recommends 
$4,000,000 for grade crossing hazard mitigation initiatives, 
the level requested by the administration.
    Track/structures technology.--The Committee has provided 
$1,200,000 for the track/structures technology program, the 
same level as the administration's request.

                     Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      14,000,000

    The Committee has included a total of $14,000,000 for rail 
safety and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger 
operations of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 470 
miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in 
Alaska, to the interior town of Fairbanks. It carries both 
passengers and freight, and provides a critical transportation 
link for passengers and cargo traveling through difficult 
terrain and harsh climatic conditions. Of the $14,000,000 
provided in the bill, $10,000,000 will be used to continue the 
railroad's multiyear effort to reduce the backlog of deferred 
track maintenance and related capital rehabilitation. The 
remaining $4,000,000 will be applied to projects in and around 
Anchorage to double track the railroad's system in the 
metropolitan area. Double tracking is an important step towards 
rail-based transit in Anchorage. In addition, the rail system 
has become congested in the Anchorage area, particularly with 
shipments of high-value freight such as low-sulphur coal and 
jet fuel. The railroad has always provided a substantial non-
Federal match for past Federal appropriations, and will 
continue to do so.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for construction of a 
third track paralleling the Northeast corridor for the 22-mile 
stretch between Quonset Point/Davisville and Central Falls, RI. 
This project is an initiative supported by the administration 
and Amtrak, to avoid mixing freight traffic and high-speed 
passenger rail service and to provide sufficient clearance to 
accommodate double-stack freight cars.
    To date, this project has received $28,000,000 in Federal 
funds. Construction on the rehabilitation of track between 
Boston Switch and Atwells should be completed by the summer of 
2000. Construction to add a third track along selected 
stretches of 13 miles of the NEC mainline between Cranston and 
Davisville is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2000.

 Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $609,230,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     570,976,000
Committee recommendation................................     571,000,000

    For fiscal year 2000, the administration has requested an 
appropriation of $570,976,000 for capital funding with the same 
flexibility in spending its capital grant as provided to 
transit grantees. These funds would be in addition to the 
$1,091,810,000 in fiscal year 2000 TRA funds, adding to a total 
of $1,622,810,000 in federal funds for fiscal year 2000.

Amtrak appropriations history--1971-99

                        [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
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................  22,638.1

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $571,000,000 for Amtrak capital 
grants in fiscal year 2000. This is the same funding level 
requested by Amtrak, and is $24,000 more than the funding level 
requested by the administration. The reason for this 
discrepancy between requests has not been explained by either 
FRA or Amtrak. The amount provided is $38,230,000 less than the 
fiscal year 1999 appropriated level.
    Amtrak's financial situation remains precarious. According 
to the Corporation's financial management office, the railroad 
will end fiscal year 1999 with a cash loss requiring short-term 
borrowing of $512,000,000. The Committee acknowledges that the 
Corporation is taking some of the necessary steps to improve 
its financial condition, including the formation of cost-
sharing partnerships with states, the expansion of high-value 
mail and express services, and the contracting out food 
services operations. Even so, Amtrak's financial condition will 
continue to suffer due to the low ridership and high operating 
costs associated with its long distance trains. A significant 
portion of Amtrak's operating expenses are associated with 
labor costs--costs that have continued to rise over and above 
the levels assumed in Amtrak's business plans from prior years. 
Amtrak has continued to sign labor agreements with its unions 
based on the ``pattern'' embodied in the agreement reached with 
the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE). These 
``pattern'' agreements have kept the increase in labor costs 
below the levels experienced in the freight rail industry. 
While these increased labor costs are now accounted for in 
Amtrak's latest strategic business plan, they will continue to 
rise. These costs, along with other cost areas where savings 
have yet to materialize, such as electric power, will 
exacerbate Amtrak's challenge in improving their bottom line 
over the long term.
    Market Based Network Analysis.--Amtrak is performing a 
Market Based Network Analysis (MBNA) of existing passenger rail 
ridership, revenue, operating characteristics, cost and 
financial performance of the existing routes on Amtrak's 
system. This analysis will include market research of the 
intercity travel market, the physical constraints to changes in 
train frequency or speeds, and mail/express service potential. 
Using this information, Amtrak will analyze different service 
alternatives, including route restructuring and modification, 
frequency changes, route expansions, and route eliminations.
    The MBNA will be competed in late summer 1999, so that 
Amtrak can incorporate the resulting network redesign, capital 
investment requirements, implementation process and time frame, 
and financial impact into the fiscal year 2000 Strategic 
Business Plan, which is scheduled for publication in October 
1999. The Committee believes that this analysis can be an 
important tool for Amtrak's Board, the Amtrak Reform Council, 
and Congress in making decisions that will affect the 
railroad's future. The Committee directs that Amtrak make the 
MBNA available to House and Senate Appropriations Committees, 
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and 
the Senate Commerce Committee before publication of the fiscal 
year 2000 Strategic Business Plan.
    Northeast Corridor high-speed service.--In late calendar 
year 1999, Amtrak plans to phase in its ``Acela Express'' high-
speed electrified service between Boston, New York and 
Washington, DC. Amtrak has stated that travel time between New 
York and Washington will decrease from the current three hours 
to as little as 2 hours 30 minutes; travel time between New 
York and Boston will drop from the current 4 hours 45 minutes 
to as little as three hours. When fully operational (December 
2000), Amtrak has projected that this new Northeast corridor 
service will generate $180,000,000 annually in net revenues, 
which the railroad expects to turn back to the Corporation to 
offset losses on other non-profitable lines.
    In preparation for this new service, especially north of 
New Haven, where train service has heretofore been non-
electric, Amtrak has initiated a comprehensive program to brief 
all fire, police, and rescue personnel in communities along the 
railroad and to give presentations in area schools regarding 
the danger of playing near the tracks. Amtrak plans to contact 
every school and all fire, police and rescue personnel prior to 
start-up of new electrified service. The Committee recognizes 
these efforts, and asks that Amtrak work with the affected 
Northeast corridor communities, as well as state transit 
officials and owners of the track, to identify danger spots and 
install perimeter fencing along the corridor where needed. In 
particular, Amtrak should continue to focus on increased 
community coordination in urbanized areas where there have been 
problems or where community concerns have been expressed, such 
as Attleboro, Foxboro, Mansfield, and Sharon, Massachusetts. 
Where possible, Amtrak should seek to install the necessary 
fencing for these areas prior to the initiation of high-speed 
electrified service.
    On the south end of the Northeast corridor, between 
Washington, D.C. and New York, the track, signals, electric 
catenary and overhead wire are much older, and are in need of 
replacement or upgrade. The Committee directs that Amtrak 
provide a letter report to the Committees on Appropriations 
before August 27, 1999, describing in detail the planned 
infrastructure improvements along the south end of the corridor 
in the States of Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New 
Jersey. The report should provide descriptions of work needed, 
cost estimates, and a timetable with benchmarks. The report 
should include any current or expected cost-sharing 
arrangements with the states, other railroads, or any other 
sources.
    Los Angeles to Las Vegas service.--There is currently no 
passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. A 
preliminary agreement has been reached with the Union Pacific 
Railroad over the magnitude and scope of the infrastructure 
improvements along the UP's line that will allow implementation 
of passenger service. A second track would be installed on the 
UP mainline between Cima and Kelso, a distance of just over 20 
miles, at an estimated cost of $28,000,000. Amtrak's fiscal 
years 1998 and 1999 capital budgets included $14,000,000 to 
initiate this service; UP will be responsible for the remainder 
of the costs associated with making the necessary track and 
infrastructure upgrades. A unique partnership arrangement with 
local businesses, who will buy a large number of seats per 
year, guarantees a passenger-related revenue stream. This 
service may be initiated as early as mid-2000, and will have a 
travel time of five hours thirty minutes to cover the 270 mile 
distance between the two cities.
    Southern Pines, NC railroad station.--The Committee notes 
with satisfaction the commitment that the railroad has made to 
full participation in the restoration of the historic Southern 
Pines railroad station. Amtrak is negotiating with CSX Railroad 
for ownership of the property, and if all goes as planned, will 
begin performing work on the station this summer.
    Amtrak service in Vermont.--The Committee understands that 
there are communities interested in future Amtrak service 
between Hoosick Falls, New York and Burlington, Vermont. The 
Committee directs that Amtrak provide a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations by September 30, 1999, on 
the capital costs necessary to upgrade the line to passenger 
rail standards for Amtrak service.

                      Rail Initiatives--Trust Fund

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     $35,400,000
Committee recommendation................................................

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

    The Administration is proposing a rail initiatives account 
to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority. The budget 
proposal includes $15,000,000 for high speed rail grade 
crossing; $10,000,000 for positive train control (2 
demonstration projects); and $10,400,000 for the Nationwide 
Differential Global Position System (NDGPS). The Committee has 
not endorsed the administration's requested treatment of 
revenue aligned budget authority funds. However, the Committee 
has provided $7,300,000 in appropriated general funds for 
position train control activities within the ``Next generation 
high-speed rail'' account. The only funding available for high-
speed rail grade crossings is that drawn down from the highway 
safety set-aside, an amount of $5,250,000 a year. The Committee 
has also provided funding for the NDGPS within the Federal-aid 
Highway program, which is fully discussed in the Federal 
Highway Administration section of the report.

                         Amtrak Reform Council

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $450,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............................         750,000
Committee recommendation................................         950,000

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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $950,000 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 year 1999 transportation appropriations act, $450,000 
was appropriated for the Council. For fiscal year 2000, the 
administration has requested an appropriation of $750,000, but 
the Council has sent up an independent budget request for 
$1,300,000. Because the Council is an independent commission, 
the Committee's appropriation of $950,000 is not provided 
within the FRA's budget, but is provided in a general provision 
(section 331) of the bill.
    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. 
After October 2000, the Commission must make a determination on 
whether or not Amtrak can meet the financial goals outlined in 
the ARAA. If the ARC determines these goals cannot be met, they 
must then submit a restructuring plan, and Amtrak must submit a 
liquidation plan.
    The Committee's recommended funding level, $950,000, will 
allow the ARC to decisively move forward in performing its 
tasks and responsibilities. These funds are available for 2 
years, through September 30, 2001.
    During fiscal year 1999, the Council has hired a small 
permanent and part-time staff consisting of an executive 
director and assistant to the executive director, a senior 
attorney, administrative specialist, and administrative 
assistant. The Council also plans to bring on a senior-level 
transportation economist/financial analyst and a transportation 
industry analyst. Both the administration and the Council have 
requested that Congress lift its current restriction on the 
hiring of outside consultants. This provision was put in place 
to prevent potential conflicts of interest and keep ARC costs 
to a minimum. The Committee directs that not more than $200,000 
of the funds herein appropriated be used for outside consultant 
services. These contractual services shall not exceed the 
annual cost of an SES level IV direct compensation on a per FTE 
basis.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 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 $291,270,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
    Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level 
of $5,797,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the 
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2000, which is 
the same obligation limitation authorized under the mass 
transit category in TEA-21.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations compared to fiscal year 2000 and the 
administration's request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                        Program                          1999 enacted \1\     2000 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................             54,000             60,000             60,000
Formula grants \2\.....................................          2,850,000          3,310,270          3,098,000
University transportation research.....................              6,000              6,000              6,000
Transit planning and research \3\......................             98,000            111,000            107,000
Capital investment grants..............................          2,257,000          2,451,000          2,451,000
Job access and reverse commute grants \4\..............             75,000            150,000             75,000
Washington Metro.......................................             50,000  .................  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................          5,390,000          6,088,270          5,797,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277; excludes rescission of
  discretionary grant contract authority; also excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ The Fiscal Year 1999 enacted level excludes transfers of $50,800,000 to the capital investment grants
  program and the Office of Inspector General; the budget proposal includes $212,270,000 from revenue aligned
  budget authority.
\3\ The budget proposal includes $4,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
\4\ The budget proposal includes $75,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.

                        Administrative Expenses


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              General fund        Trust fund
                                                                                                       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................       $10,800,000        $43,200,000       $54,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................        12,000,000         48,000,000        60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................        12,000,000         48,000,000        60,000,000

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $912,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Excludes supplemental
  funding of $250,000 for Y2K.
\2\ Excludes proposed transfer of $1,700,000 to Inspector General for audit reimbursements.


    The Committee recommends a total of $60,000,000 in budget 
resources funds for administrative expenses.
    Last year the Committee directed the OIG to track the 
progress of all fixed guideway projects of national 
significance and perform audits of those experiencing cost, 
schedule, or financing problems. To continue this work in 
fiscal year 2000, the administration proposes reimbursing the 
OIG $1,700,000 from FTA's administrative expenses account. The 
Committee endorses this proposed transfer, and has provided a 
total of $9,000,000 in transferred FTA administrative funds, 
for audits and investigations of all transit-related issues and 
systems. This level reflects the percentage of total Office of 
Inspector General work performed in the transit area.

                             Formula Grants


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              General fund       Trust fund            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\..................................      $570,000,000    $2,280,000,000    $2,850,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\.................................       619,600,000     2,690,000,000     3,310,270,000
Committee recommendation..................................       619,600,000     2,478,400,000     3,098,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $800,000 in oversight funds transferred to OIG. Also excludes $50,000,000 transferred to capital
  investment grants.
\2\ Includes $212,300,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.

    Formula grants to States and local agencies funded under 
this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula 
grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. 
sec. 5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of 
elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. 
sec. 5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized areas 
(U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds 
are directed to: a new grant program for intercity bus 
operators to finance Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] 
accessibility costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements 
to its passenger operations. The administration has proposed 
that $212,270,000 in revenue aligned budget authority funds be 
transferred to the transit formula grants account. Of these 
funds, FTA proposes that $25,000,000 be used to meet the 
transportation needs of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake 
City, $20,000,000 be used for the Long Island Railroad East 
Side Access new starts project, and that an additional 
$1,300,000 be made available for intercity bus ADA compliance 
costs. The remainder of the transferred RABA funds would go to 
the three formula programs. The Committee has not approved any 
transfer of RABA funds, and thereby does not approve this 
request. However, the Committee recognizes the Administration's 
interest in supporting the transportation needs associated with 
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. 
Accordingly, the Committee has provided for these 
transportation functions within the framework of the bus and 
bus facilities and new systems categories.
    Transit Equity Provision.--The bill includes a general 
provision (section 321) which prevents any state from receiving 
more than 12.5 percent of the aggregate formula and capital 
investment grants programs' funds. The following illustrative 
table shows the enacted fiscal year 1999 funding levels for the 
transit formula and capital investment grants programs, and the 
percentage share each state received. The bill's transit equity 
provision would decrease the state's formula grants allocations 
by the amount needed to bring the aggregate total down to 12.5 
percent of the national total. These recovered funds would be 
redistributed to the remaining states in equal measure, to the 
states' section 5307 formula grants programs, for use on any 
eligible capital transit project.

                                                  FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Section
                                                                   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   State total      State
                               State                                                                  5310 Elderly &                    5309 Fixed                     selected FTA   percentage
                                                                     5307 Urbanized      5311 Non-     persons with      5309 New        guideway        5309 Bus        programs      of total
                                                                          area        urbanized area    disability        starts       modernization    allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................................................       $11,402,391      $4,250,030      $1,160,647      $1,000,000  ..............     $23,840,000     $41,653,068       0.82
Alaska............................................................     \1\ 7,005,198         633,771         185,871       5,200,000  ..............       7,500,000      20,524,840        .40
American Samoa....................................................  ................          90,332          52,397  ..............  ..............  ..............         142,729  ..........
Arizona...........................................................        28,888,298       1,860,551       1,023,763       5,000,000      $1,286,274       7,000,000      45,058,886        .88
Arkansas..........................................................         4,440,818       3,397,723         812,084       1,000,000  ..............       3,060,000      12,710,625        .25
California........................................................       407,141,247       8,292,733       6,271,268     146,980,000      86,945,465      40,555,004     696,185,717      13.64
Colorado..........................................................        31,721,677       1,770,167         794,916      41,000,000       1,080,875       8,675,001      85,042,636       1.67
Connecticut.......................................................        40,094,714       1,605,709         910,339       3,500,000      34,799,686       7,550,000      88,460,448       1.73
Delaware..........................................................         5,374,860         400,586         278,659  ..............         666,931       1,000,000       7,721,036        .15
District of Columbia..............................................        22,289,751  ..............         276,620  ..............      32,038,246       7,350,000      61,954,617       1.21
Florida...........................................................       125,722,610       5,330,935       4,233,062      28,500,000      11,094,890      19,500,000     194,381,497       3.81
Georgia...........................................................        47,626,007       6,213,996       1,503,895      53,610,000      14,967,672      15,500,000     139,421,570       2.73
Guam..............................................................  ................         257,155         132,972  ..............  ..............  ..............         390,127        .01
Hawaii............................................................        20,138,902         697,426         353,457       8,200,000         532,305       3,250,000      33,172,090        .65
Idaho.............................................................         2,624,831       1,407,037         361,628  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,393,496        .09
Illinois..........................................................       177,939,272       5,700,995       2,737,694      44,000,000     106,700,651       9,300,000     346,378,612       6.79
Indiana...........................................................        28,246,378       5,507,032       1,438,171       3,000,000       7,161,958       7,700,000      53,053,539       1.04
Iowa..............................................................         8,358,254       3,542,177         872,739         250,000  ..............       6,685,001      19,708,171        .39
Kansas............................................................         6,741,540       2,817,690         732,264       1,000,000  ..............       2,000,000      13,291,494        .26
Kentucky..........................................................        14,624,420       4,651,390       1,112,476  ..............  ..............       5,300,000      25,688,286        .50
Louisiana.........................................................        23,302,797       3,847,036       1,116,063      24,000,000       2,323,293      11,000,000      65,589,189       1.28
Maine.............................................................         1,882,950       1,856,345         451,211  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,190,506        .08
Maryland..........................................................        64,030,500       2,317,558       1,121,323      20,541,000      19,950,711      10,000,000     117,961,092       2.31
Massachusetts.....................................................        97,891,042       2,483,718       1,613,444      56,233,000      60,214,839      13,728,000     232,164,043       4.55
Michigan..........................................................        52,081,684       6,726,332       2,342,839         200,000         321,028      10,600,000      72,271,883       1.42
Minnesota.........................................................        25,669,254       3,870,615       1,137,080      17,000,000       2,452,324      17,500,000      67,629,273       1.32
Mississippi.......................................................         3,996,738       3,777,218         789,061  ..............  ..............       5,500,000      14,063,017        .28
Missouri..........................................................        28,734,839       4,508,270       1,458,410       1,000,000       1,527,879      11,750,000      48,979,398        .96
Montana...........................................................         1,986,212       1,139,811         332,096  ..............  ..............       1,500,000       4,958,119        .10
Nebraska..........................................................         7,027,667       1,719,830         517,396       1,000,000  ..............  ..............      10,264,893        .20
Nevada............................................................        15,156,521         561,498         385,885       4,000,000  ..............       6,115,001      26,218,905        .51
New Hampshire.....................................................         2,782,848       1,486,701         364,757  ..............  ..............       2,770,000       7,404,306        .15
New Jersey........................................................       149,068,196       2,125,667       1,936,285      77,000,000      82,332,792      11,750,000     324,212,940       6.35
New Mexico........................................................         5,913,740       1,671,096         455,491       5,000,000  ..............       5,750,000      18,790,327        .37
New York..........................................................       445,307,544       7,482,603       4,481,782      24,000,000     303,962,647      27,950,000     813,184,576      15.93
North Carolina....................................................        22,314,616       7,948,734       1,709,831      13,000,000  ..............      10,161,001      55,134,182       1.08
North Dakota......................................................         1,936,178         842,941         283,256  ..............  ..............       2,000,000       5,062,375        .10
Northern Marianas.................................................  ................          83,712          52,189  ..............  ..............  ..............         135,901  ..........
Ohio..............................................................        72,640,731       8,092,364       2,856,940       8,500,000      14,917,615      13,450,000     120,457,650       2.36
Oklahoma..........................................................         9,356,223       3,459,402         960,541  ..............  ..............       5,000,000      18,776,166        .37
Oregon............................................................        22,341,456       2,746,796         893,273      25,718,000       2,284,605       8,550,000      62,534,130       1.22
Pennsylvania......................................................       123,375,552       9,027,117       3,424,587      10,000,000      94,236,678      32,966,003     273,029,937       5.35
Puerto Rico.......................................................        39,747,536       2,697,587         847,585      20,000,000       1,336,512         950,000      65,579,220       1.28
Rhode Island......................................................         7,828,479         345,565         402,028  ..............       1,813,989       5,450,000      15,840,061        .31
South Carolina....................................................         9,623,540       3,978,381         928,595       2,200,000  ..............       4,570,000      21,300,516        .42
South Dakota......................................................         1,396,700       1,027,479         305,582  ..............  ..............       5,300,000       8,029,761        .16
Tennessee.........................................................        18,715,967       5,135,635       1,369,761       4,700,000          59,037       2,000,000      31,980,400        .63
Texas.............................................................       136,324,426      10,842,756       3,536,745      90,670,000       4,488,746      17,000,000     262,862,673       5.15
Utah..............................................................        17,314,841         778,886         424,725      75,000,000  ..............      10,300,000     103,818,452       2.03
Vermont...........................................................           701,941         918,655         253,268       2,000,000  ..............       4,000,000       7,873,864        .15
Virgin Islands....................................................  ................         196,622         135,122  ..............  ..............  ..............         331,744        .01
Virginia..........................................................        48,405,321       4,553,238       1,424,809      27,000,000         467,604      13,950,000      95,800,972       1.88
Washington........................................................        71,241,720       3,190,397       1,278,234      47,250,000      12,320,187      22,700,000     157,980,538       3.09
West Virginia.....................................................         3,384,125       2,712,757         679,558       4,000,000  ..............      14,500,000      25,276,440        .50
Wisconsin.........................................................        30,207,820       4,687,326       1,304,931         500,000         514,561      16,875,001      54,089,639       1.06
Wyoming...........................................................           969,869         655,575         215,996  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,841,440        .04
Unallocated.......................................................  ................  ..............  ..............          48,000  ..............  ..............          48,000  ..........
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................................................     2,553,040,741     177,923,658      67,035,601     902,800,000     902,800,000     501,400,000   5,105,000,000     100.00
                                                                   =============================================================================================================================
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility...................................         2,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,000,000  ..........
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total.................................................     2,555,040,741     177,923,658      67,035,601     902,800,000     902,800,000     501,400,000   5,107,000,000  ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 appropriated for the Alaska Railroad.

    Within the total funding level of $3,098,000,000, the 
statutory distribution of these formula grants is allocated 
among these categories as follows:

Urbanized areas (sec. 5307).............................  $2,772,890,281
Clean fuels (sec. 5308).................................      50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................      72,946,801
Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311)..........................     193,612,968
Over-the-Road Bus Program...............................       3,700,000
Alaska railroad.........................................       4,849,950

    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 2000 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.....................................      $12,345,815       $4,601,674       $1,262,364      $18,209,853
Alaska \1\..................................        7,159,272          686,209          191,850        8,037,331
American Samoa..............................  ...............           97,806           52,632          150,438
Arizona.....................................       31,278,488        2,014,492        1,112,036       34,405,016
Arkansas....................................        4,808,246        3,678,847          879,566        9,366,659
Califomia...................................      440,827,753        8,978,871        6,874,937      456,681,561
Colorado....................................       34,346,300        1,916,629          860,712       37,123,641
Connecticut.................................       43,412,116        1,738,563          987,472       46,138,151
Delaware....................................        5,819,571          433,730          293,751        6,547,052
District of Columbia........................       24,133,985  ...............          291,511       24,425,496
Florida.....................................      136,124,791        5,772,011        4,636,540      146,533,342
Georgia.....................................       51,566,541        6,728,137        1,639,325       59,934,003
Guam........................................  ...............          278,431          133,754          412,185
Hawaii......................................       21,805,177          755,131          375,895       22,936,203
Idaho.......................................        2,842,008        1,523,454          384,869        4,750,331
Illinois....................................      192,661,811        6,172,689        2,994,303      201,828,803
Indiana.....................................       30,583,459        5,962,678        1,567,146       38,113,283
Iowa........................................        9,049,807        3,835,253          946,179       13,831,239
Kansas......................................        7,299,329        3,050,822          791,908       11,142,059
Kentucky....................................       15,834,432        5,036,242        1,209,462       22,080,136
Louisiana...................................       25,230,847        4,165,337        1,213,401       30,609,585
Maine.......................................        2,038,744        2,009,937          483,251        4,531,932
Maryland....................................       69,328,328        2,509,310        1,219,178       73,056,816
Massachusetts...............................      105,990,461        2,689,218        1,759,633      110,439,312
Michigan....................................       56,390,876        7,282,862        2,560,666       66,234,404
Minnesota...................................       27,793,106        4,190,867        1,236,483       33,220,456
Mississippi.................................        4,327,424        4,089,742          854,282        9,271,448
Missouri....................................       31,112,334        4,881,280        1,589,372       37,582,986
Montana.....................................        2,150,550        1,234,118          352,436        3,737,104
Nebraska....................................        7,609,130        1,862,127          555,935       10,027,192
Nevada......................................       16,410,558          607,956          411,508       17,430,022
New Hampshire...............................        3,013,098        1,609,709          388,305        5,011,112
New Jersey..................................      161,401,967        2,301,543        2,114,182      165,817,692
New Mexico..................................        6,403,038        1,809,361          487,951        8,700,350
New York....................................      482,151,901        8,101,711        4,909,688      495,163,300
North Carolina..............................       24,160,905        8,606,405        1,865,487       34,632,797
North Dakota................................        2,096,375          912,685          298,799        3,307,859
Northern Marianas...........................  ...............           90,638           52,404          143,042
Ohio........................................       78,650,959        8,761,919        3,125,261       90,538,139
Oklahoma....................................       10,130,348        3,745,630        1,042,604       14,918,582
Oregon......................................       24,189,968        2,974,063          968,730       28,132,761
Pennsylvania................................      133,583,533        9,774,012        3,748,659      147,106,204
Puerto Rico.................................       43,036,204        2,920,782          918,554       46,875,540
Rhode Island................................        8,476,199          374,157          429,237        9,279,593
South Carolina..............................       10,419,785        4,307,549        1,007,521       15,734,855
South Dakota................................        1,512,262        1,112,492          323,318        2,948,072
Tennessee...................................       20,264,508        5,560,553        1,492,017       27,317,078
Texas.......................................      147,603,791       11,739,874        3,871,834      163,215,499
Utah........................................       18,747,454          843,330          454,162       20,044,946
Vermont.....................................          760,019          994,664          265,866        2,020,549
Virgin Islands..............................  ...............          212,891          136,116          349,007
Virginia....................................       52,410,334        4,929,969        1,552,472       58,892,775
Washington..................................       77,136,196        3,454,367        1,391,500       81,982,063
West Virginia...............................        3,664,123        2,937,208          734,024        7,335,355
Wisconsin...................................       32,707,189        5,075,151        1,420,820       39,203,160
Wyoming.....................................        1,050,115          709,817          224,933        1,984,865
Unallocated.................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............................    2,763,851,530      192,644,903       72,946,801    3,029,443,234
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight...................................       13,888,701          968,065  ...............       14,856,766
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................    2,777,740,231      193,612,968       72,946,801    3,044,300,000
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Fuels.................................  ...............  ...............  ...............       50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility.............  ...............  ...............  ...............        3,700,000
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand Total.............................  ...............  ...............  ...............    3,098,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.

                   University Transportation Research


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999............................................      $1,200,000      $4,800,000      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...........................................       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 1999.

                     Transit Planning and Research


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999............................................     $19,800,000     $78,200,000     $98,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\.......................................      21,000,000      90,000,000     111,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      21,000,000      86,000,000     107,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.

    The Committee action provides $107,000,000 for transit 
planning and research. The bill contains language specifying 
that $49,632,000 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; $10,368,000 for the State planning and research 
program; $8,250,000 for transit cooperative research; and 
$4,000,000 for the National Transit Institute. Under the 
national component of the program, the Federal Transit 
Administration is a catalyst in the research, development, and 
deployment of transportation methods and technologies 
addressing such issues as accessibility for the disabled, air 
quality, and traffic congestion service and operational 
improvements. Funds for the State and local component of the 
program will ensure that all localities have sufficient funds 
to improve the State and local planning process and to 
participate in research efforts with regional applications.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--
                             ----------------------------    Committee
                              1999 program   2000 budget  recommendation
                                  level       estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning.......   $43,841,600   $49,632,000    $49,632,000
Rural transit assistance         5,250,000     5,250,000      5,250,000
 program....................
State planning and research      9,158,400    10,368,000     10,368,000
 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           27,500,000    33,500,000     29,500,000
 research program \1\.......
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................    98,000,000   111,000,000    107,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal Year 2000 includes $4,000,000 from revenue aligned budget
  authority.

                  TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

    Transit Data Base.--The Committee is concerned that the 
Transit Data Base contains data that is unreliable and/or 
unusable. Transit Data Base information collected from federal 
grantees, which is used for the purposes of allocating federal 
formula grants and sharing operational data throughout the 
industry, is chronically late (published up to three years 
after receipt) and noticeably error-ridden. It is also apparent 
to the Committee that the scope of the information collected is 
insufficient to provide government, industry and academic 
institutions with useful operating characteristics and 
performance statistics of transit systems nationwide.
    The Committee directs the FTA to initiate a contract with 
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to design a new Transit 
Data Base, comprised of operational statistics, performance 
measurements and other financial data necessary to fulfill 
FTA's responsibilities for distributing formula grants, while 
providing government, industry, academic institutions, and 
others with meaningful data for data sharing and benchmark 
purposes. In designing the new Transit Data Base, special 
attention should be paid to developing clear instructions for 
those agencies that must submit data and employing computer-
based electronic data storage and access techniques. FTA is 
directed to execute such an agreement with NAS within 30 days 
of enactment of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, using 
available research funds from the Transit cooperative research 
program.
    FTA shall submit the recommended Transit Data Base design 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and to the 
General Services Administration for review within 180 days of 
enactment, and subsequent to that review, shall publish the new 
Transit Data Base design in the Federal Register, and 
incorporate the new design in the fiscal year 2001 cycle of 
federal grantee reports.
    Over-the-road bus accessibility compliance issues.--The 
Committee is concerned that the TEA21 formula program which 
makes grants to intercity bus operators to assist with the 
costs of Americans with Disabilities Act and Clean Air Act 
compliance may be insufficient to meet the national needs of 
these operators, who provide essential, affordable intercity 
transportation, particularly in rural areas. The guaranteed 
funding level for this program is $3,700,000 in fiscal year 
2000; and under TEA21, a 50 percent match by the operator is 
required for eligible acquisition costs. The Committee directs 
the transit cooperative research program to perform an analysis 
of the over-the-road bus accessibility program, including data 
on the total capital needs of these operators to comply with 
ADA; compliance deadlines; and a discussion of the 
appropriateness of the matching fund requirement. This report 
shall be provided to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban 
Affairs Committee by March 1, 2000.

                 NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

    The FTA has requested that $11,600,000 of its national 
planning and research program be spent on equipment and 
infrastructure research activities. Of this program level, 
TEA21 earmarks $7,000,000 for four projects. In addition to 
these four projects and within the equipment and infrastructure 
program, the Committee directs that the two following projects 
receive the specified levels of funding:
    Zinc air battery research.--The Committee directs that FTA 
provide $1,500,000 to continue and expand the zinc-air bus 
demonstration project in Las Vegas, NV. This ongoing program 
will help FTA assess the relative merits of emerging clean-air 
transportation technologies.
    Calstart clean fuel alternative vehicles.--The Committee 
directs that FTA provide $1,000,000 to the Calstart advanced 
transit systems and electric vehicle program. The Calstart 
advanced transportation technology consortium has ongoing clean 
fuel technology projects at airports, and is also working on 
the development of clean ferries technologies.
    Electric vehicle information sharing and technology 
transfer program.--The FTA has requested that $3,600,000 of its 
national planning and research program be spent on information 
management and technology activities. Of the requested funds, 
the Committee believes that the proposed international 
technical assistance and small business innovation research 
programs are not timely initiatives, and directs that the 
$500,000 associated with these requests, in combination with 
$500,000 from the human resources program, be utilized to 
establish a new electric vehicle information sharing and 
technology transfer program. This $1,000,000 grant shall be 
made available to the Electric Power Research Institute and the 
Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, for the purpose 
of conducting a technology transfer and information and data 
collection program for battery electric and hybrid electric 
buses. These funds shall be leveraged through cost sharing. Of 
those electric and hybrid electric bus projects funded in 
fiscal year 1999 and prior years' appropriations, and those 
electric bus projects which receive funds through the fiscal 
year 2000 appropriations, the Secretary shall encourage the 
project sponsors to participate in this technology transfer 
program so that information gathered and technology assessments 
while conducting the project can be gathered and disseminated 
to other agencies and authorities interested in using these new 
technologies. These grant funds shall be used for data and 
information collection, distribution of such information 
through public workshops, Internet distribution, and other 
means of widespread public dissemination.
    Portland, ME independent transportation network.--The FTA 
has requested that $2,500,000 of its national planning and 
research program be spent on planning and project development 
activities. Within this program level, the Committee directs 
that $500,000 be provided for the Portland, ME independent 
transportation network, a regional program which seeks to 
address the mobility needs of an aging population, who are 
increasingly unable to drive safely and are often stranded in 
rural and suburban locations that lack the density for 
traditional mass transit.
    Wheeling, WV mobility study.--The Committee directs that 
FTA provide $250,000 to the appropriate officials in Wheeling, 
WV for the preparation of a mobility study to determine the 
transportation improvements that will be necessary as part of 
the continued development of the Wheeling National Heritage 
area and the central business district of the city of Wheeling.
    Utah advanced traffic management system.--Within the 
overall national planning and research program, FTA is directed 
to provide $3,000,000 for the transit component of Utah's 
advanced traffic management system. This integrated ITS project 
will greatly assist local traffic authorities in managing both 
local and out-of-state spectator traffic at the 2002 Winter 
Olympics, and the ITS infrastructure will remain in place to 
assist the Salt Lake City region with future traffic management 
needs.
    Trans-Hudson tunnel feasibility study.--Section 3030 of 
TEA21 authorizes a study of the feasibility of building a 
Trans-Hudson tunnel for increased rail access between New 
Jersey and New York City. FTA has requested new funding in 
fiscal year 2000 for research and analysis on different subway 
tunnel design and construction methods. The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for a feasibility study of a 
Hudson River tunnel, which shall incorporate an analysis of the 
different tunnel technology options available and appropriate 
to the Hudson River's specific geological and hydrostatic 
characteristics.
    In addition to the initiatives listed above, the Committee 
reaffirms the transit planning and research grants from the 
national program that were contained in sec. 3012 of the 
Transportation Equity Act for fiscal year 2000:

Washoe County, NV, transit technology...................      $1,250,000
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority advanced electric 
    transit buses and related infrastructure............       1,500,000
Palm Springs, CA, fuel cell buses.......................       1,500,000
Gloucester, MA, intermodal technology center............       1,500,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority advanced 
    propulsion control system...........................       3,000,000
Project ACTION..........................................       3,000,000

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $4,251,800,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\...............................   4,929,270,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,638,000,000

\1\ Includes $291,270,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.

    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee has provided 
$4,638,000,000 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, 1999 \1\.....................................     $501,400,000   $1,805,600,000   $2,307,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000........................................      490,200,000    1,960,800,000    2,451,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................      490,200,000    1,960,800,000    2,451,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants pursuant to Public Law 105-277.

    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 $2,451,000,000. 
Within this total, $1,960,800,000 is from the ``Mass transit'' 
account of the highway trust fund, and no more than 
$490,200,000 shall be appropriated from general funds. The 
following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                                  1999 program     2000 budget      Committee
                                                                      level         estimate     recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities \1\.....................................    $501,400,000    $490,200,000     $490,200,000
Fixed guideway modernization...................................     902,800,000     980,400,000      980,400,000
New systems and new extensions.................................     902,800,000     980,400,000      980,400,000
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................................   2,307,000,000   2,451,000,000    2,451,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants.

    Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
The Committee has redistributed unallocated discretionary bus 
and new starts funds from projects which were funded in the 
fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill (Public Law 
104-205) and previous acts making these funds available for 
reallocation in fiscal year 2000. As in previous years, a 
general provision (sec. 317) is included which limits funding 
availability for these fiscal year 2000 capital investment 
funds, except fixed-guideway modernization funds, to 3 years 
from enactment.
    Under the 3-year availability rule, funding provided in 
fiscal year 1997 for the following bus and bus-related projects 
will lapse if the grant recipients do not obligate the 
remaining unobligated funds by September 30, 1999:

                                                               Remaining
                                                       unobligated funds
Little Rock, AR.........................................        $992,500
Fairfield City, CA......................................       1,389,500
Foothill, CA............................................       4,053,837
North Orange County, CA.................................         198,500
Norwalk, CA.............................................         192,500
Riverside County, CA....................................         992,500
Santa Cruz MTD, CA......................................       1,985,000
Sonoma County, CA.......................................         992,500
Thousand Oaks, CA.......................................         595,500
Statewide, DE...........................................       5,195,478
Miami Beach, FL.........................................         992,500
Chatham, GA.............................................       1,052,050
Statewide, LA...........................................       9,794,315
Boston, MA..............................................         672,500
Statewide, MI...........................................       4,122,500
Jackson, MS buses and facilities........................         992,500
Jackson, MS downtown multimodal center..................       3,473,750
St. Louis, MO...........................................       1,736,875
Buffalo, NY.............................................         992,500
New Rochelle, NY........................................       1,235,000
Syracuse, NY............................................       1,985,000
Hood River, OR..........................................         173,688
Salem, OR...............................................       1,836,125
Erie, PA................................................       1,985,000
Spartanburg, SC.........................................       1,488,750
El Paso, TX.............................................         139,988
Galveston, TX...........................................         496,250
Liberty, Montgomery, Polk Counties, TX..................       1,013,170
Burlington, VT..........................................       1,488,750
Reston, VA..............................................         496,250
Virginia Beach, VA......................................         992,500
Everett, WA.............................................       2,977,500

    In addition, under the 3-year availability rule, funding 
provided in fiscal year 1997 for the following new fixed 
guideway systems projects will lapse if the grant recipients do 
not obligate the remaining unobligated funds by September 30, 
1999:
                                             Remaining unobligated funds

Dallas--RAILTRAN........................................     $15,140,000
Houston--Regional Bus...................................      40,310,000
St. Louis--Metrolink....................................       3,400,000
New Orleans--Canal Street LRT...........................       7,940,000
Little Rock--River Rail Project.........................       1,810,000
North Carolina--Research Triangle Transit Plan..........         700,000
San Diego--Mid Coast Corridor...........................       1,490,000
Hartford-Griffin LRT Project............................         990,000
Alaska--Ketchikan Ferry Project.........................       6,340,000
Burlington to Charlotte, VT Commuter Rail...............         990,000
Jackson, MS--Intermodal Corridor........................       5,460,000
New York--Whitehall Ferry Terminal......................       1,670,000
Virginia Railway Express--Commuter Rail Project.........       2,980,000

    The Committee urges the grant recipients noted above to 
move swiftly to obligate these funds. When the transportation 
appropriations conferees meet later this year, any unobligated 
funds in the bus or new systems accounts that were earmarked in 
fiscal year 1997 or prior will be available for reprogramming 
under the 3-year availability rule.

                         bus and bus facilities

    The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities 
funding is $490,200,000, 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. There are 
three set-asides within the allocation of funds for 
discretionary bus and bus facilities $3,000,000 is made 
available for the Altoona, PA, bus testing facility; 
$50,000,000 is made available only for grants that meet the 49 
U.S.C. section 5308 Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program 
standards, and $4,850,000 is made available for qualifying fuel 
cell bus projects. In addition, TEA21 includes bus and bus 
facility projects with a minimum level of funding under the 
``guaranteed'' funding level for the mass transit discretionary 
budget category.
    The Committee has included bill language that delineates a 
number of eligible bus and bus facilities projects, and directs 
the Federal Transit Administrator to submit to the 
congressional appropriations and authorizing committees, within 
60 days of enactment of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations 
legislation, a grant recommendation list choosing from among 
the projects listed in the appropriations bill. This list is 
inclusive of all bus and bus facilities projects that were 
included in the TEA21 legislation (sec. 3031), as well as 
projects that have been brought to the Appropriations 
Committee's attention as being meritorious and in need of 
Federal assistance.
    2001 Special Olympics Winter Games buses and transit 
facilities, Anchorage, Alaska
    Adrian buses and bus facilities, Michigan
    Alabama statewide rural bus needs, Alabama
    Alameda-Conta Costa Transit District project, California
    Albany train station/intermodal facility, New York
    Albuquerque SOLAR computerized transit management system, 
New Mexico
    Albuquerque Westside transit maintenance facility, New 
Mexico
    Albuquerque, buses, paratransit vehicles, and bus facility, 
New Mexico
    Alexandria Union Station transit center, Virginia
    Alexandria, bus maintenance facility and Crystal City 
canopy project, Virginia
    Allegheny County buses, Pennsylvania
    Altoona bus testing facility, Pennsylvania
    Altoona, Metro Transit Authority buses and transit system 
improvements, Pennsylvania
    Ames transit facility expansion, Iowa
    Anchorage Ship Creek intermodal facility, Alaska
    Arkansas Highway and Transit Department buses, Arkansas
    Arkansas state safety and preventative maintenace facility, 
Arkansas
    Armstrong County-Mid-County, PA bus facilities and buses, 
Pennsylvania
    Atlanta, MARTA buses, Georgia
    Attleboro intermodal transit facility, Massachusetts
    Austin buses, Texas
    Babylon Intermodal Center, New York
    Baldwin Rural Area Transportation System buses, Alabama
    Ballston Metro access improvements, Virginia
    Bay/Saginaw buses and bus facilities, Michigan
    Beaumont Municipal Transit System buses and bus facilities, 
Texas
    Beaver County bus facility, Pennsylvania
    Ben Franklin transit buses and bus facilities, Richland, 
Washington
    Billings buses and bus facilities, Montana
    Birmingham intermodal facility, Alabama
    Birmingham-Jefferson County buses, Alabama
    Blue Water buses and bus facilities, Michigan
    Boston Government Center transit center, Massachusetts
    Boston Logan Airport intermodal transit connector, 
Massachusetts
    Boulder/Denver, RTD buses, Colorado
    Brazos Transit Authority buses and bus facilities, Texas
    Brea shuttle buses, California
    Bremerton multimodal center--Sinclair's Landing, Washington
    Brigham City and Payson regional park and ride lots/transit 
centers, Utah
    Brockton intermodal transportation center, Massachusetts
    Buffalo, Auditorium Intermodal Center, New York
    Burlington ferry terminal improvements, Vermont
    Burlington multimodal center, Vermont
    Cambria County, bus facilities and buses, Pennsylvania
    Cedar Rapids intermodal facility, Iowa
    Central Ohio Transit Authority vehicle locator system, Ohio
    Centre Area Transportation Authority buses, Pennsylvania
    Chattanooga Southern Regional Alternative fuel bus program, 
Georgia
    Chester County, Paoli Transportation Center, Pennsylvania
    Chittenden County Transportation Authority buses, Vermont
    Clallam Transit multimodal center, Sequim, Washington
    Clark County Regional Transportation Commission buses and 
bus facilities, Nevada
    Cleveland, Triskett Garage bus maintenance facility, Ohio
    Clinton transit facility expansion, Iowa
    Colorado buses and bus facilities, Colorado
    Columbia Bus replacement, South Carolina
    Columbia buses and vans, Missouri
    Compton Renaissance Transit System shelters and facilities, 
California
    Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority buses and 
bus facilities, Texas
    Corvallis buses and automated passenger information system, 
Oregon
    Culver City, CityBus buses, California
    Dallas Area Rapid Transit buses, Texas
    Davis, Unitrans transit maintenance facility, California
    Dayton, Multimodal Transportation Center, Ohio
    Daytona Beach, Intermodal Center, Florida
    Deerfield Valley Transit Authority buses, Vermont
    Denver 16th Street Intermodal Center
    Denver, Stapleton Intermodal Center, Colorado
    Des Moines transit facilities, Iowa
    Detroit buses and bus facilities, Michigan
    Dothan Wiregrass Transit Authority vehicles and transit 
facility, Alabama
    Dulles Corridor park and ride, Virginia
    Duluth, Transit Authority community circulation vehicles, 
Minnesota
    Duluth, Transit Authority intelligent transportation 
systems, Minnesota
    Duluth, Transit Authority Transit Hub, Minnesota
    Dutchess County, Loop System buses, New York
    El Paso Sun Metro buses, Texas
    Elliott Bay Water Taxi ferry purchase, Washington
    Erie, Metropolitan Transit Authority buses, Pennsylvania
    Escambia County buses and bus facility, Alabama
    Essex Junction multimodal station rehabilitation, Vermont
    Everett transit bus replacement, Washington
    Everett, Multimodal Transportation Center, Washington
    Fairbanks intermodal rail/bus transfer facility, Alaska
    Fairfield Transit, Solano County buses, California
    Fayette County, intermodal facilities and buses, 
Pennsylvania
    Fayetteville, University of Arkansas Transit System buses, 
Arkansas
    Flint buses and bus facilities, Michigan
    Florence, University of North Alabama pedestrian walkways, 
Alabama
    Folsom multimodal facility, California
    Fort Dodge, Intermodal Facility (Phase II), Iowa
    Fort Worth bus and paratransit vehicle project, Texas
    Fort Worth Transit Authority corridor redevelopment 
program, Texas
    Franklin County buses and bus facilities, Missouri
    Fuel cell bus and bus facilities program, Georgetown 
University, District/Columbia
    Gainesville buses and equipment, Florida
    Galveston buses and bus facilities, Texas
    Gary, Transit Consortium buses, Indiana
    Georgia Regional Transportation Authority buses, Georgia
    Georgia statewide buses and bus-related facilities, Georgia
    Gloucester intermodal transportation center, Massachusetts
    Grand Rapids Area Transit Authority downtown transit 
transfer center, Michigan
    Greensboro multimodal center, North Carolina
    Greensboro, Transit Authority buses, North Carolina
    Harrison County multimodal center, Mississippi
    Hawaii buses and bus facilities
    Healdsburg, intermodal facility, California
    Hillsborough Area Regional Transity Authority, Ybor buses 
and bus facilities, Florida
    Honolulu, bus facility and buses, Hawaii
    Hot Springs, transportation depot and plaza, Arkansas
    Houston buses and bus facilities, Texas
    Huntington Beach buses and bus facilities, California
    Huntington intermodal facility, West Virginia
    Huntsville Airport international intermodal center, Alabama
    Huntsville Space and Rocket Center intermodal center, 
Alabama
    Huntsville, transit facility, Alabama
    Hyannis intermodal transportation center, Massachusetts
    I-5 Corridor intermodal transit centers, California
    Illinois statewide buses and bus-related equipment, 
Illinois
    Indianapolis buses, Indiana
    Inglewood Market Street bus facility/LAX shuttle service, 
California
    Iowa City multi-use parking facility and transit hub, Iowa
    Iowa statewide buses and bus facilities, Iowa
    Iowa/Illinois Transit Consortium bus safety and security, 
Iowa
    Isabella buses and bus facilities, Michigan
    Ithaca intermodal transportation center, New York
    Ithaca, TCAT bus technology improvements, New York
    Jackson County buses and bus facilities, Missouri
    Jackson J-TRAN buses and facilities, Mississippi
    Jacksonville buses and bus facilities, Florida
    Juneau downtown mass transit facility, Alaska
    Kalamazoo downtown bus transfer center, Michigan
    Kansas City Area Transit Authority buses and Troost transit 
center, Missouri
    Kansas Public Transit Association buses and bus facilities, 
Kansas
    Killington-Sherburne satellite bus facility, Vermont
    King Country Metro King Street Station, Washington
    King County Metro Atlantic and Central buses, Washington
    King County park and ride expansion, Washington
    Lackawanna County Transit System buses, Pennsylvania
    Lake Tahoe CNG buses, Nevada
    Lake Tahoe/Tahoe Basin buses and bus facilities, California
    Lakeland, Citrus Connection transit vehicles and related 
equipment, Florida
    Lane County, Bus Rapid Transit, Oregon
    Lansing, CATA buses, Michigan
    Las Cruces buses and bus facilities, New Mexico
    Las Cruces intermodal transportation plaza, New Mexico
    Las Vegas intermodal transit transfer facility, Nevada
    Las Vegas South Strip intermodal facility, Nevada
    Lincoln County Transit District buses, Oregon
    Lincoln Star Tran bus facility, Nebraska
    Little Rock River Market and College Station transfer 
facility, Arkansas
    Little Rock, Central Arkansas Transit buses, Arkansas
    Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority buses, California
    Livermore automatic vehicle locator program, California
    Long Island, CNG transit vehicles and facilities and bus 
replacement, New York
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan transportation authority 
buses, California
    Los Angeles Foothill Transit buses and bus facilities, 
California
    Los Angeles Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, 
California
    Los Angeles, Union Station Gateway Intermodal Transit 
Center, California
    Louisiana statewide buses and bus-related facilities, 
Louisiana
    Lowell performing arts center transit transfer facility, 
Massachusetts
    Lufkin intermodal center, Texas
    Maryland statewide alternative fuel buses, Maryland
    Maryland statewide bus facilities and buses, Maryland
    Mason City Region 2 office and maintenance transit 
facility, Iowa
    Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority buses, 
Massachusetts
    Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority bus facilities, 
Massachusetts
    Miami Beach multimodal transit center, Florida
    Miami Beach, electric shuttle service, Florida
    Miami-Dade Northeast transit center, Florida
    Miami-Dade Transit buses, Florida
    Michigan State University campus boarding centers, Michigan
    Michigan statewide buses, Michigan
    Mid-Columbia Council of Governments minivans, Oregon
    Milwaukee County, buses, Wisconsin
    Mineola/Hicksville, LIRR intermodal centers, New York
    Missoula buses and bus facilities, Montana
    Missouri statewide bus and bus facilities, Missouri
    Mobile buses, Alabama
    Mobile waterfront terminal complex, Alabama
    Modesto, bus maintenance facility, California
    Monterey, Monterey-Salinas buses, California
    Monterey, Monterey-Salinas transit refueling facility, 
California
    Montgomery Moulton Street intermodal center, Alabama
    Montgomery Union Station intermodal center and buses, 
Alabama
    Mount Vernon, buses and bus related facilities, Washington
    Mukilteo multimodal terminal ferry and transit project, 
Washington
    New Castle County buses and bus facilities, Delaware
    New Hampshire statewide transit systems, New Hampshire
    New Haven bus facility, Connecticut
    New Jersey Transit alternative fuel buses, New Jersey
    New Jersey Transit jitney shuttle buses, New Jersey
    New Mexico State University park and ride facilities, New 
Mexico
    New York City Midtown West 38th Street Ferry Terminal, New 
York
    New York, West 72nd St. Intermodal Station, New York
    Newark Passaic River bridge and arena pedestrian walkway, 
New Jersey
    Newark, Morris & Essex Station access and buses, New Jersey
    Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses, New York
    North Carolina statewide buses and bus facilities, North 
Carolina
    North Dakota statewide buses and bus-related facilities, 
North Dakota
    North San Diego County transit district buses, California
    North Star Borough intermodal facility, Alaska
    Northern New Mexico Transit Express/Park and Ride buses, 
New Mexico
    Northstar Corridor, Intermodal Facilities and buses, 
Minnesota
    Norwich buses, Connecticut
    OATS Transit, Missouri
    Ogden Intermodal Center, Utah
    Ohio Public Transit Association buses and bus facilities, 
Ohio
    Oklahoma statewide bus facilities and buses, Oklahoma
    Olympic Peninsula International Gateway Transportation 
Center, Washington
    Omaha Missouri River transit pedestrian facility, Nebraska
    Ontonagon buses and bus facilities, Michigan
    Orlando Intermodal Facility, Florida
    Orlando, Lynx buses and bus facilities, Florida
    Palm Beach County Palmtran buses, Florida
    Palmdale multimodal center, California
    Park City Intermodal Center, Utah
    Pee Dee buses and facilities, South Carolina
    Penn's Landing ferry vehicles, Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania Commonwealth combined bus and facilities, 
Pennsylvania
    Perris bus maintenance facility, California
    Philadelphia, Frankford Transportation Center, Pennsylvania
    Philadelphia, Intermodal 30th Street Station, Pennsylvania
    Philadelphia, PHLASH shuttle buses, Pennsylvania
    Philadelphia, SEPTA Center City improvements, Pennsylvania
    Philadelphia, SEPTA Paoli transportation center, 
Pennsylvania
    Philadelphia, SEPTA Girard Avenue intermodal transportation 
centers, Pennsylvania
    Phoenix bus and bus facilities, Arizona
    Pierce County Transit buses and bus facilities, Washington
    Pittsfield intermodal center, Massachusetts
    Port of Corpus Christi ferry infrastructure and ferry 
purchase, Texas
    Port of St. Bernard intermodal facility, Louisiana
    Portland, Tri-Met bus maintenance facility, Oregon
    Portland, Tri-Met buses, Oregon
    Prince William County bus replacement, Virginia
    Providence, buses and bus maintenance facility, Rhode 
Island
    Reading, BARTA Intermodal Transportation Facility, 
Pennsylvania
    Rensselaer intermodal bus facility, New York
    Rhode Island Public Transit Authority buses, Rhode Island
    Richmond, GRTC bus maintenance facility, Virginia
    Riverside Transit Agency buses and facilities, California
    Robinson, Towne Center Intermodal Facility, Pennsylvania
    Sacramento CNG buses, California
    Salem Area Mass Ttransit System buses, Oregon
    Salt Lake City hybrid electric vehicle bus purchase, Utah
    Salt Lake City International Airport transit parking and 
transfer center, Utah
    Salt Lake City Olympics bus facilities, Utah
    Salt Lake City Olympics regional park and ride lots, Utah
    Salt Lake City Olympics transit bus loan project, Utah
    San Bernardino buses, California
    San Bernardino County Mountain area Regional Transit 
Authority fueling stations, California
    San Diego MTD buses and bus facilities, California
    San Francisco, Islais Creek maintenance facility, 
California
    San Joaquin buses and bus facilities, Stockton, California
    San Juan Intermodal access, Puerto Rico
    San Marcos Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) 
intermodal project, Texas
    Sandy buses, Oregon
    Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit district bus facilities, 
California
    Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority buses and bus 
facilities, California
    Santa Clarita buses, California
    Santa Cruz metropolitan bus facilities, California
    Santa Fe CNG buses, New Mexico
    Santa Fe paratransit/computer systems, New Mexico
    Santa Marie organization of transportation helpers 
minibuses, California
    Savannah/Chatham Area transit bus transfer centers and 
buses, Georgia
    Seattle Sound Transit buses and bus facilities, Washington
    Seattle, intermodal transportation terminal, Washington
    SMART buses and bus facilities, Michigan
    Snohomish County, Community Transit buses, equipment and 
facilities, Washington
    Solano Links intercity transit OTR bus purchase, California
    Somerset County bus facilities and buses, Pennsylvania
    South Amboy, Regional Intermodal Transportation Initiative, 
New Jersey
    South Bend, Urban Intermodal Transportation Facility, 
Indiana
    South Carolina statewide bus and bus facility.
    South Carolina Virtual Transit Enterprise, South Carolina
    South Dakota statewide bus facilities and buses, South 
Dakota
    South Metro Area Rapid Transit (SMART) maintenance 
facility, Oregon
    Southeast Missouri transportation service rural, elderly, 
disabled service, Missouri
    Springfield Metro/VRE pedestrian link, Virginia
    Springfield, Union Station, Massachusetts
    St. Joseph buses and vans, Missouri
    St. Louis, Bi-state Intermodal Center, Missouri
    St. Louis Bi-State Metro Link buses
    Sunset Empire Transit District intermodal transit facility, 
Oregon
    Syracuse CNG buses and facilities, New York
    Tacoma Dome, buses and bus facilities, Washington
    Tennessee statewide buses and bus facilities, Tennessee
    Texas statewide small urban and rural buses, Texas
    Topeka Transit offstreet transit transfer center, Kansas
    Towamencin Township, Intermodal Bus Transportation Center, 
Pennsylvania
    Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK) buses, 
Kentucky
    Tucson buses, Arizona
    Twin Cities area metro transit buses and bus facilities, 
Minnesota
    Utah Transit Authority buses, Utah
    Utah Transit Authority, intermodal facilities, Utah
    Utah Transit Authority/Park City Transit, buses, Utah
    Utica Union Station, New York
    Valley bus and bus facilities, Alabama
    Vancouver Clark County (SEATRAN) bus facilities, Washington
    Washington County intermodal facilities, Pennsylvania
    Washington State DOT combined small transit system buses 
and bus facilities, Washington
    Washington, D.C. Intermodal Transportation Center, 
District/Columbia
    Washoe County transit improvements, Nevada
    Waterbury, bus facility, Connecticut
    West Falls Church Metro station improvements, Virginia
    West Lafayette bus transfer station/terminal (Wabash 
Landing), Indiana
    West Virginia Statewide Intermodal Facility and buses, West 
Virginia
    Westchester County DOT, articulated buses, New York
    Westchester County, Bee-Line transit system fareboxes, New 
York
    Westchester County, Bee-Line transit system shuttle buses, 
New York
    Westminster senior citizen vans, California
    Westmoreland County, Intermodal Facility, Pennsylvania
    Whittier intermodal facility and pedestrian overpass, 
Alaska
    Wilkes-Barre, Intermodal Facility, Pennsylvania
    Williamsport bus facility, Pennsylvania
    Wisconsin statewide bus facilities and buses, Wisconsin
    Worcester, Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center, 
Massachusetts
    Yuma paratransit buses, Arizona

                      fixed guideway modernization

    The Committee recommends a total of $980,400,000 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 2000 rail modernization allocations by 
State:

Fiscal year 2000 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization

                                                             Fiscal year
        State                                                2000 budget

Arizona.................................................      $1,714,915
California..............................................      97,447,440
Colorado................................................       1,276,142
Connecticut.............................................      35,613,122
Delaware................................................         900,963
District of Columbia....................................      41,405,152
Florida.................................................      14,894,671
Georgia.................................................      20,056,733
Hawaii..................................................         717,140
Illinois................................................     109,835,226
Indiana.................................................       7,372,357
Louisiana...............................................       2,719,194
Maryland................................................      21,651,851
Massachusetts...........................................      63,230,944
Michigan................................................         449,343
Minnesota...............................................       2,844,835
Missouri................................................       1,632,113
New Jersey..............................................      87,109,545
New York................................................     320,395,319
Ohio....................................................      16,007,175
Pennsylvania............................................      95,594,209
Puerto Rico.............................................       1,777,215
Oregon..................................................       3,059,860
Rhode Island............................................       2,412,069
Tennessee...............................................          79,754
Texas...................................................       5,696,889
Virginia................................................         464,097
Washington..............................................      15,992,245
Wisconsin...............................................         696,482
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     973,047,000
Three-quarter percent oversight.........................       7,353,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total appropriation...............................     980,400,000

                              NEW SYSTEMS

    The bill provides $980,400,000 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 $980,400,000 for new systems, 
no more than $78,432,000 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, within 60 days of 
enactment of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations legislation, 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 such 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:
    Alaska or Hawaii ferries;
    Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque mass transit project;
    Atlanta North Line Extension;
    Austin Capital Metro Northwest/North Central Corridor 
project;
    Baltimore Central Light Rail double tracking project;
    Boston North-South Rail Link;
    Boston Piers Transitway phase 1;
    Charlotte North-South corridor transitway project;
    Chicago Metra commuter rail extensions;
    Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood and Douglas branch 
line projects;
    Cleveland Euclid Corridor;
    Dallas Area Rapid Transit North Central LRT extension;
    Dane County, WI commuter rail project;
    Denver Southeast Corridor project;
    Denver Southwest LRT project;
    Fort Lauderdale Tri-Rail commuter rail project;
    Galveston rail trolley extension project;
    Houston Regional Bus Plan;
    Lahaina Harbor, Maui ferries;
    Las Vegas Corridor/Clark County regional fixed guideway 
project;
    Little Rock River Rail project;
    Long Island Rail Road East Side Access project;
    Los Angeles Metro Rail--MOS 3 and Eastside/Mid City 
corridors;
    MARC expansion programs: Silver Spring intermodal center 
and Penn-Camden rail connection;
    Memphis Area Transit Authority medical center extension;
    Miami East-West Corridor project;
    Miami North 27th Avenue corridor;
    New Orleans Airport-CBD commuter rail project;
    New Orleans Canal Streetcar Spine;
    New Orleans Desire Streetcar;
    Newark-Elizabeth rail link project;
    Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor project;
    Northern New Jersey--Hudson-Bergen LRT project;
    Orange County Transitway project;
    Orlando I-4 Central Florida LRT project;
    Philadelphia Schuykill Valley Metro;
    Phoenix--Central Phoenix/East Valley Corridor;
    Pittsburgh Airborne Shuttle System;
    Pittsburgh North Shore--Central Business District corridor;
    Pittsburgh State II light rail project;
    Port McKenzie-Ship Creek Ferry project;
    Portland Westside-Hillsboro Corridor project;
    Providence-Boston commuter rail;
    Raleigh-Durham--Research Triangle regional rail;
    Sacramento South Corridor LRT project;
    Salt Lake City South LRT Olympics capacity improvements;
    Salt Lake City South LRT project;
    Salt Lake City/Airport to University (West-East) light rail 
project;
    Salt Lake City-Ogden-Provo commuter rail project;
    San Bernardino MetroLink extension project;
    San Diego Mid Coast Corridor;
    San Diego Mission Valley East LRT extension project;
    San Diego Oceanside-Escondido passenger rail project;
    San Francisco BART to Airport extension;
    San Jose Tasman LRT project;
    San Juan--Tren Urbano;
    Seattle Sound Move Link LRT project;
    Spokane South Valley Corridor light rail project;
    St. Louis--St. Clair County, Illinois LRT project;
    Tacoma-Seattle Sounder commuter rail project;
    Tampa Bay regional rail system; and the
    Twin Cities Transitways Corridors projects.
    The following new fixed guideway systems and extensions to 
existing systems are eligible to receive funding for 
alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering:
    Atlanta--Lindbergh Station to MARTA West Line feasibility 
study;
    Atlanta MARTA South DeKalb comprehensive transit program;
    Baltimore Central Downtown MIS;
    Bergen County, NJ/Cross County light rail project;
    Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor;
    Boston North Shore Corridor and Blue Line extension to 
Beverly;
    Boston Urban Ring project;
    Bridgeport intermodal corridor project;
    Calais, ME Branch Rail Line regional transit program;
    Charleston, SC Monobeam corridor project;
    Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail line project;
    Colorado--Roaring Fork Valley Rail;
    Detroit--commuter rail to Detroit metropolitan airport 
feasibility study;
    El Paso--Juarez international fixed guideway;
    Girdwood, Alaska commuter rail project;
    Harrisburg-Lancaster Capitol Area Transit Corridor 1 
commuter rail;
    Houston Advanced Transit Program;
    Indianapolis Northeast Downtown Corridor project;
    Jacksonville fixed guideway corridor;
    Johnson County, Kansas I-35 commuter rail project;
    Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension project;
    Knoxville to Memphis commuter rail feasibility study;
    Los Angeles/City of Sepulveda Douglas Street Green Line 
connection;
    Miami Metrorail Palmetto extension;
    Montpelier-St. Albans, VT commuter rail study;
    Nashua, NH-Lowell, MA commuter rail project;
    New Jersey Trans-Hudson midtown corridor study;
    New London waterfront access project;
    New York Second Avenue Subway feasibility study;
    Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail project;
    Old Saybrook--Hartford Rail Extension;
    Philadelphia SEPTA commuter rail, R-3 connection--Elwyn to 
Wawa;
    Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro;
    Salt Lake City light rail extensions;
    Santa Fe/El Dorado rail link;
    Stamford fixed guideway connector;
    Stockton Altamont Commuter Rail;
    Virginia Railway Express Woodbridge transit access 
improvements project;
    Washington, D.C. Dulles Corridor extension project;
    Washington Metro Blue Line extension--Addison Road;
    Western Montana regional transportation/commuter rail 
study; and the
    Wilsonville to Washington County, OR connection to 
Westside.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    There is a total of $980,400,000 available for transit new 
starts funding in fiscal year 2000. The administration's 
request includes $668,183,400 for projects with current FTA 
full funding grant agreements with FTA, 68 percent of the total 
available funds. Additionally, the administration's request 
proposes allocating an additional $216,109,600 for seven new 
starts projects that are currently in preliminary engineering 
or final design. These projects are expected to complete the 
engineering and environmental review process by the start of 
fiscal year 2000. FTA anticipates signing full funding grant 
agreements with these seven projects some time during fiscal 
year 2000. The estimated federal share over the life of these 
new projects is $1,265,800,000. This represents a large 
incremental increase of ``committed'' federal funds that will 
substantially reduce the remaining discretionary funds in this 
program. The new starts program is already over-subscribed, and 
the administration's decision to signal future funding 
commitments in its fiscal year 2000 budget request makes an 
already tight program much more difficult to manage.
    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.
    Currently, 3 of the 14 FFGA projects are experiencing 
significant cost overruns--that is, the most recent total 
project cost estimates are higher than the baseline cost 
estimates included in the full funding grant agreements by a 
delta of more than $100,000,000. These cost increases can be 
attributed to a variety of factors. Schedule delays, change 
orders, higher than expected costs for third party contracts 
and rights-of-way purchases, enhancements, differing site 
conditions, and even hurricane delays have contributed to some 
of these cost overruns. However, two common elements of these 
troubled full funding grant agreements projects are that 
original project cost estimates were much lower than actual 
systems work and contract costs, and that the projects' FFGA 
consideration was generally concluded before a full and 
thorough evaluation of the cost and financing estimates. But 
not all FFGA projects experience disconnects between original 
estimates and actual costs--in fact, some projects that will 
complete their full funding grant agreements in fiscal year 
2000 will finish on schedule and under budget. Therefore, it is 
critical that FTA not rush toward signing a full funding grant 
agreement, and that the project cost estimates, in particular, 
be scrutinized with care, using every available oversight tool. 
The Committee is concerned by the administration's pre-emptive 
announcement of ``pipeline'' full funding grant agreements in 
the fiscal year 2000 budget request, and will not accord the 
same weight to these recommendations as to FFGA projects.
    In addition, the Committee will continue the practice of 
working with projects to manage the federal funding component, 
and will focus federal discretionary investment on those 
projects with conservative cost and financing estimates, that 
are executing their projects plans on schedule and within 
budget.
    Atlanta-MARTA full funding grant agreement.--The Committee 
directs the Federal Transit Administration to amend the Full 
Funding Grant Agreement between the FTA and the Metropolitan 
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). This amendment should 
reflect section 3030(d)(2) of TEA21.
    Salt Lake City South LRT project.--The Committee recognizes 
the progress being made on the Salt Lake City South LRT 
project. Last year, GAO indicated that this project is both 
ahead of schedule and under budget. Rather than appropriate 
additional federal funds for requested capacity improvements, 
the Committee encourages the FTA to allow the project grantee 
to utilize any surplus funding to be used for capacity 
improvements on this line.

                          Discretionary Grants


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

               (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account)

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $2,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,500,000,000

    The bill includes $1,500,000,000 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, 1999............................................     $35,000,000     $40,000,000     $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\.......................................      15,000,000     135,000,000     150,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      15,000,000      60,000,000      75,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $75,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.

    The Committee recommends $75,000,000 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.
    On May 13, FTA released the fiscal year 1999 Access to Jobs 
funding to 179 different projects in agencies and organizations 
in 42 states. The agency received applications representing 
$108,000,000 worth of requests. The Committee believes that 
this program should naturally taper down, rather than grow 
larger from year to year. If in fact these grants provide 
concrete assistance toward moving from welfare to work, there 
should be fewer applications for funds in future years rather 
than more. The administration's request for $150,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2000 is twice the guaranteed authorization, and 
likely represents a greater funding stream than the demand 
warrants.

         Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    Public Law 96-184 (Stark-Harris legislation) enacted 
January 3, 1980, authorized a total of $1,700,000,000 for 
construction on the Washington Metrorail System. In addition, 
the National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1990, Public 
Law 101-551, authorized another $1,300,000,000 in Federal 
capital assistance. Appropriated funds from previous years have 
completed the Federal commitment to the construction of the 
103-mile metrorail system. No new funds are requested for 2000.

                           general provisions

    The Committee has included the following general provisions 
affecting transit programs:
    Sec. 311. This general provision gives FTA the authority to 
obligate previously provided funds above a particular fiscal 
year's obligation limitation.
    Sec. 317. This general provision provides that capital 
investment grant funds, other than fixed guideway modernization 
funds, must be obligated within 3 years, or the associated 
funds will be available for expenditure and transfer to another 
capital investment project.
    Sec. 318. This general provision has been carried in the 
appropriations bill for many years. It allows FTA to update 
account names and transfer the associated funds to the new 
account structure. This bookkeeping authority is necessary, 
given that the Transportation Equity Act has restructured the 
mass transit program.
    Sec. 322. This general provision provides the States of 
Oklahoma and Vermont flexibility in the use of some of their 
federal transportation funds.
    Sec. 327. This general provision directs that discretionary 
funds previously made available for the Charleston, South 
Carolina monobeam project may be used to fund any aspect of the 
project.

              ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

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

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................     $11,496,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\ (mandatory)...................      12,042,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,496,000

\1\ Does not include reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of 
Public Law 105-277.
\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 $12,042,000 
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill includes an appropriation of $11,496,000 instead 
of the mandatory payment as requested. Congress must adopt 
legislation authorizing an agency to become a PBO. Neither the 
Committee nor the Department is aware of any current or pending 
congressional intent to act on PBO authorizing legislation. 
Until the enactment of authorizing legislation, the Committee 
will continue to fund the Corporation according to current law.
    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 St. Lawrence Seaway 
Development Corporation budget requests consistent with current 
law until Congress takes action on PBO authorization 
legislation.
    The Committee has reduced funding from the requested amount 
by $546,000. Since the 1999 navigation season opened on March 
30, vessel traffic through the Saint Lawrence Seaway has 
declined by 20 percent and is projected to decline by 10 
percent overall during the current navigation season. The 
Corporation has revised its tonnage forecast accordingly, 
thereby reducing its financial need. The Committee also is 
confident that this reduction will not affect operations if the 
Corporation takes advantage of its current personnel level and 
implements plans to achieve management savings.

              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 2000, 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, 1999 \1\................................     $29,280,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................      33,340,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,752,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of 
Public Law 105-277. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $4,575,000 proposed fees.

    The Committee has provided a total of $30,752,000 for the 
``Research and special programs'' account, $2,588,000 less than 
the administration's request.
    In general, the budget constraints on this bill--which are 
due both to the highway and transit firewalls in TEA21 and the 
budget caps assumed in the Budget Resolution--dictate staffing 
freezes. None of the requested staffing increases have been 
funded.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                   1999 enacted     Fiscal year      Committee
                                                                        \1\        2000 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety......................................     $16,063,000     $18,213,000     $16,960,000
    (FTE).......................................................           (122)           (127)           (122)
Emergency transportation........................................        $997,000      $1,459,000      $1,275,000
    (FTE).......................................................             (7)             (8)             (7)
Research and technology.........................................      $3,676,000      $3,547,000      $3,297,000
    (FTE).......................................................            (13)            (11)            (11)
Program and administrative support..............................      $8,230,000     $10,121,000      $9,220,000
    (FTE).......................................................            (45)            (46)            (45)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, research and special programs......................     $28,966,000     $33,340,000     $30,752,000
          (FTE).................................................           (187)           (192)           (187)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $314,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Excludes supplemental
  funding for Y2K.

                       hazardous materials safety

    The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [HMS] administers 
a nationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the 
Secretary's duty to protect the Nation from the risks to life, 
health, and property that are inherent in the transportation of 
hazardous materials by water, air, highway, and railroad. HMS 
plans, implements, and manages the hazardous materials 
transportation program consisting of information systems, 
research and analysis, inspection and enforcement, rulemaking 
support, training and information dissemination, and emergency 
procedures.
    The Committee recommends $16,960,000 for hazardous 
materials safety, which is $1,250,000 less than the 
administration's request.
    RSPA's office of hazardous materials safety has requested 
an increase of 9 new staff members (+4.5 FTEs), who would be 
distributed to headquarters, each regional inspection and 
enforcement office, as well as two staff members who would 
provide support for implementation of the Sanitary Food 
Transportation Act. Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee 
has not provided new personnel compensation and benefits funds 
associated with these proposed new positions, and has decreased 
the requested PC&B level by -$880,000. The Committee notes that 
there are currently 12 vacancies within the office of hazardous 
materials safety, three of which are in the enforcement area. 
These inspection/enforcement vacancies should be filled as 
quickly as possible. The Committee has also decreased the 
contract programs by -$339,000, allowing an increase in the 
international standards program to a level of $81,000, but 
denies the requested program funding for safe food 
transportation. The Committee has also made a very slight 
decrease in the agency's request for the research and 
development program (-$34,000). The following shows the 
Committee's recommended funding levels for each of the 
hazardous materials office activities:

Personnel compensation and benefits...........................$9,757,000
Administrative expenses....................................... 1,269,000
Contract programs............................................. 3,664,000
Registration program.......................................... 1,070,000
Research and development...................................... 1,200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, office of hazardous materials safety.............16,960,000

                        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 $1,275,000 for emergency 
transportation, which is $184,000 less than the 
administration's request. The administration has requested a 
new position for the Emergency Transportation office, which the 
Committee declines to fund. Therefore, personnel compensation 
and benefits are reduced $100,000 below the requested level. 
The research and development program is also reduced by $85,000 
below the request, although this level will still represent an 
increase of $100,000 above the enacted program level. The 
following shows the Committee's recommended funding 
distribution for the Emergency Transportation office.

Personnel compensation and benefits...........................  $745,000
Administrative expenses.......................................   100,000
Contract programs.............................................   280,000
Research and development......................................   150,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, office of emergency transportation............... 1,275,000

                        Research and technology

    The Committee recommends $3,297,000 for the Office of 
Research and Technology, $250,000 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 reduction of $250,000 should be made from planned 
``roundtable'' outreach programs, which are not necessary to 
the functions of this office.
    National Environmental Respiratory Center.--The unique goal 
of the National Environmental Respiratory Center to research 
the health effects of combined pollutants or contaminants is 
relevant to the Department of Transportation's focus on 
environmental, and therefore health, consequences of pollutants 
generated by transportation emissions. To understand the health 
effects of real-world, highly complex mixtures of air 
contaminants, NERC will develop identical health data across 
several complex, man-made mixtures, including those from 
transportation sources. The Committee urges DOT to collaborate 
with the National environmental research center on its research 
strategy so that national transportation system design and 
policy has the benefit of this important data.
    Reimbursable funding from Federal Highway Administration.--
The budget request for the office of research and technology 
proposes to fund three full-time positions through reimbursable 
funding from FHWA. Historically, RSPA has provided funding for 
two of these positions in support of the Department's 
University Transportation Centers (UTC) program. The UTC 
program has increased dramatically in size and scope under 
TEA21, and RSPA's responsibility to manage the grant program 
and conduct annual reviews has, in turn, grown. The Committee 
has no objection to these three proposed reimbursable 
positions, to be funded through the Federal Highway 
Administration by way of a reimbursable agreement between the 
agencies. The Committee further notes that the research and 
technology program has decreased its funding request by 
$129,000 to reflect two fewer positions being paid for by RSPA.
    Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program.--The Advanced 
Vehicle Technologies Program (AVTP) was funded at a level of 
$14,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. The Department of Defense 
Advanced Research Programs Agency provided $9,000,000 for AVTP; 
the Federal Highway Administration provided $5,000,000 from its 
limitation on general operating expenses. This year, the 
administration has proposed funding the program at a level of 
$20,000,000, utilizing funds that are authorized in section 
1218 of TEA21 for Magnetic Levitation technology deployment, 
and transferring them to programs authorized in section 5111 of 
the Act (the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program). The 
Committee strongly objects to this proposed transfer. No funds 
are provided for the AVTP in this Act.

                   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 $9,220,000 for program and 
administrative support, $901,000 less than the adminstration's 
request. The administration has requested two new positions for 
RSPA management and administration--a new Chief Information 
Officer, and a senior contracting specialist. The Committee 
does not approve these requested new positions, and has reduced 
the personnel compensation and benefits request $100,000 below 
the requested level. Administrative expenses are also reduced 
below the request (-$407,000), as are contract programs 
(-$393,000). Because the information officer position is not 
approved, the information resources management program is cut 
$235,000 below the requested level, and the budget and 
financial management program is reduced very slightly below the 
requested level (-$28,000). The Committee has not provided the 
requested funding for the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and 
Transportation Futures program (-$200,000). The Committee 
believes that there are many national education programs 
already in place that encourage and enhance math, science, and 
technology literacy, and the Committee is unaware of an 
imminent shortage of engineers and other professions in the 
transportation industries. The following shows the Committee's 
recommended funding distribution for RSPA program support:

Personnel compensation and benefits...........................$4,820,000
Administrative expenses....................................... 3,300,000
Contract programs............................................. 1,100,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, program and administrative support............... 9,220,000

                            Pipeline Safety


                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)

                    (Oilspill Liability Trust Fund)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Pipeline
                                                                    safety fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\ \2\....................................     $30,400,000      $4,248,000     $34,648,000
Budget estimate, 2000...........................................      33,939,000       4,248,000      38,187,000
Committee recommendation \2\....................................      31,400,000       4,704,000      36,104,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\  Does not reflect reduction of $210,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Does not
  include supplemental funding of $150,000 for Y2K.
\2\ Pipeline safety funding includes $1,400,000 from reserve fund balances.

    The Research and Special Programs Administration is also 
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. This 
activity is largely financed by user fees assessed to the 
pipeline operators and by fees paid to the oilspill liability 
trust fund [OSLTF]. The Pipeline Safety Program promotes the 
safe, reliable, and environmentally sound transportation of 
natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. This national 
program regulates the design, construction, operation, 
maintenance, and emergency response procedures pertaining to 
gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and liquefied 
natural gas facilities. Also included is research and 
development to support the Pipeline Safety Program and grants-
in-aid to State agencies that conduct a Pipeline Safety 
Program.
    Pipeline safety reserve fund.--The Committee recommends 
$1,400,000 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 April 1) is $15,367,538, but over the course of the 
year, some program costs will be warranted out. The fund takes 
in user fee collections, pays program costs, and also makes 
adjustments to collections due to over- or underpayments, so 
the balance varies over the course of each fiscal year. RSPA 
maintains that a reserve fund balance of at least $11,000,000 
is necessary to sustain operations until fees can be collected 
to replenish the fund. The Committee believes it is appropriate 
to drawdown against this balance as long as the $11,000,000 
level is not breached. The Committee agrees with the 
authorizing committees and industry that the fiscal year 1999 
cap on the portion of the OPS budget that can be raised through 
pipeline safety user fees--$30,000,000--should not be exceeded.
    Oilspill liability trust fund.--The Committee recommends 
$4,704,000 to be derived from the oilspill liability trust fund 
for implementation of the Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] 
responsibilities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA], 
$456,000 more than the administration's request. The following 
table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year--
                                                            ---------------------------------      Committee
                          Program                              1999 enacted                   recommendation \2\
                                                                 \1\ \2\       2000 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses.........................................     $11,655,000     $13,180,000       $12,821,000
Information and analysis...................................       1,200,000       1,200,000         1,200,000
Risk assessment/technical studies..........................       1,200,000       1,475,000         1,200,000
Compliance.................................................         300,000         300,000           300,000
Training and information dissemination.....................         921,000       1,121,000           921,000
Emergency notification.....................................         100,000         100,000           100,000
Public education...........................................         400,000         200,000           400,000
Risk management and program evaluation.....................  ...............          5,000   ..................
Implement Oil Pollution Act................................       2,443,000       2,443,000         2,443,000
Research and development...................................       1,719,000       2,144,000         1,719,000
State grants...............................................      13,000,000      13,519,000        12,500,000
Risk management grants.....................................         500,000         500,000           500,000
One-call grants............................................       1,000,000       1,000,000         1,000,000
Damage prevention grants...................................  ...............      1,000,000         1,000,000
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Totals...............................................      34,438,000      38,187,000        36,104,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $210,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Excludes $150,000
  supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $1,400,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.

    Operating expenses.--The administration did not request any 
new positions for the Office of Pipeline Safety; however, the 
Committee's recommendation includes an increase of $1,166,000 
in administrative expenses and personnel cost-of-living 
adjustments and merit increases.
    Public education.--The Committee recommends $400,000 for 
damage prevention public education activities, to accelerate 
work on the evolving one-call systems public education 
campaign. This represents a $200,000 increase above the 
requested level. These funds will be used to leverage private 
sector funds to advance the national one-call campaign.
    The Committee is pleased that the Office of Pipeline Safety 
(OPS) consulted with numerous parties concerned with preventing 
damage to underground utilities in drafting the ``Best 
Practices'' study required by TEA21. By providing leadership to 
over 150 working volunteers representing one-call systems, 
underground facility operators, excavators, railroads, and 
Federal and state agencies, preventing deaths, injuries, 
property damage and service interruptions. The Committee 
believes that this group effort, dubbed ``Common Ground'', has 
the potential to serve as a basis for a self-sustaining entity 
that can advance underground damage prevention by identifying 
and encouraging best practices, providing badly needed public 
education, and collecting and disseminating information on 
damage to underground utilities. The Committee directs OPS to 
use existing resources to support the formation and initial 
operation of a non-profit organization that will further the 
work of ``Common Ground'' and implement other innovative 
approaches to advance underground damage prevention.
    State grants.--Due to stringent budgetary constraints, the 
Committee has reduced the funding level for state safety grants 
below the level provided in fiscal year 1999, from $13,000,000 
to $12,500,000.
    Damage prevention grants.--The Committee has included 
$1,000,000 in funding, to be derived from the uncommitted 
balances in the reserve fund, for RSPA's new damage prevention 
grants program. Reducing outside force damage has long been the 
office's top-ranked solution to improving pipeline safety. This 
new grant program will promote best practices to prevent damage 
to pipelines and other underground infrastructure. RSPA will be 
holding a public meeting on June 30 to solicit input on 
criteria for these grants and on the most effective means to 
encourage best practices in one-call notification systems and 
other of damage prevention efforts.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (Emergency Preparedness Fund)

Appropriations, 1999....................................        $200,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................         200,000
Committee recommendation................................         200,000

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The administration has proposed increasing the annual level 
of funding under the Hazmat Registration Program from the 
current program level of $8,000,000 to $14,300,000. Under the 
current registration program, an annual flat fee of $300 is 
assessed on carriers that transport: radioactive materials (in 
any quantity); class A or class B explosives (over 25 
kilograms); extremely toxic inhalants (more than 1 liter per 
package); hazardous material in bulk packaging over 3,500 
gallons or 468 cubic feet; or placarded hazardous materials in 
shipments of over 5,000 pounds. This affects approximately 
27,000 shippers and carriers on the Nation's highways, 
railroads, waterways, and airways. Most of the fees collected 
under the registration program are used to make training and 
planning grants to States to improve emergency response to 
hazardous materials incidents.
    Under the administration's proposal, the overall funding 
for this program would be increased by $6,300,000. In order to 
pay for this increase, the administration proposes to raise the 
fee level and broaden the base of registrants. There is a 
notice of proposed rulemaking pending that would increase the 
hazmat carrier fees. The proposed rule would increase the 
number of carriers required to register from about 27,000 to 
45,000, and would increase the annual registration fee from 
$300 to $2,000 for shippers and carriers that are not ``small 
businesses'' under Small Business criteria. Small businesses 
required to register would continue to pay $300 in annual fees.
    The Committee is aware that there are some industry 
concerns about the proposed expansion and increase in the 
registration program. RSPA is holding a public meeting on the 
proposed rule May 25, 1999, RSPA is seeking authorization to 
fund both the hazardous materials grant program and the 
agency's entire hazardous materials safety program from the 
increased and expanded registration program (the authorized 
levels for the two programs would total more than $32,000,000). 
The Committee believes that a 400-percent increase, from the 
current $8,000,000 hazmat registration program to a potential 
$32,000,000 program may represent an unfair burden on the 
hazardous materials transport community. However, the Committee 
has not included bill language that would set a ceiling on fee 
collections for fiscal year 2000 at this stage of the 
appropriations cycle, but will wait until the industry has had 
a chance to comment on this new proposed rule.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................     $43,495,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      44,840,000
Committee recommendation................................  \2\ 48,000,000

\1\ Does not include reduction of $179,000 for TASC pursuant to section 
320 of Public Law 105-277, and transfer of $800,000 from the FTA 
pursuant to Public Law 105-277.
\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 $48,000,000. 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.
    Disadvantaged business enterprises.--The Committee directs 
the Department of Transportation Inspector General to report to 
the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on 
Transportation not later than 60 days after enactment of this 
bill on the percentage of businesses which had been certified 
as disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE) but are no longer 
eligible under the new regulations; the range and average of 
the lengths of time that businesses have been certified as 
DBE's; the average percentage of employees at DBE firms who are 
disadvantaged compared to the average percentage at non-DBE 
firms and the range of percentages; and, the part-time and 
full-time mix at DBE firms.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Required          Allowed
                                             Appropriation      offsetting        offsetting     Total potential
                                                                collections      collections         funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\..................      $13,400,000  ................       $2,600,000      $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000.....................  ...............     ($17,000,000)  ...............      (17,000,000)
Committee recommendation..................       15,400,000       (1,600,000)  ...............       17,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $10,000 pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277.

    The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 
1996, by Public Law 104-88, the ICC Termination Act of 1995. 
Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of 
the surface transportation industry, the act abolished the ICC, 
eliminated certain functions that had previously been 
implemented by the ICC, transferred core rail and certain other 
functions to the Board, and transferred motor licensing and 
certain other motor functions to the FHWA. The Board is 
specifically responsible for the regulation of the rail and 
pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of 
motor carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the Board, through 
its exemption authority, is able to promote deregulation 
administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail reforms made by 
the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been continued.
    The administration's fiscal year 2000 program request is 
$17,000,000 to perform key functions under the ICCTA, including 
rail rate reasonableness oversight; the processing of rail 
consolidations, abandonments, and other restructuring 
proposals; and the resolution of motor carrier undercharge 
matters. Under the administration's proposal this amount would 
be derived solely from user fees collected pursuant to 31 
U.S.C. 9701 from the beneficiaries of the Board's activities. 
However, the Committee is convinced that fully fee financing 
the STB is not a viable option for fiscal year 1999. Such a 
proposal would require enactment of legislation and 
promulgation of new rules that are unlikely to be in place in 
time to ensure undisrupted funding for the Board. A possible 
legislative vehicle for such a user fee-based structure would 
be the reauthorization legislation which the authorizing 
committees may consider later this year.
    The Committee has provided $15,400,000 for activities of 
the Board, including statutory liability for severance 
payments. This amount will be augmented by the collection of 
$1,600,000 in user fees. The Board anticipates collecting up to 
$1,200,000 from these fees. Bill language has been included to 
assure that fees received in excess of $1,600,000 shall remain 
available to the Board but shall not be available for 
obligation until October 1, 2000.
    The Committee's recommendation will fund a total of 140 
full-time staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board 
collects the full $1,600,000 in user fees. This increase in FTE 
above the current level of 135 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, 38 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.

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................      $3,847,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       4,633,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,500,000

\1\ Does not include $60,000 emergency funding for Y2K conversion.

    The Committee recommends $4,500,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
$133,000 less than 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 30.25 FTE, one FTE less than the fiscal year 1999 
staffing level, consistent with the Board's budget request.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................     $53,473,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................      47,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      51,500,000

\1\ Excludes $2,300,000 in emergency appropriations.
\2\ 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

    Due to budget constraints, the bill includes $51,500,000 
for the Safety Board, the same level of funding that was 
enacted fiscal year 1999 with the exception of costs associated 
with renting hangar space in Calverton, New York as discussed 
below. Appropriations to the Safety Board have increased by 26 
percent since fiscal year 1997, primarily because of prolonged 
investigations of the tragic crashes of USAir Flight 427 and 
TWA Flight 800. The Committee expects the NTSB to continue to 
investigate accidents and issue safety recommendations and has 
provided the Safety Board with the flexibility to manage the 
recommended funding level by controlling discretionary 
expenditures.
    Calverton facility.--The Committee is concerned about the 
cost to rent hangar space which houses the 94-foot-long 
reconstruction of the fuselage of the TWA Flight 800 plane 
wreckage. The Safety Board has spent $13,600,000 to rent the 
Calverton facility and the budget estimate includes $3,200,000 
to cover rent for the first six months of fiscal year 2000. In 
the fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations conference 
report, the Committee insisted on the statement that ``the 
conferees do not plan to continue funding the rental expenses 
at the Calverton facility in future years. Accordingly, the 
Committee has deleted funding for the rental and directs the 
Safety Board to develop alternatives for housing the TWA Flight 
800 wreckage, including options at ``no cost to the 
government.'' The report is request by August 1, 1999.
    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 charge foreign 
governments for the costs incurred during investigations 
conducted at the request of that government, if consistent with 
U.S. foreign policy goals.

                     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 100 
political and Presidential appointees to the Department of 
Transportation.
    Sec. 310. This provision regarding the allocation of 
Federal-aid Highway Program funds is continued with 
modifications to reflect the passage of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21].
    Sec. 315. 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. 316. 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.
    Sec. 319. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted that reduces the funds provided for the 
Transportation Administrative Service Center.
    Sec. 321. Includes provision which prevents any state from 
receiving more than 12.5 percent of the aggregate transit 
formula and capital investment grants national program funds.
    Sec. 322. Includes a provision allowing the States of 
Oklahoma and Vermont flexible use of transportation funds.
    Sec. 324. Includes provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted that limits the amount available for 
advisory committees to $1,000,000.
    Sec. 327. Includes provision similar to language carried in 
the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill which allows capital 
transit grant funds to be used for any aspect of Charleston, SC 
monobeam corridor project.
    Sec. 329. 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, 2000.
    Sec. 331. Modifies provision requested by the 
administration relating to funding for the Amtrak Reform 
Council.
    Sec. 332. 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. 333. Includes a provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted, which prohibits the Department of 
Transportation from creating ``peanut-free zones'' aboard 
domestic aircraft, absent fulfilling certain conditions.
    Sec. 334. Includes a provision which is similar to language 
carried in the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations 
act, relating to the execution of certain Olympics-related 
projects.
    Sec. 335. Includes a provision which requires the Federal 
Transit Administration to inform the Committees on 
Appropriations when the agency approves a new full funding 
grant agreement.
    Sec. 336. Includes a provision which is similar to language 
carried in the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations 
act, relating to state highway funding flexibility.
    Sec. 337. Includes a provision which allows the Department 
of Transportation to enter into a fractional aircraft ownership 
demonstration.
    Sec. 338. Includes a provision regarding the terms of a 
land conveyance of property held by the United States Coast 
Guard.
    Sec. 339. Includes a provision which prevents the 
distribution of personal data and photographs from drivers 
licenses without express written consent of the individual.
    Sec. 340. Includes a provision providing for the completion 
of the National Advanced Driving Simulator.
    Sec. 341. Includes a provision making technical changes to 
a highway project authorized in Public Law 102-240.

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

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

United States Coast Guard:
    Operating expenses..................................  $2,772,000,000
    Acquisition, construction, and improvements.........     370,426,000
    Environmental compliance and restoration............      12,450,000
    Retired pay.........................................     730,327,000
    Reserve training....................................      72,000,000
    Research, development, test, and evaluation.........      17,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Operations..........................................   5,857,450,000
    Facilities and equipment............................   2,045,652,000
    Research, engineering, and development..............     150,000,000
    Grants-in-aid to airports...........................   1,300,000,000
Federal Railroad Administration: Railroad safety........      91,789,000
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.............      11,496,000
Research and Special Programs Administration: Research 
    and Special Programs................................      30,752,000
Surface Transportation Board............................      17,000,000

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 reported en bloc, an original fiscal year 2000 Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations bill, and S. 1143, an 
original fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill, 
both subject to amendment and subject to the section 302 budget 
allocation, by a recorded vote of 27-1, a quorum being present. 
The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens                    Mrs. Feinstein
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
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.

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SUBTITLE III--GENERAL AND INTERMODAL PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 53--MASS TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 5309. Discretionary grants and loans

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(g) Letters of Intent, Full Financing Grant Agreements, and 
EarlySystems Work Agreements

    (1)(A) The Secretary of Transportation may issue a letter 
of intent to an applicant announcing an intention to obligate, 
for a project under this section, an amount from future 
available budget authority specified in law that is not more 
than the amount stipulated as the financial participation of 
the Secretary in the project. The amount shall be sufficient to 
complete at least an operable segment when a letter is issued 
for a fixed guideway project.
    (B) At least 30 days before issuing a letter under 
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Secretary of 
Transportation shall notify in writing the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
Senate and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of 
the proposed issuance of the letter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 
                                102-240


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1107. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized 
to carry out the innovative projects described in this 
subsection. Subject to subsection (c), there is authorized to 
be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to 
carry out each such project the amount listed for each such 
project:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       AMOUNT in
                 CITY/STATE                                    INNOVATIVE PROJECTS                     millions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1.  Cadiz, Ohio..........................  Construction of 4-lane Limited Access Highway from             20.0
                                              Cadiz, OH to Interstate 70 Interchange at St.
                                              Clarisville, OH along U.S. Rt. 250....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  6.  Maryland.............................  [Construction of a replacement bridge at Watervale              1.1
                                              Bridge #63, Harford County, MD] For improvements to
                                              Bottom Road Bridge, Vinegar Hill Road Bridge and
                                              Southampton Road Bridge, Harford County, MD..........

                                                                                                     

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


TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle A--Authorizations and Programs

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1212. MISCELLANEOUS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Project Flexibility for Minnesota and New Jersey.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds allocated for 
a project in the State of Minnesota or the State of New Jersey 
under section 117 of title 23, United States Code, may be 
obligated for any other project in the State for which funds 
are so allocated; except that the total amount of funds 
authorized for any project for which funds are so allocated 
shall not be reduced.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           TITLE III--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

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

    (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a [single-
State] pilot program to determine the benefits of using funds 
from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for 
intercity passenger rail. [Any assistance provided to the State 
of Oklahoma or the State of Vermont under sections 5307 and 
5311 of title 49, United States Code] The funds made available 
to the State of Oklahoma and the State of Vermont to carry out 
sections 5307 and 5311 of title 49, United States Code and 
sections 133 and 149 of title 23, United States Code, during 
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 may be used for capital 
improvements to, and operating assistance for, intercity 
passenger rail service.
    (b) Report.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2002, 
        the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
        Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
        and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the pilot 
        program established under this section.
            (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph 
        (1) shall include--
                    (A) an evaluation of the effect of the 
                pilot program on alternative forms of 
                transportation within the State of Oklahoma and 
                the State of Vermont;
                    (B) an evaluation of the effect of the 
                program on operators of mass transportation and 
                their passengers;
                    (C) a calculation of the amount of Federal 
                assistance provided under this section 
                transferred for the provision of intercity 
                passenger rail service; and
                    (D) an estimate of the benefits to 
                intercity passenger rail service, including the 
                number of passengers served, the number of 
                route miles covered, and the number of 
                localities served by intercity passenger rail 
                service.
    (c) Grant Requirements.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Amtrak employees employed in the railroad 
passenger service authorized by this section shall be afforded 
the same labor protections afforded other Amtrak employees 
under the terms of their employment contracts.

                                            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 2000: Subcommittee on
 Transportation and Related Agencies:
    General purpose discretionary...........................       12,034       12,034       14,226   \1\ 14,226
    Highways................................................  ...........  ...........       24,574       24,574
    Mass transit............................................  ...........  ...........        4,117        4,114
    Violent crime reduction.................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory...............................................          721          721          717          717
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 17,520
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       16,411
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        7,358
    2003....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,456
    2004 and future year....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,501
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2000           NA        1,204           NA        8,228
 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 1999 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2000
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     1999         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         1999
                                                                                                                        appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses:
    Immediate Office of the Secretary.........................            1,624             1,967             1,900              +276               -67
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary..................              585               612               600               +15               -12
    Office of the General Counsel.............................            8,750             9,150             9,000              +250              -150
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy..............            2,808             2,924             2,900               +92               -24
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and                    7,650             7,732             7,700               +50               -32
     International Affairs....................................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.            6,349             6,790             6,870              +521               +80
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs            1,941             2,039             2,000               +59               -39
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......           19,722            18,847            18,600            -1,122              -247
    Office of Public Affairs..................................            1,565             1,836             1,800              +235               -36
    Executive Secretariat.....................................            1,047             1,102             1,110               +63                +8
    Board of Contract Appeals.................................              561               520               560                -1               +40
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....            1,020             1,222             1,222              +202   ................
    Office of Intelligence and Security.......................            1,036             1,574   ................           -1,036            -1,574
    Office of the Chief Information Officer...................            4,875             5,075             5,100              +225               +25
    Office of Intermodalism...................................              957             1,187   ................             -957            -1,187
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation        ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
     Policy and Intermodalism.................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           60,490            62,577            59,362            -1,128            -3,215

Y2K conversion (emergency funding)............................           (7,754)  ................  ................          (-7,754)  ................
Office of Civil Rights........................................            6,966             7,742             7,200              +234              -542
Transportation planning, research, and development............            9,000             6,275             3,300            -5,700            -2,975
Transportation Administrative Service Center..................         (124,124)         (229,953)         (169,953)         (+45,829)         (-60,000)
Minority business resource center program.....................            1,900             1,900             1,900   ................  ................
    (Limitation on direct loans)..............................          (13,775)          (13,775)          (13,775)  ................  ................
Minority business outreach....................................            2,900             2,900             2,900   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary..........................           81,256            81,394            74,662            -6,594            -6,732

                          Coast Guard

Operating expenses............................................        2,400,000         2,607,039         2,238,000          -162,000          -369,039
    Defense function..........................................          300,000           334,000           534,000          +234,000          +200,000
    Title I--Readiness (emergency funding)....................         (100,000)  ................  ................        (-100,000)  ................
    Title IV--Counterdrug (emergency funding).................          (16,300)  ................  ................         (-16,300)  ................
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................          (27,715)  ................  ................         (-27,715)  ................
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................           (4,058)  ................  ................          (-4,058)  ................

Acquisition, construction, and improvements:
    Vessels...................................................          219,923           165,760           123,560           -96,363           -42,200
    Aircraft..................................................           35,700            22,110            33,210            -2,490           +11,100
    Other equipment...........................................           36,569            53,726            52,726           +16,157            -1,000
    Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities........           54,823            55,800            63,800            +8,977            +8,000
    Personnel and related support.............................           48,450            52,930            52,930            +4,480   ................
    Deepwater replacement project revolving fund..............  ................  ................           44,200           +44,200           +44,200
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, A C and I appropriations......................          395,465           350,326           370,426           -25,039           +20,100
    Acquisition, construction, and improvements Title I--              (100,000)  ................  ................        (-100,000)  ................
     Counterdrug (emergency funding)..........................
    Hurricane Georges (emergency funding).....................          (12,600)  ................  ................         (-12,600)  ................
    Title IV--Counterdrug (emergency funding).................         (117,400)  ................  ................        (-117,400)  ................

Environmental compliance and restoration......................           21,000            19,500            12,450            -8,550            -7,050
Alteration of bridges.........................................           14,000   ................           14,000   ................          +14,000
Retired pay...................................................          684,000           730,327           730,327           +46,327   ................
Reserve training..............................................           69,000            72,000            72,000            +3,000   ................
    Title I--Readiness (emergency funding)....................           (5,000)  ................  ................          (-5,000)  ................
Research, development, test, and evaluation...................           12,000            21,709            17,000            +5,000            -4,709
    Title I--Readiness (emergency funding)....................           (5,000)  ................  ................          (-5,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Coast Guard......................................        3,895,465         4,134,901         3,988,203           +92,738          -146,698

                Federal Aviation Administration

Operations (airport and Airway trust fund)....................        5,562,558         6,039,000         5,857,450          +294,892          -181,550
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................          (14,946)  ................  ................         (-14,946)  ................
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................          (13,852)  ................  ................         (-13,852)  ................
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)......        1,900,000         2,319,000         2,045,652          +145,652          -273,348
    Title II--Antiterrorism (emergency funding)...............         (100,000)  ................  ................        (-100,000)  ................
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................         (106,612)  ................  ................        (-106,612)  ................
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................          (15,521)  ................  ................         (-15,521)  ................
    Rescission................................................  ................  ................         -299,500          -299,500          -299,500
Aviation insurance revolving fund.............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway              150,000           173,000           150,000   ................          -23,000
 Trust Fund)..................................................
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................             (147)  ................  ................            (-147)  ................
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................             (220)  ................  ................            (-220)  ................
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................       (1,600,000)       (1,750,000)       (1,750,000)        (+150,000)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (1,950,000)       (1,600,000)       (2,000,000)         (+50,000)        (+400,000)
    (Obligation limitation reduction) (Public Law 105-277)....  ................  ................        (-290,000)        (-290,000)        (-290,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration..................        7,612,558         8,531,000         8,053,102          +440,544          -477,898
          (Limitations on obligations)........................       (1,950,000)       (1,600,000)       (1,710,000)        (-240,000)        (+110,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...............................       (9,562,558)      (10,131,000)       (9,763,102)        (+200,544)        (-367,898)

                Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses.........................         (327,413)         (344,616)         (370,000)         (+42,587)         (+25,384)
    Highway safety initiative.................................  ................  ................          (14,500)         (+14,500)         (+14,500)
    Section 405(b) grant......................................  ................  ................           (7,500)          (+7,500)          (+7,500)
Limitation on transportation research.........................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
 Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................      (25,511,000)      (26,245,000)      (26,245,000)        (+734,000)  ................
    Domestic Discretionary....................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    (Revenue aligned budget authority) (RABA).................  ................       (1,456,350)       (1,456,350)      (+1,456,350)  ................
    (RABA transfer under Title III)...........................  ................        (-452,120)  ................  ................        (+452,120)
    (Adjustment)..............................................  ................          (63,000)  ................  ................         (-63,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, limitation on obligations.....................      (25,511,000)      (27,312,230)      (27,701,350)      (+2,190,350)        (+389,120)
    (Exempt obligations)......................................       (1,424,047)       (1,132,116)       (1,132,116)        (-291,931)  ................
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................      (24,000,000)      (26,000,000)      (26,300,000)      (+2,300,000)        (+300,000)
National motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................         (100,000)         (105,000)         (105,000)          (+5,000)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (100,000)         (105,000)         (105,000)          (+5,000)  ................
National motor carrier safety program (highway trust fund)....  ................           50,000            50,000           +50,000   ................
Additional provisions--Division A Public Law 105-277: Surface           332,000   ................  ................         -332,000   ................
 transportation projects......................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Highway Administration...................          332,000            50,000            50,000          -282,000   ................
          (Limitations on obligations)........................      (25,611,000)      (27,417,230)      (27,806,350)      (+2,195,350)        (+389,120)
          (Exempt obligations)................................       (1,424,047)       (1,132,116)       (1,132,116)        (-291,931)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...............................      (27,367,047)      (28,599,346)      (28,988,466)      (+1,621,419)        (+389,120)

        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund)..................           87,400   ................           72,900           -14,500           +72,900
Operations and research (highway trust fund):
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................          (72,000)          (72,000)          (72,000)  ................  ................
    (RABA transfer under Title III)...........................  ................         (125,450)  ................  ................        (-125,450)
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................          (72,000)         (197,450)          (72,000)  ................        (-125,450)
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................             (752)  ................  ................            (-752)  ................
National Driver Register (highway trust fund).................            2,000             2,000             2,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and research.......................         (162,152)         (199,450)         (146,900)         (-15,252)         (-52,550)

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................         (200,000)         (206,800)         (206,800)          (+6,800)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations):
        Highway safety programs (Sec. 402)....................         (150,000)         (152,800)         (152,800)          (+2,800)  ................
        Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405).......          (10,000)          (10,000)          (10,000)  ................  ................
        Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec.           (35,000)          (36,000)          (36,000)          (+1,000)  ................
         410).................................................
        State Highway safety data grants (Sec. 411)...........           (5,000)           (8,000)           (8,000)          (+3,000)  ................
        Child passenger protection education grants (by         ................           (7,500)           (7,500)          (+7,500)  ................
         transfer)............................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin........           89,400             2,000            74,900           -14,500           +72,900
              (Limitations on obligations)....................         (272,000)         (404,250)         (278,800)          (+6,800)        (-125,450)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total budgetary resources...........................         (361,400)         (406,250)         (353,700)          (-7,700)         (-52,550)

                Federal Railroad Administration

Office of the Administrator...................................           21,215   ................  ................          -21,215   ................
Railroad safety...............................................           61,488   ................  ................          -61,488   ................
Safety and operations.........................................  ................           95,462            91,789           +91,789            -3,673
    Offsetting collections (user fees)........................  ................          -66,461   ................  ................          +66,461
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           82,703            29,001            91,789            +9,086           +62,788

Railroad research and development.............................           22,364            21,800            22,364   ................             +564
    Offsetting collections (user fees)........................  ................          -21,300   ................  ................          +21,300
Next generation high-speed rail...............................           20,494            12,000            20,500                +6            +8,500
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation................................           10,000   ................           14,000            +4,000           +14,000
Alaska Railroad capital improvements (Division A).............           28,000   ................  ................          -28,000   ................
Rhode Island Rail Development.................................            5,000            10,000            10,000            +5,000   ................
Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.          609,230           570,976           571,000           -38,230               +24
Rail initiative trust fund (Highway Trust Fund) (RABA transfer
 under Title III):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................  ................          (35,400)  ................  ................         (-35,400)
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................          (35,400)  ................  ................         (-35,400)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration..................          777,791           622,477           729,653           -48,138          +107,176
          (Limitations on obligations)........................  ................          (35,400)  ................  ................         (-35,400)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...............................         (777,791)         (657,877)         (729,653)         (-48,138)         (+71,776)

                Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses.......................................           10,800            12,000            12,000            +1,200   ................
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit       ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
 Account).....................................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................          (43,200)          (48,000)          (48,000)          (+4,800)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Administrative expenses.......................          (54,000)          (60,000)          (60,000)          (+6,000)  ................
      Y2K conversion (emergency funding)......................             (250)  ................  ................            (-250)  ................

Formula grants................................................          570,000           619,600           619,600           +49,600   ................
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (2,280,000)       (2,478,400)       (2,478,400)        (+198,400)  ................
    (RABA transfer under Title III)...........................  ................         (212,270)  ................  ................        (-212,270)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Formula grants................................       (2,850,000)       (3,310,270)       (3,098,000)        (+248,000)        (-212,270)

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)..................           19,800            21,000            21,000            +1,200   ................
Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass
 Transit Account):
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................          (78,200)          (86,000)          (86,000)          (+7,800)  ................
    (RABA transfer under Title III)...........................  ................           (4,000)  ................  ................          (-4,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Transit planning and research.................          (98,000)         (111,000)         (107,000)          (+9,000)          (-4,000)
    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.....................................          (43,842)          (49,632)          (49,632)          (+5,790)  ................
    State planning and research...............................           (9,158)          (10,368)          (10,368)          (+1,210)  ................
    National planning and research............................          (27,500)          (33,500)          (29,500)          (+2,000)          (-4,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          (98,000)         (111,000)         (107,000)          (+9,000)          (-4,000)

Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation       (4,251,800)       (4,929,270)       (4,638,000)        (+386,200)        (-291,270)
 of contract authorization)...................................

Capital investment grants (general fund)......................          451,400           490,200           490,200           +38,800   ................
Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit          (1,805,600)       (1,960,800)       (1,960,800)        (+155,200)  ................
 Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Capital investment grants.....................       (2,257,000)       (2,451,000)       (2,451,000)        (+194,000)  ................
    (Fixed guideway modernization)............................         (902,800)         (980,400)         (980,400)         (+77,600)  ................
    (Buses and bus-related facilities)........................         (451,400)         (490,200)         (490,200)         (+38,800)  ................
    (New starts)..............................................         (902,800)         (980,400)         (980,400)         (+77,600)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (2,257,000)       (2,451,000)       (2,451,000)        (+194,000)  ................

Mass transit capital fund (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation of       (2,000,000)  ................  ................      (-2,000,000)  ................
 contract authorization)......................................
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit          ................       (1,500,000)       (1,500,000)      (+1,500,000)  ................
 Account) (liquidation of contract authorization).............
Job access and reverse commute grants (general fund)..........           35,000            15,000            15,000           -20,000   ................
    (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on           (40,000)          (60,000)          (60,000)         (+20,000)  ................
     obligations).............................................
    (RABA transfer under Title III)...........................  ................          (75,000)  ................  ................         (-75,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants.........          (75,000)         (150,000)          (75,000)  ................         (-75,000)

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (general fund).           50,000   ................  ................          -50,000   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Federal Transit Administration...................        1,138,200         1,159,000         1,159,000           +20,800   ................
          (Limitations on obligations)........................       (4,251,800)       (4,929,270)       (4,638,000)        (+386,200)        (-291,270)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...............................       (5,390,000)       (6,088,270)       (5,797,000)        (+407,000)        (-291,270)

         Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)....           11,496   ................           11,496   ................          +11,496
    Mandatory proposal........................................  ................          (12,042)  ................  ................         (-12,042)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          (11,496)          (12,042)          (11,496)  ................            (-546)

         Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs.................................  ................           33,340   ................  ................          -33,340
    Hazardous materials safety................................           16,063   ................           16,960              +897           +16,960
    Emergency transportation..................................              997   ................            1,275              +278            +1,275
    Research and technology...................................            3,676   ................            3,297              -379            +3,297
    Program and administrative support........................            8,544   ................            9,220              +676            +9,220
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, research and special programs.................           29,280            33,340            30,752            +1,472            -2,588
    Offsetting collections (user fees)........................  ................           -4,575   ................  ................           +4,575
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................             (182)  ................  ................            (-182)  ................
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................             (100)  ................  ................            (-100)  ................
Pipeline safety:
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................           29,000            33,939            30,000            +1,000            -3,939
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................            4,248             4,248             4,704              +456              +456
    Pipeline safety reserve...................................           (1,400)  ................           (1,400)  ................          (+1,400)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pipeline safety...............................           33,248            38,187            34,704            +1,456            -3,483
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................             (150)  ................  ................            (-150)  ................
Emergency preparedness grants:
    Emergency preparedness fund...............................              200               200               200   ................  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................          (11,000)  ................          (11,000)  ................         (+11,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Special Programs Admin..............           62,728            67,152            65,656            +2,928            -1,496
          (Limitations on obligations)........................          (11,000)  ................          (11,000)  ................         (+11,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...............................          (73,728)          (67,152)          (76,656)          (+2,928)          (+9,504)

                  Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses.........................................           43,495            44,840             5,000           -38,495           -39,840

                 Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           16,000            14,400            15,400              -600            +1,000
    Offsetting collections....................................           -2,600           -14,400   ................           +2,600           +14,400

                      General Provisions

Transportation Administrative Service Center reduction........          -15,000   ................          -60,000           -45,000           -60,000
Transit discretionary grants (rescission of contract                  (-392,000)  ................  ................        (+392,000)  ................
 authorization)...............................................
National Aviation Review Commission (rescission)..............            (-849)  ................  ................            (+849)  ................
Amtrak Reform Council.........................................              450               750               950              +500              +200
Urban discretionary grants (rescission).......................          (-4,026)  ................  ................          (+4,026)  ................
    State Flexibility.........................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Net total, title I, Department of Transportation........       14,294,923        14,693,514        13,868,522          -426,401          -824,992
          Appropriations......................................      (14,043,239)      (14,693,514)      (14,168,022)        (+124,783)        (-525,492)
          Rescissions.........................................        (-396,875)  ................        (-299,500)         (+97,375)        (-299,500)
          Emergency appropriations............................         (648,559)  ................  ................        (-648,559)  ................
      (By transfer)...........................................  ................           (7,500)           (7,500)          (+7,500)  ................
      (Limitations on obligations)............................      (32,095,800)      (34,386,150)      (34,444,150)      (+2,348,350)         (+58,000)
      (Exempt obligations)....................................       (1,424,047)       (1,132,116)       (1,132,116)        (-291,931)  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
        Net total budgetary resources.........................      (47,814,770)      (50,211,780)      (49,444,788)      (+1,630,018)        (-766,992)

                  TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

  Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................            3,847             4,633             4,500              +653              -133
    Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................              (60)  ................  ................             (-60)  ................

             National Transportation Safety Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           53,473            57,000            51,500            -1,973            -5,500
    Offsetting collections....................................  ................          -10,000   ................  ................          +10,000
Emergency fund................................................           (1,000)  ................           (1,000)  ................          (+1,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Transportation Safety Board.............           53,473            47,000            51,500            -1,973            +4,500
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title II, Related Agencies.......................           58,380            51,633            57,000            -1,380            +5,367
          Appropriations......................................          (57,320)          (51,633)          (56,000)          (-1,320)          (+4,367)
          Emergency appropriations............................           (1,060)  ................           (1,000)             (-60)          (+1,000)
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Net total appropriations................................       14,353,303        14,745,147        13,925,522          -427,781          -819,625
              Appropriations..................................      (14,100,559)      (14,745,147)      (14,224,022)        (+123,463)        (-521,125)
              Rescissions.....................................        (-396,875)  ................        (-299,500)         (+97,375)        (-299,500)
              Emergency appropriations........................         (649,619)  ................           (1,000)        (-648,619)          (+1,000)
          (By transfer).......................................  ................           (7,500)           (7,500)          (+7,500)  ................
          (Limitation on obligations).........................      (32,095,800)      (34,386,150)      (34,444,150)      (+2,348,350)         (+58,000)
          (Exempt obligations)................................       (1,424,047)       (1,132,116)       (1,132,116)        (-291,931)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total budgetary resources.....................      (47,873,150)      (50,263,413)      (49,501,788)      (+1,628,638)        (-761,625)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  
