Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-177
_______________________________________________________________________


 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  1996

                                _______


  July 11, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2002]
    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996.
                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action......................     1
                                                                      2
Program, project, and activity.............................
                                                                      4
        Title I--Department of Transportation:
                Office of the Secretary....................     2
                                                                     11
                Coast Guard................................     7
                                                                     22
                Federal Aviation Administration............    12
                                                                     44
                Federal Highway Administration.............    16
                                                                     77
                National Highway Traffic Safety 
                    Administration.........................    18
                                                                    107
                Federal Railroad Administration............    21
                                                                    120
                Federal Transit Administration.............    25
                                                                    135
                Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
                    Corporation............................    30
                                                                    157
                Research and Special Programs 
                    Administration.........................    31
                                                                    159
                Office of Inspector General................    33
                                                                    168
        Title II--Related Agencies:
                Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
                    Compliance Board.......................    33
                                                                    169
                National Transportation Safety Board.......    34
                                                                    169
                Interstate Commerce Commission.............    35
                                                                    171
                Panama Canal Commission....................    35
                                                                    172
        Title III--General Provisions......................    36
                                                                    173
        Title IV--National Capital Area Interest 
            Arbitration Standards Act of 1995..............    55
                                                                    175
        House Report Requirements:
                Inflationary impact statement..............
                                                                    176
                Rescissions................................
                                                                    176
                Transfers of funds.........................
                                                                    177
                ``Ramseyer'' rule..........................
                                                                    177
                Changes in existing law....................
                                                                    179
                Comparison with budget resolution..........
                                                                    183
                Five-year projections of outlays...........
                                                                    184
                Assistance to state and local governments..
                                                                    184
                Tabular summary of the bill................
                                                                    185
                                ------                                


                          Summary of the Bill

    The accompanying bill would provide $13,182,101,806 in new 
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies, a decrease 
of $1,011,419,194 below the fiscal year 1995 level.
    The Committee has also recommended limitations on 
obligations for a number of programs that are, for the most 
part, financed by multi-year contract authority in legislative 
acts. The total of the limitations on obligations for these 
programs is $22,646,915,000, an increase of $876,017,000 above 
the levels enacted in fiscal year 1995. An additional 
$2,311,932,000 is estimated to be obligated for federal-aid 
highway programs exempt from the obligation limitation in the 
bill.
    The total recommended obligational authority (new budget 
authority, limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations) 
amounts to $38,140,948,806. This is $91,171,194 less than 
comparable fiscal year 1995 enacted levels, and $1,739,215,975 
more than the budget request.

                            Bill Highlights

    Faced with a smaller federal budget for transportation, the 
bill reflects an overall reduction of $1.4 billion in budget 
authority, a reduction of nearly 10 percent from fiscal year 
1995 levels. Unlike the President's budget that called for a 
reduction of $2.5 billion in infrastructure programs without 
providing any specifics or details, this bill makes specific 
recommendations by program and places a high priority on public 
safety and investments in the future.
    This year the Committee has placed a high priority on trust 
fund spending in order to ensure highway and aviation users 
that their tax receipts are spent, and spent in an efficient 
manner. For example, the Committee recommendation spends 98.7 
percent of the highway trust fund revenues collected this year. 
Similarly, the Committee has included $2.8 billion from the 
highway trust fund for transit formula and discretionary 
grants--the full amount authorized. In the case of the aviation 
trust fund, the Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 1996 
is estimated to result in total spending (outlays) from the 
aviation trust fund of $5.9 billion, $90 million more than 
estimated trust fund tax receipts.

                         Major Recommendations

    Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill 
are:
          (1) A provision providing for total obligations, 
        including exempt obligations, of $20,311,932,000 for 
        federal-aid highways, an increase of $884,321,000 above 
        fiscal year 1995;
          (2) The appropriation of $4,600,000,000 for 
        operations of the Federal Aviation Administration, an 
        increase of $4,606,000 above the fiscal year 1995 
        level, including the 5 percent air traffic 
        revitalization pay for controllers;
          (3) The appropriation of $2,000,000,000 for 
        facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation 
        Administration, a decrease of $87,489,000 below the 
        fiscal year 1995 appropriation;
          (4) The appropriation of $2,566,000,000 for operating 
        expenses of the Coast Guard, a decrease of $32,000,000 
        below the fiscal year 1995 level;
          (5) The appropriation of $628,000,000 for grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), 
        subject to authorizing legislation, to cover operating 
        losses, capital expenses, and transition costs;
          (6) A total of $2,000,000,000 for the Federal Transit 
        Administration's formula grants program, including 
        $400,000,000 for transit operating assistance;
          (7) Two provisions to mitigate the reduction in 
        transit operating assistance: (a) the repeal of section 
        13(c) of the Federal Transit Act and an abrogation of 
        existing labor agreements; and (b) amendment of federal 
        transit laws to permit periodic bus overhauls to be 
        considered as a capital expense;
          (8) A provision providing for obligations of not to 
        exceed $1,665,000,000 for the discretionary grants 
        program of the Federal Transit Administration;
          (9) An appropriation of $200,000,000 for construction 
        of the Washington, D.C. metrorail system; and
          (10) A total of $215,477,500 for the Office of the 
        Secretary, $36,711,500 below fiscal year 1995 and 
        $354,425,500 below the budget request. The Committee 
        did not approve the request for $331,000,000 for 
        headquarters facilities.
                            Tabular Summary

    A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 
1995 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 
1996 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end 
of this report.

                           Committee Hearings

    The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the 
programs and projects provided for in the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 
fiscal year 1996. These hearings are contained in eight 
published volumes totaling approximately 9,700 pages. The 
Committee received testimony from officials of the executive 
branch, Members of Congress, officials of the General 
Accounting Office, officials of state and local governments, 
and private citizens.
    The bill recommendations for fiscal year 1996 have been 
developed after careful consideration of all the information 
available to the Committee.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 1996, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions 
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or 
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory 
statements of the committee of conference. This definition 
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) 
authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants, 
Federal Transit Administration, and interstate transfer grants-
highways, Federal Highway Administration. In addition, the 
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to 
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal 
Aviation Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and 
improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each 
``budget item'' that is listed under said accounts in the 
budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent 
appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, 
conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the 
committee of conference.
                         Non-Technical Training

    This year the Committee held a special hearing on non-
technical training in the Department of Transportation as a 
result of serious concerns raised in a DOT Inspector General 
investigative report regarding alleged abuses in management 
training and diversity training. What the Committee found in 
that report, and heard firsthand in the hearing, was nothing 
short of shocking.
    Witnesses described training methods and practices which 
were offensive to many employees' religious beliefs and which 
prescribed clearly theological readings. Some employees were 
forced to reveal and discuss highly personal feelings and 
traumatic experiences from their past, in the hope of changing 
their values or the values of other training participants. 
According to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), a 
distinguishing feature of much of this training was the use of 
confrontation by instructors, for the stated purpose of 
changing personal values and behavior. One male witness 
described the humiliation of being made to walk between a 
``gauntlet'' of females, who assaulted him physically, 
ostensibly to change his values and attitudes toward women. At 
least two female witnesses described the need for professional 
psychological help after going through the training. The Office 
of Inspector General called this type of training a form of 
``psychic roulette'', which some lost. Although top FAA and OST 
officials were aware of complaints from employees, they 
sacrificed some individuals for what they considered the larger 
good.
    Much of this fit the following description of ``new age'' 
training methods by management consultant Peter Drucker:

          In most cases, managers are simply told to attend. 
        Even if there is ostensible choice, it is made pretty 
        clear, or so managers think, that non-attendance would 
        be seen as a sign of `disloyalty' or negative 
        attitudes. They are ordered to attend this session 
        aimed at changing their personality because somebody 
        claims that it is likely to be good for them, or maybe 
        good for the company.

    Drucker goes on to say that, in his view:

          Company-ordered psychological seminars of this kind 
        are, in other words, an invasion of privacy that is not 
        justified by any company need. They are morally 
        indefensible. And they are bitterly resented as such by 
        a good many of the people who are being subjected to 
        them.

    Several management abuses occurred within the department 
which, in the Committee's view, should never have been allowed 
to happen. Although some administrative guidance was in place, 
the guidance allowed too much discretion to human resource 
managers infatuated with ``experiential'' training, was vaguely 
worded, and had few if any enforcement sanctions. Taken 
together, these abuses describe an organization which abandoned 
well-established principles for human resource management and 
training in an effort to sustain contracts with certain 
individuals. These abuses include:
    1. Little or no distribution of course evaluations to 
students.
    2. Little or no prior information provided to students on 
course content or methods.
    3. Sole source contracting and split bid purchasing, which 
skirted competition.
    4. Harassment of employees who expressed concern over 
methods or content used during the training.
    5. Little or no background check of the instructors hired.
    6. No inquiry to determine why students were pledged to 
secrecy in some cases.
    Given the findings of this hearing, the Committee has 
included a new general provision (Sec. 338) which is designed 
to ensure that training abuses such as these never happen again 
in the Department of Transportation. The provision would 
prohibit training which is likely to induce high levels of 
psychological stress, attempts to change participants' personal 
values or lifestyle outside the workplace, or which relates to 
skills or knowledge which has no bearing on one's official 
duties in the workplace. It bans training which contains 
methods associated with religious or quasi-religious belief 
systems, including so-called ``new age'' beliefs. The provision 
requires the use of end-of-course evaluations, and requires 
that employees be notified in advance of the content and 
methods to be used during the training.
    Finally, the provision prohibits HIV/AIDS awareness 
training other than that necessary to make employees more aware 
of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the workplace 
rights of HIV-positive employees. The Committee was concerned 
to learn this year of some HIV/AIDS training classes which 
overstepped the boundary of what the Committee considers 
proper, by attempting to change participants' attitudes 
concerning certain lifestyles. The Committee wants to support 
awareness training which informs employees about the medical 
aspects of AIDS and which promotes a greater sense of 
compassion toward people with HIV/AIDS and their families. 
However, the Committee does not support training which attempts 
to change one's personal values or promote certain lifestyles. 
If acceptable government-wide policy changes are made later in 
the appropriations process, the Committee will review the need 
for separate action in this bill.

                            Safety Programs

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

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... $24,392,976,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -24,392,976,000

    The budget requested by the Administration proposed that 
certain programs for the Department of Transportation be funded 
from the Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment 
Program (UTIIP). This new account is structured in two parts--
federal activities and state and local activities.
    In total, infrastructure spending would decrease from 
comparable 1995 levels by $2,500,000,000. Flexible funding 
mechanisms are proposed to allow states and localities to 
leverage reduced federal dollars. The new programs include an 
$18,000,000,000 Unified Allocation Grant that will be available 
to states and localities to spend on their transportation 
priorities. The UTIIP also includes a $1,000,000,000 
discretionary grant to focus on projects of national or 
regional significance and $2,000,000,000 to capitalize state 
infrastructure banks. Funding for such activities as Amtrak, 
Northeast Corridor and transit operating assistance which were 
separately appropriated in previous years are included as 
separate line items in UTIIP. Also included is $1,142,972,000 
for prior commitments including full funding grant agreements 
for transit new start projects, WMATA, and existing airport 
letters of intent. The following table compares funding levels 
for fiscal year 1995 and those proposed in 1996 both under 
UTIIP and current law:

        UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM        
  [Appropriations and obligation limitations--In thousands of dollars]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1996 President's budget   
                            Comparable   -------------------------------
                               1995         \1\ Current                 
                                                law       Current policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and local                                                         
 initiative:                                                            
    Unified grant.......  \2\ $22,911,25                                
                                       8  \2\ $23,941,66                
                                                       3     $18,000,000
    State infrastructure                                                
     banks..............  ..............  ..............       2,000,000
    Transit operating                                                   
     assistance.........         710,000         500,000         500,000
    Prior commitments                                                   
     (LOIs, New starts,                                                 
     WMATA).............       1,009,018       1,142,972       1,142,972
    Rhode Island rail                                                   
     development........           5,000          10,000          10,000
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total, state and                                                  
       local............      24,635,276      25,594,635      21,652,972
                         ===============================================
Direct Federal program:                                                 
    Discretionary grants                                                
     (new program)......  ..............     \4\ 300,000       1,000,000
    Federal lands.......         448,000     \3\ 348,432         441,775
    Research &                                                          
     development \5\....         239,079         217,237         219,027
    Grants to Amtrak....         772,000         750,000         750,000
    NECIP...............         200,000         235,000         235,000
    Penn Station                                                        
     redevelopment......          40,000          50,000          50,000
    Administrative                                                      
     expenses \6\.......          43,060          44,202          44,202
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total, direct                                                     
       Federal..........       1,742,139       1,944,871       2,740,004
                         ===============================================
      Total, UTIIP......      26,377,415      27,539,506      24,392,976
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects the impact of reductions pursuant to ISTEA Sec. 1003(c),   
  e.g. Federal Lands.                                                   
\2\ Includes portions of Federal-Aid Highways, Grants-in-Aid for        
  Airports (except for existing LOIs), transit Formula capital and      
  Discretionary Grants (except for FFAs), and Local Rail Freight        
  Assistance (FY 1995 only).                                            
\3\ Estimated obligations.                                              
\4\ Congestion Relief Initiative.                                       
\5\ Includes in each year Intelligent Transportation Systems, University
  Transportation Centers, and Transit Planning and Research.            
\6\ Includes Transit only; FHWA Limitation on General Operating Expenses
  included as drawdown under Unified Grant.                             

    The department's proposal is based on proposed legislation 
which has not been considered by the appropriate authorizing 
committees. Legislative language to effectuate the President's 
proposed program was not submitted until May 2, 1995. During 
extensive hearings on the department's proposed budget, the 
Committee requested that the department submit a budget based 
upon current law, distributing the reduction of $2,500,000,000 
in the Department of Transportation's core infrastructure 
programs. During those hearings, the Deputy Secretary informed 
the Committee that the department would not provide specific 
budgetary recommendations by program, other than for salaries 
and expense accounts.
    The Committee rejects the department's proposed UTIIP 
proposal. Such a radical transformation in transportation 
programs and their delivery requires significant Congressional 
review and an authorization. Inasmuch as the administration and 
the department chose not to recommend specific budgetary levels 
for the Department's largest programs, the Committee has made 
the hard choices and the decisions that the department and the 
administration chose to avoid.

              Department of Transportation Reorganization

    Related to the proposed new UTIIP, the department has 
proposed a reorganization. The Department of Transportation 
proposal for consolidation, which was submitted to Congress on 
April 4, 1995, involves three major areas. First, all surface 
and maritime activities (other than the Coast Guard and the 
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC)) would be 
combined in a single Intermodal Transportation Administration 
(ITA). Second, the Federal Aviation Administration would 
continue its safety and security functions, incorporating also 
commercial space activities now housed with the Office of the 
Secretary. Third is the Coast Guard--a military service that 
transfers to the Navy upon declaration of war or when the 
President directs, and which has a distinct set of functions. 
No change in the Coast Guard's current status or activities is 
proposed, except for transfer of bridges activities related to 
the functions of the Intermodal Transportation Administration. 
The SLSDC is already a wholly owned government corporation and 
would be made a free-standing independent entity. The following 
table lists those accounts affected by the proposed 
reorganization:
   accounts proposed to be merged into the intermodal transportation 
                             administration
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program
Federal-Aid Highways
Right-of-Way Revolving Fund Liquidating Account
Highway-Related Safety Grants
Motor Carrier Safety Grants
Motor Carrier Safety
Operations and Research (NHTSA)
Operations and Research, Trust Fund (NHTSA)
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
Office of the Administrator (FRA)
Railroad Safety
Railroad Research and Development
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program Account
Trust Fund Share of Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Violent Crime Reduction Programs
Alteration of Bridges
Operating-Differential Subsidies
Maritime Security Program
Operations and Training (Maritime Administration)
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account
Research and Special Programs
Pipeline Safety
Emergency Preparedness Grants
accounts proposed to be included in the federal aviation administration
Operations
Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program
Facilities and Equipment
Research, Engineering, and Develpment
          accounts proposed to be included in the coast guard
Operating Expenses
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Retired Pay
Reserve Training
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
      account proposed to be established as an independent agency
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: Operations and Maintenance

    The Committee has deferred consideration of the major 
reorganization of the department. Any large scale 
reorganization as contemplated by the department would be 
premature pending consideration and authorization of the 
proposed consolidated grant program. The Committee has, where 
appropriate, concurred with less significant components of the 
reorganization.
    In testimony before the Committee, Department of 
Transportation officials stated that the Department planned to 
focus on changes to the field structure in fiscal year 1997, 
after headquarters reorganizations were made in fiscal year 
1996. The Committee acknowledges the need for a review of the 
organizational structure of the department, but suggests that 
rather than a comprehensive reorganization of the five surface 
modal administrations into one, a review and down-sizing of the 
department's field structure is more appropriate. DOT's role 
has been altered by changes that have occurred in the federal 
surface transportation landscape, particularly since the 
passage of ISTEA. For example, the Federal Highway 
Administration's field structure was put in place during the 
construction of the Interstate Highway System, when FHWA's 
primary customers, the state highway agencies, needed the 
technical expertise and guidance in their state capital that 
only a permanent presence could provide. The Interstate system 
is complete now, FHWA's customer base has expanded considerably 
to include, for example, metropolitan planning organizations in 
the major urban centers, citizens groups, and others. As the 
following chart indicates, 161 surface transportation field 
offices currently exist in the fifty states and the District of 
Columbia, and some cities have several offices. Given that 
DOT's customers are in virtually every city in the U.S., some 
type of field structure is appropriate. However, there is an 
opportunity to consolidate the regional and division offices 
and collocate field offices, thereby reaping benefits of shared 
administrative services, such as reception, printing, mailing, 
copying, and space. The existing field structure does not take 
advantage of collocation. As the chart indicates, the Denver 
metropolitan area, for example, has seven DOT surface 
transportation field offices, some located downtown and others 
outside of Denver.
    The Committee, therefore, has included a general provision 
(Sec. 336) canceling appropriations for personnel compensation 
and administrative expenses totaling $25,000,000. The Secretary 
is directed to reduce the existing field office structure and 
to the extent practicable, collocate the department's surface 
transportation field offices. To assist in this effort, the 
Committee has provided the department flexibility to transfer 
funds made available for personnel compensation and benefits 
and other administrative expenses to other appropriations 
accounts, provided that no appropriation shall increase or 
decrease by more than ten percent.


                         Workers' Compensation

    The bill includes a new general provision (Sec. 340) which 
prohibits workers' compensation payments to DOT employees 
(excluding the Maritime Administration) on the workers' 
compensation rolls who are eligible to retire, or who become 
eligible to retire during fiscal year 1996, allowing a six-
month grace period after the retirement eligibility point is 
reached. The Committee believes that, since workers' 
compensation provides more income (including tax-exempt status) 
for employees than would be realized under federal retirement 
benefits, many employees who are retirement-eligible have no 
incentive to retire, and little or no incentive to go back to 
work within the department. This provides an unnecessary drain 
on agency operating budgets.
    The vast majority of workers' compensation cases within the 
department are FAA employees. According to the FAA, many of 
their workers' compensation employees are over 60 years old, 
many having been on workers' compensation for at least twenty 
years. Most of these long-term cases are not currently re-
employable by the FAA in any capacity. However, many are 
eligible for a civil service disability retirement, but have 
little incentive to apply since workers' compensation provides 
a higher income. Since workers' compensation payments are 
included as a discretionary part of the budget, and therefore 
in competition with the safety-related discretionary programs 
funded in this bill, the Committee cannot continue making these 
payments at the detriment of other critical programs.
    The Committee's recommended bill language does not mandate 
that these employees retire. However, should they choose to do 
so, their benefits would be the same as other federal retirees. 
The bill makes no change in their retirement eligibility or 
benefits.

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $58,094,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      62,164,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      55,011,500
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -3,082,500
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -7,152,500

\1\ Reductions of $469,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards 
and transfer of $5,187,928 for consolidated civil rights office not 
reflected.

    The bill provides $55,011,500 for salaries and expenses of 
the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary 
(OST). This is $3,082,500 below the level enacted last year. 
The Committee recommendation assumes the following reductions 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the budget estimate:

Reductions in staff:                                              Amount
    2 public affairs specialists........................       -$120,000
    3 congressional affairs officers....................        -180,000
    3 international transportation specialists..........        -206,250
    3 attorney advisors.................................        -300,000
    4 management analysts...............................        -352,250
Hold reception and representation costs to 1995 levels..         -20,000
Hold travel to $365,000.................................        -150,000
Reduce contractual services for acquisition, maintenance 
    and repair of ADP equipment and commercial online 
    data information systems, and other reductions......      -1,210,000

    In addition, the Committee recommendation assumes $91,000 
and 1 FTE for aviation information management.
    Budget justifications.--Though the Committee has approved 
again the consolidated office-by-office appropriation for OST, 
the Committee wants to ensure adequate Congressional oversight 
and control over these expenses. The Committee is unable to 
ensure that oversight given the lack of detail and inadequacy 
of the budget justifications. Therefore, the department is 
directed to return to an office-by-office justification in the 
1997 Congressional submissions.
    Staffing.--The Committee recommendation eliminates a number 
of positions in the Office of the Secretary, including 2 public 
affairs specialists (-$120,000), 3 congressional affairs 
officers (-$180,000), 3 international transportation 
specialists (-$206,250), 3 attorney advisors (-$300,000) and 4 
management analysts (-$352,250). In light of severe budget 
constraints and government downsizing, it is the Committee 
belief that these positions can be eliminated without affecting 
the core responsibilities, functions and duties of the 
Department.
    Travel.--The Committee notes the significant increases in 
travel performed by the secretarial offices. In fiscal year 
1995, the Department estimates that the secretarial offices 
will expend $457,000 on travel, an increase of $211,000 or 86 
percent over 1994 levels. Given the serious budget constraints 
facing the Committee and the Department, this increase is 
excessive and gives the wrong impression when other areas of 
the Department are cutting back essential transportation and 
other services. Consequently, the Committee believes travel 
reductions in the Office of the Secretary are in order and 
recommends a reduction of $150,000 from the budget estimate of 
$513,000.
    Reception and representation.--The recommendation includes 
$40,000 for official reception and representation expenses of 
the Department, a decrease of $20,000 from the budget request. 
Given the serious budget constraints facing the Committee and 
the Department, an increase of fifty percent in reception and 
representation expenses seems excessive and again sends the 
wrong message when other administrative expenses of the 
Department are being reduced.
    ICC-related activities.--A separate salaries and expenses 
request of $4,705,000 was included in the budget for functions 
that would be transferred to the Department of Transportation 
upon sunset of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The 
Administration proposed to sunset the Interstate Commerce 
Commission with residual rail and motor carrier functions 
transferring to the Department. Handling of consumer complaints 
regarding household goods movers and review of rail mergers and 
acquisitions were proposed to be transferred to the Federal 
Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, respectively. 
The Committee has deferred consideration of this request, 
pending action by the appropriate authorizing committees of 
Congress.
    The Committee has included a general provision (Sec. 344) 
that provides $8,421,000 to the Department of Transportation to 
carryout certain rail and motor carrier functions that are to 
be transferred from the Interstate Commerce Commission. These 
funds would not become available to the ICC successor agency or 
Department until such transfer of functions was authorized in 
law. In addition, users fees collected would be available to 
carryout the transferred rail and motor carrier functions.
    Electronic tariff filing.--The bill includes a provision 
that permits the office of the secretary (OST) to credit 
$1,000,000 in user fees to support the electronic tariff filing 
system. This provision has been carried in Research and Special 
Programs Administration (RSPA), ``Research and Special 
programs'' in the past but is necessary in OST as this program 
has been transferred from RSPA to OST.
    The Department of Transportation inherited a 1938 
requirement from the former Civil Aeronautics Board that 
requires maintaining physical custody of voluminous 
international passenger fare tariffs now being filed with the 
Department. Since the shift in 1989 to filing tariffs 
electronically, the vast majority of tariffs are now filed and 
available in more convenient electronic form. These electronic 
filings are now being duplicated in physical form by the 
Department only to meet the 1938 requirement. In order to 
encourage the most efficient use of Departmental staff 
resources, the Committee recommendation discontinues this 
needless duplication of tariff filings, whether funded by 
appropriations or user fees.
    Courier services.--The Committee notes that the 
Department's courier service has not delivered promptly the 
materials requested from the Department. While security has 
been tightened on the Capitol grounds in the wake of the 
Oklahoma City bombing, the Department is directed to take 
immediate corrective action to ensure that materials are 
delivered in a timely manner to the Committee.
    Hispanic serving institutions.--The Committee applauds the 
Department of Transportation on its efforts to enhance 
educational and career opportunities for minority students in 
the areas of science, technology and transportation matters. 
The Committee acknowledges the activities of the Office of 
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), 
university transportation centers (UTCs), and the Research and 
Special Programs Administration (RSPA) in this regard. The 
Committee strongly encourages the department, especially its 
planning and research components (including but not limited to 
OSDBU, UTCs, and RSPA), to include participation by Hispanic 
serving institutions in any current or future plans to increase 
its pre-designated or targeted research, development and 
education funds.

                           general provisions

    Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The 
Committee has included a provision in the bill (Sec. 311) 
identical to provisions in past Department of Transportation 
Appropriations Acts, which limits the number of political and 
Presidential appointees within the Department of 
Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 1996 is 110 
personnel, which is the same as provided in fiscal year 1995. 
The bill specifies that no political or Presidential appointees 
covered by this provision may be detailed outside of the 
Department of Transportation.
    Advisory committees.--In previous years, the Committee has 
limited the funds used for the expenses of advisory committees 
of the Department of Transportation. This year the Committee 
has deleted this provision, as requested in the budget.

                         Office of Civil Rights
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................           (\1\)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................     $12,793,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       6,554,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      +6,554,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -6,239,000

\1\ Transfer authority for $5,376,000 included under Salaries and 
Expenses.

    The Committee recommends a separate appropriation for the 
Office of Civil Rights, totaling $6,554,000. The recommendation 
includes an additional $809,000 to be derived from the 
limitation on general operating expenses of federal-aid 
highways, and reduces amounts budgeted for supplies and 
equipment by $371,000.
    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and 
ensuring full implementation of civil rights and equal 
opportunity precepts in all of the Department's official 
actions. In fiscal year 1995, the management of internal civil 
rights activities was consolidated in the Office of the 
Secretary with transfer authority provided in the salaries and 
expenses account. In fiscal year 1996, the department requests 
a separate appropriation which would fund all civil rights 
activities in the department, including handling of external 
matters.
    Consolidation of civil rights offices.--The Committee 
recommendation disallows the transfer of 65 FTE and $5,868,000 
to consolidate external civil rights functions in the Office of 
the Secretary, as proposed in the budget. The Committee notes 
the substantial differences between equal employment 
opportunities activities, which are generally personnel 
matters, and disadvantaged business enterprise contracting and 
other civil rights program activities. The Committee expects 
that the department will take no action to reorganize or 
otherwise affect changes to the current civil rights programs 
of the department.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $ 8,293,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      15,710,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       3,309,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -4,984,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -12,401,000

\1\ Reductions of $51,000 to comply with awards and provision not 
reflected.

    This appropriation finances those research activities and 
studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information 
development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities 
in the formulation of national transportation policies. The 
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with 
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit 
research organizations, and private firms.
    The Committee recommends $3,309,000 for this appropriation, 
which represents a decrease of $4,984,000 below the funding 
level provided for fiscal year 1995. The recommended level 
holds transportation and planning studies to $2,809,000 
(-$795,000), an increase of 2.4 percent over last year, and 
permits annualization and other pay-related costs for current 
FTE. The Committee has included $70,000 for a planned project 
to identify factors contributing to successful telecommuting 
programs. The analysis should include transportation-related 
behavior and potential location changes that could promote 
further residential dispersions. The recommendation also 
includes $100,000 for analysis of the impacts on Mexico and the 
United States related to motor carrier functions under the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, and $500,000 for aviation 
management system improvements. The recommendation deletes 
funding for planned trade promotion activities which should be 
provided by the Department of Commerce.
    The recommended level reflects elimination of further 
funding for the development of the integrated personnel/payroll 
system (IPPS) (-$3,911,000 and 3 FTE), the transportation 
automated procurement system (TAPS) (-$6,195,000), and the 
docket management system (DMS) (-$1,000,000). The Committee's 
action will delay phases three through six of the IPPS project. 
The TAPS pilot test program and evaluation have yet to begin in 
the office of the secretary and, as a result, further 
departmental conversion and full implementation is premature. 
While the Committee agrees that further improvements are 
desirable, they must be deferred due to the high outlays 
associated with this account and the tight budget constraints 
facing the Congress.
               Office of Commercial Space Transportation

                        operations and research
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................  \1\ $6,060,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................           (\2\)
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -6,060,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

\1\ Reductions of $53,000 to comply with awards and procurement reform 
provisions not reflected.
\2\ Budget amendment transfers activities to the Federal Aviation 
Administration.

    The Committee recommendation deletes a separate 
appropriation for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation 
and reflects the Department's proposal to move this office from 
the Office of the Secretary to the Federal Aviation 
Administration.

                          Working Capital Fund
Limitation, fiscal year 1995............................   ($93,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................   (104,364,000)
Recommended in the bill................................\1\ (102,231,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................    (+9,231,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................\1\ (-2,133,000)


\1\ In fiscal year 1996, the limitation on working capital fund expenses 
is also addressed in a general provision (-$10,000,000).


    The working capital fund (WCF) finances common 
administrative services that are centrally performed in the 
interest of economy and efficiency in the department. Charges 
for services rendered are set at rates that return in full all 
operating expenses, including a normal reserve for accrued 
annual leave and depreciation of equipment. The fund is 
reimbursed by the offices being served. The WCF also may 
provide services to non-DOT entities on a fee-for-service 
basis, which are not constrained by the limitation.
    The bill includes language limiting fiscal year 1996 
obligations of the Department of Transportation working capital 
fund to $102,231,000. In addition, the Committee has included a 
general provision (Sec. 327) that reduces, on a pro-rata basis, 
the amounts budgeted for the WCF by $10,000,000. The bill, 
therefore, provides a limitation of $92,231,000. Recommended 
reductions are as follows:


Disallowance of transfer from OST of intermodal data 
    network.............................................       -$906,000
Defer docket management systems maintenance.............        -465,000
Hold non-pay inflationary increases to 1.5 percent......        -262,000
Reduction in WCF-funded travel..........................        -300,000
Reduction in executive training and development programs        -200,000


    The Committee has not agreed with the budget request to 
eliminate all appropriations language and create a Service 
Bureau financed by the working capital fund to perform common 
services. The Committee has, however, modified the bill 
language to apply the obligation limitation only to services 
provided to DOT entities, enabling the working capital fund to 
provide services outside the obligation limitation to non-DOT 
entities.
    Working capital expenses are calculated by the Department 
and imposed on each agency. The Committee understands that on a 
per capita basis administrative costs imposed on each mode or 
office range from $507 to over $10,405, depending on size and 
usage and therefore believes that the Department should 
endeavor to reduce administrative positions, consolidate 
activities, and eliminate duplicative or unnecessary programs 
or projects.
    General provision.--In previous years, Congress has placed 
limitations on expenses of the working capital fund. However, 
for technical reasons, the savings resulting from the 
limitations have not been scored against the annual 
appropriations bills. In order to ensure that WCF funds are 
actually reduced in accord with Congressional directions and to 
receive proper credit for those savings, the Committee has 
continued a general provision (Sec. 327) which provides that 
amounts budgeted for the WCF in this bill are hereby reduced, 
on a pro rata basis, to the limitation level of $92,231,000.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                      Liquidation of                    
                                         contract        Limitation on  
                                      authorization       obligations   
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995...      ($33,423,000)      ($33,423,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.              (\1\)              (\1\)
Recommended in the bill...........       (15,000,000)       (15,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
     1995.........................      (-18,423,000)      (-18,423,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
     1996.........................                 NA                 NA
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
  Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.             

    The essential air service program was created by the 
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to 
continue air service to communities that had received federally 
mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program 
currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small 
communities that meet certain criteria. Subsidies, ranging from 
$5 to $320, currently support air service to 82 communities and 
serve about 700,000 passengers annually. This program was 
established to provide a smooth phaseout of Federal subsidies 
to airlines that service small airports.
    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the essential air 
service program. The recommendation is $18,423,000 below last 
year's level. The President's budget had proposed to roll the 
program into the UTIIP and the House-passed budget resolution 
called for the termination of the program.
    In view of budget constraints and the realization that many 
rural communities need access to air service and would not have 
that access without the continuation of the essential air 
service program, the Committee has recommended a reduction of 
55 percent from last year's level and a requirement that the 
state, the locality or an other non-federal entity pay at least 
fifty percent of the cost of providing such transportation. 
Recognizing the vagaries of state and local legislative 
calendars, communities may need some time to adjust to this 
matching requirement. In addition, the Department of 
Transportation will need to know in advance which communities 
will be matching and which will not. Hence, the matching 
requirement would not be implemented until 90 days after 
October 1, 1995.
    The bill includes language which (a) applies the matching 
requirement to the state of Hawaii and the 48 contiguous 
states, (b) applies the mileage criteria to communities of the 
48 contiguous states within 70 miles of medium or large hub 
airports, and (c) excludes from the per passenger subsidy 
criteria essential air service points greater than two hundred 
and ten miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport. In 
addition, the Committee has included bill language that 
provides that communities which cannot generate any reasonable 
amount of matching funds would be allocated an amount of 
subsidy that is reduced from what it otherwise would be in the 
same proportion as the ``unmatched'' funds represent of the 
total to be made available in fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee is aware that some of the communities 
participating in the essential air program have been providing 
a match in recent years. It is the Committee's expectation that 
a participating community would be required to match the 
federal subsidy on a fifty-fifty basis; in other words, those 
communities currently providing a match would be required to 
provide a total match of fifty percent, not an additional fifty 
percent.
    The following table lists the projected subsidized 
essential air service points in fiscal year 1996:

  PROJECTED SUBSIDIZED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE (EAS) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average daily  
                                    Estimated mileage   enplanements at 
        States/communities            to nearest hub    EAS point (YE 6/
                                       (S,M, or L)           30/94)     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA: Anniston.................                 61               10.3
ARIZONA:                                                                
    Kingman.......................                103               10.7
    Page..........................                274               20.5
    Prescott......................                103               41.1
ARKANSAS:                                                               
    El Dorado/Camden..............                108               10.9
    Harrison......................                139               10.3
    Hot Springs...................                 54               12.9
    Jonesboro.....................                 71               11.1
CALIFORNIA:                                                             
    Crescent City.................                233               13.0
    Merced........................                 64               24.8
    Visalia.......................                 40               16.5
COLORADO:                                                               
    Cortez........................                253               27.9
    Lamar.........................                162                4.1
HAWAII: Kamuela...................                 39                4.6
ILLINOIS:                                                               
    Mattoon/Charleston............                146                4.4
    Mt. Vernon....................                 93                7.9
IOWA: Ottumwa.....................                 92                6.3
KANSAS:                                                                 
    Dodge City....................                156               13.1
    Garden City...................                209               21.9
    Goodland......................                190                3.2
    Great Bend....................                116                4.8
    Hays..........................                175               16.7
    Liberal/Guymon................                162               10.1
    Topeka........................                 76               31.8
MAINE:                                                                  
    Augusta/Waterville \2\........                 71               13.5
    Bar Harbor....................                164               17.6
    Rockland......................                 79               11.2
MINNESOTA:                                                              
    Fairmont......................                153                4.0
    Fergus Falls..................                185               10.9
    Mankato.......................                 75                4.5
    Worthington...................                 65                2.3
MISSOURI:                                                               
    Cape Girardeau................                133               18.8
    Ft. Leonard Wood..............                130               12.2
    Kirksville....................                158                8.4
MONTANA:                                                                
    Glasgow.......................                279                5.9
    Glendive......................                223                2.9
    Havre.........................                251                4.4
    Lewistown.....................                129                3.6
    Miles City....................                145                3.0
    Sidney........................                273                7.7
    Wolf Point....................                295                6.3
NEBRASKA:                                                               
    Alliance......................                242                2.3
    Chadron.......................                301                2.3
    Hastings......................                160                3.0
    Kearney.......................                186               11.2
    McCook........................                259                3.4
    North Platte..................                282                5.2
    Scottsbluff...................                202                8.6
NEVADA: Ely.......................                236                5.7
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Keene \3\..........                 56               12.3
NEW MEXICO:                                                             
    Alamogordo/Holloman AFB.......                 92               11.6
    Clovis........................                106               14.6
    Silver City/Hurley/Deming.....                163               10.4
NEW YORK:                                                               
    Massena.......................                149               20.1
    Ogdensburg....................                127               10.5
    Watertown.....................                 69               16.6
NORTH DAKOTA:                                                           
    Devils Lake...................                403               11.8
    Dickinson.....................                313                7.5
    Jamestown.....................                304               10.8
OKLAHOMA:                                                               
    Enid..........................                 91                9.4
    Ponca City....................                 88               11.8
PENNSYLVANIA: Oil City/Franklin...                 91               30.5
PUERTO RICO: Ponce................                 80               31.2
SOUTH DAKOTA:                                                           
    Brookings.....................                 58                4.0
    Mitchell......................                 72                2.1
    Yankton.......................                 96               10.1
TEXAS: Brownwood..................                153                4.7
UTAH:                                                                   
    Cedar City....................                173               18.7
    Moab..........................                241                6.1
    Vernal........................                171               17.0
VERMONT: Rutland \3\..............                 67               20.4
VIRGINIA:                                                               
    Danville......................                 68               13.3
    Staunton......................                108               35.0
WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses Lake....                122               16.1
WEST VIRGINIA:                                                          
    Beckley.......................                186               19.3
    Clarksburg/Fairmont...........                107                8.8
    Morgantown....................                 75               12.0
    Princeton/Bluefield...........                145               21.6
WYOMING: Worland..................                164                9.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The above list of communities is based on currently available data, 
  and is subject to change for a number of reasons. Subsidy rates are   
  subject to change as their two-year rate terms expire throughout the  
  year. In addition, air carriers submit passenger traffic data on a    
  quarterly basis. Changes in both subsidy rates and traffic will of    
  course change the subsidy-per-passenger calculation. Further, some    
  communities currently receiving subsidy-free service may require      
  subsidy in the future while some currently subsidized communities may 
  attain profitability and no longer require subsidy. Finally, Hub      
  designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the
  Aircraft Activities Statistics.                                       
\2\ Based on CY 1993 due to service disruptions.                        
\3\ Enplanements based on less than a full year's passenger data        
  annualized.                                                           

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                 (RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Rescission, fiscal year 1995............................   (-$4,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................   (-38,600,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................   (-23,600,000)
Bill compared with:
    Rescission, fiscal year 1995........................   (-19,600,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................    (15,000,000)


    The bill includes a rescission of contract authority of 
$23,600,000. This rescission removes contract authority which 
is not available for obligation due to annual limits on 
obligations. A similar rescission of $4,000,000 was made in 
fiscal year 1995.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                              (RESCISSION)
Rescission, fiscal year 1995............................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................     -$6,786,971
Bill compared with:
    Rescission, fiscal year 1995........................      -6,786,971
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -6,786,971


     The bill includes a rescission of balances of general 
funds from prior years. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 
section 419, included a subsidy program to ensure scheduled air 
service to specified communities. Prior to fiscal year 1992, 
funding for this subsidy was provided from the general fund. 
Starting in fiscal year 1992, this program has been funded from 
the Airport and Airway trust fund. For the past several years, 
balances have been carried forward in the general fund account. 
These balances are no longer required as the program is now 
funded from the trust fund account.

                            Rental Payments
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................    $144,419,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996 \1\ \2\...............     143,436,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     130,803,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     -13,616,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -14,633,000


\1\ Rental payments for the FHWA are separately budgeted but reimbursed 
to this account.
\2\ Includes budget amendment to reduce this account by $2,000,000.


    The bill provides $130,803,000 in a consolidated 
appropriation for rental payments to the General Services 
Administration (GSA). These funds are used to pay GSA for 
headquarters and field space rental and related services. In 
addition to these consolidated funds, the bill recommends that 
$17,099,000 shall be provided to GSA from the Federal Highway 
Administration's Limitation on general operating expenses. This 
brings total funding to $147,902,000 excluding funding 
transferred for Marad. The Committee has been concerned for 
some time over the spiraling growth in these expenses, and has 
limited to 8,580,000 square feet the amount of space that the 
Department may lease from the GSA.
    The Committee has included a general provision (Sec. 337) 
that will permit the Secretary to transfer funds made available 
for salaries and expenses to ``Rental payments'' to cover space 
utility charges and other related expenses in excess of the 
amounts provided in the bill.

                        Headquarters Facilities
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................    $331,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................    -331,000,000


     The budget requests a change of administration policy to 
budget new buildings with the affected agency rather than GSA. 
The rationale for this change is to shift GSA into a policy and 
oversight organization for Government-wide administrative 
services and to hold the agencies responsible for determining 
their facility requirements and priorities. The Committee has 
rejected the request, noting that the proposal represents a 
significant change in policy which requires the concurrence and 
legislative action of the appropriate authorizing committees.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

                                                                        
                                                          Limitation on 
                                        Appropriation     direct loans  
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......       $1,900,000     ($15,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....        1,900,000      (15,000,000)
Recommended in the bill..............        1,900,000      (15,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..  ...............  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996  ...............  ................
                                                                        

    The minority business resource center of the Office of 
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides 
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding 
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The 
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime 
interest rates for transportation-related projects.
    Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were 
funded by the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made 
by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal 
year 1993 a separate appropriation was proposed in the 
President's budget only for the subsidy inherently assumed in 
those loans and the cost to administer the loan program.
    The recommendation fully funds the budget request, which 
provides a limitation on direct loans of $15,000,000 and 
subsidy and administrative costs totaling $1,900,000, the same 
levels as last year.

                       Minority Business Outreach
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      $2,900,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       2,900,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      +2,900,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................


    This appropriation provides contractual support to assist 
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in 
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects 
that involve Federal spending. It also provides grants and 
contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and not just OST 
purposes. Unobligated balances funded program activities last 
year. The Committee has provided $2,900,000, the same level as 
included in the budget.
    The Committee has deleted language requested in the budget 
that would allow the funds provided for minority business 
outreach activities to be used for business opportunities 
related to any mode of transportation. Such activities are 
unauthorized.

                              COAST GUARD

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on 
January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter 
Service and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by 
transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse 
Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and 
Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary 
responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the 
high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding 
navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining 
a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of 
the Navy in time of war.
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$3,660,556,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 
1996. This is $82,341,000 (2.4 percent) less than the budget 
estimate, and $3,230,000 more than the fiscal year 1995 program 
level. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 
program levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year--                              Bill compared 
                                           ------------------------------------  Recommended in    with fiscal  
                                                                                    the bill        year 1996   
                                               1995 enacted     1996 estimate                        estimate   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses........................  \1\ $2,598,000,00                                                   
                                                            0   $2,618,316,000   $2,566,000,000     -$52,316,000
Acquisition, construction, and                                                                                  
 improvements.............................        362,950,000      428,200,000      375,175,000      -53,025,000
Environmental compliance and restoration..         23,500,000       25,000,000       21,000,000       -4,000,000
Alteration of bridges.....................  .................        2,000,000       16,000,000      +14,000,000
Retired pay...............................        562,585,000      582,022,000      582,022,000  ...............
Reserve training..........................         64,981,000       64,859,000       61,859,000       -3,000,000
Research, development, test, and                                                                                
 evaluation...............................         20,310,000       22,500,000       18,500,000       -4,000,000
Boat safety...............................        25,000,0000  ...............       20,000,000      +20,000,000
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................      3,657,326,000    3,742,897,000    3,660,556,000      -82,341,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $11,200,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995, $28,297,000 in the Military     
  Readiness Supplemental Act, 1995, reductions of $864,825 to comply with working capital fund, awards and      
  procurement reform provisions, and transfer of $792,828 for consolidated civil rights office.                 

                           Operating Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.......................\1\ $2,598,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................   2,618,316,000
Recommended in the bill.................................   2,566,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     -32,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -52,316,000

\1\ Excludes $11,200,000 in the Department of Defense Appropritions Act, 
1995, $28,297,000 in the Military Readiness Supplemental Act, 1995, 
reductions of $864,825 to comply with working capital fund, awards and 
procurement reform provisions, and transfer of $792,828 for consolidated 
civil rights office.

                       budget by mission category

    The following data is based on the Coast Guard budget 
submission and summarizes, by Coast Guard mission, the expected 
resources to be provided for each major Coast Guard mission for 
fiscal years 1994 through 1996. Because of the nature of the 
service's accounting systems and unknown changes in operational 
needs, these figures are estimates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1994 actual       1995 estimate      1996 estimate  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search and                                                              
 rescue........       $371,863,000       $361,573,000       $362,128,000
Aid to                                                                  
 navigation....        440,254,000        491,867,000        492,622,000
Marine safety..        281,655,000        310,096,000        310,572,000
Marine                                                                  
 environmental                                                          
 protection....        229,442,000        221,180,000        221,520,000
Enforcement of                                                          
 laws and                                                               
 treaties......        967,285,000        889,155,000        890,519,000
Ice operations.         81,628,000         85,467,000         85,598,000
Defense                                                                 
 readiness.....         79,177,000        103,694,000        103,853,000
Headquarters                                                            
 administration        144,018,000        147,337,000        151,504,000
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total....      2,595,322,000      2,610,369,000      2,618,316,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          financial management

    Budget justifications.--For many years, the Committee has 
encouraged the Coast Guard to develop budget and accounting 
systems which provide more useful information to the Congress 
in annual budget reviews, and which more accurately explain the 
service's planned costs and expenditures. While some progress 
has been made, the Committee was very disappointed this year to 
discover that the detailed justification material for operating 
expenses continues to be based on incremental changes to the 
base amounts or programmatic initiatives, and not on the 
overall budget request by program, project and activity (PPA).
    In addition, errors in the breakdown by PPA indicate the 
service spent most of its effort justifying changes to the 
previous year's base funding, and not justifying the entire 
budget. For example, the budget breakdown by PPA requests 
$151,504,000 for headquarters administration in fiscal year 
1996. However, in budget hearings, the Coast Guard stated these 
figures were in error, and offered a new estimate of 
$172,862,000. This calls into question other elements of the 
request, since in this one case alone, $21,358,000 must be 
reduced from other parts of the request. The Committee wishes 
to emphasize to the Coast Guard that the fiscal year 1997 
justifications are to be based upon program, project and 
activity and not upon changes to base funding amounts, and full 
justification is expected on that basis.
    Reprogramming procedures.--The Committee believes, based on 
testimony this year, that the Coast Guard has been improperly 
interpreting the existing reprogramming guidelines for this 
appropriation. Those guidelines state that Congressional 
approval is required for funding shifts of ten percent or more 
among PPAs. Congressional guidance further states that PPAs are 
defined as any item for which a specific dollar level is cited 
in appropriations Acts or the reports accompanying those Acts. 
Although reports accompanying the fiscal year 1995 DOT 
Appropriations Act specify dollar levels down to three and 
sometimes four levels, the Coast Guard has interpreted PPA to 
mean only the program (budget activity) level. This has had the 
effect of allowing shifts of appropriated funds without 
Congressional notification and approval, far in excess of what 
is allowed under the existing guidelines. For example, the 
fiscal year 1995 appropriation of $2,108,000 for communication 
stations was raised internally by the Coast Guard to 
$3,107,000. Activities Europe was reduced 27 percent, from 
$5,631,000 to $4,098,000. Shifts of fiscal year 1994 funds were 
as high as 64 percent, with no Congressional notification. The 
Committee intends to provide the Coast Guard flexibility in 
allocating its operating funds, but wishes to clarify the 
requirement for Congressional review under the existing 
guidelines.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total of $2,566,000,000 for 
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 1996. 
This is $52,316,000 less than the budget request, and 
$32,000,000 below the fiscal year 1995 program level. The 
following table compares the fiscal year 1995 enacted level, 
the fiscal year 1996 estimate, and the recommended level by 
program, project and activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Program,                 Fiscal year--                              
  project and   --------------------------------------  1996 recommended
    activity        1995 enacted      1996 estimate                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and                                                                 
 Allowances:                                                            
    Military                                                            
     pay and                                                            
     benefits..     $1,225,490,000     $1,230,154,000     $1,209,853,000
    Civilian                                                            
     pay and                                                            
     benefits..        173,367,000        177,263,000        177,613,000
    Permanent                                                           
     change of                                                          
     station...         59,644,000         60,233,000         60,233,000
    Medical                                                             
     care and                                                           
     equipment.        124,487,000        124,185,000        117,885,000
    Leased                                                              
     housing...  .................  .................         14,900,000
    Budget                                                              
     activity-                                                          
     wide                                                               
     adjustment                                                         
     s.........  .................  .................         -9,850,000
Depot Level                                                             
 Maintenance:                                                           
    Aircraft...        138,124,000        139,041,000        139,041,000
    Electronics         31,652,000         31,549,000         31,549,000
    Shore                                                               
     Facilities         93,963,000         95,645,000         95,645,000
    Vessels....         98,465,000         99,081,000         99,081,000
Operations and                                                          
 Support:                                                               
    Area                                                                
     Operations                                                         
     and                                                                
     Support:                                                           
        Cutters                                                         
         :                                                              
            Med                                                         
             iu                                                         
             m                                                          
             en                                                         
             du                                                         
             ra                                                         
             nc                                                         
             e                                                          
             (W                                                         
             ME                                                         
             C)         15,819,000         15,451,000         15,451,000
            Hig                                                         
             h                                                          
             en                                                         
             du                                                         
             ra                                                         
             nc                                                         
             e                                                          
             (W                                                         
             HE                                                         
             C)         10,807,000         11,070,000         11,070,000
            Pol                                                         
             ar                                                         
             ic                                                         
             eb                                                         
             re                                                         
             ak                                                         
             er                                                         
             s                                                          
             (W                                                         
             AG                                                         
             B)          1,936,000          2,024,000          2,024,000
        Area                                                            
         Office                                                         
         s.....         11,298,000         12,156,000         12,156,000
        Mainten                                                         
         ance                                                           
         and                                                            
         Logist                                                         
         ics                                                            
         Comman                                                         
         ds....        121,806,000        125,616,000        125,616,000
        Communi                                                         
         cation                                                         
         s                                                              
         Statio                                                         
         ns....          3,107,000          3,262,000          3,262,000
    District                                                            
     Operations                                                         
     and                                                                
     Support:                                                           
        Distric                                                         
         t                                                              
         Office                                                         
         s.....         58,059,000         56,641,000         51,041,000
        Groups                                                          
         and                                                            
         Bases.         68,015,000         68,592,000         68,592,000
        Combine                                                         
         d                                                              
         Group/                                                         
         Air                                                            
         Statio                                                         
         ns....          9,468,000          9,827,000          9,827,000
        Air                                                             
         Statio                                                         
         ns....         45,727,000         45,028,000         45,028,000
        Marine                                                          
         Safety                                                         
         Office                                                         
         s.....          7,645,000          9,785,000          9,785,000
        LORAN                                                           
         Statio                                                         
         ns....          6,254,000          6,491,000          6,491,000
        Cutters                                                         
         : WLBs                                                         
         and                                                            
         Smalle                                                         
         r;                                                             
         Mackin                                                         
         aw....         27,132,000         29,599,000         29,599,000
        VTS                                                             
         System                                                         
         s.....            219,000            247,000            247,000
    Ammunition                                                          
     and Small                                                          
     Arms......          5,791,000          4,707,000          4,707,000
Recruiting and                                                          
 Training                                                               
 Support:                                                               
    Recruiting.          5,861,000          5,467,000          5,467,000
    Training                                                            
     Centers                                                            
     (Yorktown                                                          
     &                                                                  
     Petaluma).         27,535,000         26,522,000         26,522,000
    Coast Guard                                                         
     Academy...         12,635,000         12,747,000         12,747,000
    Professiona                                                         
     l Training                                                         
     &                                                                  
     Education.         25,833,000         26,207,000         25,207,000
Coast Guard                                                             
 Wide                                                                   
 Centralized                                                            
 Services:                                                              
    Headquarter                                                         
     s-Managed                                                          
     Units:                                                             
        Supply                                                          
         Center                                                         
         s.....          8,914,000          8,554,000          8,554,000
        Finance                                                         
         Center          4,682,000          4,776,000          4,776,000
        Militar                                                         
         y Pay                                                          
         and                                                            
         Person                                                         
         nel                                                            
         Center          1,115,000          1,137,000          1,137,000
        Activit                                                         
         ies                                                            
         Europe          4,098,000         -1,372,000         -1,372,000
        Coast                                                           
         Guard                                                          
         Yard..          1,913,000          1,945,000          1,945,000
        Strike                                                          
         Teams.          2,531,000          2,678,000          2,678,000
        Nationa                                                         
         l                                                              
         Pollut                                                         
         ion                                                            
         Funds                                                          
         Center          1,207,000          1,231,000          1,231,000
        COMDAC                                                          
         Suppor                                                         
         t                                                              
         Facili                                                         
         ty....          2,024,000          2,054,000          2,054,000
        Air                                                             
         Statio                                                         
         n                                                              
         Washin                                                         
         gton                                                           
         D.C...            907,000            925,000            925,000
        Operati                                                         
         ons                                                            
         System                                                         
         s                                                              
         Center          5,123,000          6,901,000          6,901,000
        Telecom                                                         
         munica                                                         
         tions                                                          
         System                                                         
         s                                                              
         Comman                                                         
         d.....          2,801,000          2,919,000          2,919,000
        Omega                                                           
         Naviga                                                         
         tion                                                           
         System                                                         
         s                                                              
         Center          3,866,000            404,000            404,000
        Intelli                                                         
         gence                                                          
         Coordi                                                         
         nation                                                         
         Center            258,000            263,000            263,000
        Electro                                                         
         nics                                                           
         Engine                                                         
         ering                                                          
         Center          2,828,000          3,533,000          3,533,000
    Coast Guard                                                         
     Institute.            744,000            759,000            759,000
        Researc                                                         
         h and                                                          
         Develo                                                         
         pment                                                          
         Center            429,000            436,000            436,000
        Militar                                                         
         y                                                              
         Person                                                         
         nel                                                            
         Center            786,000            801,000            651,000
        Civilia                                                         
         n                                                              
         Person                                                         
         nel                                                            
         Office                                                         
         s.....  .................  .................            393,000
    Headquarter                                                         
     s/                                                                 
     Centralize                                                         
     d Bill                                                             
     Paying:                                                            
        Headqua                                                         
         rters.        122,372,000        121,497,000        119,497,000
        Postal.          7,516,000          6,674,000          6,674,000
        FTS....         12,500,000         12,060,000         10,626,000
        Federal                                                         
         Employ                                                         
         ment                                                           
         Compen                                                         
         sation          6,243,000          6,890,000          6,243,000
        Unemplo                                                         
         yment                                                          
         Compen                                                         
         sation          4,546,000          4,661,000          4,546,000
Account-Wide                                                            
 Adjustments...  .................  .................        -18,562,000
                --------------------------------------------------------
          Total                                                         
           appr                                                         
           opri                                                         
           atio                                                         
           n...      2,607,542,000      2,618,316,000      2,566,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recommended reduction from the budget estimate includes 
the following adjustments:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Program,                                                            
  project and     Budget estimate       Committee         Change from   
    activity                           recommended          request     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and                                                                 
 Allowances:                                                            
    Military                                                            
     Pay and                                                            
     Benefits:                                                          
        Militar                                                         
         y pay                                                          
         raise                                                          
         (2.2%)        $20,070,000        $18,669,000        -$1,401,000
        Militar                                                         
         y                                                              
         essent                                                         
         iality                                                         
         (conve                                                         
         rsion                                                          
         to                                                             
         civili                                                         
         an)...                  0         -1,000,000         -1,000,000
        General                                                         
         detail        174,812,000        171,812,000         -3,000,000
        Leased                                                          
         housin                                                         
         g                                                              
         (trans                                                         
         fer)..        14,900,0000                  0        -14,900,000
    Civilian                                                            
     Pay and                                                            
     Benefits:                                                          
        Senior                                                          
         execut                                                         
         ive                                                            
         servic                                                         
         e                                                              
         staffi                                                         
         ng....                N/A          1,000,000         +1,000,000
        Youth                                                           
         opport                                                         
         unity                                                          
         staffi                                                         
         ng....          1,645,700            820,700           -825,000
    Medical                                                             
     Care and                                                           
     Equipment:                                                         
        Hold                                                            
         costs                                                          
         to                                                             
         fiscal                                                         
         year                                                           
         1995                                                           
         level.        134,100,000        127,800,000         -6,300,000
    Leased                                                              
     Housing                                                            
     (Transfer)                  0         14,900,000        +14,900,000
    Budget                                                              
     Activity-                                                          
     Wide:                                                              
        Acceler                                                         
         ate                                                            
         existi                                                         
         ng                                                             
         stream                                                         
         lining                                                         
         plan..                  0         -4,850,000         -4,850,000
        Acceler                                                         
         ate                                                            
         FY97                                                           
         restru                                                         
         cturin                                                         
         g plan                  0         -5,000,000         -5,000,000
Operations and                                                          
 Support:                                                               
    District                                                            
     offices...         56,641,000         51,041,000         -5,600,000
Recruiting and                                                          
 Training:                                                              
    Graduate                                                            
     school                                                             
     tuition...          2,300,000          1,300,000         -1,000,000
Coast Guard-                                                            
 Wide                                                                   
 Centralized                                                            
 Services and                                                           
 Support:                                                               
    Civilian                                                            
     personnel                                                          
     office                                                             
     consolidat                                                         
     ion.......           -393,000  .................           +393,000
    Military                                                            
     personnel                                                          
     center....            801,000            651,000           -150,000
    FTS 2000...         12,060,000         10,626,000         -1,434,000
    Headquarter                                                         
     s                                                                  
     administra                                                         
     tion......        172,862,000        170,862,000         -2,000,000
    Workers'                                                            
     compensati                                                         
     on (hold                                                           
     to FY95                                                            
     level)....         11,551,000         10,789,000           -762,000
    Studies and                                                         
     analyses..          2,800,000          1,800,000         -1,000,000
Account-Wide                                                            
 Adjustments:                                                           
    Recreationa                                                         
     l                                                                  
     equipment.            296,000            150,000           -146,000
    Non-pay                                                             
     inflation.         23,368,000         17,526,000         -5,842,000
    Non-                                                                
     operationa                                                         
     l travel..         39,334,000         37,503,000         -1,831,000
    MPPC                                                                
     contractin                                                         
     g out.....                N/A           -500,000           -500,000
    Undistribut                                                         
     ed........                  0        -10,243,000        -10,243,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Pay and Allowances

    The bill includes $1,570,634,000 for pay and allowances for 
Coast Guard personnel, which is a $12,354,000 (less than one 
percent) decrease below the level provided for fiscal year 
1995.
    Pay raise.--The bill includes funds for a 2.2 percent pay 
raise for both military and civilian personnel of the Coast 
Guard. The President's budget proposed a 2.4 percent military 
pay raise and a 2.2 percent raise for civilian personnel. The 
Committee believes civilians and military personnel should 
receive the same general pay raise. By the end of this year's 
appropriations cycle it would be the Committee's intent to 
provide Coast Guard military members the same pay raise as 
provided for Department of Defense military. Additional funds 
are provided for cost of living adjustments for military 
members living in high cost areas of the United States. No 
funds are included for civilian locality pay.
    Special pays.--The bill includes all funds requested for 
special pays for military personnel. The following table, 
provided by the Coast Guard, summarizes those costs for fiscal 
year 1996:

        Special pay                                               Amount
Responsibility pay......................................          \1\ $0
Diving pay..............................................          62,472
Hostile fire imminent danger pay........................     \2\ 900,000
Sea pay.................................................      14,025,000
Certain places pay......................................         151,000
Aviation career incentive pay...........................       6,266,100
Hazardous duty incentive pay............................       5,107,200
Special duty assignment pay.............................       1,875,456
Selective reenlistment bonuses..........................   \3\ 1,635,492
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     $30,022,720

\1\ Responsibility pay eliminated in fiscal year 1995.
\2\ Higher estimate for fiscal year 1996 over fiscal year 1993 and 
fiscal year 1994 is due to the expected continuation of Persian Gulf, 
Haitian and Adriatic theaters of operations. This estimate is lower than 
expected fiscal year 1995 obligations.
\3\ No new payments, only previous years' installments due.

    Troops to teachers program.--The Committee includes 
$404,000 for Coast Guard participation in the ``troops to 
teachers'' program, an increase of 45 percent over the $278,000 
provided for fiscal year 1995.
    Military essentiality.--The recommendation includes a 
reduction of $1,000,000 assuming the conversion of 
administrative support positions from military to civilian. A 
recent General Accounting Office study found that many military 
positions in the Department of Defense did not meet the 
``military essentiality'' criteria, and should be converted to 
civilian positions at a cost savings of approximately $15,000 
per position. Following up that study, the House-passed Defense 
Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1996 requires DOD to convert 
10,000 military positions to civilian. The Committee's review 
of positions in certain offices and facilities this year leads 
to the inescapable conclusion that similar savings are possible 
in the Coast Guard. This is supported by testimony from the DOT 
Inspector General, who stated ``the Coast Guard actually has 
several areas where military personnel could effectively be 
replaced by civilians''. The recommendation assumes the 
conversion of approximately 65 positions.
    General detail.--The Committee recommends a reduction in 
this overhead account from $174,812,000 to $171,812,000 due to 
budget constraints and lower general detail requirements 
resulting from the downsized military workforce.
    Continental U.S. cost of living adjustment (CONUS COLA).--
The bill includes $6,796,000 for a cost of living adjustment 
for military members living in high cost areas of the 
continental United States. This discretionary pay was first 
authorized in the 1995 Defense Authorization Act. Fiscal year 
1996 is the first year of the program.
    Leased housing.--The Committee recommends transferring 
funds for leased housing from ``Military pay and allowances'' 
to a new budget line. The Committee believes that payments to 
private contractors for leased housing should not be combined 
in the same budget line with salaries and direct payments to 
individuals. Furthermore, the Committee's recommendation brings 
Coast Guard budgeting practices more into line with the 
Department of Defense, which excludes such costs from military 
personnel accounts.
    Senior executive service (SES) staffing.--During Committee 
hearings this year, the Coast Guard testified that there are 
only ten senior executive service (SES) positions in the entire 
service, and none are above the SES-4 level. Given the frequent 
turnover of military personnel, the Committee believes more 
stability and continuity is needed among senior management 
levels of the Coast Guard. Continuity and ``corporate 
knowledge'' will become even more critical in the coming years, 
as the service's downsizing and restructuring accelerates. For 
this reason, the Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 
above the budget request for the Coast Guard to hire ten 
additional SES civilian positions.
    Student intern programs.--The recommendation reduces 
staffing for the ``student temporary employment program'' and 
the ``student career experience program'' by one half due to 
budget constraints. The recommendation provides 56 staff years 
and $820,700 for these programs.
    Permanent change of station.--The bill provides $60,233,000 
for permanent change of station moves. This compares to 
$59,644,000 provided for fiscal year 1995.
    Medical care costs.--For the past two years, the Coast 
Guard has testified that cost containment initiatives are 
underway to address the high rates of medical cost inflation. 
The Committee is disappointed, therefore, to note that these 
costs continue to rise, from $119,600,000 in fiscal year 1994 
to $127,800,000 in fiscal year 1995 and an estimated 
$134,100,000 in fiscal year 1996. This is especially startling 
considering the workforce has been reduced significantly over 
that time period. Other agencies have been experiencing greatly 
reduced inflation rates. The Committee recommends a hard freeze 
on medical care costs, providing funds at the same level as in 
fiscal year 1995, and encourages the Coast Guard to realize 
such savings through more effective cost containment measures.
    Accelerate existing streamlining.--The Committee 
recommendation assumes a three month staff year rate for fiscal 
year 1996 position reductions, compared to a six month rate 
assumed in the President's budget request. This results in a 
reduction of $4,850,000 from the budget estimate.
    Accelerate restructuring plan.--After eighteen months, the 
Coast Guard has nearly completed two major analyses of its 
field organization, headquarters, and training facilities. 
While not yet formally released by the Department of 
Transportation, those studies are expected to propose 
significant budgetary savings through closure of unneeded 
facilities, consolidation of similar activities, and a 
restructure of training facilities. The Committee applauds the 
Coast Guard for taking this important initiative, and for 
working to ensure that downsizing is accomplished with the 
least impact on the delivery of essential services to the 
public. Because of the Coast Guard's extensive field structure 
and large headquarters presence, the Committee believes that 
significant efficiencies can be achieved. The Committee's 
recommendation assumes a portion of those savings 
(approximately fifteen percent) can be achieved during fiscal 
year 1996 through more aggressive implementation, resulting in 
a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request.

                        Depot Level Maintenance

    The bill includes $365,316,000 for depot level maintenance, 
which is $3,112,000 more than the level provided for fiscal 
year 1995 and the same as the budget estimate. The Committee 
believes that maintenance and spare parts for Coast Guard 
assets should receive a high priority for funding.
                         Operations And Support

    The bill includes $393,896,000 for operations and support, 
which is $813,000 more than the level provided for fiscal year 
1995. This budget activity funds operations of medium- and 
high-endurance cutters, area offices, district offices, air 
stations, maintenance and logistics commands, and other 
operational units.
    Vessel traffic service (VTS) privatization.--The Committee 
received testimony this year indicating that after full 
implementation of the VTS 2000 program, the Coast Guard's 
annual costs to operate and maintain VTS systems would be 
approximately $65,000,000. Today (budgeted for fiscal year 
1996), those costs are only $19,862,000. Given the significant 
reductions that will be needed over the next seven years to 
eliminate the federal deficit, and the predominantly local 
benefits which accrue from the VTS program, the Committee 
believes that VTS systems are a prime candidate for system-wide 
privatization. In fact, the privately-run VTS system in Long 
Beach, California appears to meet requirements without federal 
support, and conducts its operations more efficiently and at 
less cost than those systems run today by the Coast Guard. 
Consequently, the Committee encourages the Coast Guard to begin 
a long-term effort to privatize the existing VTS systems in 
fiscal year 1996, and reduces the 1996 budget request by 
$1,000,000 (five percent) assuming some initial savings from 
that effort.
    District offices.--The President's budget requests 
$56,641,000 to support 1,896 positions at the Coast Guard's ten 
district offices. The Coast Guard has the Department of 
Transportation's most extensive field organization, with 
districts, area commands, groups, bases, stations, and 
maintenance and logistics commands. While some of this is 
clearly required for the service to carry out its functions in 
the field, it would appear the Coast Guard could achieve 
budgetary savings and give more decisionmaking authority to 
those units actually performing the activity by reducing the 
number of oversight and planning layers in their field 
organization. At a minimum, two district headquarters could be 
consolidated with the area commands, and the Committee is 
convinced that other efficiencies are possible as well. The 
Committee recommendation provides $51,000,000 for district 
headquarters offices in fiscal year 1996.

                        recruiting and training

    The bill includes $69,943,000 for recruiting and training 
support, a reduction of $1,921,000 from the fiscal year 1995 
enacted level. This budget activity funds recruiting and 
training activities including support for the Coast Guard 
Academy and Coast Guard training centers in Yorktown, Virginia; 
Petaluma, California; and Cape May, New Jersey.
    Graduate school tuition.--The Coast Guard's budget request 
for fiscal year 1996 includes $2,300,000 to pay graduate school 
tuition for its employees. This is in addition to the estimated 
$19,800,000 in salaries and benefits paid to those employees 
while in school. Almost half of the tuition costs are provided 
to lieutenants. The Committee questions whether it is truly 
necessary for so many officers at this junior a rank to receive 
graduate training at that point in their careers, or whether 
the position descriptions for lieutenants require a graduate 
degree. While the Committee understands that some graduate 
training is necessary for effective management, given budget 
constraints, the Committee recommends $1,300,000 for tuition, a 
reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request.

           coast guard-wide centralized services and support

    The bill includes $184,773,000 for Coast Guard-wide 
centralized services and support, a reduction of $12,630,000 
from the fiscal year 1995 enacted level and a reduction of 
$4,953,000 from the budget request.
    Civilian personnel office consolidation.--The Committee 
does not agree with the Coast Guard's proposal to close four of 
its five civilian personnel offices around the country and 
consolidate into a single office. The Committee believes this 
proposal is too extreme, and will have a detrimental impact on 
service to the civilian workforce. Therefore, the 
recommendation restores these funds ($393,000). In order to 
partially offset this restoration, the Committee recommends a 
reduction of $150,000 for the Military Personnel Center, which 
is able to handle this modest reduction due to its larger 
funding base.
    FTS 2000.--The Committee recommends $10,626,000 for FTS 
2000 telecommunications costs, an increase of 5.6 percent over 
the most recent estimate for fiscal year 1995.
    Headquarters administration.--The bill includes 
$170,862,000 for Coast Guard headquarters administrative costs, 
an increase of $2,842,000 (1.7 percent) over fiscal year 1995 
and a 1.1 percent reduction from the budget request. Currently, 
there are 2,435 billets in headquarters. In allocating 
reductions to the Coast Guard, the Committee has tried to 
preserve funding for elements of the service which provide 
essential direct service to the public such as air and boat 
stations, large cutters and patrol boats, and spare parts. 
These mission-oriented activities have been preserved as a high 
priority to the maximum extent possible. To achieve this, 
however, some efficiencies in headquarters and other overhead 
units are required. While the Committee allows the Commandant 
the discretion to allocate this reduction, the Committee 
suggests that staffing in the following offices be reviewed:

Office:                                                 No. of positions
    Commandant/Vice Commandant..........................              26
    Public affairs......................................              37
    International affairs...............................              26
    Quality staff.......................................               7
    Management effectiveness............................              18
    Legal/Administrative Law Judges.....................             116
    Headquarters command center.........................              56
    Marine safety information management................              38
    Auxiliary, boating, and consumer affairs............              50
    Diversity/total quality management..................              12

    Workers' compensation.--Despite departmental budget 
guidance to freeze each agency's requests for workers' 
compensation costs in fiscal year 1996, the Coast Guard budget 
includes an increase of $762,000. The Committee recommends 
deleting that increase. As the Committee has encouraged in past 
years, greater attempts should be made to find positions for 
those currently on workers' compensation but eligible to return 
to work. This would result in efficiencies allowing the 
reduction in workers' compensation without adverse effect.
    Studies and analyses.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,800,000 for studies and analyses, a reduction of 
$1,000,000 due to budget constraints.

                        Account-Wide Adjustments

    Recreational equipment.--The President's request included 
$296,000 for balls, bats, golf clubs, fitness machines, camping 
equipment, outdoor grills, and related equipment for the Coast 
Guard's morale, welfare, and recreation program. Given the 
severe budget constraints facing the country, the Committee 
believes such items should be reduced to a lower level. The 
Committee recommends $150,000 for these items.
    Non-pay inflation.--OMB policy states that President's 
budget requests will not necessarily include an allowance for 
the full rate of anticipated inflation. In effect, agencies are 
expected to be able to absorb at least a portion of non-pay 
inflation (i.e., inflation for accounts other than pay) through 
increased efficiency and use of advanced office technologies. 
For fiscal year 1996, OMB allowed agencies a maximum of 2.0 
percent non-pay inflation. In the department, this standard was 
applied inconsistently: some agencies included the full 2 
percent, while others were provided smaller allowances. The 
Committee's recommendation allows a 1.5 percent increase for 
non-pay inflation for all modes of the department. Since the 
Coast Guard budgeted for a 2 percent increase, this results in 
a reduction of $5,842,000 from the budget estimate.
    Non-operational travel.--In the Coast Guard, non-
operational travel (i.e., for training, conferences, and 
miscellaneous purposes) has increased 6.8 percent on a per 
capita basis between fiscal year 1994 and the fiscal year 1996 
budget request. This year in hearings, the DOT Inspector 
General expressed concern over the high amount of 
administrative travel being taken throughout the department. 
The Committee agrees that such travel should be curtailed to 
the maximum extent possible. The Committee's recommendation 
allows a travel budget of $1,004 per staff year, a per capita 
increase of 2.5 percent over the fiscal year 1994-1996 time 
period. Operational travel, budgeted at $27,226,000, is not 
affected by this recommendation.
    Military pay and personnel center contracting out.--The 
Committee recommendation assumes savings of $500,000 from 
contracting out operations of the Military Pay and Personnel 
Center in Topeka, Kansas, as suggested this year by the 
Inspector General. This center is responsible for the 
processing of pay checks, travel reimbursement checks, and 
other aspects of personnel finance administration within the 
Coast Guard. The Committee believes this is a prime candidate 
for contracting out.
    Restructuring implementation costs.--The Committee has 
provided $3,000,000 for operating expenses related to the 
impending release of Coast Guard restructuring studies. The 
Committee believes much restructuring is needed, and applauds 
the Commandant for undertaking a wide-ranging review. While 
approved by the Coast Guard, these studies have still not been 
approved by the Secretary of Transportation or the Office of 
Management and Budget. Once the administration's proposal is 
clear, the Committee will also consider reprogramming 
proposals. The Committee does wish to provide the Coast Guard 
flexibility to obtain additional funding for this initiative 
should it receive administration and Congressional approval 
during the fiscal year. In order to facilitate rapid 
implementation and provide flexible funding, the Committee bill 
includes language under ``Acquisition, construction, and 
improvements'' allowing the Coast Guard to transfer up to 
$50,000,000 in available funding during fiscal year 1996 from 
lower priority acquisition projects to finance restructuring 
activities.
    Undistributed.--The recommendation includes an 
undistributed reduction of $10,243,000 due to budget 
constraints. The department is accorded the flexibility to 
allocate the reduction.

                             bill language

    Motor vehicle purchase.--The bill includes a limitation on 
the purchase of motor vehicles to five. This year, the Coast 
Guard testified they had no plans to purchase any motor 
vehicles during fiscal year 1996. While the Committee 
considered a zero limitation, the proposed limitation of five 
provides them some flexibility, should current plans change.
    Drug enforcement expenses.--The bill specifies that no less 
than $314,200,000 may be obligated or expended on drug 
enforcement programs during fiscal year 1996. This is the same 
amount as the budget estimate, and a 7 percent increase over 
the $293,600,000 provided for fiscal year 1995. This resumes a 
practice, begun several years ago, of including minimum amounts 
in the bill for this important mission. The Committee 
recommends no specific reductions in anti-drug activities, and 
does not wish to see the Coast Guard reprogram funds away from 
the budgeted level for those activities.

                           general provision

    The bill continues as a general provision (Sec. 316) 
language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or 
implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic 
safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa 
Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic 
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published 
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the 
originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide 
fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil 
rigs could be built if Lease Sale 119 goes forward. Under this 
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to 
oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could 
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The 
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could 
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the 
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language 
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................\1\ $362,950,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................     428,200,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     375,175,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     +12,225,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -53,025,000

\1\ Reductions of $12,600 to comply with working capital fund, awards 
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.

    The bill includes $375,175,000 for the capital acquisition, 
construction, and improvement programs of the Coast Guard for 
vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and 
related administrative expenses, of which $32,500,000 is to be 
derived from the oil spill liability trust fund. Consistent 
with past practice, the bill also includes language 
distributing the total appropriation by budget activity and 
providing separate obligation availabilities appropriate for 
the type of activity being performed. The Committee continues 
to believe that these obligation availabilities provide fiscal 
discipline and reduces long-term unobligated balances. However, 
the bill does include authority to transfer funds for possible 
restructuring activities, as previously described under 
``Operating expenses''.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The following table compares the fiscal year 1995 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 1996 estimate, and the recommended level 
by program, project and activity:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--                
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Program name                                             1996     
                           1995 enacted    1996 estimate    recommended 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels:                                                                
    Survey and design--                                                 
     cutters and boats..        $750,000        $500,000        $500,000
    Seagoing buoy tender                                                
     (WLB) replacement..      36,000,000      65,000,000      65,000,000
    Coastal buoy tender                                                 
     (WLM) replacement..      56,000,000      93,000,000      93,000,000
    47-foot motor                                                       
     lifeboat (MLB)                                                     
     replacement project      31,000,000         500,000         500,000
    Buoy boat                                                           
     replacement project                                                
     (BUSL).............      10,000,000       8,500,000  ..............
    Polar icebreaker                                                    
     replacement follow-                                                
     on.................       7,900,000       4,300,000       4,300,000
    82-foot WPB                                                         
     capability                                                         
     replacement........      10,000,000       4,000,000  ..............
    Norwegian crewing                                                   
     concept development                                                
     (NORCREW)..........  ..............       2,000,000       2,000,000
    Self propelled barge                                                
     replacement........       2,500,000         900,000         900,000
    Surface search radar                                                
     replacement project  ..............       3,500,000       3,500,000
    210-foot medium                                                     
     endurance cutter                                                   
     MMA................      25,000,000      14,500,000      14,500,000
    378-foot shipboard                                                  
     command & control..       5,000,000       1,300,000       1,300,000
    Configuration                                                       
     management.........  ..............       5,700,000       5,700,000
    Stalwart class                                                      
     conversion.........       3,750,000  ..............  ..............
    Cutter Yocona re-                                                   
     engining project                                                   
     (reprogramming)....       4,400,000  ..............  ..............
Aircraft:                                                               
    Traffic alert &                                                     
     collision avoidance                                                
     system (TCAS) phase                                                
     IV.................       3,900,000      13,000,000      10,000,000
    Global positioning                                                  
     system installation                                                
     phase VI...........       2,300,000       1,900,000       1,900,000
    HH-65 Helicopter                                                    
     main transmission                                                  
     gearbox upgrade                                                    
     phase II...........       2,000,000       2,500,000       2,500,000
    HC-130 side looking                                                 
     airborne radar                                                     
     (SLAR) upgrade.....  ..............       2,100,000       2,100,000
    HU-25B aireye system                                                
     replacement........       1,600,000  ..............  ..............
    HU-25C falcon jet                                                   
     modification.......       2,000,000  ..............  ..............
    TALON helicopter tie-                                               
     down project                                                       
     (reprogramming)....       2,509,000  ..............  ..............
    Air interdiction/AEW                                                
     project                                                            
     (reprogramming)....         605,000  ..............  ..............
Other Equipment:                                                        
    Supply center                                                       
     computer                                                           
     replacement........       6,000,000       1,000,000       1,000,000
    Fleet logistics                                                     
     system.............  ..............       3,000,000       3,000,000
    Vessel traffic                                                      
     service (VTS)                                                      
     system 2000........       2,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
    VTS equipment                                                       
     replacement........       3,000,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
    Marine information                                                  
     for safety and law                                                 
     enforcement (MISLE)  ..............      11,000,000      11,000,000
    Conversion of                                                       
     software                                                           
     applications.......       2,750,000      11,100,000       6,100,000
    Finance center                                                      
     information system                                                 
     replacement........       1,000,000       2,600,000       2,600,000
    Differential GPS                                                    
     transmitter                                                        
     replacement........  ..............       1,700,000  ..............
    Differential GPS                                                    
     implementation--sec                                                
     ond district.......  ..............       2,400,000  ..............
    Search and rescue                                                   
     simulation model                                                   
     (SARSIM)...........  ..............         500,000         500,000
    Communication                                                       
     systems 2000.......  ..............      11,000,000       6,000,000
    WLB/WLM support                                                     
     facility...........  ..............       1,500,000       1,500,000
    Vessel navigation                                                   
     training simulator.  ..............       1,500,000       1,500,000
    Local notice to                                                     
     mariners automation  ..............         500,000         500,000
    Global maritime                                                     
     distress and safety                                                
     system.............       1,800,000         500,000         500,000
    Resource information                                                
     system for health                                                  
     services...........       3,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Oil spill response                                                  
     equipment..........       2,500,000  ..............  ..............
    Search and rescue                                                   
     management                                                         
     information system.         900,000  ..............  ..............
    Communication                                                       
     station Honolulu                                                   
     transmitters.......       1,900,000  ..............  ..............
    Replace AR≻                                                       
     computer (phase IV)       2,000,000  ..............  ..............
    VTS upgrade and                                                     
     expansion projects.       1,600,000  ..............  ..............
    Oil spill training                                                  
     simulator..........       1,250,000  ..............  ..............
Shore Facilities and                                                    
 Aids to Navigation:                                                    
    Survey and design--                                                 
     shore projects.....      10.000,000       8,000,000       8,000,000
    Minor AC&I; shore                                                    
     construction                                                       
     projects...........       6,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Streamlining                                                        
     initiatives........  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Air station                                                         
     consolidation......  ..............      11,000,000      11,000,000
    Coast Guard Yard                                                    
     ship handling                                                      
     facility (phase II)  ..............      15,100,000  ..............
    Public family                                                       
     quarters...........      12,000,000      22,700,000      20,275,000
    Station Boothbay                                                    
     Harbor, ME--                                                       
     renovate/expand....  ..............       2,800,000       2,800,000
    Base South Portland,                                                
     ME--construct                                                      
     station operations                                                 
     bldg...............  ..............       2,600,000       2,600,000
    Base San Juan, PR--                                                 
     reconstruction                                                     
     (phase II).........  ..............       3,150,000       3,150,000
    Station Port Isabel,                                                
     TX--reconstruct/                                                   
     expand waterfront                                                  
     facilities.........  ..............       2,650,000       2,650,000
    Station Portage, MI--                                               
     relocate/replace                                                   
     station facilities.  ..............       4,200,000       4,200,000
    Station Chetco                                                      
     River, OR--                                                        
     construct mooring/                                                 
     waterfront.........  ..............       2,000,000       2,000,000
    Station Honolulu,                                                   
     HI--replacement....  ..............       5,000,000       5,000,000
    Coast Guard Academy--                                               
     Roland Hall                                                        
     renovation.........  ..............       5,100,000       5,100,000
    Waterways ATON                                                      
     projects...........  ..............       5,500,000       5,500,000
    Air Station Miami,                                                  
     FL--upgrade (phase                                                 
     II)................       8,400,000  ..............  ..............
    Support Center New                                                  
     York--construct ANT/                                               
     ET shops...........       3,250,000  ..............  ..............
    Support Center                                                      
     Seattle, WA--                                                      
     reconstruct pier 37      10,300,000  ..............  ..............
    Station                                                             
     Provincetown, MA--                                                 
     replace wave                                                       
     barrier............       1,300,000  ..............  ..............
    Base San Juan--                                                     
     reconstruction                                                     
     (phase I)..........      10,750,000  ..............  ..............
    Base Honolulu--                                                     
     electrical system..       1,950,000  ..............  ..............
    Atlantic Strike                                                     
     Team--construct                                                    
     maint/equip storage                                                
     facility...........       5,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Waterways short                                                     
     range aids projects       6,500,000  ..............  ..............
    Overseas LORAN                                                      
     closure............      13,900,000  ..............  ..............
Personnel and Related                                                   
 Support:                                                               
    Personnel and                                                       
     related support....      44,200,000  ..............  ..............
    Direct personnel                                                    
     costs..............  ..............      48,200,000      42,500,000
    Core acquisition                                                    
     costs..............  ..............         700,000         500,000
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total                                                             
       appropriation....     362,950,000     428,200,000     370,175,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Vessels

    The Committee recommends $191,200,000 for vessels, an 
increase of $3,300,000 above the amount provided for fiscal 
year 1995. Approximately 80 percent of this amount 
($158,000,000) is to continue production of the Coast Guard's 
new seagoing and coastal buoy tenders, which the Committee 
considers a high priority due to the age of the current buoy 
tender fleet.
    Stern loading buoy boat replacement project.--The Committee 
recommends no funds for this project in fiscal year 1996, a 
reduction of $8,500,000 from the budget request. Funds were 
provided in fiscal year 1995 to begin production. However, the 
program has experienced significant delays because of the Coast 
Guard's decision to award the contract as a small business set-
aside to a boatyard with no previous production experience. 
According to the service, the acquisition strategy and program 
costs are uncertain at this time, and an unobligated balance of 
$9,200,000 is expected to exist at the end of fiscal year 1995. 
For these reasons, it appears clear that additional funding is 
not needed at this time. Before changing the production 
location for this program, the Coast Guard shall notify the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and provide a 
full explanation and analysis for that decision.
    82-foot coastal patrol boat replacement.--The Committee 
recommends no funds for this project in fiscal year 1996. Like 
the stern loading buoy boat, this project has also experienced 
significant delays, in this case because the Coast Guard 
specified requirements that no vendor was able to meet. Having 
revised their requirements, the Coast Guard now expects to 
award a contract during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1995. 
However, since the majority of work using fiscal year 1995 
funds will now be carried on throughout fiscal year 1996, 
additional funding may be deferred without effect.

                                Aircraft

    The Committee recommends $16,500,000 for aircraft, an 
increase of $4,700,000 above the fiscal year 1995 enacted 
level.
    Traffic collision and avoidance system (TCAS).--The 
Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this project, a reduction 
of $3,000,000 from the budget request but an increase of 
$6,100,000 above the level provided for fiscal year 1995. The 
Committee believes the budget request for this project assumed 
an overly ambitious schedule, and underestimated the technical 
risk, of integrating TCAS electronics into the Coast Guard 
helicopter fleet. Even though most of the 1996 funding is for 
installation into helicopters, Coast Guard documents indicate 
this has never been accomplished before, and presents 
engineering risks. The first helicopter prototype is just now 
being installed. Given the technical risk and the fact that 
$4,400,000 in unobligated balances is expected to be carried 
over into fiscal year 1996 from prior year funds, the Committee 
believes some reduction is possible without effect on the 
overall schedule.

                            Other Equipment

    The Committee recommends $42,200,000 for other equipment, 
an increase of $12,500,000 above the level provided for fiscal 
year 1995.
    Conversion of software applications.--The recommendation 
allows $6,100,000 for this program, an increase of 122 percent 
above the $2,750,000 provided for fiscal year 1995 but a 
reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget estimate. The Committee 
believes this work can be phased in over a longer time period 
without significant impact on operational missions.
    Differential global positioning system.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for two new projects, ``differential GPS 
transmitter replacement'' and ``differential GPS implementation 
in the second district''. These items were not on the Coast 
Guard's long-range AC&I; plan last year, and do not appear to 
address any emergency requirement justifying their sudden 
placement in the budget. Given budget constraints and the weak 
justification, the Committee believes these projects should be 
deferred in lieu of full funding for other activities.
    Communication system 2000.--The Committee recommends 
$6,000,000 for this new project, a reduction of $5,000,000 from 
the budget estimate. The long-range AC&I; plan indicates average 
annual funding of $2,250,000 between fiscal years 1997 and 
2000. The fiscal year 1996 request therefore represents a 
funding ``spike'' which drops significantly after fiscal year 
1997. The Committee recommendation provides the same level of 
funding as is shown in the Coast Guard's plan for fiscal year 
1997.

                            Shore Facilities

    The Committee recommends $82,275,000 for shore facilities, 
a reduction of $7,075,000 from the fiscal year 1995 enacted 
level. The Committee notes that, as of February 28, 1995, the 
Coast Guard had an unobligated balance in shore facilities of 
$142,864,540. Because of the backlog of projects in the 
pipeline, and because of the weakness in individual projects 
discussed below, the Committee believes a lower level is 
justified.
    Streamlining implementation costs.--The Committee has 
provided $5,000,000 in specific funding for AC&I; costs related 
to the impending release of Coast Guard streamlining studies. 
The Committee believes much streamlining is needed, and 
applauds the Commandant for undertaking a wide-ranging review. 
Once the administration's proposal is clear, the Committee will 
also consider reprogramming proposals. Language is included in 
the bill allowing up to $50,000,000 in transfer authority for 
this purpose.
    Coast Guard Yard, ship handling facility.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for the planned construction of a new 
$40,800,000 ship handling facility at the Coast Guard Yard in 
Maryland, a reduction of $15,100,000 from the budget request. 
According to the Coast Guard, this new facility is needed to 
overhaul the 378-foot and 270-foot cutter classes. However, the 
378-foot cutters completed a major overhaul just a few years 
ago, and the Committee is unaware of other major overhauls 
planned. The 270-foot cutter overhaul is not scheduled to begin 
until at least the year 2003, and budget reductions may slip 
that schedule. Since the majority of the Yard's current work 
(the 210-foot cutter overhaul) completes in fiscal year 1997, 
it is not clear what work will sustain the Yard during the 
1997-2003 time frame. It is also not clear whether the Yard 
should be acquiring the industrial capacity to compete against 
private shipyards for overhauls of major vessel classes. While 
the Committee considered the DOT Inspector General's suggestion 
this year to close the Yard entirely, the Committee believes 
such action is not yet required. However, it should be noted 
the IG's analysis does raise significant questions about the 
Yard's future, including the need for this project.
    Public family quarters.--The recommendation of $20,275,000 
provides the same level of funding the Coast Guard is planning 
to allocate to this program in the outyears and a 70 percent 
increase over the $12,000,000 provided for fiscal year 1995.

                     Personnel and Related Support

    The bill includes $43,000,000 for AC&I; personnel and 
related support, a decrease of $1,200,000 (2.7 percent) from 
the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. Since the Coast Guard is 
under an agency-wide target for staffing reductions, the more 
acquisition staffing is increased, the less staffing is 
available for operational missions. Given the proposed 
reduction in the AC&I; appropriation and overall downsizing, the 
Committee believes this level will be sufficient to effectively 
manage the AC&I; program during fiscal year 1996. The 
recommendation includes $42,500,000 in direct personnel costs 
and $500,000 in core acquisition costs. The Coast Guard is 
directed to cap AC&I-funded; full-time positions at 717, which 
is the same level as provided for fiscal year 1995.
    Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Coast Guard is directed 
to continue submission of the quarterly acquisition reports to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. However, 
beginning in fiscal year 1996, the Coast Guard is to include 
with each such report an up-to-date listing of unobligated 
balances by acquisition project and by fiscal year.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $23,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      25,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      21,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -2,500,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -4,000,000

\1\ Reductions of $2,700 to comply with working capital fund, awards and 
procurement reform provisions not reflected.

    The Committee recommends $21,000,000 to bring Coast Guard 
facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and 
environmental regulations. These funds will permit the 
continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental 
problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks 
containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program 
focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes 
third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed 
to environmental problems.
    The recommended funding level is $2,500,000 (10.6 percent) 
below the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This level is 
sufficient to fully fund the requested levels for site-specific 
cleanup and restoration projects ($14,260,000). The bill does 
not include language requested in the President's budget 
dealing with the use of funds for parts and equipment 
associated with operations and maintenance. This is related to 
proposed language under ``Operating expenses'' which is a 
legislative matter under consideration by the appropriate 
authorization committee.
    Sites to be addressed.--The funds in this bill are 
sufficient to finance the budgeted amount of $13,540,000 for 
cleanup and restoration projects at specific sites. The sites 
for which funds are included are as follows:

        Project site                                              Amount
Support Center Kodiak, AK: RCRA Consent Order...........      $5,695,000
Aids to Navigation Battery Cleanup, Agency-Wide.........       5,025,000
Support Center Elizabeth City, NC: Solid Waste 
    Management Units....................................         600,000
Support Center Elizabeth City, NC: Electroplating Shop..         650,000
Support Center Elizabeth City, NC: Tricloroethylene 
    remediation.........................................         850,000
Air Station Traverse City, MI...........................         350,000
Air Station Cape Cod, MA................................         350,000
Station Marquette, MI...................................          20,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      13,540,000
                         Alteration of Bridges
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      $2,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      16,000,000
Bill compared with:.....................................
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     +16,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     +14,000,000

    The bill includes $16,000,000 for alteration of bridges 
deemed a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-
Hobbs Act. The Committee does not agree with the approach taken 
by the 103rd Congress, and supported by the administration, 
that highway bridges and combination rail/highway bridges 
should be funded out of the Federal Highway Administration's 
discretionary bridge account. This approach is unfair to some 
states which, under existing highway formulas, pay a higher 
price for discretionary bridge grants and are therefore less 
likely to apply. In addition, the purpose of altering these 
bridges is to improve the safety of marine navigation under the 
bridge, not to improve surface transportation on the bridge 
itself. Since in some cases, there are unsafe conditions on the 
waterway beneath a bridge which has an adequate surface or 
structural condition, Federal-aid highways funding is not 
appropriate to address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program.
    The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for five bridges. This 
funding level is higher than in the recent past because of the 
need to move projects forward after delays caused by 
underfunding over the past two years, and because of the 
Committee's strong commitment to safety on our nation's 
waterways. Each of the bridges for which funds are recommended 
is authorized and has been issued an order to alter by the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Committee's specific 
recommendation is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year 1996      Committee    
        Bridge and location              estimate         recommended   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington, IA, Burlington                                              
 Northern RR Bridge...............         $2,000,000         $2,000,000
New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue RR/                                     
 HW Bridge........................                 --          2,000,000
Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier HW                                         
 Bridge...........................                 --          8,000,000
Boston, MA, Chelsea St. Bridge....                 --          2,000,000
St. John's Island, SC, Limehouse                                        
 HW Bridge........................  .................          2,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................          2,000,000         16,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Retired Pay
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................    $562,585,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................     582,022,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     582,022,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     +19,437,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

    The Committee has approved the budget estimate of 
$582,022,000 for retired pay of military personnel of the Coast 
Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also included are payments 
to members of the former Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries 
pursuant to the retired serviceman's family protection plan and 
survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical care of 
retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents 
Medical Care Act. This compares to an appropriation of 
$562,585,000 for fiscal year 1995.
    The Committee notes that, as part of the reinventing 
government initiative, the administration is considering the 
conversion of Coast Guard retired pay from a mandatory 
appropriation to discretionary, and requiring that funds be 
increased to fully fund the program on an actuarily sound 
basis. The Department of Defense has established a trust fund 
to finance military retirement, and spending from this fund is 
scored as discretionary in the budget process. However, the 
Coast Guard does not participate in the trust fund. Instead, 
they request and receive annual appropriations which are scored 
as mandatory. The Committee is concerned that changing the 
current system could cause enormous additional reductions in 
transportation discretionary programs, in order to finance what 
is currently mandatory as well as meet deficit reduction 
targets. The Committee urges the administration to consider 
this issue carefully as the reinventing government proposals 
are more fully developed.

                            Reserve Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $64,981,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      64,859,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      61,859,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -3,122,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -3,000,000

\1\ Reductions of $4,275 to comply with working capital fund, awards and 
procurement reform provisions not reflected.

    This appropriation provides for the training of qualified 
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or 
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in 
the performance of peacetime missions. The program activities 
fall into the following categories:
    Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for 
three categories of non-prior service trainees.
    Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted 
personnel.
    Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-
to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training 
facilities.
    Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve 
forces program.
    The bill includes $61,859,000 for reserve training. The 
amount recommended represents a decrease of $3,122,000 (4.8 
percent) below the fiscal year 1995 level and will support a 
selected reserve of approximately 7,630. The budget proposed 
funds to support a selected reserve of 8,000, which is the same 
level as estimated for fiscal year 1995. The reduction is due 
to budget constraints, and does not reflect a diminution of the 
Committee's support for the Coast Guard Reserves.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $20,310,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      22,500,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      18,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -1,810,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -4,000,000

\1\ Reductions of $3,600 to comply with working capital fund, awards and 
procurement reform provisions not reflected.

    The bill includes $18,500,000 for applied scientific 
research and development, test and evaluation projects 
necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for 
the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this 
amount, $3,150,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund. The following table summarizes the fiscal 
year 1995 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation for 
the various research areas:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Fiscal year     Fiscal year                       
   Program area       1995enacted    1996estimate   Committeerecommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Search and                                                      
 Rescue                                                                 
 Capability:                                                            
    Search                                                              
     planning.....        $710,000        $100,000           $100,000   
    Search                                                              
     process,                                                           
     platforms and                                                      
     sensors......         150,000         400,000            400,000   
    Personnel.....         425,000         432,000            432,000   
                   =====================================================
Waterways Safety &                                                      
 Management:                                                            
    Waterways                                                           
     management...         500,000         500,000            500,000   
    Advanced                                                            
     vessel                                                             
     traffic                                                            
     systems/                                                           
     services.....         300,000         600,000            100,000   
    Integrated                                                          
     navigation                                                         
     systems......         325,000         450,000            450,000   
    Short range                                                         
     aids to                                                            
     navigation...         200,000         400,000            200,000   
    Personnel.....         850,000         864,000            864,000   
                   =====================================================
Marine Safety:                                                          
    Marine safety                                                       
     research.....          75,000         530,000            200,000   
    Human factors                                                       
     analysis.....         650,000       1,685,000            700,000   
    Fire safety                                                         
     for                                                                
     commercial                                                         
     vessels......         440,000         960,000            750,000   
    Personnel.....         957,000         972,000            700,000   
                   =====================================================
Ship Structure                                                          
 Committee:                                                             
    Support for                                                         
     Committee....         250,000         250,000  ....................
    Personnel.....          35,000          36,000  ....................
                   =====================================================
Marine                                                                  
 Environmental                                                          
 Protection:                                                            
    Planning,                                                           
     management                                                         
     and training.         300,000         150,000            150,000   
    Oil pollution                                                       
     response.....         250,000         850,000            500,000   
    Personnel                                                           
     health and                                                         
     safety.......  ..............          75,000             75,000   
    Port                                                                
     demonstration                                                      
     project......         250,000  ..............  ....................
    OPA-90                                                              
     regional                                                           
     grant program         500,000  ..............  ....................
    Personnel.....         496,000         504,000            504,000   
                   =====================================================
Maritime Law                                                            
 Enforcement:                                                           
    Surveillance..         400,000         725,000            725,000   
    Vessel search.         200,000  ..............  ....................
    Personnel.....         496,000         504,000            504,000   
                   =====================================================
Safety and                                                              
 Environmental                                                          
 Compliance:                                                            
    Cutter fire                                                         
     safety                                                             
     technology...         350,000         600,000            586,000   
    Pollution                                                           
     prevention...         550,000         500,000            500,000   
    Aviation                                                            
     engineering                                                        
     support......         110,000          75,000  ....................
    Vessel loss                                                         
     exposure and                                                       
     risk analysis                                                      
     method.......         410,000         620,000            620,000   
    Personnel.....         602,000         612,000            612,000   
                   =====================================================
Human Resource                                                          
 Management                                                             
 Effectiveness:                                                         
    Training                                                            
     techniques                                                         
     and                                                                
     technologies.         300,000         300,000  ....................
    Staffing                                                            
     standards                                                          
     development..          75,000  ..............  ....................
    Personnel.....         142,000         144,000  ....................
                   =====================================================
Command, Control,                                                       
 Computers &                                                            
 Intelligence:                                                          
    Information                                                         
     systems......       2,000,000         280,000          1,780,000   
    Advanced                                                            
     communication                                                      
     s systems....         300,000  ..............  ....................
    Personnel.....         638,000         648,000            648,000   
                   =====================================================
Technology Base:                                                        
    Future                                                              
     technology                                                         
     assessment...  ..............         300,000  ....................
    Modeling......         600,000         150,000  ....................
    Select                                                              
     projects.....         250,000         450,000            300,000   
    Personnel.....         673,000         684,000            200,000   
                   =====================================================
R&D; Personnel,                                                          
 Program Support,                                                       
 & Operations:                                                          
    Admin/support                                                       
     personnel and                                                      
     related costs       3,047,000       3,100,000          2,600,000   
    Support and                                                         
     operations...       1,500,000       1,700,000          1,500,000   
    R&D; management                                                      
     info system                                                        
     development..  ..............         500,000            450,000   
    Modernization                                                       
     of F&STD; test                                                      
     facilities...  ..............         850,000            850,000   
                   =====================================================
Other Projects:                                                         
    South Florida                                                       
     oil spill                                                          
     research                                                           
     center.......       1,000,000  ..............  ....................
    Maritime Fire                                                       
     and Research                                                       
     Association..         250,000  ..............  ....................
                   -----------------------------------------------------
      Total                                                             
       appropriati                                                      
       on.........      20,310,000      22,500,000         18,500,000   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Waterways safety and management.--The recommended level 
holds funding for this activity to the fiscal year 1995 level, 
instead of a 29.3 percent increase as proposed in the budget 
estimate. The Committee believes that some of this work is of 
lower overall priority, and some could be conducted with 
operating funds.
    Marine safety.--Due to budget constraints and the need to 
fund higher priority activities, the recommendation allows 
funding equivalent to average funding over the fiscal year 
1993-1995 time period. The President's budget proposed 
$4,147,000, which is almost double the fiscal year 1995 level 
of $2,122,000. The recommendation provides an increase of 10.8 
percent over fiscal year 1995.
    Ship structure committee.--The Committee recommends 
termination of this activity due to budget constraints. This is 
essentially a research project in consultation with the 
shipbuilding and boat-building industry, designed to improve 
the materials, design, and construction of vessels. Some of the 
anticipated products include a design guide for marine 
application of composite materials, a fracture symposium and 
workshop, and study of compensation for openings in primary 
structural members of ships. While the Committee has no 
evidence that this is an unworthy program per se, it is 
probably a ``nice to have'' which is unaffordable in the 
current budget climate.
    Marine environmental protection.--The recommendation allows 
a 100 percent increase under ``oil pollution response'' 
research over the funding provided for fiscal year 1995 instead 
of the 240 percent increase proposed.
    Safety and environmental compliance.--The bill deletes 
funding for aviation engineering support, a savings of $75,000 
from the budget request. From the justifications provided, it 
appears this work would be appropriate for financing under 
operating expenses. In addition, a minor reduction is 
recommended in cutter fire safety, allowing a 67 percent 
increase instead of the 71 percent increase proposed.
    Human resource management effectiveness.--The Committee 
recommends no specific funding for this research activity due 
to budget constraints and the need to preserve funds for higher 
priority work. This activity includes such elements as 
development of staffing standards, evaluation of training 
methods, and prototyping of training systems and techniques. 
This type of research can be conducted using operating expense 
funds if it is of high enough priority, as is done in many 
other agencies.
    Command, control, communications, computers and 
intelligence.--The Committee cannot concur with the drastic 
reduction proposed for the operational information system (OIS) 
or the unacceptably long implementation schedule which would 
result from the request. This project will apply pen-based 
technology to the Coast Guard's operational missions, reducing 
paperwork dramatically and increasing efficiency. Development 
of OIS began a few years ago, after a Coast Guard study of 
small boat station workload revealed that over half of the time 
was being spent on paperwork, resulting in less boardings, less 
inspections, and less enforcement actions. The President's 
budget proposed deep cuts in this project in order to finance 
increases in marine safety research. The Committee has long 
supported implementation of pen-based technologies and other 
labor-saving devices in the field. This will become even more 
important in future years, as Coast Guard downsizing plans and 
budget constraints require greater efficiencies and less time 
completing paperwork. The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,780,000 for OIS development, and directs the Coast Guard to 
use these funds to accelerate fielding of OIS systems and 
broaden their application to the vessel boarding program. This 
action will improve law enforcement effectiveness and allow 
more vessel boardings per manhour expended.
    Technology base.--Due to budget constraints and the 
Committee's priority on development of near-term technologies 
of value to field units, the Committee recommends a significant 
reduction in funding for long-term technology base research. 
The bill includes $500,000, a reduction of $1,023,000 from the 
fiscal year 1995 enacted level.
    Research and development personnel, program support and 
operations.--The recommendation allows an increase of 18.8 
percent instead of the 35.3 percent increase requested. Within 
the overall total, the modernization of test facilities at the 
Coast Guard Fire and Safety Test Detachment is fully funded at 
the requested level of $850,000.

                              Boat Safety

                     (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................     $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................           (\1\)
Recommended in the bill.................................      20,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -5,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     +20,000,000

\1\ The President's budget proposes funding as a permanent appropriation 
beginning in fiscal year 1996.

    The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the 
Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended, provide for the 
transfer of highway trust fund revenue derived from the motor 
boat fuel tax, excise taxes on sport fishing equipment, and 
import duties on fishing tackle and yachts to the aquatic 
resources trust fund. The Secretary of the Treasury estimates 
the amounts to be so transferred and appropriations are 
authorized from the fund for recreational boating safety 
assistance and other programs as authorized by the Federal Boat 
Safety Act of 1971, as amended, and Public Law 98-369 (the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984). These funds are used primarily 
to provide grants to states to help enforce boating safety laws 
and to expand boating education programs.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $20,000,000 for the 
boat safety program. When combined with an additional 
$10,000,000 in permanent indefinite appropriations from the 
Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-587), total program 
funding of $30,000,000 is provided for fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee cannot support the Coast Guard's proposal to 
convert this program to mandatory spending. According to an 
April 1993 study by the National Transportation Safety Board, 
recreational boating accidents result in the highest number of 
transportation fatalities annually after highway accidents. 
Over 900 people are killed each year in boating accidents, and 
over 350,000 are injured--more than 40 percent of which require 
treatment beyond first aid. The number of boats, especially 
high speed boats, is increasing each year. The Safety Board 
made a number of recommendations to the Coast Guard and to the 
individual states aimed at improving boating safety across this 
country. Federal support and direction will be needed to ensure 
implementation of initiatives raised in the Safety Board's 
study as well as to continue other boating safety activities.
    In fiscal year 1994, boating safety grant funds were 
distributed in the amounts shown in the table below. It is 
anticipated that a similar distribution would be in effect for 
the $30,000,000 program funding in fiscal year 1996.

                                       RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY PROGRAM                                      
                 [Fiscal Year 1994 Federal allocations and Federal/State share of expenditures]                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                RBS program expenditures            Total fiscal
                                           Federal   ----------------------------------------------   year 1994 
                 State                   allocation      Federal                                         RBS    
                                                          share     Percent   State share  Percent  expenditures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...............................       765,297       765,297     23.2     2,531,071    76.8      3,296,368
Arizona...............................       590,693       500,172     20.0     2,004,658    80.0      2,504,830
Arkansas..............................       450,422       306,222     49.8       308,468    50.2        614,690
California............................     2,392,650       976,680      6.8    13,356,422    93.2     14,333,102
Colorado*.............................       376,567       102,543     18.5       452,388    81.5        554,931
Connecticut...........................       494,007       494,007     19.2     2,079,105    80.8      2,573,112
Delaware..............................       340,363       340,363     41.2       484,827    58.8        825,190
Dist. of Col..........................       348,304       194,254     12.8     1,318,724    87.2      1,512,978
Florida...............................     3,245,521     3,245,521     10.2    28,601,258    89.8     31,846,779
Georgia...............................       850,473       850,473     22.9     2,866,323    77.1      3,716,796
Hawaii**..............................       526,883       533,227     12.6     3,692,329    87.4      4,225,556
Idaho.................................       405,503       405,503     21.7     1,467,364    78.3      1,872,867
Illinois..............................       712,288       712,288     47.7       782,431    52.3      1,494,719
Indiana...............................       560,365       560,365     36.6       969,369    63.4      1,529,734
Iowa..................................       508,758       402,340     50.0       402,340    50.0        804,680
Kansas................................       370,191       326,628     50.0       326,634    50.0        653,262
Kentucky..............................       582,251       582,251     22.3     2,032,618    77.7      2,614,869
Louisiana.............................       710,529       710,529     32.4     1,480,802    67.6      2,191,331
Maine.................................       392,860        27,252      2.9       925,412    97.1        952,664
Maryland..............................     1,486,002     1,486,002     13.5     9,532,738    86.5     11,018,740
Massachusetts.........................       612,343       612,343     25.8     1,763,352    74.2      2,375,695
Michigan**............................     1,626,365     1,664,140     26.1     4,723,891    73.9      6,388,031
Minnesota.............................     1,194,482     1,115,104     26.1     3,157,412    73.9      4,272,516
Mississippi...........................       525,147       525,147     23.1     1,749,360    76.9      2,274,507
Missouri..............................       838,087       646,305     16.0     3,402,518    84.0      4,048,823
Montana...............................       304,205       206,145     48.2       221,242    51.8        427,387
Nebraska..............................       316,300       167,607     50.0       167,607    50.0        335,214
Nevada................................       403,900       403,900     24.5     1,247,478    75.5      1,651,378
New Hampshire**.......................       396,608       512,815     37.8       842,761    62.2      1,355,576
New Jersey**..........................     1,065,146     1,358,400      9.7    12,590,860    90.3     13,949,260
New Mexico............................       356,897       356,897     32.1       756,168    67.9      1,113,065
New York**............................     1,289,114     1,536,836     36.8     2,636,490    63.2      4,173,326
North Carolina........................       784,545       784,545     23.3     2,575,596    76.7      3,360,141
North Dakota..........................       303,962       237,500     48.7       250,076    51.3        487,576
Ohio..................................     1,463,535     1,463,535     20.0     5,864,087    80.0      7,327,622
Oklahoma..............................       612,252       565,548     26.3     1,582,784    73.7      2,148,332
Oregon................................       847,755       847,755     20.3     3,329,355    79.7      4,177,110
Pennsylvania..........................       937,279       937,279     18.3     4,178,836    81.7      5,116,115
Rhode Island..........................       347,048       322,053     32.7       662,768    67.3        984,821
South Carolina**......................       849,398     1,072,284     32.6     2,213,442    67.4      3,285,726
South Dakota**........................       286,882       309,776     50.0       309,778    50.0        619,554
Tennessee.............................       715,751       715,751     42.1       985,635    57.9      1,701,386
Texas.................................     1,580,341     1,580,341     17.5     7,461,599    82.5      9,041,940
Utah..................................       420,232       420,232     13.8     2,631,744    86.2      3,051,976
Vermont...............................       306,096       264,103     45.0       322,416    55.0        586,519
Virginia..............................       529,720       529,720     30.3     1,219,970    69.7      1,749,690
Washington............................       556,032       315,208     18.0     1,431,579    82.0      1,746,787
West Virginia.........................       306,653       259,363     50.0       259,367    50.0        518,730
Wisconsin.............................     1,101,373     1,101,373     30.6     2,501,333    69.4      3,602,706
Wyoming...............................       273,993       121,844     50.0       121,844    50.0        243,688
American Samoa**......................       233,915       237,316    100.0             0     0.0        237,316
Guam**................................       242,524       289,574      0.0       289,575    50.0        579,149
N. Marianas...........................       234,453             0      0.0             0     0.0              0
Puerto Rico...........................       357,414       357,414     39.7       543,954    60.3        901,368
Virgin Islands........................       254,889       153,100     58.2       109,889    41.8        262,989
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals..........................    38,584,563    35,513,170     19.4   147,720,047    80.6   183,233,217 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Fiscal year 1994 expenditure information incomplete.                                                          
** Federal share includes carryover of prior-year funds.                                                        
Ratio of fiscal year 1994 State funds to Federal funds = 4.16/1                                                 
Note.--Federal share cannot exceed 50 percent of total expenditures for States; Territories are exempt from     
  matching share requirement.                                                                                   

                             Emergency Fund

                (Limitation on Permanent Appropriation)

                    (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)

    The bill limits obligations from the emergency fund of the 
oil spill liability trust fund to no more than $3,000,000 in 
fiscal year 1996. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 established a 
$50,000,000 annual permanent appropriation to finance emergency 
expenditures without further appropriation. Since the 
Committee's proposed allocation of budget authority pursuant to 
section 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act sets aside 
$1,500,000,000 just for such emergencies in fiscal year 1996, 
and would require no further appropriation, the Committee 
believes a separate $50,000,000 annual appropriation is no 
longer necessary. The Committee would also note that in only 
one of the past five years has the full appropriation been 
required, and that without any limitation, the Coast Guard 
estimated the emergency fund would have accumulated an 
unobligated balance of $90,685,000 by the end of fiscal year 
1996.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible 
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the 
evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the 
activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations 
in fiscal year 1996. The grants-in-aid for airports program, 
however, will be financed under contract authority with the 
program level established by a limitation on obligations 
contained in the accompanying bill.
    The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 1996 amounts to $8,343,050,000, including a $1,600,000,000 
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is 
$1,463,492,000 above the President's request level and 
$49,173,000 (less than one percent) below the fiscal year 1995 
enacted level. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 
1995 program levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests, and 
the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year--                                Bill compared 
                                         ------------------------------------  Recommended in   with fiscal year
                                            1995 enacted      1996 estimate       the bill        1996 estimate 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations..............................  \1\ $4,595,394,0                                                      
                                                        00    $4,704,000,000    $4,600,000,000     -$104,000,000
Facilities and equipment................     2,087,489,000     1,907,847,000     2,000,000,000       +92,153,000
    (Rescission)........................       -35,000,000  ................       -60,000,000       -60,000,000
Research, engineering and development...       259,192,000       267,661,000       143,000,000      -124,661,000
Grants-in-aid for airport \2\...........     1,450,000,000  ................                                    
                                                                .........\3\     1,600,000,000    +1,600,000,000
Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program                                                                        
 \4\....................................           148,000            50,000            50,000  ................
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................     8,392,223,000     6,879,558,000     8,343,050,000       -36,508,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reduction of $8,904,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards and procurement reform provisions and   
  transfer of $3,967,700 for consolidated civil rights office not reflected.                                    
\2\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  
\3\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the Unified Transportation Infrastructure  
  Investment Program (UTIIP).                                                                                   
\4\ Appropriation pursuant to limitation on borrowing authority.                                                

                      Aviation trust fund spending

    The Committee this year has placed a high priority on 
ensuring that aviation spending in fiscal year 1996 is at least 
equal to the tax receipts going into the airport and airway 
trust fund. For many years the Committee was concerned that a 
``penalty clause'' in the authorizing statute led to a 
continued buildup in the aviation trust fund unobligated 
balance.
    As is shown in the following graph provided by the General 
Accounting Office, the balance in the trust fund was increasing 
between fiscal years 1984 and 1990 while this provision was in 
effect. The Committee was very pleased in 1990 when the penalty 
clause was repealed, because it caused a significant drop in 
trust fund unobligated balances. Each year since that time, 
spending from the trust fund has been greater than the tax 
revenues collected in that year.


    Although a provision similar to the penalty clause was 
enacted in last year's aviation reauthorization act, making 
more difficult the Committee's attempt to spend down the 
unobligated balance in the trust fund, the Committee has placed 
a priority on trust fund spending this year in order to ensure 
aviation users that their tax receipts are being spent in an 
efficient manner. The Committee's recommendations for fiscal 
year 1996 are estimated to result in total spending (outlays) 
from the aviation trust fund of $5,966,792,000 during the 
fiscal year. This is $89,792,000 more than estimated trust fund 
tax receipts.
                               Operations

               (Including Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

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

                       Committee Recommendations

    A breakdown of the fiscal year 1995 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Fiscal year                    
  Budget activity  -----------------------------------------------------
                      1995 enacted      1996 estimate   1996 recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation of air                                                        
 traffic control                                                        
 system...........    $2,200,319,000    $2,228,634,000    $2,220,324,000
NAS logistics                                                           
 support..........       175,665,000       185,158,000       186,058,000
Maintenance of ATC                                                      
 system...........       842,331,000       868,297,000       866,197,000
Leased                                                                  
 telecommunication                                                      
 s services.......       316,793,000       328,423,000       321,743,000
Aviation                                                                
 regulation and                                                         
 certification....       361,119,000       399,711,000       383,950,000
Aviation standards       108,751,000       111,395,000       108,751,000
Civil aviation                                                          
 security.........        64,849,000        65,769,000        64,849,000
NAS design and                                                          
 management.......        54,078,000        53,277,000        45,000,000
Administration of                                                       
 airports.........        39,299,000        42,173,000        41,530,000
Executive                                                               
 direction and                                                          
 management.......       190,270,000       189,216,000       175,000,000
Human resource                                                          
 management.......       229,964,000       231,947,000       200,005,000
Commercial space                                                        
 transportation...  ................  ................         5,770,000
Account-wide                                                            
 adjustments......  ................  ................       -19,177,000
                   -----------------------------------------------------
      Total                                                             
       appropriati                                                      
       on.........     4,583,438,000     4,704,000,000     4,600,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recommended levels include the following adjustments to 
the budget estimate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Budget         Committee      Change from 
                             estimate       recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation of air traffic                                                
 control system:                                                        
    Contract tower                                                      
     streamlining.......      $6,520,000  ..............     -$6,520,000
    ``Quality through                                                   
     partnership''......       1,790,000  ..............      -1,790,000
NAS logistics support:                                                  
    Motor fleet, FAA                                                    
     logistics center...      55,100,000     $52,000,000      -3,100,000
    Depot spares........  ..............       4,000,000      +4,000,000
Maintenance of the ATC                                                  
 system:                                                                
    Airport movement                                                    
     area safety system.       2,000,000  ..............      -2,000,000
    OASIS maintenance...         100,000  ..............        -100,000
Leased                                                                  
 telecommunications                                                     
 services:                                                              
    Administrative                                                      
     communications.....      93,607,000      88,927,000      -4,680,000
    WECO switch offset..  ..............      -2,000,000      -2,000,000
Aviaton regulation and                                                  
 certification:                                                         
    Flight stds/                                                        
     certification                                                      
     staffing increase..       9,907,000       4,953,000      -4,954,000
    Delete funding for                                                  
     new data systems...       1,634,000               0      -1,634,000
    Hold PCS costs to                                                   
     fiscal year 1995                                                   
     level..............       2,140,000       1,523,000        -617,000
    Omega navigation                                                    
     system.............       8,556,000               0      -8,556,000
Aviation standards:                                                     
    Hold costs to fiscal                                                
     year 1995 level....     111,395,000     108,751,000      -2,644,000
Civil aviation security:                                                
    Hold costs to fiscal                                                
     year 1995 level....      65,769,000      64,849,000        -920,000
NAS design and                                                          
 management:                                                            
    Reduction due to                                                    
     budget constraints.      53,277,000      45,000,000      -8,277,000
Administration of                                                       
 airports:                                                              
    Staffing increase...       1,891,000       1,248,000        -643,000
Executive direction and                                                 
 management:                                                            
    Staffing reductions.               0      -5,390,000      -5,390,000
    Regional public                                                     
     affairs staffing...       3,055,000       1,008,000      -2,047,000
    Additional reduction                                                
     due to budget                                                      
     constraints........               0      -6,779,000      -6,779,000
Human resource                                                          
 management:                                                            
    Labor, personnel &                                                  
     human relations....     130,142,000     108,000,000     -22,142,000
    Centralized training     100,050,000      90,000,000     -10,050,000
    Mid-America Aviation                                                
     Resource Consortium               0         250,000        +250,000
Commercial space                                                        
 transportation:                                                        
    Transfer from office                                                
     of the secretary...           \1\ 0       5,770,000      +5,770,000
Account-wide                                                            
 adjustments:                                                           
    Administrative                                                      
     aircraft...........       3,600,000               0      -3,600,000
    Society of                                                          
     automotive                                                         
     engineers grant....         105,000               0        -105,000
    Overseas personnel                                                  
     assignments........             N/A        -500,000        -500,000
    Non-pay inflation...               0      -4,824,000      -4,824,000
    Workers'                                                            
     compensation--hold                                                 
     to FY95 level......               0      -1,394,000      -1,394,000
    Undistributed.......  ..............      -8,754,000      -8,754,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\$6,541,000 included in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.

                Operation Of Air Traffic Control System

    The Committee recommends $2,220,324,000 for the operation 
of a national system of air traffic control and flight service 
facilities. This is $20,005,000 (one percent) above the level 
enacted for fiscal year 1995. The operation of these facilities 
is designed to assure the safety, reliability and regularity of 
flight operations.
    Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in 
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday 
premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually 
worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5 
U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work 
during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is 
not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a 
part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * 
premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic 
pay'' (emphasis added). Disregarding the plain meaning of the 
statute and previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in 
Armitage v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 
1993 that employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday 
to receive premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to 
provide back pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but 
not actually worked between November 1986 and July 1993. 
Without this provision, recurring costs of $6,000,000 would be 
required in the FAA's annual operating budgets. This provision 
is identical to that in effect for fiscal year 1995 and 
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 1996 
President's budget. In addition, the Committee bill does not 
include requested language allowing these funds to be used for 
back pay for Sunday premium pay between fiscal years 1988 
through 1990, to which the judicial decision was retroactively 
applied.
    Contract tower streamlining.--The bill deletes the 
$6,520,000 requested for the third year of the contract tower 
streamlining program. While the Committee continues to strongly 
support this program, delays in the program make further 
funding unnecessary in fiscal year 1996. Even though funds were 
provided for the first 25 towers in October 1993, they were not 
put under contract until September 1994. The next 25 will not 
be under contract until the end of fiscal year 1996. Given 
these delays, the Committee believes additional funds will not 
be required until fiscal year 1997.
    Quality through partnership.--The bill deletes the 
requested funding of $1,790,000 for FAA's ``quality through 
partnership'' program. According to the agency, this is a 
``cooperative, long range cultural change process which 
establishes a team structure for identifying and resolving 
issues at the most appropriate level.'' Funds are used to 
support hundreds of labor-management teams plus a national 
steering committee and nine regional steering committees. While 
the Committee agrees some coordination is needed, it would seem 
that normal staff meetings and travel budgets (both union and 
FAA) could accommodate the necessary level of coordination 
without this multimillion dollar effort.
    Staffing standards study.--After many years of internal 
study, the FAA still does not have a complete understanding of 
how many controllers are required at each of its facilities. 
The FAA's 1994 review indicated that almost thirty percent of 
the agency's field facilities had staffing imbalances of 
greater than ten percent, compared to the planning standard. 
Last year, the agency stated their planning standards could not 
be used for facility planning due to the unique needs of each 
facility.
    While acknowledging that some facilities have unique 
staffing needs, the Committee believes the FAA needs a solid 
planning methodology on which to base its staffing, training, 
and facility allocation decisions. Without good planning tools, 
as the agency downsizes there is a higher likelihood of 
situations similar to the emergency situation which occurred 
earlier this year at the New York en route center requiring 
immediate staffing increases. This problem could become even 
more acute with a smaller and possibly less experienced 
controller workforce and little or no developmental pipeline 
for controllers.
    For these reasons, the Committee directs FAA to study the 
development of a comprehensive methodology whereby the FAA 
could determine the required number of controllers at each of 
its facilities. This study is to be conducted by the National 
Academy of Sciences, and should be submitted to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than April 15, 
1997.
    Loran-C.--The Committee has indicated to the FAA in past 
years that the agency should take full advantage of the 
compatibility of Loran with GPS technology so the substantial 
investment made by users in the technology can continue to be 
utilized, and so Loran can be used as a cost effective 
alternative system to GPS. The Committee has also heard from 
every segment of the Loran user community, and there is broad 
consensus to continue support and funding for Loran, until it 
is determined that satellite technology is available and 
reliable as a sole means of safe and efficient air navigation. 
The Loran system is established, operationally proven, reliable 
and cost effective. The Committee understands there are 
currently more than 1.3 million users of Loran, and that total 
system infrastructure operation and maintenance costs are 
approximately $17,000,000 annually. In view of the favorable 
benefits versus costs associated with Loran, and because of the 
substantial enhancement it provides to user safety, the 
Committee remains convinced that the Federal Government and 
users can benefit from the technology well into the next 
century.
    The Committee last year indicated to the FAA that it might 
be necessary for the agency to assume increased funding 
responsibility for Loran-C/GPS related initiatives in 
conjunction with other elements of DOT. The Committee believes 
that some funding responsibility for Loran should be 
transferred to the FAA. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
FAA to provide a plan, within 120 days of enactment of this 
bill, for future funding, upgrading, and support for Loran in 
cooperation with other elements of DOT. Moreover, the FAA is 
directed to expedite implementation of the automatic blink 
system, and the agency should fully support actions to permit 
promulgation of Loran non-precision approaches for which funds 
have been previously approved. The FAA is also urged to 
continue developing GPS approaches which are compatible with 
Loran technology, so that full benefit can be gained from both 
technologies.
    Operational responsibility pay.--Since October 2, 1982, air 
traffic controllers and certain other FAA personnel have been 
paid an ``operational responsibility'' bonus equivalent to five 
percent of base pay. The pay is not mandatory, but subject to 
the discretion of the FAA administrator. The legislative 
history of this pay indicates Congressional intent that the pay 
was provided to reward controllers who did not join in the 
illegal air traffic controllers' strike in 1981. The House 
budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 assumes the immediate 
termination of this pay, arguing that the need for the special 
pay has long since passed. The Committee believes that, since 
controllers have been receiving this pay for as long as 
thirteen years, to terminate the pay at this time would result 
in a five percent reduction in the take home pay of critical 
safety personnel. Therefore, the Committee bill provides full 
funding for this pay in fiscal year 1996. However, fully 
funding this $88,600,000 program has required difficult 
reductions in other parts of the FAA operating budget.

                         nas logistics support

    The Committee recommends $186,058,000 for logistics support 
of the national airspace system, an increase of $10,393,000 
(5.9 percent) above the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This 
activity funds the acquisition of spare parts and repair 
services, agency-wide acquisition and contract administration 
staff, and other related logistics activities.
    FAA logistics center motor fleet.--The recommendation holds 
costs for the FAA logistics center motor fleet to slightly 
below the fiscal year 1995 funding level. The President's 
budget proposed an increase from $52,400,000 in fiscal year 
1995 to $55,100,000 in fiscal year 1996. The Committee believes 
that given a smaller workforce than assumed in the President's 
budget, holding the line on these administrative costs is 
reasonable. This results in savings from the budget estimate of 
$3,100,000.
    Depot spares.--This year, FAA and departmental officials 
described ``horror stories'' and provided statistics of aging 
equipment, power outages, and long repair times. At the same 
time these cases are occurring, the FAA is sending increased 
amounts of new equipment to the field which also require spare 
parts. Given these circumstances, the Committee finds it 
curious that the FAA continues to reduce their logistics 
center's internal budget requests for spare parts, which may be 
contributing to the horror stories. The following table 
compares internal budget requests for spare parts of the 
logistics center to final allocations by the FAA:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Fiscal year           Request        Allowance       Difference   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992..................     $80,710,000     $64,894,000      -$15,816,000
1993..................      95,371,000      64,647,000       -30,724,000
1994..................     117,288,000      75,465,000       -41,823,000
1995..................     114,786,000      74,507,000       -40,279,000
1996..................      96,791,000      82,328,000       -14,463,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee believes that maintaining the existing system 
at a high state of readiness and availability is critical until 
new, less maintenance-intensive systems are commissioned. For 
this reason, the Committee bill includes $86,328,000 for depot 
spares, an increase of $4,000,000 above the budget request but 
still $10,463,000 (10.8 percent) below the logistics center's 
requirement for fiscal year 1996. This provides a modest 
improvement in addressing the existing spare parts shortfall.

               Maintenance Of Air Traffic Control System

    The Committee recommends $866,197,000 for maintenance of 
the air traffic control system, an increase of $23,866,000 (2.8 
percent) above the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This budget 
activity finances the field maintenance workforce, engineering 
support, and planning, direction and evaluation activities. The 
recommendation includes reductions to the budget request for 
maintenance of the airport movement area safety system (-
$2,000,000) and the operability and support implementation 
system (-$100,000). Current development and production 
schedules for those systems do not support a request for 
maintenance funds in fiscal year 1996.

                   Leased Telecommunications Services

    The Committee recommends $321,743,000 for leased 
telecommunications services, an increase of $4,950,000 (1.6 
percent) above the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of five percent, compared 
to the fiscal year 1995 level, in funding for administrative 
telecommunications. The Committee believes this can be 
accommodated with little impact, given the need to reduce 
overhead costs and fully consider the effect of a smaller FAA 
workforce. In addition, the bill includes a $2,000,000 
reduction from the budget request to reflect an unbudgeted 
receipt of funds from a court case involving fraud in the 
procurement of WECO switches. The FAA was recently awarded a 
settlement of $13,900,000 from the contractor in this case. A 
portion of these funds were to be applied to fiscal year 1996 
budget requirements for telecommunications. Given these 
additional funds, the Committee believes a reduction can be 
made in this area without impact.

                 Aviation Regulation And Certification

    The Committee recommends $383,950,000 for aviation 
regulation and certification activities, an increase of 
$22,831,000 (6.3 percent) above the fiscal year 1995 enacted 
level. The President's budget requested $399,711,000, an 
increase of $38,592,000 (10.7 percent).
    Flight standards and certification staffing.--The 
President's budget proposed a large increase in staffing for 
flight standards and certification--261 new full time positions 
and 131 staff years at a fiscal year 1996 cost of $9,907,000. 
While the Committee supports the need for greater staffing in 
this safety-related area, the proposed increase for fiscal year 
1996 is too great for a single fiscal year. In addition, 
positions added in fiscal year 1995 have not all been filled 
due to overall staffing ceilings within the administration. The 
Committee recommendation provides an increase of 65 staff years 
rather than 131.
    New data systems.--The recommendation deletes funds for two 
new data management systems: the Airmen Certification Rating 
Application System (-$875,000) and the Data Management 
Administration System (-$759,000) due to budget constraints.
    Permanent change of station moves.--The bill holds these 
costs of the fiscal year 1995 level due to budget constraints.
    OMEGA navigation system.--The bill deletes funds to 
continue operation and maintenance of the OMEGA navigation 
system, a savings of $8,556,000 from the budget request. 
According to the Federal Radionavigation Plan, there are only 
22,500 users of this system worldwide, only 14,000 of which are 
attributable to air navigation. Supporting such a high cost 
system for so few users is no longer affordable. The Committee 
believes this program could be continued through user fees, if 
deemed essential to the user community.

                           aviation standards

    The Committee recommends $108,751,000 for aviation 
standards, the same amount as the fiscal year 1995 enacted 
level and $2,644,000 (2.3 percent) below the budget request.
    Aeronautical charting.--The Committee understands the FAA 
is currently exploring the possibility of assuming 
responsibility from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) of producing and distributing 
aeronautical charts. It appears the FAA may be able to perform 
this function more efficiently and cost-effectively than NOAA. 
The Committee understands that NOAA is amenable to such an 
arrangement and is involved in the discussions. The Committee 
encourages these discussions, and looks forward to working with 
FAA on development of a final proposal.

                        civil aviation security

    The Committee recommends $64,849,000 for civil aviation 
security, the same amount as the fiscal year 1995 enacted level 
and $920,000 (1.4 percent) below the budget request.

                       nas design and management

    The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for design and 
management of the national airspace system, a decrease of 
$9,078,000 from the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This 
activity provides oversight and planning for the research, 
engineering, and development (RE&D;) and facilities and 
equipment (F&E;) appropriations. The Committee is proposing a 
sharp reduction in this administrative account in order to 
continue funding the five percent air traffic revitalization 
bonus pay and to provide the highest possible funding levels 
for air traffic controllers, safety inspectors, and system 
maintenance. The Committee believes that the effect of this 
reduction could be mitigated through more effective utilization 
of FAA's network of technical support contractors.

                       administration of airports

    The Committee recommends $41,530,000 for administration of 
airports, an increase of $2,231,000 (5.7 percent) above the 
fiscal year 1995 enacted level and a reduction of $643,000 from 
the budget request. The bill includes 20 new positions for 
airport inspection, 10 new positions for compliance, and 3 new 
positions for management improvements. In total, the 
recommendation provides more than half of the proposed increase 
of 50 new positions, and focuses on staff needed for airport 
inspections (which is mostly safety-related) and compliance 
issues including illegal revenue diversion.
    Atlantic City International Airport.--Of the funds provided 
for operating expenses of the FAA, the Committee expects FAA to 
continue its contribution for fire fighting and emergency 
services at the Atlantic City International Airport, either 
alone or in conjunction with the New Jersey Guard.

                   EXECUTIVE DIRECTION AND MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for executive 
direction and management, reductions of $14,216,000 from the 
budget request and $15,270,000 from the fiscal year 1995 
enacted level. A reduction in this overhead account is needed 
to continue funding the five percent bonus pay for air traffic 
controllers.
    Staffing levels.--The Committee has reviewed staffing 
levels in several headquarters offices, and believes that 
opportunities for streamlining exist. The bill includes a 
reduction of $5,390,000 to reduce staffing in the following 
offices:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     FY95                                               
     Office        enacted    FY96estimate  FY96recommended     Change  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief counsel..          129           131            125             -6
Government and                                                          
 industry                                                               
 affairs.......           12            11             10             -1
Information                                                             
 technology....           92            86             75            -11
Public affairs.           33            32             10            -22
Accounting.....           73            74             72             -2
Policy,                                                                 
 planning and                                                           
 international.           38            38             25            -13
Policy, plans,                                                          
 management                                                             
 analysis......           76            74             60            -14
International                                                           
 aviation......           28            28             25             -3
Air traffic                                                             
 system                                                                 
 management....          194           190            187             -3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regional public affairs offices.--Currently, the FAA 
regional offices have 38 public affairs staff, in addition to 
the 33 in headquarters. Given budget constraints, this level of 
staffing in the regions seems excessive. The Committee 
recommends only 13 regional public affairs staff.
    Additional reduction due to budget constraints.--The bill 
includes an additional reduction in this activity of $6,779,000 
due to budget constraints and the higher priority accorded to 
first line operational positions in air traffic and field 
maintenance.

                       human resource management

    The Committee recommends $200,005,000, a decrease of 
$29,959,000 (13 percent) from the fiscal year 1995 enacted 
level.
    Labor, personnel and human relations.--The bill includes 
$108,000,000, a reduction of $22,142,000 from the budget 
estimate. According to the justification material, much of this 
funding is for organizational development teams and for labor 
relations work. While the Committee is generally supportive of 
such work in moderation, an annual budget of $130,142,000 
appears excessive. The recommendation reduces the request by 17 
percent.
    Centralized training.--As previously discussed in an 
earlier section of this report, the FAA has come under severe 
criticism this year for mismanagement of its training program. 
Several top executives in charge of training have recently left 
the agency. In fact, the entire human resource organization 
appears to be in disarray at this time. The General Accounting 
Office testified that the management training budget should be 
scrutinized very heavily as a result of the criticisms and weak 
management. Given the concerns this year about training in the 
FAA and the uncertain direction of that training within the 
agency, a significant reduction in the $15,490,000 requested 
for management training seems in order. In addition, a portion 
of this reduction should be allocated against program 
administration training (budgeted at $8,672,000). The Committee 
recommends no reduction in training for regulatory standards 
and compliance inspectors, based on GAO testimony that these 
staff are ill-equipped at the present time to carry out their 
safety inspection responsibilities due to insufficient 
training. The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for training, a 
reduction of $10,050,000 (10 percent) from the budget request.
    Implementation of IG recommendations.--The Committee 
directs the FAA administrator to submit reports, on a quarterly 
basis, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 
regarding the agency's implementation of IG recommendations in 
the FAA training investigation recently completed. These 
reports should be submitted until further notice.
    Mid-American Aviation Resource Consortium.--The Committee 
expects the FAA to continue the agency's commitment to the Mid-
American Aviation Resource Consortium in Minnesota and has 
included $250,000 for this purpose. These funds are to be used 
in Minnesota to support the air traffic controller training 
program and to continue research for the FAA.

               office of commercial space transportation

    The Committee recommends $5,770,000 for operations of, and 
research by, the office of commercial space transportation. 
This office is currently part of the office of the secretary of 
transportation. The Committee believes the office would more 
effectively serve its customers, and streamline the OST 
organization, if it were relocated to the FAA. The office is 
authorized as a part of DOT, but not under any particular mode 
or organization.
    The recommended level represents a reduction of $290,000 
(4.8 percent) from the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This 
level is sufficient to finance the additional 4 staff years 
provided in fiscal year 1995. Recommended adjustments to the 
budget request are as follows: (a) hold travel to the fiscal 
year 1995 level (-$45,000); (b) reduce funding for contract 
programs (-$666,000); and (c) delete funds for fostering 
competition and industry viability, an activity opposed by the 
Committee in past years and one more appropriately conducted by 
the private sector (-$60,000).

                        account-wide adjustments

    Administrative aircraft.--The bill reduces the budget 
request by $3,600,000 based on an Inspector General audit 
indicating significant savings if the FAA were to dispose of 
six administrative aircraft, based in the regions, which are 
not required for FAA missions. Given the emphasis this year on 
reducing unnecessary overhead and administrative costs, the 
Committee accepts the IG recommendation, and requires the FAA 
to dispose of these six aircraft.
    Society of automotive engineers grant.--The recommendation 
terminates funding for this small research grant due to budget 
constraints, for a savings of $105,000.
    Overseas personnel.--The FAA currently has 208 personnel 
assigned around the world. While the Committee understands that 
the FAA requires overseas personnel in order to carry out its 
missions, these assignments are very costly, given the high 
cost of living in many countries, and should be heavily 
scrutinized. The Committee believes that such scrutiny will 
result in fewer overseas assignments, and assumes savings from 
that review.
    Non-pay inflation.--Consistent with action in other parts 
of the bill, the recommendation allows a 1.5-percent increase 
for non-pay inflation. The FAA budget requested 2.0 percent. 
The recommendation results in savings of $4,824,000.
    Workers' compensation.--The recommendation holds these 
costs to the fiscal year 1995 level. In addition, the bill 
includes a new department-wide general provision restricting 
funds for workers' compensation in fiscal year 1996, resulting 
in significant additional savings for the FAA. This is 
discussed under ``OST general provisions.'' The Committee also 
directs the FAA to set aside and reserve no less than 30 staff 
years for the purpose of offering employees currently on 
workers' compensation a working position back in the agency. 
The Committee has encouraged such action for two years now, and 
continues to believe that reform in this area would reduce 
costs.
    Undistributed.--The recommendation includes a reduction of 
$8,754,000 due to budget constraints. The administrator is 
accorded the flexibility to allocate this reduction.
    Second career training program.--The Committee has included 
language carried for many years prohibiting the use of funds 
for the second career training program.

                           general provisions

    Passenger manifests.--The bill continues the limitation 
(Sec. 319) contained in previous appropriations Acts 
prohibiting the Department of Transportation from issuing a 
final rule on an international passenger manifest program that 
only applies to U.S. carriers. The Department has issued an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking which would require U.S. 
airlines to compile manifests for international flights that 
include the name of the passenger, the name of a next of kin 
and an emergency contact number. The Committee believes that if 
the Department anticipates that this regulation will be 
beneficial to U.S. citizens flying internationally, then it 
should apply to both U.S. and foreign flag carriers. The 
Committee believes that imposing such a regulation only on U.S. 
airlines could provide a competitive advantage to foreign flag 
carriers that will not have to bear the costs associated with 
implementation of the regulation or cope with the operational 
irregularities and passenger inconvenience resulting from 
passengers being confronted with the requirement to confirm 
this additional information prior to boarding international 
flights.
    O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill continues the 
general provision (Sec. 323) enacted in fiscal year 1995 which 
prohibits funding to implement or enforce regulations that 
would result in slot allocations for international operations 
to any carrier at O'Hare Airport in excess of the number of 
slots allocated to and scheduled by that carrier as of the 
first day of the 1993-1994 winter season, if that international 
slot is withdrawn from an air carrier under existing 
regulations for slot withdrawals. Since slots are all 
reallocated at the beginning of the winter season, it is 
believed that the FAA can easily implement the provision. The 
following definitions continue to apply to this provision: (a) 
``air carrier'' shall be as defined in section 1301(3) of title 
49 of the U.S. Code App.; (b) ``foreign air carrier'' shall be 
as defined in section 1301(22) of title 49 of the U.S. Code 
App.; and (c) ``slot'' shall be defined as the operational 
authority to conduct instrument flight rule takeoffs and 
landings as further regulated in subparts K and S of part 93 of 
title 14 of the code of federal regulations.

                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................  $2,087,489,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................   1,907,847,000
Recommended in the bill.................................   2,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     -87,489,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     +92,153,000

    This account is the principal means for modernizing and 
improving air traffic control and airway facilities. This 
account also finances major capital investments required by 
other agency programs, experimental research and development 
facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and 
capacity of the airspace system.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000,000 
for this program, which represents a decrease of $87,489,000 
(4.2 percent) below the level provided in fiscal year 1995. The 
President's budget proposed $1,907,847,000, a decrease of 
$179,642,000 (8.6 percent). The bill provides that of the total 
amount recommended, $1,784,000,000 is available for obligation 
until September 30, 1998, and $216,000,000 (the amount for 
personnel and related expenses) is available until September 
30, 1996. These obligation availabilities are consistent with 
past appropriations Acts.
    The following chart shows the fiscal year 1995 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 1996 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this 
appropriation:








     additional funds for safety and capacity enhancement programs

    The bill includes a total of $229,917,000, above the budget 
estimate, for new systems, and associated site preparation and 
installation, to improve aviation safety and airway capacity 
around the country through rapid commissioning of new air 
traffic control systems, advanced computers, and state-of-the-
art communication systems.
    In setting priorities for this bill, the Committee has 
placed the strongest emphasis on maintaining, and improving 
wherever possible, transportation safety around the nation. 
Because of significant concerns over the past year regarding 
the state of aviation safety, the Committee feels strongly that 
additional funding emphasis should be placed on new safety-
related equipment. Among other things, this equipment will 
provide controllers, pilots, and airline dispatchers a more 
accurate and up-to-date understanding of dangerous weather 
conditions and provide a clearer picture and automated alerting 
of potential conflicts between aircraft maneuvering on airport 
surfaces.
    The Committee wishes to emphasize that almost a quarter of 
a billion dollars is being added above the administration's 
request to improve and promote aviation safety around this 
country. By contrast, the FAA proposed a significant 
reduction--8.6 percent--in this critical safety appropriation. 
The Committee directs the FAA to pursue these improvements 
aggressively as a high priority. While the administration has 
proposed an air traffic control corporation to help resolve 
problems in FAA acquisition and personnel management, the 
Committee held a special hearing on the subject this year and 
determined that such a proposal has yet to win the support of 
any major segment of the aviation industry, including airlines 
and the general aviation community. Significant concerns were 
raised in that hearing about the detrimental effect such a 
change could have on aviation safety.
    The Committee believes the status quo is unacceptable. The 
Committee agrees that FAA reform is essential, and believes 
effective reform could be achieved if the FAA and the 
administration were to pursue aggressively exemption from the 
existing procurement and personnel laws and strongly work for 
an independent FAA, rather than a government corporation. The 
Committee hopes the FAA will field these Congressionally-added 
systems as soon as possible, and place a higher priority on 
safety-related equipment in future acquisition budget requests.
    In addition, the Committee has placed a high priority on 
capital investment in this bill, and sought to maximize the 
return to users from their aviation taxes going into the 
airport and airway trust fund. The Committee received testimony 
from administration officials this year indicating that the air 
traffic control system is becoming increasingly debilitated by 
old, antiquated equipment. While much of the old equipment is 
scheduled for replacement over the next two or three years with 
systems already under contract, the Committee's recommended 
funding level would accelerate efforts to revitalize the 
technological state of the ATC system in this country.
    The programs for which the Committee recommends additional 
funding, and the associated increases above requested levels, 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Program                  Main purpose         Added funding  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation weather products     Safety & capacity......        $12,400,000
 generator.                                                             
Aeronautical data link......  Capacity...............         12,400,000
Terminal area surveillance    Safety.................          5,800,000
 system (TASS).                                                         
En route center building      Capacity...............         17,000,000
 improvements.                                                          
Terminal ATC automation.....  Capacity & safety......         22,600,000
Terminal doppler weather      Safety.................         42,500,000
 radar.                                                                 
Terminal voice switch         Safety.................          7,000,000
 replacement.                                                           
Low cost surface detection    Safety.................          8,000,000
 radar (ASDE).                                                          
Loop technology for surface   Safety.................          2,000,000
 detection.                                                             
Northern California           Capacity...............         10,000,000
 metroplex.                                                             
Atlanta metroplex...........  Capacity...............         10,000,000
Airport movement areas        Safety.................         20,000,000
 safety system (AMASS).                                                 
Instrument landing systems..  Capacity...............          3,500,000
Runway visual range           Capacity...............          7,000,000
 equipment.                                                             
Low level windshear alert     Safety.................         14,000,000
 system.                                                                
Day care facilities.........  Employee...............          2,600,000
Airport/aircraft safety       Safety.................         10,000,000
 equipment.                                                             
Transition engineering        Safety & capacity......         10,000,000
 support.                                                               
Program support leases......  Safety & capacity......          4,117,000
Acquisition and installation  Safety & capacity......          9,000,000
 personnel.                                                             
                                                      ------------------
      Total.................  .......................        229,917,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             engineering development, test, and evaluation
    The Committee recommends $475,700,000 for engineering 
development, test, and evaluation activities.
    Aviation weather services improvements.--The Committee 
recommends $26,100,000, an increase of $12,400,000 above the 
budget request. The additional funding is intended to restore 
funds for the aviation weather products generator (AWPG) 
project. The AWPG project will provide high resolution 
graphical images of severe weather conditions. Last year, the 
FAA described this project as necessary for improved weather 
hazard forecasting in such conditions as icing, turbulence, 
severe storms, microbursts, and high winds. It will improve 
safety as well as airway capacity and route planning for 
airlines. The Committee does not believe a program with 
benefits such as these should be terminated, as the President's 
budget suggests.
    En route automation.--The reduction of $60,700,000 reflects 
contract savings in the display system replacement project 
(-$55,700,000) and a programmatic reduction in advanced en 
route automation (AERA) (-$5,000,000). The recommendation 
reduces AERA funding from $38,300,000 to $33,300,000 in fiscal 
year 1996. The project was funded at $12,000,000 in fiscal year 
1995.
    Aeronautical data link.--The recommendation increases 
funding from $23,800,000 in fiscal year 1995 to $27,400,000 in 
fiscal year 1996 and retains funding under this budget 
activity. The President's budget proposed $15,000,000 under the 
procurement budget activity. The Committee's review indicates 
this program is still in engineering development, and should be 
accelerated due to the benefits it offers to aviation users.
    Terminal area surveillance system (TASS).--The 
recommendation includes $5,800,000 to continue development of 
the terminal area surveillance system (TASS). This system is 
designed to detect and help direct aircraft around hazardous 
conditions such as windshear and wake vortices. Given the 
safety-related nature of this program and its strong 
operational requirement, the Committee believes this important 
program should be continued. The budget proposed termination 
due to budget constraints.
    Technical center facilities.--The Committee recommendation 
consolidates funding for improvements at the FAA Technical 
Center from six separate budget lines to a single line, for 
simplicity and budgetary flexibility. Budget items 1E02 through 
1E07 have been consolidated into the single line 1E06, entitled 
``Technical center facilities''.
    Evaluation of innovative deicing technology.--The Committee 
is aware of the FAA's recent evaluation of innovative aircraft 
deicing technology utilizing gas-fired infrared heating units 
in a wind-resistant, nonflammable fabric shelter. This full-
scale evaluation, conducted at the Greater Buffalo 
International Airport, demonstrated the capability of such a 
system for cost effective deicing without the adverse 
environmental problems associated with traditional glycol 
treatments. The Committee understands that further testing of 
this system is planned for the upcoming winter. The Committee 
believes that this technology warrants further exploration, and 
directs the FAA to provide a full report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 15, 1996 on the 
results of testing and the agency's plans to authorize airport 
grant funding or passenger facility charges to enable airports 
to procure such a system.

              air traffic control facilities and equipment

    Improvement of ATC en route radar facilities.--The 
Committee recommends a reduction of $5,900,000 in the budget 
request for this program due to weak justification and a large 
unobligated balance of prior year funds.
    Air route traffic control center (ARTCC) building 
improvements.--The Committee has included $17,000,000 above the 
budget request to provide the additional funding needed to meet 
the revised schedule for fielding of the display system 
replacement (DSR). Without increased funding to renovate ARTCC 
facilities in Atlanta, Fort Worth, Oakland, and Leesburg, the 
schedule for DSR is likely to slip.
    Voice switching and control system (VSCS).--The 
recommendation reduces the requested funding by $6,600,000. The 
reduction is to be allocated as follows: (a) engineering 
support for maintenance (-$1,500,000); (b) program management 
(-$3,000,000); (c) airway facilities training (-$1,000,000); 
and (d) technical services (-$1,100,000).
    Traffic flow management.--The recommendation defers funding 
for a new project called traffic management system--sustain 
(-$10,800,000) and uses a portion of those savings to 
accelerate full scale development contract award for the 
center/TRACON automation system (CTAS) (+$7,000,000). The CTAS 
project will provide critical capacity benefits. Because of its 
priority, the Committee believes the work should be put on a 
fast track, even if such action requires reduction in lower 
priority activities. In addition, the recommendation increases 
development funds for terminal air traffic control automation 
activities by $15,600,000.
    Critical telecommunications support.--The recommendation 
deletes funds for this project due to its low priority and 
large unobligated balance of prior year funding.
    Terminal doppler weather radar (TDWR).--The Committee 
believes that production for this important safety radar system 
has been prematurely cut off in the FAA budget request, 
particularly given the recent finding of the National 
Transportation Safety Board citing windshear as a contributing 
factor in last year's tragic aviation accident in Charlotte, 
North Carolina. The FAA originally established a requirement 
for 102 TDWR systems, and to date only 47 have been purchased. 
Given the existing requirements which remain unaddressed, the 
Committee recommends $40,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 for 
acquisition of 5 TDWR systems. In addition, the Committee has 
provided $2,500,000 not included in the President's budget to 
complete installation of the doppler radar in Las Vegas, 
Nevada, and to conduct the environmental assessment for the 
proposed Floyd Bennett Field site in New York City. The 
increases are needed to allow timely implementation of this 
safety equipment at those locations. Wind shear remains the 
primary weather-related threat to airline safety. The FAA has 
identified 102 U.S. airports that have significant risks from 
wind shear (severe weather exposure). The Committee recommends 
that the FAA give priority to those airports at the greatest 
risk of wind shear (severe weather exposure) in the 
installation of additional units.
    Terminal automation.--The Committee strongly supports 
continued development of the FAA's standard terminal automation 
replacement system (STARS), and has recommended the full amount 
of the administration's request for fiscal year 1996. This 
program is a critical component of the FAA's modernization 
program because without it, users of the air traffic control 
system will not be able to make full use of advances in 
automation and GPS technology. The STARS program is also a 
model procurement that reflects the painful and expensive 
lessons the FAA has learned during the past decade. The program 
manages risk by transferring development responsibility to 
industry, reduces costs by seeking off the shelf technology 
wherever possible, and requires ``fly before you buy'' proof 
from companies wishing to bid. The Committee believes the FAA 
has, in this program, set realistic and achievable program 
schedules and cost estimates. The Committee believes that a 
fair competition among qualified bidders is essential to the 
STARS acquisition plan. The Committee expects the FAA to 
proceed with a STARS competition among qualified bidders and 
take no actions on other projects, such as performance 
enhancements for systems currently in use, which would have the 
effect of giving one contractor an advantage over others.
    The recommended funding level for terminal automation 
provides no funds for a prime contract for the digital BRITE 
(DBRITE) display system. This project has undergone significant 
delays, with funds as far back as fiscal year 1993 still not 
yet obligated. In addition, the Committee believes the benefit-
cost justification for these systems is inaccurate and needs to 
be reviewed with more attention to quantitative analysis before 
further funds are requested. Since 57 units are planned for 
procurement using the earlier appropriations later this year, 
it is apparent the manufacturing base will be sustained through 
fiscal year 1996. The Committee will consider additional 
funding next year pending stronger justification for their 
procurement.
    Reprogramming for Windsor Locks, CT air traffic control 
facilities.--The Committee approves the department's request to 
reprogram $2,800,000 to begin construction of a new terminal 
radar approach control (TRACON) facility at Bradley 
International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut.
    Airport movement areas safety system (AMASS).--Given this 
program's importance to aviation safety, the strong support of 
the National Transportation Safety Board, and recent calls for 
accelerated fielding by the FAA Safety Summit, the Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $20,000,000 for AMASS 
systems. The recommended level includes AMASS systems for 
airports in the following locations:

Philadelphia, PA
Seattle, WA
Denver, CO (2 systems)
Anchorage, AK
Miami, FL
Cleveland, OH
Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX
San Francisco, CA
Kansas City, MO
Memphis, TN

    Remote maintenance monitoring system (RMMS).--This project, 
funded at $12,500,000 in the budget request, would develop and 
procure near-term up-grades to the existing RMMS systems. 
However, the FAA budget also includes funds to study a new, 
replacement system for RMMS. Since, according to the 
justifications, the replacement system is to be purchased 
``off-the-shelf'', the Committee is not convinced that funds to 
develop improvements to the existing system are needed. Instead 
of pursing both alternatives, the FAA should expeditiously 
procure the off-the-shelf replacement in lieu of upgrades. This 
termination results in savings of $12,500,000.
    Terminal air traffic control facility replacement.--The 
Committee recommends $60,400,000, to be distributed as follows:

Merrill, AK.............................................      $1,018,600
Oakland, CA.............................................       2,425,400
St. Louis TRACON........................................       2,380,000
Manchester, NH..........................................         938,000
Albany, NY..............................................         648,000
Birmingham, AL..........................................         409,000
Islip, NY...............................................         354,400
Kansas City, MO.........................................      10,600,000
Vero Beach, FL..........................................         326,000
Santa Barbara, CA.......................................       2,000,000
Little Rock, AR.........................................       5,980,100
Covington, KY...........................................       6,500,000
Salina, KS..............................................       1,144,100
Newport News, VA........................................         721,200
Salt Lake City TRACON, UT...............................       1,900,000
Roanoke, VA.............................................       1,939,300
Everett, WA.............................................         928,700
Champaign, IL...........................................         402,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................         212,000
Dallas (Addison), TX....................................       3,693,700
Port Columbus, OH.......................................       2,457,500
Fort Lauderdale (Executive), FL.........................       1,701,800
San Angelo, TX..........................................       1,838,800
Bedford, MA.............................................         323,000
Corpus Christi, TX......................................         612,000
Seattle, WA.............................................         786,000
New York (LaGuardia), NY................................       1,000,000
St Louis (Control Tower), MO............................       5,600,000
Kansas City (ASDE), MO..................................         552,900
Newark, NJ..............................................       1,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      60,400,000

    Terminal voice switch replacement (TVSR).--The Committee 
believes contract award for the enhanced terminal voice 
switch--the large communications switch for TRACON facilities--
should be accelerated, given the increased frequency of outages 
and the criticality of good communications between air traffic 
controllers and pilots. The recommendation includes an 
additional $7,000,000 to accelerate award of this contract.
    Airport surface detection equipment (ASDE)-3.--The ASDE-3 
radar system detects potential aircraft conflicts on the 
airport surface. Because of the safety improvements offered by 
this system and the strong support of the NTSB, Congress added 
funds at the initiative of this Committee in fiscal year 1993 
to purchase an additional ten ASDE-3 systems. Over the next two 
years, however, FAA mismanagement has lessened the 
attractiveness of this procurement. For example, FAA's 
inability to sign the new contract in a timely manner caused a 
break in the production line and higher costs, so that now only 
six systems can be procured for the cost originally estimated 
for ten. In addition, the FAA's benefit-cost analysis for 
additional systems utilized an inappropriate discount rate. 
When this was discovered--after funding had been provided--the 
agency declared that, contrary to earlier information, no 
additional site met benefit-cost criteria. Despite these 
problems, the Committee continues to believe that these systems 
would improve safety, and encourages the FAA to locate these 
systems at the most cost beneficial sites as soon as possible.
    Low-cost ASDE and inductive loop technologies.--Because of 
the high cost of the existing ASDE-3 systems and the strong 
safety requirement, the Committee believes the FAA should 
explore lower cost surface detection technology solutions for 
airports not scheduled to receive ASDE equipment. The bill 
includes $8,000,000 for initial development of a low-cost ASDE 
radar system and $2,000,000 to examine inductive loop 
technology for surface detection. The objective of the 
inductive loop technology program is to provide a prototype 
system that will classify, track, and record aircraft and 
ground vehicle movement on taxiways and runways. The prototype 
system should include: (a) at least 150 inductive loop sensors; 
(b) a short range sensor; (c) a system that automatically 
provides incursion prevention alerts along with positional 
information of aircraft and ground vehicles; and (d) provision 
of data to a central site from all sensors and computer 
hardware and displays. It is expected that data will be 
collected from the prototype system to train neural networks to 
detect and classify over 100 commercial aircraft, general 
aviation aircraft, and ground vehicles.
    The Committee is aware that General Mitchell International 
Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is being considered by the 
Federal Aviation Administration as a test site for new low cost 
ground radar equipment. The Committee supports and encourages 
the FAA to use General Mitchell International Airport as a test 
site for this ground radar equipment.
    Facility consolidation.--The Committee has, for several 
years, encouraged the FAA toward greater airspace utilization 
and resource efficiencies through facility consolidation. The 
current budget request makes steps in that direction, but at a 
very slow pace. The Committee believes that, given budget 
projections for future years, the FAA needs to accelerate this 
program, to realize those budget savings and deliver 
operational benefits to users on a faster timetable. The bill 
therefore includes $10,000,000 each for new metroplex control 
facilities in northern California and Atlanta, Georgia. Both of 
these facilities were funded in fiscal year 1995, but had 
funding deferred in the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
    Integrated network management system.--The Committee is not 
convinced this new program will be affordable in the outyears, 
and therefore recommends no funding for fiscal year 1996.
    Automated surface observing system (ASOS).--The joint 
program of the FAA and the National Weather Service to provide 
ASOS systems has not met its objectives for commissioning new 
sites. The Committee is aware that numerous problems have been 
reported with the equipment and its installation. The Committee 
therefore directs FAA to explore alternatives to this program, 
including investigating whether ASOS is the most appropriate 
technology for all present and planned sites and whether more 
cost-effective, yet functionally compatible, systems are 
available. The FAA is directed to report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than January 1, 
1996 on the alternatives available and the steps the agency 
plans to take to resolve the technical and installation 
problems associated with this program.
    Establishment of instrument landing systems (ILS).--The 
Committee recommendation includes the $30,000,000 in the budget 
request and $3,500,000 for a category II ILS to be installed in 
Rockford, Illinois. The FAA validated a requirement for this 
system due to changes in air traffic at that location, and was 
planning to reprogram funds for this purpose. Because 
rescissions of unobligated funds in this bill and previous Acts 
lower significantly the FAA's funds available for 
reprogramming, the Committee believes additional funding is 
warranted so that the requirement at this airport will not be 
delayed. The bill includes funding for the following systems:


    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (Category III ILS with ALSF-2) (34R)
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (Category III ILS with ALSF-2) (16L)
    St. Louis, MO (Category III ILS with ALSF-2/DME/RVR) (14R)
    Atlanta, GA (Category III ILS with ALSF-2/DME/RVR) (27)
    Rockford, IL (Category II ILS) (7/25)

    Low level windshear alert system (LLWAS).--The bill 
includes the $1,000,000 requested in the budget estimate and, 
in addition, $14,000,000 to accelerate procurement and 
installation of new equipment and upgraded LLWAS sensors at 
high density airports. This is a safety radar system which 
detects and alerts against dangerous windshear conditions 
similar to that implicated in the 1994 aviation accident in 
Charlotte, North Carolina. The Committee places a high priority 
on improving safety at airports across the nation, and this 
system is an important component of that effort.
    Sites receiving funds in this bill for enhanced LLWAS 
equipment or antenna pole replacement or relocation are as 
follows:

Adams Field, Little Rock, AR
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport, Fort Lauderdale, FL
Luis Munoz Marin International, San Juan, PR
John F. Kennedy International, New York, NY
Mueller Airport, Austin, TX
Tucson International, Tucson, AZ
Lubbock International, Lubbock, TX
El Paso International, El Paso, TX
San Antonio International, San Antonio, TX
Sarasota/Bradenton International, Sarasota, FL
Los Angeles International (LAX), Los Angeles, CA
Bradley International, Windsor Locks, CT
Birmingham International, Birmingham, AL
Honolulu International, Honolulu, HI
Buffalo International, Buffalo, NY
Jacksonville International, Jacksonville, FL
Rochester International, Rochester, NY
Hancock International, Syracuse, NY
Des Moines International, Des Moines, IA
Daytona Beach Regional, Daytona Beach, FL
Piedmont Triad International, Greensboro, NC
Richmond International, Richmond, VA
Norfolk International, Norfolk, VA
Dane County Regional, Madison, WI
Charleston International, Charleston, SC
Kent County International, Grand Rapids, MI
Albany County Airport, Albany, NY
Huntsville International, Huntsville, AL
Mobile Regional, Mobile, AL
Dannelly Field, Montgomery, AL

    Localizer directional aid, Santa Monica airport.--The 
Committee is concerned about the FAA's plans to reinstall a 
localizer directional aid (LDA) at the Santa Monica Airport in 
California. The LDA would replace a previously existing 
facility installed in June 1992 and damaged during the January 
1994 Northridge earthquake. There is concern in the adjacent 
communities that the FAA did not adequately address noise, 
environmental, social and economic impacts during the initial 
placement of this facility. Following completion of the 
environmental impact statement, the Committee instructs the FAA 
to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
on the potential impacts of the LDA, and the mitigation that 
would be required to address the concerns of the communities. 
Further, the Committee instructs the FAA to delay any 
installation of the LDA until at least a six month period 
following issuance of the report, in order for Congress to 
examine the report thoroughly.
    Runway visual range (RVR).--The recommendation includes an 
additional $7,000,000 to procure runway visual range equipment. 
Suspending operations at a major airport due to loss of the RVR 
can cost aviation system users as much as $1,000,000 per hour. 
The new RVR system is not as susceptible to outages due to 
weather, resulting in far less down time and substantial 
benefits to users.
    Fuel storage tanks.--The recommendation reduces these costs 
to $9,400,000 in order to fund higher priority activities.
    Local projects and air navigation facilities/air traffic 
control support.--The Committee deletes funding for these 
projects due to weak justification and the need to fund 
specific safety-related equipment. These two reductions total 
$7,000,000.
    NAS management automation program (NASMAP).--The 
recommendation defers further funding for this poorly justified 
new management information system, saving $2,000,000 from the 
budget estimate.
    Child care facilities.--According to the FAA, there are 
still seven en route centers without a day care center. Two of 
these are included in the President's budget. The Committee 
recommendation funds four new centers rather than two, an 
increase of $2,600,000 above the budget request.
    Airport/aircraft security equipment.--The bill includes 
$10,000,000 to procure, install and test prototype aviation 
security equipment at airports and advanced hardened containers 
for aircraft. These items have been under development for 
several years, and the Committee has information indicating 
their readiness for prototyping at this time.

                            Mission Support

    Program support leases.--The Committee recommends 
$31,117,000 for this project in fiscal year 1996.
    Transition engineering support.--Given the importance of 
fielding new ATC equipment as rapidly as possible, and 
departmental testimony that system outages are occurring with 
increasing frequency, the Committee believes this is a high 
priority for additional funding and questions internal budget 
decisions in the department which reduced the funding by over 
$10,000,000. The Committee recommendation restores $10,000,000 
above the budget request to ensure that new equipment is 
installed and commissioned in a timely manner.
    System architecture.--The recommendation provides the same 
funding level as provided for fiscal year 1995.
    Technical services support contract.--The Committee does 
not believe the ``resource tracking program'' is appropriate 
for this budget line, since it is not part of the TSSC 
contract, but a general management tool for the appropriation. 
Pending stronger justification for this activity, the Committee 
recommends no funding, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the 
budget request.
    Financial control baseline notices.--The FAA is directed to 
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
copy of each F&E; financial control baseline notice as it is 
approved by the agency.

                     personnel and related expenses

    The Committee recommends $216,000,000, an increase of 
$7,500,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 1995. This 
subaccount provides funding for salaries and benefits for those 
government personnel involved in managing, overseeing, and 
installing new equipment and facility construction. The 
increase of $9,000,000 above the budget estimate is provided 
specifically for field support, and will enable installation 
and commissioning of currently warehoused data multiplexing 
network equipment, instrument landing systems, and 3,500 radio 
transmitters and receivers. The Committee is appalled to learn 
of the amount of modernization equipment sitting in warehouses 
around the country due to lack of government staff allocations 
or funds for installation. These systems were bought to be 
used, not sit in warehouses while the system decays. The 
Committee recommendation assists in addressing that problem.

                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                              (rescission)
Rescission, fiscal year 1995............................    -$35,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................     -60,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Rescission, fiscal year 1995........................     -25,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -60,000,000

    The bill includes a rescission of $60,000,000 from the 
unobligated balances of ``Facilities and equipment'' due to 
budget constraints. The FAA administrator is accorded the 
discretion to allocate this reduction.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................    $259,192,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................     267,661,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     143,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................    -116,192,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................    -124,661,000

    The accompanying bill includes $143,000,000 for long-term 
research, engineering and development programs to improve the 
air traffic control system and to increase its safety and 
capacity to meet air traffic demands of the future, as 
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the 
Federal Aviation Act. This appropriation also finances the 
research, engineering and development needed to establish or 
modify federal air regulations.
                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $143,000,000, a reduction of 
$116,192,000 below the fiscal year 1995 enacted level and 
$124,661,000 below the President's budget request. The 
reduction reflects the Committee's decision to place a higher 
priority on the development and near-term acquisition of 
safety- and capacity-enhancing equipment, and a correspondingly 
lower priority on long term research.
    This year, the Committee received testimony documenting 
extensive equipment outages and safety concerns in the national 
airspace system. While still the safest airway system in the 
world, aviation accidents in 1994 highlight the need for more 
rapid implementation of advanced safety technologies, 
especially those related to forecasting and detection of 
hazardous weather conditions such as windshear. Equipment 
outages due to delays in replacement systems are restraining 
airway system capacity even as air traffic increases. This 
raises costs to airway system users and causes delays in 
passenger travel all across this country.
    Given these issues, and considering the importance of air 
travel for the overall economy of the United States, the 
Committee cannot accept the administration's proposal to reduce 
the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation drastically--8.6 
percent in a single year--while increasing long term research. 
The Committee bill increases funding for facilities and 
equipment significantly above the President's request, and 
reduces ``Research, engineering, and development''. This 
reduction is not intended to be prejudicial to the FAA's 
research activities, but is instead a reflection of the 
difficult priorities which must be made to eliminate the 
federal deficit while maintaining essential transportation 
services to the public today and for the near-term future.
    A table showing the fiscal year 1995 enacted level, fiscal 
year 1996 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year                 
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Program name                                             1996     
                           1995 enacted    1996 estimate    recommended 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development and                                                  
 infrastructure:                                                        
    System planning and                                                 
     resource management      $3,623,000      $3,953,000      $3,000,000
    Technical laboratory                                                
     facility...........       5,800,000       9,598,000       5,800,000
Capacity and air traffic                                                
 management technology:                                                 
    Air traffic                                                         
     management                                                         
     technology.........       9,174,000       9,875,000               0
    Oceanic automation                                                  
     program............      10,649,000      10,470,000       8,000,000
    Terminal air traffic                                                
     control automation                                                 
     (TATCA)............      16,891,000      15,624,000               0
    Runway incursion                                                    
     reduction..........       8,099,000       8,177,000               0
    System capacity,                                                    
     planning and                                                       
     improvements.......      12,082,000      12,256,000       6,000,000
    Cockpit technology..       4,820,000       8,266,000       6,500,000
    General aviation/                                                   
     vertical flight                                                    
     technology.........       4,837,000       3,327,000       2,629,000
    Modeling, analysis,                                                 
     and simulation.....       9,631,000       7,807,000       2,000,000
    Future airway                                                       
     facilities                                                         
     technology.........         800,000       3,403,000               0
Communications,                                                         
 navigation and                                                         
 surveillance:                                                          
    Communications......      18,080,000      15,367,000      10,000,000
    Navigation..........      14,922,000      15,963,000      10,000,000
    Surveillance........       3,962,000               0               0
Weather.................       2,909,000       6,493,000       6,493,000
Airport technology......       8,200,000       9,278,000       1,000,000
Aircraft safety                                                         
 technology:                                                            
    Aircraft systems                                                    
     fire safety........       1,200,000       3,906,000               0
    Advanced materials/                                                 
     structural safety..       5,245,000       2,973,000       2,000,000
    Propulsion and fuel                                                 
     systems............       3,436,000       4,059,000               0
    Flight safety/                                                      
     atmospheric hazards                                                
     research...........       5,000,000       4,173,000       4,173,000
    Aging aircraft......      25,000,000      21,415,000      15,000,000
    Aircraft                                                            
     catastrophic                                                       
     failure prevention                                                 
     research...........       2,705,000       4,357,000       2,705,000
    Fire research.......       4,500,000       4,604,000               0
    Fire research and                                                   
     safety.............               0               0       5,700,000
    General aviation                                                    
     renaissance........               0       1,005,000               0
    Cabin safety........               0       1,055,000               0
System security                                                         
 technology:                                                            
    Explosives and                                                      
     weapons detection..      23,675,000      33,179,000      23,000,000
    Airport security                                                    
     technology                                                         
     integration........       1,000,000       2,530,000               0
    Aviation security                                                   
     human factors......       3,124,000       4,603,000               0
    Aircraft hardening..       7,828,000       3,496,000               0
Human factors and                                                       
 aviation medicine:                                                     
    Flight deck/                                                        
     maintenance/system                                                 
     integration human                                                  
     factor.............      16,508,000      11,182,000      15,500,000
    Air traffic control/                                                
     airway facilities                                                  
     human factors......      11,259,000      10,193,000      10,000,000
    Aeromedical research       4,233,000       4,485,000       2,500,000
Environment and Energy..       5,200,000       5,429,000       1,000,000
Innovative/Cooperative                                                  
 Research...............       4,800,000       5,160,000               0
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total                                                             
       appropriation....     259,192,000     267,661,000     143,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reaching the overall reduction, the Committee targeted 
research activities which: (a) could be performed by the 
private sector or other non-federal entities such as airports; 
(b) appeared to be of low overall priority or finance FAA 
overhead and facilities; and (c) have corresponding programs in 
``Facilities and equipment'', some of which are increased in 
this bill. These reductions are as follows:
    Activities which can be performed by the private sector or 
other non-federal entities.--Several activities have been 
reduced which could be performed by the private sector or by 
other non-federal entities. They include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee                  
         Project            1996 budget   recommendation      Change    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport technology......      $9,278,000      $1,000,000     -$8,278,000
Advanced aircraft                                                       
 materials..............       2,973,000       2,000,000        -973,000
Propulsion and fuel                                                     
 systems................       4,059,000  ..............      -4,059,000
Aging aircraft..........      21,415,000      15,000,000      -6,415,000
Aircraft catastrophic                                                   
 failure prevention.....       4,357,000       2,705,000      -1,652,000
Cabin safety............       1,055,000  ..............      -1,055,000
Aircraft hardening......       3,496,000  ..............      -3,496,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Low priority or administrative, level of effort 
activities.--Much of this work involves operating support of 
FAA organizations conducting the RE&D; program. Lower funding is 
called for, as the overall program is being cut back, and 
because of the need to streamline administrative and management 
operations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee                  
         Project            1996 budget   recommendation      Change    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System planning/resource                                                
 management.............      $3,953,000      $3,000,000       -$953,000
Technical lab facility..       9,598,000       5,800,000      -3,798,000
Modeling, analysis and                                                  
 simulation.............       7,807,000       2,000,000      -5,807,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reductions in areas due to increases in F&E; activities.--
Some activities were reduced in consideration of increases 
provided under ``Facilities and equipment'' (F&E;) for 
activities in the same area of technology, but in more advanced 
phases of development. Since solutions for these problems are 
being accelerated through application of F&E; funds, early 
research can be cut back.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee                  
         Project            1996 budget   recommendation      Change    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oceanic automation......     $10,470,000      $8,000,000     -$2,470,000
TATCA...................      15,624,000  ..............     -15,624,000
Runway incursion........       8,177,000  ..............      -8,177,000
Explosives/weapons                                                      
 detection..............      33,179,000      23,000,000     -10,179,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some worthy activities are being reduced in order to 
protect funding for higher priority safety activities, 
including the increase for air traffic control human factors 
safety research. These reductions are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee                  
         Project            1996 budget   recommendation      Change    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic management                                                  
 technology.............      $9,875,000  ..............     -$9,875,000
System capacity,                                                        
 planning and                                                           
 improvements...........      12,256,000      $6,000,000      -6,256,000
General aviation/                                                       
 vertical flight........       3,327,000       2,629,000        -698,000
Communications..........      15,367,000      10,000,000      -5,367,000
Navigation..............      15,963,000      10,000,000      -5,963,000
General aviation                                                        
 renaissance............       1,005,000               0      -1,005,000
Environment/energy......       5,429,000               0      -5,429,000
Innovative research.....       5,160,000               0      -5,160,000
Aeromedical research....       4,485,000       2,500,000      -1,985,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air traffic control human factors research.--The Committee 
is very upset that, year after year, the FAA continues to 
ignore the importance of human factors research in its overall 
research program. Even though last year the Congress directed 
FAA not to reduce funding for this activity, the agency's 
fiscal year 1996 request slashes funding by 23.1 percent, from 
$27,700,000 to $21,300,000. This would drop funding for this 
critical area to the pre-1993 level. Even though most aviation 
accidents are caused by human factors, the FAA chose instead to 
request increased funding for items such as cooperative 
research with colleges and universities, FAA lab facility 
upgrades, flow control technology, and airport pavement 
technologies. The Committee believes this appropriation should 
focus first and foremost on safety, even if that results in 
less funding for non-safety-related research. The 
recommendation includes $25,500,000 for air traffic control 
human factors research, an increase of $4,200,000 above the 
budget request, but a decrease of $2,200,000 below the fiscal 
year 1995 enacted level. FAA is directed not to reprogram any 
of these funds to other activities.

                           General Provision

    Federally-funded research and development center.--The bill 
continues a general provision enacted in fiscal year 1995 (Sec. 
326) which caps staffing at the existing federally-funded 
research and development center (FFRDC) at no more than 335 
members of the technical staff. The Committee is pleased with 
changes made by the FAA over the past year to address 
management issues cited in last year's Committee report, and 
believes that these changes provide a stronger, more productive 
FFRDC relationship.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                                                                        
                                      Liquidation of                    
                                         contract        Limitation on  
                                      authorization       obligations   
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995...     $1,500,000,000   ($1,450,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.      1,500,000,000              (\1\)
Recommended in the bill...........      1,500,000,000    (1,600,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
     1995.........................      1,500,000,000     (+150,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
     1996.........................      1,500,000,000   (+1,600,000,000)
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ Included under the Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment 
  Program (UTIIP).                                                      

    The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 
$1,500,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by 
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. 
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred 
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on 
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military 
airport program, reliever airports, and other authorized 
activities. This is the same funding as requested in the 
President's budget, and same level as provided for fiscal year 
1995.

                       limitation on obligations

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$1,600,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. This is $150,000,000 (10.3 
percent) above the fiscal year 1995 level. The President's 
budget proposed to consolidate this program into the Unified 
Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program, with no 
specific funding set aside in law. As set forth in statute, the 
obligation limitation will be distributed as follows:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year                      
                        Project                         --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1995 enacted      1996 estimate     1996 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements:                                                                                                   
    Primary airports...................................       $412,035,885       $448,176,815       $487,986,896
    Cargo airports (3.5%)..............................         38,391,975         42,191,003         49,001,271
    Alaska supplemental funding........................         10,528,980         10,528,980         10,528,980
    States (12.5%).....................................        150,285,479        165,472,172        181,005,773
    Carryover entitlements.............................        147,061,820        100,000,000        100,000,000
Discretionary Set-Asides:                                                                                       
    Noise (12.5%)......................................        156,547,374        172,366,846        188,547,680
    Reliever airports (5%).............................         62,618,950         68,946,738         75,419,072
    Commercial service airports (1.5%).................         18,785,685         20,684,022         22,625,722
    System planning (.75%).............................          9,392,842         10,342,010         11,312,861
    Military airport program (2.5%)....................         31,309,475         34,473,369         37,709,536
Returned Entitlements:                                                                                          
    Non-hub airports...................................         50,309,449         58,181,740         63,349,834
    Non-commercial service airports....................         25,154,724         29,090,870         31,674,917
    Small hubs.........................................         12,577,362         14,545,435         15,837,458
Other Discretionary:                                                                                            
    Capacity/safety/security/noise.....................        243,750,000        243,750,000        243,750,000
    Remaining discretionary............................         81,250,000         81,250,000         81,250,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total limitation:................................      1,450,000,000      1,500,000,000      1,600,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommendation restores funding to this 
program, which was reduced for three consecutive years between 
fiscal years 1992 and 1995. In fiscal year 1992, this program 
was funded at $1,900,000,000. In fiscal year 1995, the program 
is funded at $1,450,000,000. While the Committee recognizes 
these reductions were based on valid concerns, including the 
lack of contract authorization and management issues, the 
Committee is pleased the FAA has made progress in addressing 
some of the Committee's past concerns in this area. In order to 
restore faith that the Federal Government is a reliable funding 
partner, and to address the backlog of important capacity 
projects which have been building up as the program was 
reduced, the Committee believes some increase is justified. The 
Committee has also improved an increase under ``Operations'' 
for increased staffing in the airport program, which will 
improve grants oversight and implement management improvements. 
Consistent with the treatment of highway demonstration 
projects, there is no funding for earmarked airport projects in 
the bill.

                           general provisions

    Sixth runway, Denver International Airport.--The bill 
retains the general provision (Sec. 333) enacted in fiscal year 
1995 which prohibits funding for planning, engineering, design, 
or construction of a sixth runway at the new Denver 
International Airport, unless the FAA administrator determines, 
in writing, that safety conditions warrant obligation of such 
funds. The Committee remains unconvinced at this time that the 
runway is a high priority, and that such a project could be 
managed effectively given the past management history of the 
overall project.
    Hot Springs, Arkansas airport properties.--The bill 
includes a new general provision (Sec. 339) which states that 
two small parcels of land previously developed as park sites 
and currently used by the citizens of Hot Springs shall not be 
considered airport property for the purposes of meeting 
requirements of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, 
as amended. These facilities include softball fields and 
playground equipment for children. The good intentions of city 
officials to turn unused land near the airport into 
recreational space is now costing the city as much as $70,000 
per year because of FAA concerns that the park sites might be 
considered airport assets not maximizing their revenue 
potential. The Committee does not wish to penalize communities 
which take innovative action in this regard, and is unconvinced 
that additional revenues could be generated on this site.
    Revenue diversion.--The Committee does not recommend 
continuing the existing provision regarding illegal revenue 
diversion at airports. The Committee remains resolute in its 
strong opposition to illegal revenue diversion, and has 
provided increased funding in the bill for staff to monitor and 
enforce the revenue diversion laws. However, because the 
penalty in the existing provision--termination of all federal 
transportation funding--is so severe, it is unlikely the 
provision would be enforced if it were ever required, and such 
action would in all likelihood not match the severity of the 
crime. In addition, the aviation reauthorization bill last year 
addressed this issue, strengthening the enforcement provisions 
against revenue diversion and giving users more clearly defined 
avenues for pursuing remedies. For these reasons, the Committee 
believes action in this bill is no longer required.
    Collection of passenger facility charges on frequent flyer 
coupons.--The Committee does not recommend continuing the 
existing provision regarding collection of passenger facility 
charges on frequent flyer coupons. Such collection was 
prohibited in last year's reauthorization bill, making action 
in this bill unnecessary. The Committee is still very much 
opposed to such collections, and is pleased that they have been 
terminated.

                Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

                  (limitation on borrowing authority)

      

                                                                        
                                                        Limitation on   
                                  Appropriation      borrowing authority
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year                                              
 1995.......................              $148,000          ($9,970,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year                                            
 1996.......................                50,000           (1,600,000)
Recommended in the bill.....                50,000           (1,600,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal                                               
     year 1995..............               -98,000          (-8,370,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal                                             
     year 1996..............  ....................  ....................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends language that permits the 
Secretary of Transportation to borrow up to $1,600,000 from the 
Secretary of the Treasury to pay defaulted loans. This is the 
same as the budget estimate. According to the Office of 
Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, the 
borrowing authority provided in appropriations Acts for this 
program is not new budget authority. The bill includes an 
appropriation of $50,000, as included in the budget request and 
calculated in accord with the Credit Reform Act, for the 
administrative costs of this program.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The Federal Highway Administration provides financial 
assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and 
highways, enforces federal standards relating to interstate 
motor carriers and the highway transport of hazardous 
materials, and provides technical assistance to other agencies 
and organizations involved in road building activities. Title 
23 U.S.C. and other supporting legislation provide authority 
for the various activities of the Federal Highway 
Administration. Most of the funding for the Federal Highway 
Administration is provided by contract authority, with program 
levels established by annual limitations on obligations 
provided in appropriations Acts.
    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $20,401,082,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 1996. This is 
$522,526,000 more than the fiscal year 1995 level, an increase 
of 2.6 percent.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program 
levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year                                           
               Program                -------------------------------------------------- Recommended in the bill
                                             1995 enacted            1996 estimate                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways\1\..............          $17,160,000,000                    (\2\)          $18,000,000,000
Highway-related safety grants\1\.....               10,800,000        (\2\) $10,000,000               10,000,000
Other highway projects...............              366,055,000                    (\2\)  .......................
Motor carrier safety grants\1\.......               74,000,000               85,000,000               79,150,000
Exempt federal-aid programs..........            2,267,701,000          \2\ 200,000,000            2,311,932,000
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..........................           19,878,556,000              295,000,000           20,401,082,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligations.                                                                                  
\2\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate these programs into the Unified Transportation Infrastructure
  Investment program.                                                                                           

                           general provisions

    Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.--The Committee has included 
language in the bill (Sec. 325) continuing the one-way 
westbound tolls collection system on the Verrazano-Narrows 
Bridge. The Committtee believes one-way westbound tolls reduce 
traffic congestion and pollution and encourages the governors 
of New York and New Jersey to agree upon a mutually acceptable 
solution to the problem of toll collection without increasing 
pollution and congestion. The Committee has repeated the bill 
language on this subject which was contained in Public Law 103-
122.
    Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel.--The Committee has 
included bill language (Sec. 345) that stipulates that the 
Secretary of Transportation may not authorize funding for 
additional Federal-aid projects for the Central Artery/Third 
Harbor Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts, until a 
financial plan is submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts by October 30, 1995 and approved by the 
Secretary. For each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary must 
approve revised financial plans submitted biannually by the 
Commonwealth and based on detailed annual estimates of cost-to-
complete the remaining elements of the project.
    People's Republic of China.--The Committee has included 
bill language (Sec. 341) prohibiting the use of funds to 
arrange tours of scientists or engineers employed by or working 
for the People's Republic of China, to hire citizens of the 
People's Republic of China to participate in research 
fellowships sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration or 
other modal administrations of the Department of 
Transportation, or to provide training or any form of 
technology transfer to scientists or engineers employed by or 
working for the People's Republic of China.
    Obligation rates.--The Committee has continued language 
which limits federal-aid highways first quarter obligations. 
The Committee has restricted first quarter obligations to 12 
percent.
     Recycled paving materials.--The Committee has included 
language (Sec. 320) delaying the administration, 
implementation, and enforcement of section 1038(d) of Public 
Law 102-240, relating to crumb rubber.
    Metric signage.--The Committee has included bill language 
(Sec. 324) which prohibits the design, construction, erection, 
modification or placement of any sign relating to speed limit, 
distance or other measurement using metric.

                Limitation on General Operating Expenses
Limitation, fiscal year 1995..........................\1\ ($525,341,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................   (689,486,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................   (495,381,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................   (-29,960,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................  (-194,105,000)


\1\ Reductions of $3,545,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards 
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.

    This limitation controls spending for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to 
conduct and administer the federal-aid highways program and 
most other federal highway programs. The limitation includes a 
number of contract programs, such as highway research, 
development and technology, rural technical assistance, and 
minority business enterprise. In addition, administrative costs 
for highway-related safety grants are transferred to the 
limitation.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $495,381,000. This 
amount is $29,960,000 less than the fiscal year 1995 level of 
$525,341,000. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 
1995 limitation, the fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, and the 
Committee's recommendation:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Fiscal year                         
                         -------------------------------- Recommended in
                               1995        1996 estimate     the bill   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses:                                                
    Salaries and                                                        
     expenses...........    $210,128,000    $213,964,000    $213,964,000
    Travel..............      18,489,000      18,489,000      17,286,000
    Transportation......         849,000         874,000         849,000
    Rent, communications                                                
     and utilities......      26,352,000      28,190,000      26,540,500
    Printing............         102,000         112,000         112,000
    Working capital fund      19,763,000      22,471,000      22,471,000
    Supplies............       2,517,000       2,517,000       2,517,000
    Equipment...........      10,584,000      10,584,000      10,584,000
    Other...............      17,315,000      17,833,000      17,833,000
    Procurement savings.  ..............      -3,000,000      -3,000,000
    Civil Rights                                                        
     transfer...........  ..............        -809,000        +809,000
    Accountwide                                                         
     adjustments........  ..............  ..............      -5,251,500
Contract programs,                                                      
 research and                                                           
 development:                                                           
    Highway R&D.........;      53,552,000      79,706,000      55,772,000
    ITS.................     114,500,000     238,579,000      93,250,000
    Technology                                                          
     deployment.........      12,622,000      17,241,000      11,622,000
    Long term pavement                                                  
     performance........       8,739,000      10,701,000       8,489,000
    Local technical                                                     
     assistance.........       3,015,000       3,015,000       3,015,000
    National Highway                                                    
     Institute..........       4,369,000       4,369,000       4,369,000
    Disadvantaged                                                       
     business                                                           
     enterprises........      10,000,000      10,000,000      10,000,000
    International                                                       
     transportation.....         500,000         500,000         500,000
    OJT/supportive                                                      
     services...........       5,000,000       5,000,000  ..............
    Rehabilitation of                                                   
     TFHRC..............       3,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Technical assistance                                                
     to Russia..........         400,000         400,000         400,000
    Truck dynamic test                                                  
     facility...........  ..............       1,500,000         750,000
    Transportation                                                      
     investment analysis  ..............       2,250,000  ..............
    Cost allocation                                                     
     study..............  ..............       5,000,000       2,500,000
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total.............  \1\ 521,796,00                                
                                       0     689,486,000     495,381,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions of $3,545,000 to comply with working capitol    
  fund, awards, and procurement reductions.                             

                        Administrative expenses

    The Committee recommends $304,714,000 for administrative 
expenses. This amount is $1,385,500 less than provided in 1995. 
The recommendation assumes a total of 3,372 full-time permanent 
positions.
    Rent, communications, and utilities.--Consistent with the 
Committee's recommendation to reduce the Department's overall 
space utility, the Committee has reduced FHWA's request for 
rental payments to $17,099,000. These funds are budgeted in 
this account and reimbursed to ``Rental payments'' in the 
Office of the Secretary.
    Accountwide adjustments.--The Committee recommendation 
includes an accountwide adjustment of $5,251,500 due to budget 
constraints. Funds budgeted for strategic initiatives, 
contractual support, teleconferencing, IRM improvements, 
working capital fund, travel and transportation and other 
administrative expenses will need to be reduced accordingly. 
The department is accorded the flexibility to allocate the 
reduction.

                           Contract Programs

    The limitation on general operating expenses includes a 
total of $190,667,000 for contract programs. This represents a 
decrease of $25,030,000 from fiscal year 1995. Although the 
recommendation represents a significant reduction below the 
budget, the FHWA's contract programs have grown considerably in 
the last few years. As recently as fiscal year 1993, the 
contract programs of the Federal Highway Administration were at 
the $100,000,000 level. The Committee has approved without 
modification the budget requests for the local rural technical 
assistance program, the National Highway Institute, the 
minority business enterprises program, international 
transportation, and technical assistance for Russia.

              Highway research, development and technology

    The Committee recommends $55,772,000 for highway research, 
development and technology programs. This level represents an 
increase of $2,220,000, or 4.1 percent over last year. The 
following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program level, 
the fiscal year 1996 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation for the various research areas:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Fiscal year                               
                --------------------------------------   Recommended in 
    Program         1995 program                            the bill    
                       level          1996 estimate                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway                                                                 
 research and                                                           
 development:                                                           
    Safety.....         $7,768,000         $9,853,000         $8,768,000
    Materials..          5,451,000  .................  .................
    Pavements..          7,476,000          9,247,000          9,247,000
    Structures.          6,311,000         12,359,000         13,211,000
    Environment          5,593,000          6,481,000          5,593,000
    Right-of-                                                           
     way.......            429,000            429,000            429,000
    Policy.....          6,681,000          8,434,000          5,681,000
    Planning...          6,069,000          7,895,000          6,069,000
    Motor                                                               
     Carrier...          7,774,000          9,008,000          6,774,000
    National                                                            
     Science                                                            
     and                                                                
     Technology                                                         
     Council                                                            
     Priority                                                           
     Projects..  .................         16,000,000  .................
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total,                                                            
       Highway                                                          
       research                                                         
       and                                                              
       developm                                                         
       ent.....         53,552,000         79,706,000         55,772,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Safety.--The Committee recommends $8,768,000 for highway 
safety research and development. The combination of ISTEA and 
GOE funds will result in a safety R&D; program of not less than 
$12,768,000 of new contract authority.
    Pavements.--The Committee recommends $9,247,000 for 
pavements research and development, including $1,000,000 for 
work on high performance concrete as proposed by the National 
Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
    Structures.--Of the $13,211,000 provided for structures 
research and development, $3,000,000 is afforded for a project 
proposed by the NSTC discussed in greater detail under NSTC 
priority projects.
    Motor carrier.--The Committee recommends a level of 
$6,774,000 for motor carrier research. The Committee notes the 
substantial expansion of this program during the last few years 
and suggests that a more careful review of research proposals 
by experts within and outside of FHWA is needed. The 
Committee's allowance includes $350,000 to conduct a research 
project to improve the current ``Share the Road'' campaign, 
which is intended to educate the motoring public about truck 
safety dynamics, and to coordinate similar non-federal 
activities and identify gaps in this outreach area.
    In view of changes in program emphasis, funding levels and 
growth of related research and development activities, the 
Committee asserts that it would be timely for FHWA to prepare a 
new research and development plan reflecting its revised 
research agenda and priorities. The FHWA shall submit a draft 
of its five year strategic plan together with details on 
current and planned R&D; budget expenditures to the National 
Motor Carrier Advisory Committee for comment. The plan should 
pay particular attention to the driver fatigue research 
program. A final plan should be submitted to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations before April 1, 1996.
    National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Priority 
Projects.--The Committee's allowance does not include the 
$16,000,000 requested for the NSTC priority projects. In the 
Committee's view, budgetary limitations do not allow for this 
substantial increase in highway research and development 
funding, a comprehensive justification did not support the 
initiative, and the proposal was not subject to intensive peer 
review through FHWA's technical working groups and the Research 
and Technology Executive Board. The Committee maintains that 
priority funding should be reserved for FHWA's core 
infrastructure research and development program.
    Nevertheless, the Committee recognizes the importance of 
improving the nation's physical infrastructure and has reviewed 
the request for NSTC priority projects. The Committee has 
included within the pavements and structures programs two 
research projects that were identified by the NSTC. The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 to accelerate the utilization 
of high performance concrete, which offers potential savings of 
20 percent or more on highway structures. This highway material 
offers improved resistance to changing weather conditions and 
increased strength. Fewer structural members, longer spans and 
pavement life, and lower life-cycle costs are possible with 
high performance concrete. The Committee's recommendation also 
includes $3,000,000 as part of the structures R&D; program to 
construct or use one or more facilities that would evaluate and 
calibrate bridge and pavement non-destructive evaluation 
technologies. This project will accelerate the use of this 
technology and will pay dividends in public sector investment, 
private sector jobs, and most importantly, promote safety for 
the traveling public. The testing or evaluation of any new 
proprietary devices or methods shall involve substantial cost 
sharing with the private sector.
    Turner Fairbanks facility.--In the 1997 Congressional 
budget justifications, the FHWA is directed to submit a 
separate line item specifying the amount of funds necessary to 
support and maintain the Turner Fairbanks facility and to 
conduct associated research and contract activities that are 
now included in other various research activities.
    Intelligent transportation systems (ITS).--The 
Administration has called for an accelerated ITS effort of 
$651,600,000, which includes $113,000,000 in contract authority 
provided by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act (ISTEA), $238,600,000 from general operating expenses, 
including $100,000,000 for the Trailblazer initiative, and 
$300,000,000 for a congestion relief and mitigation program. 
This request represents an increase of 186 percent over the 
1995 levels. The Committee has provided $93,250,000 for the 
intelligent transportation systems (ITS) research program. When 
combined with the $113,000,000 in contract authority provided 
for this program by ISTEA, the Committee's recommendation will 
allow a total program level of $206,250,000.
    In addition, funding for elements of ITS research, 
particularly research and development and operational tests, 
may be supplemented by redirecting unobligated balances from 
projects first made available in fiscal year 1993 and earlier. 
The Committee believes that as much as $15,000,000 may be 
redirected to support ITS research and development. Any such 
transfers shall be subject to the prior notification of the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and shall not be 
redirected to the automated highway system or advanced 
technology applications.
    The Committee funding for the ITS research and development 
activities has grown significantly over the last several years. 
In testimony before the Committee, the General Accounting 
Office noted:

          The [IVHS] Act authorized $659 million to support the 
        program over 6 years, but after only after four years 
        its appropriations have exceeded $800 million--almost 
        $150 million more than was authorized for the 6-year 
        period. The ITS program has also grown from a few 
        projects in 1992 to 268 projects as of January 1995.

    The following tables illustrate the growth in 
appropriations and number of projects in the ITS program:


    Given this rapid growth, the Committee remains concerned 
that the ITS program needs to assess its progress and ensure 
effective management oversight. Although the initial actions of 
the Joint Program Office (JPO) have been helpful to strengthen 
management oversight of the ITS program, the Committee believes 
that stronger steps must be taken to ensure a more targeted, 
coordinated and cost-conscious program. The Committee, 
therefore, directs the department to empower the JPO to 
exercise autonomous control over the entire ITS funding budget, 
to include all requests under the FHWA limitation on general 
operating expenses, (including FTA and RSPA ITS activities), 
and review and monitor all ITS projects and their costs, 
objectives and schedules to accomplish JPO-approved program 
milestones.
    Reprogramming guidelines and procedures.--The Committee 
wishes to reiterate the reprogramming guidelines that state 
that Congressional approval is required for funding shifts of 
ten percent or more among programs, projects and activities 
(PPA). Congressional guidances states that PPAs are defined as 
any item for which a specific dollar level is cited in 
appropriations Acts or the reports accompanying those Acts. 
Congressional notification and approval of proposed changes to 
appropriated funding levels is fundamental.
    The following table depicts the 1995 program level, the 
fiscal year 1996 request and the Committee's recommendation for 
the intelligent transportation systems program by activity:

                   INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS                   
                         [Dollars in thousands]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Fiscal year 1995   Fiscal year 1996    Recommended in 
    Program        program level         estimate           the bill    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent                                                             
 transportation                                                         
 systems:                                                               
    Research                                                            
     and                                                                
     developmen                                                         
     t.........        $35,000,000        $27,479,000        $25,000,000
    ITS                                                                 
     operationa                                                         
     l tests...         22,500,000         22,500,000         18,750,000
    Commercial                                                          
     vehicle                                                            
     operations         10,700,000         10,700,000         12,700,000
    Automated                                                           
     highway                                                            
     system....         10,000,000         18,700,000         10,000,000
    Advanced                                                            
     technology                                                         
     applicatio                                                         
     ns........         15,000,000         15,000,000          2,500,000
    Program and                                                         
     systems                                                            
     support...         11,300,000         17,000,000         11,300,000
    Priority                                                            
     corridors.         10,000,000         10,000,000  .................
    Crash                                                               
     avoidance                                                          
     research..  .................         17,200,000         13,000,000
    Trailblazer                                                         
     initiative  .................        100,000,000  .................
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total,                                                            
       ITS.....        114,500,000        238,579,000         93,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operational tests.--The basic definition or outline of the 
National Systems Architecture is currently scheduled to be 
finalized by spring 1996. The Committee insists that once the 
basic structure has been established that any cooperative 
agreements signed thereafter by the department shall require 
that federally-supported ITS operational tests or corridor 
projects are consistent and compatible with this architecture. 
This requirement will promote interoperability.
    Commercial vehicle operations (CVO).--The Committee 
commends the actions taken by the FHWA to equip 200 motor 
carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) sites by mid 1997 
with the latest technology. This investment will promote the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the MCSAP by improving the 
targeting of vehicles and drivers subject to inspection. The 
Committee wishes to expand the progress to date and recommends 
$12,700,000 for the commercial vehicle component of the ITS 
program. Within the amount recommended, sufficient funds are 
available to improve and operate the SAFER and supporting 
systems, to equip at least fifty additional sites across the 
country by mid-1998 with the SAFER/inspection module that will 
provide on-line vehicle- and driver-specific inspection 
information, and for at least forty percent of the expenses 
needed to develop and pilot test the CVO communications 
infrastructure (CVISION). The Joint Program Office shall ensure 
that MCSAP officers and the state officials participating in 
the commercial vehicle information system participate in the 
design, testing and implementation of this initiative.
    Automated highway system.--The Committee recommends 
$10,000,000 for the automated highway system project. The 
amount recommended is judged adequate to maintain the initial 
partnership agreement, but will require an extension of this 
project beyond the original seven year duration.
    Advanced technology applications.--Because of overlap with 
activities funded under research and development, changing 
national priorities regarding defense conversion, difficulties 
encountered in funding ITS dual use projects and budgetary 
limitations, the Committee has reduced funding for advanced 
technology applications. The funds provided will allow 
continuation of the IDEAS program and some high risk, 
potentially high return projects that will supplement the R&D; 
program.
    Priority corridors.--Separate categorical funding for 
priority corridors was first provided in fiscal year 1995, 
before which support for this area was provided wholly from the 
ISTEA set-aside for ITS. The Committee recommendation assumes 
that the priority corridors program will be supported through 
the ISTEA set-aside of $87,000,000 in fiscal year 1996.
    Crash avoidance research.--The Committee has provided 
$13,000,000 to facilitate the development and sale of products 
which will enhance the ability of drivers to avoid collisions 
and to ensure that safety is not degraded by new ITS products.
    Trailblazer initiative.--The Committee has not included 
$100,000,000 for the Trailblazer initiative as requested by the 
President, based, in part, on insufficient justification. The 
Committee notes the Department did not request funding for the 
Trailblazer initiative from the Office of Management and 
Budget.
    The Committee acknowledges that the ITS program has made 
some significant strides in the four years of its existence and 
may soon be entering a second phase of standards setting and 
deployment of infrastructure. The Intelligent Transportation 
Society of America (ITS America), a federal advisory committee 
to the department, projects the total funding needed for the 
ITS program to be $227 billion and to take 20 years to develop 
and make the program's technologies fully functional. The 
Committee believes that any large-scale national deployment of 
ITS infrastructure would be premature in advance of a national 
architecture, an explicit authorization, and a large scale 
private partnership. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
department to prepare a report to the Congress that outlines a 
strategy for phased deployment of ITS. The report shall serve 
as a guiding mechanism for reauthorization and shall discuss 
and recommend appropriate public and private roles, funding and 
financing options, standards setting and maintenance (including 
operating costs). The report shall also include total estimated 
costs, criteria for selection, and anticipated schedule 
relative to the overall deployment strategy. In the near term, 
the Committee notes that it has provided significant increases 
in the Federal-aid highway program, and capital and operating 
costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control 
facilities and programs are eligible activities of the surface 
transportation program should states or localities wish to 
pursue ITS deployment.
    Long-term pavement performance.--The Committee recommends 
$8,849,000 for the LTPP program. This amount shall be 
supplemented by $6,000,000 of section 6001 funds to further 
this important research.
    Technology assessment and deployment.--The Committee 
recommends $11,622,000 for technology assessment and 
deployment. The Committee directs that not less than $3,000,000 
shall be allocated to safety activities (excluding congestion 
and incident management) and not less than $2,400,000 of 
section 6005 funds shall be allocated to safety applications.
    The Committee has included not less than $1,000,000 which 
shall be allocated to the Office of Highway Safety (OHS) to 
develop and test at least two new outreach campaigns that can 
be used by the states under the section 402 program. The 
Committee has reviewed the Red Light Running campaign and has 
received comments on the program from various state officials. 
The Committee expects that the OHS will develop other 
successful highway safety programs such as the project to 
increase compliance with yield-right-of-way or grade crossing 
signs. These campaigns should be ready for the development by 
the states as part of their 1997 section 402 programs.
    On-the job training/supportive services.--No funds are 
recommended for on-the-job training/supportive services in 
fiscal year 1996. Funds were provided in fiscal year 1995 for 
the first time in many years. States currently have the 
authority to use their federal-aid highway resources to 
accomplish the objectives of on-the job training and supportive 
services. The Committee urges the FHWA to encourage state 
highway departments to take necessary actions to achieve OJT/
supportive services, particularly given the increases in the 
federal-aid program.
    Truck dynamic test facility.--FHWA has signed a partnership 
agreement that will allow the agency to have access to a non-
federal test facility to support truck/pavement interaction 
research. In light of this cost saving arrangement, the 
Committee recommends $750,000.
    Cost allocation study.--$2,500,000 is recommended for a 
truck size and weight and a cost allocation study. The FHWA 
shall conduct an objective and comprehensive study on truck 
size and weight issues and shall seek input from all affected 
parties, including the highway safety community. This study 
will provide a basis for recommendations for the next highway 
reauthorization and supplement, not duplicate, the work of the 
General Accounting Office, the Transportation Research Board 
and the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials.
    The Committee directs the FHWA to complete a major portion 
of the cost-allocation study before completing Phase III of the 
truck-size and weight study. FHWA must ensure that policy 
decisions on truck-size and weight are formulated within the 
context of well reasoned cost-allocation decisions which ensure 
that each vehicle class, and each distinct vehicle type within 
those classes, fairly shoulders cost responsibilities for 
infrastructure damage and other proportional effects on safety 
and associated crash cost impacts, congestion and capacity 
effects, and energy and environmental concerns. Only objective 
contractors with no conflicts of interest with the trucking or 
rail industries shall contribute to these studies.
    Cathodic protection for bridges.--Cathodic protection has 
long been recognized and recommended by the FHWA as the only 
practical system which will stop bridge deck corrosion in 
chloride contaminated bridge decks. The FHWA has extensively 
promoted and provided technical assistance in the use of 
cathodic protection systems through the FHWA demonstration 
project program since 1975. Recent FHWA economic studies have 
shown that cathodic protection systems should be considered for 
use on structurally sound salt-contaminated bridge decks 
carrying heavy traffic volumes in urban areas where traffic 
disruption and delay costs resulting from deck replacement or 
repair are significant. The FHWA is strongly encouraged to 
continue its program to demonstrate the latest technology in 
cathodic protection systems and to assist and encourage states 
to use cathodic bridge protection systems when economic studies 
show that these systems will be cost effective.
    Recycled materials.--The Committee directs the Federal 
Highway Administration to provide at least $1,000,000 from 
available resources for continued research on using recycled 
materials in concrete pavement and landscaped margins. The 
potential exists to use large scale quantities of plastic and 
paper waste as well as microsilica in concrete pavement 
construction. The Committee believes that a small investment in 
research in this area could yield large benefits in future 
years.
    Border regions infrastructure issues.--The Committee 
continues to express its belief that there is great need to 
develop further the infrastructure along the United States' 
border regions with Mexico and Canada, especially as these 
countries implement the North American Free Trade Agreement and 
as volumes of trade and traffic continue to increase. The 
Committee supports efforts by the department to participate in 
the exchange of technical and professional expertise with the 
governments of Mexico and Canada to enhance transportation 
projects and improve infrastructure initiatives in these 
regions. Further, the Committee directs that the Federal 
Highway Administration give high priority to transportation 
needs along the border regions in grant programs and 
discretionary funding. Based on the 1993 FHWA report entitled 
the ``Assessment of Border Crossings and Transportation 
Corridors for North American Trade,'' which found that federal 
highway funds had not been sufficiently allocated to meet the 
infrastructure needs along our borders, the Committee had 
requested of FHWA recommendations to improve the distribution 
of funding to border regions in last year's House report. The 
Committee is aware that FHWA's data collection efforts as a 
part of the recommendations are incomplete, and urges 
completion of the study so that its recommendations might be 
considered on a timely basis.
    Federal parkways.--The Committee rejects the 
administration's proposal to transfer ownership, oversight and 
responsibility of federal parkways to the states of Maryland 
and Virginia.

                     Highway-Related Safety Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

                     (Including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of                    
                                         contract        Limitation on  
                                      authorization       obligations   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995...      ($10,800,000)      ($10,800,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.       (10,000,000)       (10,000,000)
Recommend in the bill.............       (10,000,000)       (10,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
     1995.........................         (-800,000)         (-800,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
     1996.........................               (--)               (--)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A liquidating cash appropriation of $10,000,000 is 
recommended to assist states and localities in implementing the 
highway safety standards administered by the Federal Highway 
Administration. These standards cover traffic control devices, 
highway surveillance, and the highway-related aspects of 
pedestrian safety.

                       limitation on obligations

    The bill also limits fiscal year 1996 obligations under 
this program to $10,000,000. This is identical to the amount 
requested for 1996. Obligations under this program are incurred 
to collect safety data, improve programming systems, study 
safety problems, and develop technical manuals related to the 
highway safety standards administered by the Federal Highway 
Administration.

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1995...................  \1\ ($17,000,000,000
                                                                       )
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.................      (19,200,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...........................      (19,200,000,000)
Bill compared with:...............................                      
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995...............      (+2,200,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.............                  (--)
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ Reductions of $3,545,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
  and procurement reform provisions not reflected.                      


    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $19,200,000,000 for the federal-aid highways program. This 
is identical to the budget request and $2,200,000,000 more than 
the enacted fiscal year 1995 appropriation.
    An estimated $3,100,000,000 of the recommended liquidating 
cash appropriation is to continue the construction of the 
interstate highway system. The balance of the funds is 
primarily for payments to the states for the national highway 
program, the surface transportation program, interstate 
maintenance, interstate substitutions, bridge replacement and 
rehabilitation, the congestion mitigation and air quality 
improvement program, certain planning and research programs, 
emergency relief, and the administrative costs of the Federal 
Highway Administration as discussed under the limitation on 
general operating expenses.

                     federal-aid highways programs

    Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a 
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain 
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new 
construction of roads. State highway departments have the 
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to Federal 
Highway Administration approval of plans, specifications, and 
cost estimates. The federal government provides financial 
support for construction and repair through matching grants, 
the terms of which vary with the type of road.
    There are almost four million miles of public roads in the 
United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The federal 
government provides grants to states to assist in financing the 
construction and preservation of about 945,000 miles (24 
percent) of these roads, which represent an extensive 
interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes. 
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of 
total U.S. highway traffic.
    Federal-aid highway funds are made available through the 
following major system-related programs:
    National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 authorized the 
development of a proposed national highway system (NHS) 
consisting of 155,000 miles (plus or minus 15 percent) of major 
roads in the United States. The proposed NHS will include all 
interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural 
principal arterial, the defense strategic highway network, and 
major strategic highway connectors. The proposed system, which 
will be developed in consultation with the states, must be 
designated by law by September 30, 1995. In the interim, NHS 
funds may be used on highways classified as principal 
arterials. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of 
its NHS funds to the new surface transportation program, or, if 
the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The 
federal share for the NHS is 80 percent, except for the 
interstate portion which is 90 percent, with an availability 
period of four years.
    Surface transportation program.--The ISTEA also established 
a new surface transportation program (STP). The STP is a block 
grant type program that may be used by the states and 
localities for any roads (including NHS) that are not 
functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors. 
These roads are now collectively referred to as federal-aid 
highways. Bridge projects paid for with STP funds are not 
restricted to federal-aid highways but may be on any public 
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this 
program. Once the funds are distributed to the states, each 
state must set aside these percentages: 10 percent for safety 
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50 
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and 
remaining areas of the state; and 30 percent to be used in any 
areas of the state.
    Also, areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an 
amount based on previous secondary system funding. The federal 
share for the STP is 80 percent and has a four-year 
availability period.
    Interstate construction.--The designation of a 40,000-mile 
interstate system was authorized by Congress in 1944 to serve 
the needs of national defense, to link the nation's largest 
cities, and to connect with key Canadian and Mexican highways 
at suitable border points. Since 1944, the system has gradually 
been expanded, now encompassing 42,796 miles of designated 
routes. From December 31, 1992, to December 31, 1993, an 
additional 49 miles of the interstate system were opened to 
traffic. This brings the total number of miles open to traffic 
as of December 31, 1993, to 42,740, or 99.9 percent of the 
total system. In addition, the remaining 55 miles included 48 
miles under construction and seven miles under design 
development and right-of-way acquisition.
    Interstate maintenance.--The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 
1976 first established the resurfacing, restoration, and 
rehabilitation (3R) program as a means to preserve the 
approximately $100,000,000,000 investment in the interstate 
system. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 provided for 
enhanced emphasis on preservation with a significant increase 
in authorized funding levels and added a fourth ``R'', 
reconstruction, as an eligible type of work. ISTEA replaced the 
interstate 4R program with the interstate maintenance program, 
which continues funding of resurfacing, restoration, and 
rehabilitation as well as reconstruction (except addition of 
non-HOV lanes) and also allows funding of certain preventive 
maintenance activities.
    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This 
program provides for major rehabilitation as well as 
replacement of deficient bridges on any public road. A minimum 
of 15 percent must be spent for bridges not on federal-aid 
highways (off-system) with another 20 percent that may be spent 
for bridges on federal-aid highways or off-system. During 
fiscal year 1994, the states obligated $1.88 billion of federal 
highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program funds. 
Total federal funds for new bridge construction and bridge 
rehabilitation, including bridge program funds authorized 
during calendar year 1994, amounted to $1.73 billion for 2,530 
bridges.
    Highway construction safety programs.--Ten percent of the 
surface transportation program funds are set aside to carry out 
the hazard elimination and railroad-highway crossings programs. 
The hazard elimination program, established by section 168 of 
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1978 (now codified in 23 U.S.C. 
152), is aimed at correcting high hazard locations; eliminating 
roadside obstacles that are hazardous to motorists or 
pedestrians; improving signals and pavement markings; and 
installing traffic control or warning devices at high or 
potentially high accident locations. Section 203 of the 
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (now codified in 23 U.S.C. 130) 
established the railroad-highway crossings program to reduce or 
eliminate potential or existing conflicts between trains and 
highway vehicles.
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
program.--The congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
program is intended to improve air quality in non-attainment 
areas for ozone and carbon monoxide. A wide range of 
transportation activities are eligible, as long as the 
Department of Transportation, after consultation with EPA, 
determines they are likely to help meet national ambient air 
quality standards. If a state has no non-attainment areas 
(there are 12 such states currently), the funds may be used as 
if they were STP funds. The federal share for this program is 
80 percent.
    Federal lands program.--The federal lands program 
authorizations, previously available through four categories, 
are now provided through three categories: Indian reservation 
roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands highways 
(incorporates the previous forest highway category). The funds 
are allocated on the basis of relative need.
    The forest highway portion of public lands highways and 
Indian reservation roads authorizations are allocated by 
administrative formula. The federal lands program has a federal 
share of 100 percent and an availability period of four years.
    Emergency relief program.--This program was established by 
the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934 and is now codified in 23 
U.S.C. 125. Emergency funds are available through this program 
to repair roads and bridges damaged by natural disasters or 
catastrophic failures from external causes. Eligible facilities 
must be on the federal-aid highway system, including the 
interstate system, or federal roads. Normally each state is 
limited to receiving a maximum of $100,000,000 per disaster. 
The funding source is the highway trust fund and the federal 
share is 100 percent of emergency repairs done in the first 180 
days after a disaster and the normal pro rata share for other 
necessary repairs.

                 Highway trust fund financing mechanism

    The highway trust fund was originally established in the 
U.S. Treasury in accordance with provisions of the Highway 
Revenue Act of 1957, as amended (23 U.S.C. 12 note). It has 
been extended several times, most recently by the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-
240). Amounts equivalent to taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, 
special motor fuels, tires, commercial motor vehicles, and 
truck use are designated by the Act to be appropriated and 
transferred from the general fund of the Treasury to the trust 
fund. These transfers are made at least monthly on the basis of 
estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury, subject to 
adjustments in later transfers based on the amount of actual 
tax receipts. Amounts available in the fund in excess of outlay 
requirements are invested in public debt securities and 
interest thereon is credited to the fund. There are also 
credited to the fund repayable advances from the general fund, 
as authorized and made available by law, to meet outlay 
requirements in excess of available revenues during a portion 
of a fiscal year, if necessary.
    The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 
established a mass transit account within the trust fund to be 
funded by one-ninth of the excise tax collections under 
sections 4041 and 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) 
imposed after March 31, 1983. The funds from this account are 
used for expenditures in accordance with section 21 of the 
Federal Transit Act.
    Subsequent legislation has increased the total federal tax 
levied on each gallon of gasoline to 14.1 cents, of which 10 
cents is applied to the highway account, 1.5 cents to the mass 
transit account and .1 cent to the leaking underground storage 
tank trust fund. The balance (2.5 cents) remains in the general 
fund of the Treasury. This 2.5 cents will revert to the trust 
fund on September 30, 1995.
    Amounts required for outlays to carry out the federal-aid 
highway program are appropriated to the Federal Highway 
Administration. Other charges to the trust fund are made by the 
Secretary of the Treasury for transfers of certain taxes to the 
land and water conservation fund and to the aquatic resources 
trust fund, for refunds of certain taxes, repayment of advances 
from the general fund, and for the interest on advances. The 
amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in the 1982 STAA 
related to the highway trust fund require that before an 
apportionment is made, the Secretary of the Treasury must 
determine that adequate revenues will be available to meet 
these expenditures within 24 months after the close of the 
fiscal year for which the apportionment is made.

              Highway trust fund spending versus receipts

    In recent years, there has been much discussion about 
alleged shortfalls in the amount spent by the federal 
government for highway programs compared to the amount of 
highway user taxes it collects. Charges have been made that 
highway spending has been set significantly below the level of 
taxes being collected in an effort to make the federal deficit 
seem smaller. A closer examination of expenditures and receipts 
shows that this is not the case. As can be seen from the table 
in this section, total highway trust fund (highway account) 
outlays have exceeded trust fund tax receipts in 14 of the 20 
years since 1976. Because of this, the federal-aid highway 
program has contributed roughly $20,394,000,000 to the budget 
deficit during this time period.
    Part of the confusion results from a failure to distinguish 
between the unexpended and unobligated balances in the trust 
fund. For example, there will be an estimated $7,900,000,000 
cash balance in the highway trust fund's highway account at the 
end of fiscal year 1994. Following is a description of this 
situation contained in a May 1989 GAO report:

          According to FHWA, the balance in the Highway Account 
        has often been misunderstood, with many believing that 
        the balance represents excess cash that will not be 
        needed to pay commitments. This view, however, is not 
        an accurate portrayal of the Highway Account balance 
        since these funds are, in fact, needed to pay 
        outstanding commitments. It should also be noted that 
        the Highway Trust Fund exists only as an accounting 
        record. User taxes are actually deposited in the U.S 
        Treasury and amounts equivalent to these taxes are 
        transferred to the Trust Fund, as needed.
          How the Trust Fund functions becomes clearer when it 
        is compared with an individual's charge account. For 
        discussion purposes, assume that an individual has 
        $1,000 in cash from previous monthly paychecks but also 
        has outstanding charges amounting to over $1,500. In 
        this case, the $1,000 in cash cannot be considered 
        excess because it is needed to pay the incoming 
        charges. On the other hand, the individual is also not 
        in a deficit situation since at the end of the month 
        his or her $900 paycheck will be available to help pay 
        the outstanding charges. This scenario is repeated in 
        each succeeding month. Thus, the cash the individual 
        has on-hand plus a future paycheck helps to ensure 
        there will be sufficient funds to pay all outstanding 
        charges.

    Similarly, according to FHWA Office of Policy Development 
data, the Highway Account had a balance of $9 billion at the 
end of fiscal year 1988, which is analogous to the $1,000 cash-
on-hand. At the same time, these FHWA data show that unpaid 
commitments (charge account balance) amounted to almost $31 
billion; $22 billion more than the account balance. This 
situation, however, is acceptable under a reimbursable system 
because, although commitments to make payment have been made, 
payment is not made until the states submit actual bills for 
completed work at a later date. In the interim, revenues, like 
the individual's paycheck in the previous example, continue to 
accrue in the Highway Account.
    The Committee also notes that cumulative highway account 
tax receipts since 1957 are expected to total approximately 
$297 billion and cumulative highway outlays are expected to 
total approximately $309 billion by the end of fiscal year 
1995. The principal reason for the current cash balance is the 
interest paid to the fund from the general fund of the 
Treasury. These intragovernmental transfers from the general 
fund to the trust fund have exceeded $19 billion since the 
highway trust fund was established in 1957. However, such 
transfers have no effect on the federal deficit. This mechanism 
is explained in a February 1990 Congressional Research Service 
report as follows:

          While specific taxes and premiums are often levied on 
        segments of the population to help cover a trust fund 
        program's expenditures, trust funds also receive 
        ``income'' from the government--i.e., ``credit'' from 
        one government account to another--or what in essence 
        is paper income. No economic resources are moved, no 
        actual money collected.

    Following is a table of federal highway trust fund spending 
compared to receipts for fiscal years 1976 to 1995:

                                    HIGHWAY ACCOUNT OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND                                   
                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Fiscal year                Outlays         Income        Tax revenue      Interest      Cash balance 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1976............................          $6,521          $6,000          $5,413            $587          $9,077
TQ..............................           1,758           1,689           1,676              13           9,009
1977............................           6,147           7,302           6,709             593          10,164
1978............................           6,058           7,567           6,904             662          11,673
1979............................           7,154           8,046           7,189             857          12,564
1980............................           9,212           7,647           6,620           1,027          10,999
1981............................           9,174           7,434           6,305           1,129           9,259
1982............................           8,035           7,822           6,744           1,079           9,046
1983............................           8,838           8,853           7,777           1,076           9,062
1984............................          10,384          11,533          10,507           1,027          10,210
1985............................          12,756          12,908          11,801           1,106          10,362
1986............................          14,180          13,304          12,250           1,054           9,486
1987............................          12,802          12,727          11,793             934           9,412
1988............................          14,038          13,645          12,836             809           9,019
1989............................          13,602          15,134          14,358             776          10,551
1990............................          14,375          13,453          12,472             981           9,629
1991............................          14,686          15,303          14,494             810          10,246
1992............................          15,518          16,572          15,664             908          11,300
1993............................          16,641          16,864          16,046             817          11,523
1994............................          19,011          15,414          14,660             754           7,926
1995 estimate...................          19,622          18,404          17,898             505           6,708
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................         240,512         237,623         220,118          17,506                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 1976 and later Presidents' Budgets.                                                                     

                       Limitation on obligations

    The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 1996 federal-aid highway obligations to $18,000,000,000, 
which represents an increase of $840,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 1995 level. An additional $2,311,932,000 is estimated to 
be obligated for federal-aid highways programs exempt from the 
obligation limitation in the bill. This compares with 
exemptions of $2,267,701,000 in fiscal year 1995. Therefore, 
total fiscal year 1996 obligations for federal-aid highways 
will be $20,311,932,000, an increase of $884,231,000 more than 
fiscal year 1995.
    The Committee has denied the administration's request to 
place all programs currently exempt from the obligation 
limitation (with the exception of emergency relief) under the 
limitation. A tabular summary of the programs exempt from the 
obligation limitation follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Program         1995 enacted      1996 proposed       Recommended   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency                                                               
 relief........       $100,000,000  .................       $100,000,000
Minimum                                                                 
 allocation....      1,186,532,000  .................      1,220,255,000
ISTEA demos....        735,366,000  .................        738,490,000
Bonus                                                                   
 limitations...        180,000,000  .................        208,000,000
Other programs.         65,803,000  .................         45,187,000
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total....      2,267,701,000              (\1\)      2,311,932,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate these programs into  
  the Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment program.         

    Although the following table reflects an estimated 
distribution of obligations by program category, the bill 
includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain 
federal-aid highways spending.

           FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAM ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS           
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year--             
            Program            -----------------------------------------
                                1995 enacted  1996 request   1996 House 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:                                                  
    National highway system...    $3,186,721           (1)    $3,383,150
    Surface trans. prog.......     4,402,116           (1)     4,733,993
    Bridge program............     2,445,602           (1)     2,596,568
    Interstate completion.....     1,575,404  ............  ............
    Interstate maintenance....     2,580,190           (1)     2,738,472
    Interstate substitutions..       212,507  ............  ............
    Interstate system reimb...  ............           (1)     1,879,528
    Cong. mit./air quality                                              
     impr.....................       910,239           (1)       967,017
    Congestion relief init....  ............  ............  ............
    Donor state bonus.........       455,119           (1)       483,039
    Intelligent veh. hwy sys..       133,000           (1)       111,210
    Federal lands.............       448,000           (1)       348,432
    Admin. and research.......       735,281           (1)       580,849
    Miscellaneous programs....        75,821           (1)       177,742
    Minimum allocation........  ............           (1)  ............
    P.L. 102-240 demos........  ............       200,000  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, limitation....    17,160,000       200,000    18,000,000
                               -----------------------------------------
Exemption from limitation:                                              
    Emergency relief:                100,000  ............       100,000
        Regular program.......     (174,837)  ............     (100,000)
        Midwest flood.........      (25,973)  ............  ............
        CA earthquake.........     (177,496)  ............  ............
    Minimum allocation........     1,186,532  ............     1,220,255
    Bonus limitation..........       180,000  ............       208,000
    P.L. 102-240 and other                                              
     demos....................       801,169  ............       783,677
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, exempt........     2,267,701           (1)     2,311,932
                               =========================================
      Grand total, Federal-aid    19,427,701   200,000 \1\    20,311,932
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate these programs into  
  the Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment program.         

    A list of the federal highway programs under the limitation 
follows:
  Interstate Construction.
  Interstate Maintenance.
  Interstate Gap Closing.
  Interstate 4R.
  Interstate Discretionary--Construction.
  Interstate Discretionary--4R Maryland.
  Interstate Discretionary--4R.
  Interstate Substitution--Apportioned.
  Interstate Substitution--Discretionary.
  Rail-Highway Crossings on Any Public Road.
  Hazard Elimination.
  Combined Road Plan.
  Consolidated Primary.
  Rural Secondary.
  Urban System.
  Highway Planning and Research.
  Public Lands.
  Indian Reservation Roads.
  Parkways and Park Highways.
  Forest Highways.
  Special Urban High Density.
  Special Bridge Replacement.
  Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation--Apportioned, 
        Discretionary, and Talmadge Bridge.
  Franconia Notch.
  Bypass Highway Demonstration.
  Urgent Supplemental Bridges.
  Los Angeles Freight Transportation Demo, CA-131(a).
  Baton Rouge Interchange Congestion, Demo, LA-131.
  Louisville Primary Connector Accel. Demo, KY-131(e).
  Vermont Certification Demo-131(f).
  Devils Lake Erosion Demo, ND-131(g).
  Bridge Over Intracoastal Waterway Demo, FL-131(h).
  Idaho Truck Safety/Railroad Elimination Demo-131(i).
  Acosta Bridge, Florida.
  Administration.
  Studies (Sections 158, 159, 164 & 165 under P.L. 100-17).
  Demonstration Projects--149(d).
  Strategic Highway Research Program.
  Operation Lifesaver.
  Congestion Pricing Pilot.
  National Highway System.
  Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement.
  Surface Transportation Program.
  Interstate Substitution.
  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality.
  Donor State Bonus.
  Metropolitan Planning.
  Apportionment Adjustment.
  Model Intermodal Transportation Plans.
  Transportation Assistance Program.
  Seismic Research and Development.
  Fundamental Properties of Asphalt.
  Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship.
  Timber Bridge Research and Demonstration.
  Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems.
  Ferry Boat Construction.
  Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
  University Transportation Centers.
  University Research Institute.
  Scenic Byways Technical Assistance.
  Scenic Byways Interim Program.
  Tax Evasion Project.
  Safety Belt/Helmet Incentive Grants.
  Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures.
  International Truck Registry Uniformity.
  Applied Research and Development Program.
  Border Crossings.
  Infrastructure Investment Commission.
  High Speed Rail Corridor Crossings.

    Administration of obligation limitation.--The bill includes 
language regarding the administration of this obligation 
limitation. The provision provides for an equitable 
distribution of the available obligational authority based upon 
the funds apportioned by legislative or administrative formula 
and upon funds allocated without a formula. In making such a 
distribution, it is intended that discretionary and other non-
formula fund allocations also be considered in the distribution 
of obligational authority. If these allocations are unknown at 
the time obligational authority is initially made available to 
the states, an estimated fair proportion of obligational 
authority should be reserved for distribution at the 
appropriate time.
    Under the provision, total first quarter obligations are 
limited to 12 percent, sufficient authority is provided to 
prevent lapses, funds are to be redistributed after August 1, 
1996, and amounts authorized for administrative expenses, the 
federal lands program, the intelligent vehicle highway systems 
program, and amounts made available under sections 1040, 1047, 
1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023 and 6024 of Public Law 102-240 are 
not to be distributed.
    The Committee believes that there is adequate legislative 
history with respect to the intentions of the Congress in 
enacting annual limitations on obligations. The Committee is 
reiterating, however, the language on pages 25 and 26 of House 
Report 94-1221 stating that this limitation should not be used 
by the Secretary as discretionary authority to distort the 
priorities established in federal highway legislation. The 
Committee expects the Secretary to control obligations in 
accordance with Congressional intent and directs that the 
Department of Transportation continue to provide on a monthly 
basis a report on the cumulative amount of obligations by state 
for each program in the federal-aid highways and highway safety 
construction program categories. This report should include the 
amount of unobligated contract authority available to each 
state for each program, as well as a complete description of 
any actions taken by the department or the Office of Management 
and Budget for the purpose of complying with this obligation 
limitation.

                   intelligent transportation systems

    The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to 
distribute funds for intelligent transportation systems to the 
following programs:

I-10 Mobile, Alabama Causeway...........................      $4,000,000
Hazardous materials fleet management and monitoring 
    system (NIER).......................................       5,000,000
Green light CVO project, Oregon.........................       6,000,000
Capital Beltway.........................................       6,000,000
Houston, Texas..........................................       2,400,000
Syracuse, New York congestion management................       3,000,000
I-95 Corridor...........................................       7,000,000
University of Texas at El Paso..........................       1,000,000
Johnson City, Tennessee.................................       3,000,000
Texas Transportation Institute..........................         600,000
University of North Dakota..............................       1,000,000
I-675/SR 844/Col. Glenn, Fairborn, Ohio.................       1,000,000

    1996 Paralympic Games.--The Federal Highway Administration 
is urged to give serious consideration to demonstrating an 
individualized routing system to maximize the ability of people 
with disabilities to move about independently during the 
Paralympic Games in Atlanta in 1996.
    Capital Beltway.--The Committee has included $6,000,000 for 
ITS technologies to manage traffic and improve safety in the 
highly congested corridor of the Capital Beltway. The FHWA is 
directed to work with the Departments of Transportation of the 
states of Maryland and Virginia to implement the 
recommendations of the Capital Beltway Safety Task Force. Of 
the funds provided, each State shall receive fifty percent of 
the amount allocated.
    Transportation center at the University of Texas at El 
Paso.--The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 
for an intermodal transportation center in El Paso, Texas to 
enhance the implementation of a national, coordinated 
transportation system to help both public and private sectors 
benefit from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). 
The El Paso, Texas-Long Island, New York consortium shall work 
in tandem with the Department's Office of Intermodalism and 
other federal agencies to provide objective, technology-based 
intermodal transportation data to the private sector; to border 
communities on both the Northern and Southwest borders; to 
state, local and federal government policy makers, and small 
businesses to maximize the opportunities for the movement of 
U.S. goods and services to new markets in Mexico. The Committee 
believes that this innovative program will improve coordination 
of all modes of transportation in the border regions, and will 
contribute to the successful implementation of the NAFTA.
    Texas Transportation Institute.--The Committee has provided 
$600,000 for the Texas Transportation Institute. These funds 
are available for a public/private partnership to establish an 
intelligent systems laboratory to develop advanced ITS 
technologies and systems.

            estimated fiscal year 1996 obligation limitation

    The following table portrays estimated 1996 activity by 
state for the Federal-aid highways program under the obligation 
limitation recommended in the bill:

        State                                     Estimated distribution
Alabama.................................................    $275,293,952
Alaska..................................................     221,506,568
Arizona.................................................     202,521,862
Arkansas................................................     168,457,145
California..............................................   1,341,607,447
Colorado................................................     194,700,464
Connecticut.............................................     338,435,718
Delaware................................................      71,404,595
District of Columbia....................................      92,768,938
Florida.................................................     540,061,668
Georgia.................................................     427,104,457
Hawaii..................................................     115,984,210
Idaho...................................................     121,936,644
Illinois................................................     619,062,161
Indiana.................................................     318,614,447
Iowa....................................................     210,421,345
Kansas..................................................     197,828,586
Kentucky................................................     233,416,658
Louisiana...............................................     253,299,075
Maine...................................................      86,544,391
Maryland................................................     342,118,235
Massachusetts...........................................     762,163,236
Michigan................................................     407,370,546
Minnesota...............................................     276,965,432
Mississippi.............................................     179,517,826
Missouri................................................     340,728,428
Montana.................................................     168,128,809
Nebraska................................................     135,741,938
Nevada..................................................     107,505,883
New Hampshire...........................................      82,335,897
New Jersey..............................................     516,266,178
New Mexico..............................................     183,182,908
New York................................................     935,774,705
North Carolina..........................................     393,434,371
North Dakota............................................     107,594,582
Ohio....................................................     598,461,979
Oklahoma................................................     215,675,133
Oregon..................................................     206,448,429
Pennsylvania............................................     859,709,531
Rhode Island............................................      99,872,134
South Carolina..........................................     183,188,956
South Dakota............................................     121,810,368
Tennessee...............................................     328,448,015
Texas...................................................   1,001,945,443
Utah....................................................     129,015,216
Vermont.................................................      76,539,424
Virginia................................................     366,914,838
Washington..............................................     230,422,867
West Virginia...........................................     164,185,070
Wisconsin...............................................     282,648,816
Wyoming.................................................     111,402,471
Puerto Rico.............................................      78,681,608
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................  16,025,169,607
Administration..........................................     520,825,507
Federal Lands...........................................     348,432,000
Allocation reserve......................................   1,105,572,886
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................  18,000,000,000

    Congestion relief and mitigation projects.--The Committee 
has not funded a new program, the congestion relief and 
mitigation program, as requested in the budget. The program 
appears to extend the ITS program from the Intelligent Vehicle-
Highway System's Act's intent of researching and testing 
promising technologies, such as traveler information systems. 
The initiative also departs from the ITS program goals of 
allowing the commercial deployment of ITS technologies to occur 
based on state and local government's needs. Furthermore, 
should states determine that congestion mitigation projects are 
desired, additional resources have been provided under the 
surface transportation program and congestion mitigation/air 
quality program.
    Symms National Recreational Trails Act.--The Committee does 
not recommend that $30,000,000 be set-aside from the federal-
aid highway obligation limitation to fund the Symms National 
Recreational Trails Act.

                      Right-of-Way Revolving Fund

                      (limitation on direct loans)

                          (highway trust fund)
Limitation, fiscal year 1995............................   ($42,500,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996............(.........................)
Recommended in the bill......................(.........................)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................   (-42,500,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996........(.........................)

    The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 authorized $300,000,000 
for the establishment of a right-of-way revolving fund. The 
fund is used to make interest-free cash advances to the states 
for the purpose of purchasing right-of-way parcels in advance 
of highway construction and thereby preventing the inflation of 
land prices from causing a significant increase in construction 
costs.
    The initial legislation for this program required the 
states to construct the highway and reimburse the revolving 
fund within seven years from the date of the advance. This 
provision was necessary to assure that the fund would be 
replenished and allow advances to be made to other states 
requiring right-of-way acquisition. Since the 1968 Act, the 
1973 Highway Act extended the required time limit for 
construction to ten years and the 1976 Highway Act extended the 
time limit indefinitely, if deemed necessary by the Secretary.
    When right-of-way acquisition has been made and highway 
construction is initiated, the state becomes eligible for 
federal grants under the various federal-aid highways programs. 
At the point when progress payments are made to the state for 
construction, the state in turn reimburses the revolving fund 
for advances made to the state for right-of-way acquisition. 
Using this method of funding, all reimbursements made to the 
revolving fund may be reallocated to other states requiring 
advances.
    The Committee recommends that the program be terminated in 
1996, as requested in the budget. The program will continue, 
however, to be shown for reporting purposes as balances remain 
outstanding. Like the budget request, a prohibition on further 
obligations is recommended for 1996.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                 Liquidation of                         
                                    contract            Limitation on   
                                  authorization          obligations    
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year                                              
 1995.......................         ($73,000,000)         ($74,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year                                            
 1996.......................          (68,000,000)          (85,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.....          (68,000,000)          (79,150,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal                                               
     year 1995..............          (-5,000,000)          (+5,150,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal                                             
     year 1996..............  (...................                      
                                                .)          (-5,850,000)
                                                                        


    The motor carrier safety grants program is intended to 
assist states in developing or implementing national programs 
for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and 
regulations concerning motor safety. The major objective of 
this program is to reduce the number and severity of accidents 
involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to 
qualified states for the development of programs to enforce the 
federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials 
regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 
1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety 
inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial motor 
vehicle traffic.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $68,000,000 
in liquidating cash for this program.

                       limitation on obligations

    The Committee recommends a $79,150,000 limitation on 
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This provides an 
increase of $5,150,000 over the 1995 level and a decrease of 
$5,850,000 below the budget request. The recommendation 
provides the following allocation among MCSAP activities:

                       MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Fiscal year--                  
                      --------------------------------------------------
                                                          Recommended in
                         1995 enacted     1996 request       the bill   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic grants to                                                         
 states..............      $55,550,000      $62,800,000      $60,000,000
Traffic enforcement..        6,375,000        7,000,000        6,875,000
Hazardous materials                                                     
 training............        1,500,000        1,500,000        1,500,000
Research and                                                            
 development.........          500,000          775,000          500,000
Public education.....          850,000          850,000          850,000
CDL enforcement......        1,000,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
Truck and bus                                                           
 accidents...........        1,500,000        2,000,000        1,750,000
Uniformity grants....        3,450,000        5,000,000        3,800,000
Uniformity working                                                      
 groups..............          450,000        1,000,000          450,000
Commercial vehicle                                                      
 information system..        1,500,000        2,000,000        1,500,000
Drug interdiction                                                       
 assistance program                                                     
 \1\.................          500,000  ...............                 
                                            ...........  ...............
                                                              ..........
Administrative                                                          
 expenses............          825,000        1,063,000          875,000
                      --------------------------------------------------
      Total..........       74,000,000       85,000,000       79,150,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Drug interdiction assistance is an eligible activity under the basic
  grants to states.                                                     

                       committee recommendations

    Basic grants.--The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for 
motor carrier basic grants to the states, an increase of 
$4,450,000 over the fiscal year 1995 level and a decrease of 
$2,800,000 below the budget request. The Committee believes 
that the recommended amount will allow states to improve on the 
current level of roadside inspection programs, while taking 
into account normal inflationary costs. The office of motor 
carriers is also encouraging states to develop a more 
comprehensive program, including participating in drug 
interdiction activities. The increased funding should allow 
states to incorporate both of these activities.
    Reallocation funds.--Under MCSAP, funds not fully utilized 
by some states are available for reallocation to other states 
for high priority needs. The Committee directs that not less 
than $750,000 of those funds available for reallocation in 
fiscal year 1996 be for covert operations and other enforcement 
projects to ensure correction of out-of-service violations. 
Data supplied to the Committee by the office of motor carriers 
indicated that in fiscal year 1994, about 24 percent of all 
vehicles and 8 percent of all drivers are placed out-of-service 
for serious safety problems as a result of MCSAP inspections. 
Compared to fiscal year 1993, the percent of vehicles being 
placed out-of-service is declining; however, the percent of 
drivers is increasing. Correction of these safety deficiencies 
still remains a substantial problem, especially in the driver 
area. The Committee strongly urges the office of motor carriers 
to ensure that these funds are used to support covert 
operations in addition to those originally planned in each 
state's enforcement plan.
    The Committee directs that not less than $750,000 of the 
MCSAP funds available for reallocation be provided to states 
sharing a common border with Mexico. The motor carrier 
enforcement resources of these states will need to ensure the 
safety of a substantially increased flow of commercial vehicle 
traffic resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
The administrator shall ensure that these funds are made 
available before December 17, 1995.
    Performance-based grants.--The Committee notes that while 
many states have significantly improved their programs since 
the inception of MCSAP, 18 states and territories still do not 
operate comprehensive programs that offer the significant 
potential to reduce commercial vehicle crashes and related 
fatalities. The Committee believes that a comprehensive MCSAP 
program should include roadside enforcement, compliance 
reviews, traffic enforcement, hazardous materials training, 
drug and alcohol enforcement, verification of out-of-service 
repairs, including covert operations, and a fully-implemented 
SAFETYNET program.
    In the House report accompanying the fiscal year 1995 
Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, the Committee 
directed the office of motor carriers to submit a report to the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees by March 1, 1995 
that discusses the feasibility of awarding a portion of the 
MCSAP basic grant funding to the states based on the 
achievement of certain performance criteria. The House has yet 
to receive this report. The Committee continues to believe that 
further increases in MCSAP basic grant funding should be 
contingent upon states meeting predetermined performance 
outcomes. Examples of such performance outcomes include 
conducting a targeted number of roadside inspections, 
conducting a required percentage of Level 1 inspections, 
expanding the locations where traffic enforcement is conducted, 
or increasing the proportion of reinspections to assure 
correction of out-of-service violations. The Committee directs 
the office of motor carriers to issue this report as soon as 
possible.
    Traffic enforcement.--The Committee recommends $6,875,000 
for traffic enforcement. This is an increase of $500,000 over 
fiscal year 1995 but $125,000 less than requested. Traffic 
enforcement is a strategy that identifies thousands of drivers 
each year that are in violation of duty status regulations 
(hours of service) or other driver specific requirements. 
Furthermore, money for traffic enforcement also addresses a 
major cause of truck-involved crashes, namely violations of the 
rules of the road, such as speeding and improper lane changes. 
Recently, the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators (AAMVA) issued a statement noting that in 23 
states, there were over 30,700 speeding citations and 23,300 
following-too-closely citations against commercial vehicle 
drivers.
    Research and development.--The Committee recommends holding 
research and development at the 1995 enacted level due to 
budget constraints. This is a decrease of $225,000 from the 
1996 requested level.
    Truck and bus accident data.--The Committee recommends 
$1,750,000, an increase of $250,000 over the fiscal year 1995 
level, for grants to assist states in improving truck and bus 
accident data. Funds for the truck and bus accident grant 
program are primarily used for the training of state and local 
law enforcement officers to improve their ability to collect 
much needed statistics on crashes involving commercial motor 
vehicles. These grants are also used to facilitate the 
uploading of crash data from states currently participating in 
the SAFETYNET accident module. Twenty three states and American 
Samoa now consistently upload all 22 of the National Governors' 
Association (NGA) truck and bus accident data elements to the 
Federal Highway Administration's SAFETYNET system; and another 
23 states upload some of the NGA data elements. The additional 
funds could either help increase the number of states that use 
the SAFETYNET accident module or help states find ways to enter 
data more rapidly. The office of motor carriers plans on having 
the SAFETYNET system operating nationwide (for interstate 
carriers) by mid-1997.
    In last year's House report, the Committee requested that 
the Federal Highway Administration, in consultation with the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, submit a report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 
1, 1995 that discusses the progress being made in improving 
federal and state truck and bus accident data systems. The 
Committee is very disappointed that it has not yet received 
this report and requests that it be expedited. This report will 
be a keystone in helping this Committee determine future 
limitations on obligations for truck and bus accident programs.
    Uniformity grants.--The Committee recommends $3,800,000 for 
the uniformity grants program. This is an increase of $350,000 
over the 1995 enacted level but $1,150,000 less than requested 
by the administration. This funding will provide direct grants 
to states to comply with the requirements of the International 
Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) and the International Registration 
Program (IRP), by the end of fiscal year 1996 as required by 
section 4008 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act. Specifically, the Act allows a motor carrier to 
register all or part of a fleet in one state instead of 
multiple states for the purpose of fuel use tax reporting. With 
only 1\1/2\ years left, 3 states have not joined IRP and 10 
states need to come into IFTA. Five states belong to regional 
fuel tax agreements and are exempt from belonging to IFTA. 
Considerable technical assistance, training, and data 
processing needs must be met. The federal funds will supplement 
some of the expenses that the states incur.
     Uniformity grants working group.--The Committee recommends 
holding the uniformity grants working group at the fiscal year 
1995 level, which is $550,000 less than requested, because the 
requested increase for funding is not well justified. Holding 
this program to the 1995 enacted level of $450,000 should be 
sufficient to ensure an effective operation of the base working 
group.
    Commercial vehicle information system.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for commercial vehicle 
information system (CVIS) implementation, which is the same 
amount provided in fiscal year 1995 but a reduction of $500,000 
below the budget request. The Committee notes that this 
activity is receiving a sizable infusion of funding through the 
Federal Highway Administration's commercial vehicle operations 
component of the intelligent transportation system program. The 
recommended funds will support the development and pilot 
testing of CVIS in the states participating in this project.
    Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends 
increasing the funds available for administrative expenses to 
$875,000, which is $50,000 more than appropriated in 1995 but 
$188,000 less than requested. The administrative takedown 
largely covers the costs of training purposes, equipment, and 
printing of materials, such as the Roadcheck pamphlets and 
newsletters. The Committee believes that a six percent increase 
in obligations is sufficient.
    Hours-of-service.--The Committee is aware of an ongoing 
rulemaking that considers altering the restrictions on the 
``hours of service''. This rulemaking is considering whether 
farmers and agricultural suppliers could be exempt from the 
maximum driving and on-duty time limitations, when transporting 
agricultural commodities or farm supplies within a 50 mile 
radius. Currently, the ``hours of service'' regulation, found 
in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 395, contains three 
basic rules which apply to maximum allowable driving time. They 
are: (1) no driver shall drive more than 10 hours following 8 
consecutive hours off, (2) no driver shall drive after having 
been on duty 15 hours following 8 consecutive hours off, and 
(3) no driver shall drive after having been on duty 60 hours in 
any 7 consecutive day period or 70 hours in any 8 consecutive 
day period. Farmers and agricultural suppliers must abide by 
these rules, even though some other drivers are exempt. For 
example, local retail drivers are exempt during the Christmas 
holidays. The Committee notes that, during crop planting and 
harvesting seasons, farmers and agricultural suppliers face a 
situation similar to that of local retail drivers during the 
holiday season. The Committee directs the office of motor 
carriers to consider carefully the issue and promulgate the 
rule soon as possible, preferably before the 1995 harvest 
season.

                    Surface Transportation Projects
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................    $352,055,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................    -352,055,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

    The Committee recommends no appropriations for surface 
transportation projects, more commonly referred to as 
demonstration projects. Rather than making scarce federal 
resources available for specific earmarked projects, the 
Committee has rolled back $352,055,000 into the federal-aid 
highway obligation limitation and increased further the 
obligation limitation over the levels contained in Public Law 
103-331. The Committee's recommendation will enable the states 
to determine the best expenditure of limited highway 
expenditures, will lead to greater cost efficiencies, improve 
highway planning and management, and provide greater equity 
among all states. The American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has stated that, no matter 
how meritorious demonstration projects may be, ``the fact that 
they are outside the program mainstream * * * skews funding and 
disrupts funding priority * * * the ongoing drain of these 
projects * * * is significant and should not continue.''
     The need for transportation projects should be and is best 
determined through a state and regional planning process, which 
includes the identification of potential federal and state 
funding sources for projects planned within the next one to 
three years. The General Accounting Office has concluded that 
often times special demonstration projects are not included in 
any state or regional transportation plans or, if they are 
included, they are included without any identified funding. 
Furthermore, demonstration projects typically have not been 
considered by state and regional transportation officials as 
critical to their transportation needs, and as a result, funds 
made available for these projects often go unspent for many 
years. Projects languish in early development or never get 
started at all, depriving others that are ready-to-go and 
limiting the overall Federal-aid program.
     The following table displays the 1995 obligation 
limitation distributed by state, the amount of appropriations 
provided to each state for specific highway demonstration 
projects in 1995, the amount each state will receive under the 
1996 obligation limitation, and the difference between 1995 and 
1996:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           FY 1995 FAH      FY 1995 Appr.     Total FY 1995   Est. FY 1996 FAH   FY 1995/FY 1996
         State             limitation           demos         distribution       limitation        difference   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...............      $258,165,555        $5,650,000      $263,815,555      $275,293.052       $11,478,397
Alaska................       207,830,381  ................       207,830,381       221,506,568        13,676,187
Arizona...............       189,969,436         2,000,000       191,969,436       202,521,862        10,552,426
Arkansas..............       158,004,797        10,150,000       168,154,797       168,457,145           302,348
California............     1,258,423,359        12,503,000     1,270,926,359     1,341,607,447        70,681,088
Colorado..............       182,670,708  ................       182,670,708       194,700,464        12,029,756
Connecticut...........       317,532,042           668,000       318,200,042       338,435,718        20,235,676
Delaware..............        66,993,309  ................        66,993,309        71,404,595         4,411,286
Dist. of Columbia.....        87,038,323  ................        87,038,323        92,768,938         5,730,615
Florida...............       506,550,460         8,168,000       514,718,460       540,061,868        25,343,208
Georgia...............       400,620,042         3,850,000       404,470,042       427,104,457        22,634,415
Hawaii................       108,820,384         3,500,000       112,320,384       115,984,210         3,663,826
Idaho.................       114,407,151  ................       114,407,151       121,936,644         7,529,493
Illinois..............       580,816,882         2,800,000       583,616,882       619,062,161        35,445,279
Indiana...............       298,701,740        14,125,000       312,826,740       318,614,447         5,787,707
Iowa..................       197,428,280        17,376,000       214,804,280       210,421,345        -4,382,935
Kansas................       185,612,947         3,600,000       189,212,947       197,838,586         8,615,639
Kentucky..............       218,857,951        17,550,000       236,407,951       233,416,658        -2,991,293
Louisiana.............       237,592,383        11,500,000       249,092,383       253,299,075         4,206,692
Maine.................        81,198,504  ................        81,198,504        86,544,391         5,345,887
Maryland..............       320,982,585        13,000,000       333,982,585       342,118,235         8,135,650
Massachusetts.........       715,092,872  ................       715,092,872       762,163,236        47,070,364
Michigan..............       382,007,459        46,463,000       428,470,459       407,370,546       -21,099,913
Minnesota.............       259,861,866         4,625,000       264,486,866       276,965,432        12,478,566
Mississippi...........       168,393,923         2,900,000       171,293,923       179,517,826         8,223,903
Missouri..............       319,550,558         2,953,000       322,503,558       340,728,438        18,224,870
Montana...............       157,748,214           500,000       158,248,214       168,128,809         9,880,595
Nebraska..............       127,358,354         2,000,000       129,358,354       135,741,938         6,383,584
Nevada................       100,865,181         7,975,000       108,480,181       107,505,883        -1,334,298
New Hampshire.........        77,249,674  ................        77,249,674        82,335,897         5,086,223
New Jersey............       484,366,841        24,000,000       508,366,841       516,266,178         7,899,337
New Mexico............       171,874,396        10,300,000       182,174,396       183,182,908         1,008,512
New York..............       877,945,910         4,050,000       881,995,910       935,774,705        53,778,795
North Carolina........       369,054,372        11,250,000       380,304,372       393,434,371        13,129,999
North Dakota..........       100,949,670  ................       100,949,670       107,594,582         6,644,921
Ohio..................       561,090,014         6,462,000       567,552,014       598,461,979        30,909,965
Oklahoma..............       202,311,858  ................       202,311,858       215,675,133        13,363,275
Oregon................       193,697,344         2,500,000       196,197,344       206,448,429        10,251,085
Pennsylvania..........       806,605,093        22,029,000       828,634,093       859,709,531        31,075,438
Rhode Island..........        93,702,999  ................        93,702,999        99,872,134         6,169,135
South Carolina........       171,873,784  ................       171,873,784       183,188,956        11,315,172
South Dakota..........       114,288,193         2,000,000       116,288,183       121,810,368         5,522,175
Tennessee.............       308,050,243         1,000,000       309,050,243       328,448,015        19,397,772
Texas.................       939,798,012        14,000,000       953,798,012     1,001,945,443        48,147,431
Utah..................       121,045,662         3,000,000       124,045,662       129,015,216         4,969,554
Vermont...............        71,811,156  ................        71,811,156        76,539,424         4,728,268
Virginia..............       344,247,331         7,300,000       351,547,331       366,914,838        15,367,507
Washington............       216,184,320         6,308,000       222,492,320       230,422,867         7,930,547
West Virginia.........       154,045,529        44,000,000       198,045,529       164,185,070       -33,860,459
Wisconsin.............       265,097,654  ................       265,097,654       282,648,816        17,551,162
Wyoming...............       104,522,012  ................       104,522,012       111,402,471         6,880,459
Puerto Rico...........        73,815,400  ................        73,815,400        78,681,608         4,866,208
                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal........    15,032,723,113       352,055,000    15,384,778,113    16,025,169,607       640,391,494
Administration........       573,704,000  ................       570,159,000       520,825,507       -49,333,493
Federal Lands.........       448,000,000  ................       448,000,000       348,432,000       -99,568,000
Allocation Reserve....     1,105,572,887  ................     1,105,572,887  \2\ 1,105,572,88                  
                                                                                             6               \1\
                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........  \1\ 17,160,000,0                                                                        
                                      00       352,055,000    17,508,510,000    18,000,000,000       491,490,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal aid obligation limitation for FY 1995 was reduced by $3.545 million in accordance with sections 
  323, 330 and 331 of P.L. 103-331.                                                                             
\2\ This estimate is the amount set aside for FY 1996; it does not reflect any reductions that may result from  
  section 1003(c) of P.L. 102-240.                                                                              
                                                                                                                
Note.--The FY 1996 state distribution estimated above is based on the actual FY 1995 distribution.              

    It is the Committee's expectation that each state will 
provide the sufficient resources from its federal-aid program 
to continue or complete the planning, design or construction of 
any project that has received categorical funding in the past. 
The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to 
assist each state in identifying the highway projects that have 
received previous appropriations.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the 
National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had 
administered traffic and highway safety functions as an 
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
    NHTSA's programs currently are authorized under three major 
laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act; 
(2) Chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code; and (3) the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICS). The 
first law provides for the establishment and enforcement of 
safety standards for vehicles and associated equipment and the 
conduct of supporting research, including the acquisition of 
required testing facilities and the operation of the national 
driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations were 
subsequently established for the NDR under the National Driver 
Register Act of 1982.
    Title 23 U.S.C. chapter 4 provides for coordinated national 
highway safety programs (section 402) to be carried out with 
the states together with supporting highway safety research, 
development, and demonstration programs (section 403). The 
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a 
new drunk driving prevention program (section 410) to make 
grants to states to implement and enforce drunk driving 
prevention programs.
    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 included amendments to title 23. It reauthorized section 
402 formula grants, provided for modified section 410 alcohol-
impaired driving countermeasures grants, and authorized new 
section 153 safety belt and motorcycle helmet grants. Section 
153(j) grants were concluded in fiscal year 1994 and replaced 
by section 153(h) sanction provisions. ISTEA also authorized 
additional funding for the national driver register and for an 
expanded drug recognition expert training program.
    The third law (MVICS) provides for the establishment of 
low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information 
activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects, 
automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. An 
amendment to this law established the Secretary's 
responsibility, which was delegated to NHTSA, for the 
administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards. 
A 1992 amendment to the MVICS established automobile content 
labeling requirements.
    The Committee recommends new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for a total program level of 
$278,728,500 for NHTSA programs and activities in fiscal year 
1996. This is $775,500 more than was provided in fiscal year 
1995, and $61,613,500 less than the level proposed in the 
President's budget. The following table summarizes the fiscal 
year 1995 program levels, the fiscal year 1996 program 
requests, and the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--                                  Bill compared  
               Program               --------------------------------------   Recommended in    with fiscal year
                                         1995 enacted      1996 estimate         the bill        1996 estimate  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research.............       $126,553,000       $144,342,000       $125,328,500       -$19,013,500
Highway traffic safety grants.......        151,400,000        196,000,000        153,400,000        -42,600,000
      Total.........................        277,953,000        340,342,000        278,728,500        -61,613,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         traffic safety trends

    In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest ever number of 
highway fatalities despite an increasing amount of travel on 
the roads. This trend reversed itself in 1993, with traffic 
fatalities increasing to 40,150, or 900 more fatalities than in 
1992. The latest NHTSA data indicates fatalities in 1994 were 
40,676, or 526 higher than the 1993 level. Likewise, overall 
fatality rates (based on deaths per 100 million vehicle miles 
traveled) have leveled off to 1.8 fatalities in 1992, 1993 and 
1994. The following charts show these safety trends.




                        Operations and Research

                     (including highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................\1\ $126,553,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................     144,342,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     125,328,500
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -1,224,500
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -19,013,500

    \1\ Reductions of $792,000 to comply with working capital fund, 
awards and procurement reform provisions and transfer of $81,500 for 
consolidated civil rights office not reflected.

    The Committee recommends a total of $125,328,500 for NHTSA 
operations and research in fiscal year 1996. This represents a 
reduction of $1,224,500 below the level provided in fiscal year 
1995 and $19,013,500 below the budget request. The bill 
specifies that $73,316,570 (58.5 percent of the total) shall be 
derived from the general fund and $52,011,930 (41.5 percent of 
the total) shall be derived from the highway trust fund. In 
addition, the bill includes language to limit the availability 
of the operations and research appropriations to a three-year 
period. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Recommended in 
                    1995 enacted      1996 estimate         the bill    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking.....       $ 11,136,000        $14,787,000        $12,420,000
    (Positions)               (95)               (95)               (95)
Enforcement....         18,028,000         19,737,000         19,210,500
    (Positions)              (103)              (103)              (103)
Highway safety.         39,039,000         50,681,000         44,455,000
    (Positions)              (203)              (203)              (203)
Research and                                                            
 analysis......         50,885,000         52,437,000         42,737,000
    (Positions)              (132)              (132)              (132)
Office of                                                               
 administrator.          3,683,000          3,820,000          3,820,000
    (Positions)               (41)               (41)               (41)
General                                                                 
 administration          8,952,000          9,038,000          8,938,000
    (Positions)               (90)               (90)               (90)
Grant                                                                   
 administration                                                         
 reimbursement.         -6,043,000         -6,158,000         -6,043,000
Accountwide                                                             
 adjustments...           +873,000  .................           -209,000
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total....        126,553,000        144,342,000        125,328,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        committee recommendation

    In reviewing NHTSA's budget request, the Committee has 
placed the highest priority on programs aimed at reducing 
alcohol impaired driving and providing greater occupant 
protection. The Committee recommends the following changes to 
the budget request:

Rulemaking:
    Reduce vehicle safety standards (new public 
      promotion activity)...............................       -$200,000
    Reduction in NCAP (frontal, side impact and 
      promotional activities)...........................      -1,057,000
    Decrease fuel economy technical studies (EIS and 
      fuel economy studies).............................      -2,000,000
    Theft program pilot project.........................        +890,000
Enforcement:
    Reduction in auto safety hotline....................        -486,500
    Reduce per state funding for odometer fraud.........         -40,000
Highway Safety Programs:
    Delete safe communities injury control centers......      -5,600,000
    Eliminate pedestrian and bicycle demonstrations.....        -224,000
    Reduce emergency medical services...................        -252,000
    Reduce driver education research....................        -150,000
Research and Analysis Program:
    Defer some biomechanics research (National 
      Transportation Center)............................      -2,000,000
    Delete funding for national advanced driving 
      simulator.........................................      -2,000,000
    Reduce fatal accident reporting system..............        -300,000
    Reduce data analysis program........................        -400,000
    Reduce state data program...........................        -500,000
    Reduce most partnership for new generation vehicle 
      funding...........................................      -4,500,000
General Administration:
    Hold strategic planning to 1995 level...............        -100,000
Grant Administration:
    Hold expenses at 1995 level.........................        +115,000
Accountwide Adjustments:
    One percent base reduction in operating expenses....        -137,000
    Reduce printing costs...............................         -72,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Net change to budget................................     -19,013,500

    Vehicle safety standards.--The Committee recommends 
$650,000 for the vehicle safety standards program, an increase 
of $150,000 from the 1995 enacted level. NHTSA plans to conduct 
a new public information campaign designed to seek public input 
on what safety information the public wants and how best to 
present it. NHTSA had requested $300,000 for this effort; 
however, due to budget constraints the Committee has provided 
$100,000.
    New car assessment program (NCAP).--The Committee 
recommends $1,735,000 for this program. This is an increase of 
$50,000 over 1995 enacted levels and a decrease of $1,057,000 
from the budget request. Historically, under the frontal crash 
testing program, NHTSA has tested 39 cars per year, or about 80 
percent of the cars sold. In fiscal year 1996, NHTSA plans to 
test 4 additional cars. The Committee recommendation will 
continue the testing of 39 cars annually.
    The Committee has denied the request to expand the program 
to include side impact testing. In a May 1995 report, GAO 
questioned the reliability and repeatability of NCAP data. 
Because side impact testing will give consumers another piece 
of data about car safety, which may not be accurate, the 
Committee's action will defer the beginning of NCAP side impact 
testing until the National Academy of Sciences completes its 
study on motor vehicle safety needs. This study is scheduled to 
be issued in March 1996. NHTSA may test the automobile's 
ability to meet side impact standards under a separate NHTSA 
program ``vehicle safety compliance.'' The administration will 
test 20 cars at 30 miles per hour to verify that they meet the 
side impact protection standard. The NCAP testing is done at 35 
miles per hour. Consistent with the Committee's decision not to 
expand NCAP to include side impact testing, the Committee has 
deleted $150,000 for promotional activities, such as new 
brochures, video releases, and NCAP exhibits.
    Fuel economy program.--The Committee recommends decreasing 
the fuel economy program by $2,000,000. This program consists 
of two areas: (1) a fuel economy environmental impact statement 
and (2) technical studies. NHTSA has not adequately addressed 
the need for a $1,500,000 environmental impact statement to be 
used to help set light truck fuel economy standards for 1998-
2006. According to a 1992 National Academy of Sciences study, 
the most direct method to increase significantly fuel economy 
is to reduce the vehicle's size and weight. Currently scheduled 
modifications to improve vehicle safety, including air bags, 
antilock brakes, and side impact protection, will increase the 
vehicle's weight and thereby could lower fuel economy. However, 
weight reductions are possible through the use of lighter and 
more expensive materials. Since light trucks, vans, and sport-
utility vehicles now account for about 40 percent of all new 
passenger vehicles sold, it seems unlikely that if gains in 
fuel economy are obtained in new vehicles at the expense of 
other attributes consumers value (e.g. performance, size, 
safety, cargo space) that consumers will have such a high 
demand for these vehicles. Instead, consumers may retain their 
current vehicles longer. Also, since size and weight are 
related to safety, having more fuel efficient light trucks and 
vans could force a downsizing of these vehicles, which could 
adversely affect occupant safety. If NHTSA wishes to pursue 
increased fuel economy in these vehicles, this Committee 
believes that the agency should stay within narrower bounds, 
such as a 2 to 3 year period, where automotive technology and 
consumer preferences are more certain.
    The Committee has decreased funds for fuel economy 
technology studies by $500,000. The automobile industry and 
Department of Energy already undertake a variety of fuel 
economy studies. The Committee believes NHTSA should prevent a 
duplication of efforts and reduce the number of fuel economy 
studies it planned for 1996.
    The Committee has adopted a general provision (Sec. 330) 
that prohibits funds to be used to prepare, prescribe or 
promulgate corporate average fuel economy standards for 
automobiles that differ from those previously enacted. The 
limitation does not preclude the Secretary of Transportation, 
in order to meet lead time requirements of the law, from 
preparing, proposing and issuing a CAFE standard for model year 
1998 automobiles that is identical to the CAFE standard 
established for such automobiles for model year 1997.
    Theft protection program.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 to analyze insurance information and to establish 
pilot National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) 
programs. Currently, motor vehicle departments cannot 
electronically verify the validity of titles of vehicles being 
registered from other states. The NMVTIS has the potential to 
fix this problem by establishing a national system, based on 
each automobile's unique vehicle identification number, that 
states could use to verify, within seconds, the validity of 
titles and other documents, prior to issuing new titles. This 
system may prevent thieves from obtaining legitimate vehicle 
ownership documentation.
    The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 
testified before the Committee about this problem and noted 
that in a three-month period, the motor vehicle department in 
Indiana accepted 631 applications for registration and title on 
vehicles which were eventually verified as stolen. In the same 
period, the state also issued titles to 59 vehicles that were 
identified as already having been exported.
    Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The bill includes 
a provision which prohibits any agency funded in this Act from 
planning, finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking which 
would require that passenger car tires be labeled to indicate 
their low rolling resistance. There is evidence showing that 
the promotion of low rolling resistance characteristics 
negatively impacts safety. At the same time, there is little 
evidence showing a positive impact on fuel economy. Until 
independent analysis has been conducted and validated by NHTSA, 
the Committee believes no further regulatory action should be 
taken to add this as a grading standard.
    Automobile Safety Hotline.--The Committee recommends 
reducing the auto safety hotline request by $486,500. NHTSA 
plans to expand its auto safety hotline to handle one million 
calls in 1996. In 1994, the hotline handled 533,801 calls. 
Although there is an increasing demand for this hotline, the 
Committee does not expect the number of telephone calls to 
roughly double in two years. The Committee has provided funds 
to enhance the hotline's infrastructure (e.g. adding more 
telephone lines, buying more hardware and software, and 
building additional work stations) and half of the 12 new 
contractors NHTSA planned to hire to handle the automobile 
safety hotline calls.
    Odometer fraud.--The Committee has reduced the odometer 
fraud program by $40,000, which will provide $15,000 to four 
states' enforcement agencies for these efforts instead of 
$25,000 per state as proposed in the budget. Odometer fraud 
costs the public more than $3 billion per year. In 1994 and 
1995, no money was appropriated, even though states have 
recovered over $700,000 for defrauded consumers. Some NHTSA 
funding in this program is necessary to ensure assistance from 
states to recover funds for defrauded consumers and to 
publicize the odometer fraud problem.
    Safe communities injury control program.--The Committee 
does not recommend funding the new safe communities injury 
control centers program due to budget constraints and 
insufficient justification. NHTSA had requested $5,600,000 to 
establish 15 injury control centers in various communities 
across the United States and planned to expand this program to 
45 communities over a three year period. Rather, the Committee 
has provided $3,000,000 for three prototypes under the Section 
402 safe communities program.
    Pedestrian and bicycle.--The Committee has deferred 
demonstration funding under the alcohol, drugs, and state 
programs' pedestrian and bicycle program (-$224,000). The 
National Center for Injury Control and Prevention has a variety 
of pedestrian and bicycle intervention efforts underway that 
are similar to what NHTSA has proposed in its fiscal year 1996 
budget request. For example, the Center has ongoing work on the 
effects of alcohol related crashes on pedestrians and 
bicyclists, child pedestrian safety, community pedestrian 
safety, pedestrian and bicycle crash intervention, and school/
community based intervention programs. NHTSA should work in 
conjunction with this Center instead of developing three of its 
own demonstration projects. The Committee has provided funding 
at the 1995 level so that work involving older pedestrians, the 
Hispanic community, and the development of guidance for 
transporting pre-kindergarten children can continue.
    National occupant protection program.--Data collected 
during a national traffic study showed that, in moving traffic, 
seat belt usage was 62.8 percent in passenger cars and 50.2 
percent in light trucks. This is significantly lower than the 
67 percent U.S. average that NHTSA has published. With seat 
belt usage only slowly increasing--up one percent from 1993 to 
1994--and the low figures in this nationwide study, the 
Committee believes that more aggressive action needs to be 
taken to achieve a 75 percent seat belt usage rate by 1997. 
Specifically, the Committee directs NHTSA to develop and 
distribute it to all states a model seat belt use law as part 
of its 1996 program.
    Emergency medical services (EMS).--The Committee 
recommendation includes $870,000 for this program, an increase 
of $215,000 over fiscal year 1995 enacted levels, and a 
reduction of $252,000 from the budget request. NHTSA plans to 
revise national EMS curricula, many of which date back to the 
late 1970s or early 1980s. Due to advances in medical 
technology and the widespread use of safety systems in today's 
automobiles, the Committee strongly supports this effort. 
However, in light of budget constraints, the Committee has not 
provided other proposed increases in the EMS program for public 
information, communication systems, and research and evaluation 
activities.
    The Committee is aware that NHTSA, in collaboration with 
the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Department of 
Health and Human Services, is working with the Emergency 
Medical Services for Children Program (EMSC). This program 
involves training on the care of critically ill and injured 
children in all aspects of the health care continuum, including 
rural hospitals and trauma centers. The Committee directs NHTSA 
to give high priority to this program, especially as it moves 
to develop a new data resource center to assist states, trauma 
centers, and pre-hospital providers because of the importance 
of these services to this population group and to continue to 
report to the committee on this issue.
    Driver education research.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the new driver education 
research initiative. This is a reduction of $150,000 from the 
budget request.
    Biomechanics.--The Committee recommendation for the 
biomechanics program includes $5,450,000, which is $150,000 
less than 1995 and $2,000,000 less than requested. The 
Committee has deleted the proposed evaluation of a National 
Transportation Biomechanics Center to address biomechanical 
issues and undertake modeling efforts for all DOT modes and 
manage other university activities. The Committee notes NHTSA 
currently has contracts with between 4 and 6 universities to 
conduct biomechanical research, which it manages internally. In 
addition, NHTSA has not adequately explained the need for 
another university to manage the work of its centers.
    The Committee strongly supports the highway traffic injury 
work being undertaken by the William Lehman Injury Research 
Center. This center has developed a multidisciplinary approach 
to study automobile injuries and computerize investigative 
findings. The Committee encourages NHTSA to continue working 
with the research center on these efforts.
    National advanced driving simulator (NADS).--The Committee 
has deleted funding for the national advanced driving 
simulator. The 1995 Department of Transportation Appropriations 
Conference Report stated that several requirements must be met 
before NADS would receive additional funding. These 
requirements included: (1) NHTSA providing the House and Senate 
with a new estimate of the project's total costs; (2) having 
$11,000,000 in non-DOT matching contributions; (3) GAO 
certification that the matching contributions and commitments 
to the simulator have been secured; and (4) the Transportation 
Research Board (TRB) determining whether the driving simulator 
will be operated at 80 percent capacity with no more than 50 
percent usage by NHTSA within 2 years. To date, 3 of the 4 
requirements have been met. The State of Iowa and the 
University of Iowa have provided a total of $12,470,000 in cash 
and computer software. GAO has certified this.
    For the remaining two requirements, NHTSA has not provided 
a new estimate of the project's total costs to the Committee. 
In 1990, the simulator was estimated to cost $32,000,000; 
however, TRB's study notes that ``in view of NHTSA's 
inexperience with procuring driving simulators, the [TRB] 
committee believes that [the NADS] is unlikely to achieve its 
proposed functionality within the fixed budget of $32,000,000 
and will probably experience many software integration 
challenges and component adjustments before it operates 
smoothly''. GAO's reports state that the total project cost for 
the NADS program is now estimated at $37,100,000 including 
project management.
    In their report analyzing potential usage of the simulator, 
TRB stated that ``it would take at least two years for the 
driving simulator to operate at 80 percent capacity.
          However, the report qualified this endorsement by 
        noting to reach this capacity level, NADS usage by 
        researchers not under contract with NHTSA would cost 
        between $7,000,000 and $8,400,000 per year * * * 
        Although TRB could identify other users interested in 
        using the simulator, their usage is dependent upon 
        federal research dollars, which in this budgetary 
        climate is likely to decline. In addition, automobile 
        manufacturers did not express any interest in using the 
        simulator * * * Part of TRB's difficulty in assessing 
        future use of NADS stemmed from the fact that the 
        scientific need has not been demonstrated for a driving 
        simulator with a large motion base. To attract other 
        users, TRB suggested that the University of Iowa and 
        NHTSA would have to engage in very aggressive 
        marketing.''
    Because of a large number of qualifications TRB placed on 
usage of the simulator and the fact that the Committee does not 
have an updated version of cost, the Committee does not include 
funding for the simulator.
    Partnership for new generation of vehicles (PNGV).--The 
Committee has provided $500,000 for the new PNGV initiative, 
which is $4,500,000 less than requested. NHTSA's participation 
in this program is important. However, it will be necessary in 
the future once the automobile manufacturers, in conjunction 
with the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Defense, have 
identified what types of materials could significantly reduce 
the weight and emission of automobiles. Of the total, NHTSA had 
requested $3,500,000 to develop the computer capabilities and 
models necessary to simulate the crashworthiness of new 
vehicles. The Committee has provided $500,000 so NHTSA can 
begin procuring the computer hardware and software for this 
work. Once these lightweight materials are identified, NHTSA 
could begin its safety investigation work. The Committee has 
deleted $1,500,000 to begin PNGV transportation infrastructure 
analyses and a peer review study of the conceptual designs as 
NHTSA has not made a convincing case for conducting this work 
without knowing whether this new type of vehicle is 
technologically feasible or what it will look like.
    Intelligent transportation system.--The Committee has 
previously expressed its support for intelligent transportation 
system research centers. This includes an operational test to 
evaluate improvements in safety and efficiency of emergency 
services that utilize in-vehicle technologies which provide 
automatic notification of automobile collisions to police and 
emergency medical personnel. The Committee continues to support 
demonstration of this technology in rural areas that most need 
improved emergency medical services. The Committee has received 
information about the need for such services in rural areas of 
Texas, including El Paso County, and again recommends that 
NHTSA consider this location in conducting its test.
    Other research and analysis programs.--Due to budget 
constraints, the Committee is funding the data analysis 
program, the state data systems program and the fatal accident 
reporting system, at near the fiscal year 1995 levels. NHTSA 
had sought significant increases--35, 43 and 17 percent 
respectively--which cannot be accommodated.
    Strategic planning.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has funded the strategic planning initiative at 
$100,000, which is the same level as last year and a decrease 
of $100,000 from the request.
    Accountwide adjustments.--The Committee recommends $209,000 
in accountwide reductions. This consists of a one percent 
reduction in operating expenses ($137,000) and a $72,000 
reduction in printing expenses.

                        Operations and Research

                             (rescissions)
Rescission, fiscal year 1995............................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................   (-$4,547,185)
Bill compared with:
    Rescission, fiscal year 1995........................    (-4,547,185)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................    (-4,547,185)

    The Committee has rescinded $4,547,185 of unobligated 
balances from the national advanced driving simulator project. 
These funds were appropriated through fiscal year 1995.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................  ($151,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................   (180,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................   (153,400,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................    (+2,400,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................   (-26,600,000)

    The Committee recommends $153,400,000 to liquidate contract 
authorizations for state and community highway safety grants 
(23 U.S.C. 402), safety belt and motorcycle helmet use grants 
(23 U.S.C. 153), alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 
grants (23 U.S.C. 410), and section 211(b) of the National 
Driver Register Act of 1982, as amended, and section 209 of 
Public Law 95-599, as amended. The recommendation represents an 
increase of $2,400,000 over the 1995 level.

                       Limitation on Obligations

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Fiscal year--                              
                --------------------------------------   Recommended in 
                    1995 enacted      1996 estimate         the bill    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402....       $123,000,000       $168,600,000       $126,000,000
Section 410....         25,000,000         25,000,000         25,000,000
National Driver                                                         
 Register......          3,400,000          2,400,000          2,400,000
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total....        151,400,000        196,000,000        153,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 402 formula grants.--These grants are awarded to 
states for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities 
and injuries. The states may use the grants to implement 
programs to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding 
posted speed limits; encourage proper use of occupant 
protection devices; reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving; 
reduce crashes between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce 
school bus crashes; improve police traffic services; improve 
emergency medical services and trauma care systems; increase 
pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and improve traffic record 
systems. The grants also provide additional support for state 
data collection and reporting of traffic deaths and injuries.
    An obligation limitation of $126,000,000 is included in the 
bill, which is $3,000,000 more than was provided in 1995 and 
$42,600,000 less than requested. The Committee recommends that 
NHTSA use $3,000,000 under section 402 to implement a 
demonstration of the safe communities program in three states. 
These funds will not be subject to the apportionment formula. 
NHTSA should endeavor to choose three communities that are 
different in terms of geography, demographics, and traffic 
safety regulations so that a good representation of the United 
States can be displayed. The Committee directs NHTSA to provide 
an evaluation of this demonstration before consideration of the 
fiscal year 1997 budget request. Based on the results of this 
report, the Committee will consider funding the safe 
communities program on a broader scale.
    Last year, the Committee directed that $8,000,000 of total 
section 402 funding be earmarked to address alcohol-impaired 
driving among young drivers. The Committee continues to be 
concerned about youth involvement in alcohol-related highway 
crashes. Statistics collected by NHTSA indicate that some 
progress is being made. Despite this success, underage drivers 
continue to be significantly over represented in alcohol-
involved crashes. A recent report from NHTSA noted that there 
were 15 young drivers involved in fatal crashes for every 
100,000 young licensed drivers in 1993. This is almost twice 
the rate for drivers ages 21 and older. Automobile crashes 
remain the leading cause of death for youth and the most 
significant contributing factors are alcohol use and non-use of 
seat belts. Therefore, for fiscal year 1996, the Committee has 
increased the amount earmarked under section 402 for the youth 
program to $9,200,000 to reduce speeding and drinking and 
driving among teenagers. Better enforcement of minimum drinking 
age laws, promotion of lower blood alcohol content laws for 
younger drivers, and provisional licensing programs for younger 
drivers are among the effective strategies and eligible 
activities that the designated funding could support.
    The Committee recommends that child passenger safety 
education should be considered an eligible activity under 
states' occupant protection programs during 1996. Child 
restraint systems can reduce the chance of serious or fatal 
injury in a crash by 70 percent or more; however the 
effectiveness of child restraint systems is considerably 
reduced when it is installed improperly. A panel on child 
restraint and vehicle compatibility found that approximately 50 
percent of the current child restraints are not properly 
installed, which places the child in serious risk.
    The Committee expects NHTSA to encourage the states to use 
their section 402 funds according to the following 
distribution:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year--                                
                                                     ---------------------------------------- Recommended in the
                                                         1995 enacted        1996 estimate           bill       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol safety......................................        $38,760,000         $38,760,000         $39,960,000 
    (youth).........................................         (8,000,000)         (8,000,000)         (9,200,000)
Police traffic services.............................         44,864,000          44,864,000          44,864,000 
Emergency medical services..........................          3,174,000           3,174,000           3,174,000 
Occupant protection.................................         19,009,000          19,009,000          19,009,000 
Traffic records.....................................          5,761,000           5,761,000           5,276,000 
Motorcycles.........................................            482,000             482,000             482,000 
All Other...........................................          5,797,000           5,682,000           5,082,000 
Safe communities....................................                  0          45,600,000           3,000,000 
Grant administration................................          5,153,000           5,268,000           5,153,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................        123,000,000         168,600,000         126,000,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Language is included in the bill limiting the funds 
available for federal grant administration costs to $5,153,000. 
The bill also recommends that no funds under Section 402 can be 
used to purchase office furnishing, automobiles, or 
motorcycles. Federal funding for this program acts as ``seed 
money'' so that beneficial projects can be implemented at the 
state and local levels. The federal funding is only available 
for three years. Purchasing office furnishing, motorcycles, and 
automobiles is not an appropriate use of this ``seed money.''
    Section 410 alcohol-impaired countermeasure grants.--
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasure grants are provided to 
states that qualify by adopting specified laws and program 
measures to reduce safety problems stemming from driving while 
impaired by alcohol and other drugs. The program, first enacted 
in 1988, was subsequently restructured in 1991 in the 
Intermodal Transportation Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
to expand the eligibility requirements and increase incentive 
funds. The program's eligibility requirements and funding 
procedures were further amended in Public Law 102-388. Basic 
grants are issued for achieving criteria that include 
administrative driver license actions within stated timeframes, 
lower blood-alcohol content (BAC) laws, statewide police 
roadside checkpoints, effective under age 21 impairment 
deterrence, mandatory sentences for repeat offenders, and 
programs that are financially self-sufficient. Supplemental 
grants are provided to states that adopt additional specified 
measures, including 0.02 BAC laws for under age 21 drivers, 
license plate confiscation, laws against open alcohol 
containers in vehicles and mandatory BAC testing by police of 
suspected DWI offenders.
    The bill includes an obligation limitation of $25,000,000 
for the section 410 program and language providing that 
$500,000 of section 410 funds be available for technical 
assistance to the states, as requested. Thirty to 33 states are 
expected to qualify for section 410 awards during fiscal year 
1996.
    National driver register.--The bill includes an obligation 
limitation of $2,400,000 for the national driver register 
(NDR), $1,000,000 less than the 1995 obligation limitation and 
the same level as requested. The national driver register 
program assists state motor vehicle administrators in 
communicating effectively and efficiently with other states to 
identify problem drivers; that is, drivers whose licenses are 
suspended or revoked for certain serious traffic offenses, 
including vehicle operation under impairment by alcohol and 
other drugs.
    NHTSA plans to complete the transfer of the problem driver 
pointer system to all states in 1995, making license 
information exchange on problem drivers available. The states 
will benefit from greater cross-state uniformity in driver 
licensing and traffic record systems. Other key functions, such 
as computer timesharing and the user help desk of the NDR will 
be transferred to the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators. This transfer would require the states, which 
are the primary users of the NDR, to assume all or a portion of 
its operating costs, resulting in reduced federal costs 
associated with operating the NDR. NHTSA will continue to 
process state inquiries and updates, and provide technical and 
administrative support.
                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry, as well as managing the high speed ground 
transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance 
programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's 
physical plant are also administered by the FRA.
    The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal 
year 1996, including a limitation on contract authorization, 
amounts to $827,940,660. This is $293,878,340 less than the 
fiscal year 1995 level, and $52,480,340 less than the budget 
request. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 
program levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--                                                 
                                     --------------------------------------   Recommended in     Bill compared  
               Program                   1995 enacted                            the bill          with 1996    
                                            level           1996 request                            estimate    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator \1\.....        $13,090,000        $17,370,000        $14,000,000        -$3,370,000
Local rail freight assistance.......     \2\ 17,000,000  .................  .................  .................
Railroad safety.....................         47,729,000         51,104,000         49,940,660         -1,163,340
Railroad research and development...         20,500,000         48,947,000         21,000,000        -27,947,000
Northeast corridor improvement                                                                                  
 program \3\........................        200,000,000  .................        100,000,000                 NA
Next generation high speed rail.....     \4\ 25,000,000     \4\ 35,000,000     \4\ 15,000,000        -20,000,000
Rhode Island rail development \3\...          5,000,000  .................  .................                 NA
Grants to National Passenger                                                                                    
 Railroad Corporation \3\,\5\ ......    \6\ 793,500,000  .................        628,000,000                 NA
Railroad rehabilitation and                                                                                     
 improvement financing fund.........  .................  .................  .................  .................
National magnetic levitation                                                                                    
 prototype development..............  .................  .................  .................  .................
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................      1,121,819,000        152,421,000        827,940,660        -52,480,340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include transfer of $611,950 from the Section 511 loan guarantee program to the Office of the      
  Administrator, as enacted in the 1995 rescission bill.                                                        
\2\ Does not include a rescission of $6,563,000.                                                                
\3\ The President's budget proposal to consolidate these programs into the United Transportation Infrastructure 
  (UTIIP) Investment Program.                                                                                   
\4\ Includes limitation on obligations of $5,000,000.                                                           
\5\ Includes mandatory passenger rail service payments and the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project.      
\6\ Includes a rescission of $40,000,000 from the Pennsylvania station redevelopment project and an additional  
  appropriation of $21,500,000 for capital grants.                                                              

                      Office of the Administrator
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $13,090,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      17,370,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      14,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................        +910,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -3,370,000

\1\ Does not include transfer of $611,950 to the Office of the 
Administrator from section 511 loan guarantees or reductions of $93,000 
to comply with working capital fund and award provisions and transfer of 
$127,900 for consolidated civil rights office.

    This account provides funds for executive direction and 
administration, policy support, passenger and freight services 
salaries and expenses, and contractual support. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $14,000,000 to continue the 
office of the administrator and passenger and freight service 
assistance functions. This is $3,370,000 less than the budget 
request and $910,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 
1995.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
President's budget request for this appropriation:
                                                                 Changes
Reduce new technical assistance program.................       -$130,000
Reduce FRA's cost-sharing of the national implementation 
    of Operation RESPOND................................         -18,000
Increase non-pay inflationary adjustments...............        +500,000
Offset to account for unobligated balance...............      -3,722,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net adjustment....................................      -3,370,000

    Technical assistance program.--The Committee recommendation 
reduces a new program that provides technical assistance to 
state and local transportation officials in their planning 
efforts from $150,000 to $20,000 due to budget constraints. FRA 
has stated that without this type of assistance, rail issues 
are not adequately considered. The Committee finds this 
justification unlikely and, consequently has reduced the 
program to a more moderate level.
    Operation RESPOND.--The Committee has provided $20,000 for 
this program, a decrease of $18,000 from the budget request. 
FRA plans to implement the results from a Houston-based 
demonstration in other areas. This program teaches states and 
local responders, and railroad employees how to respond to 
hazardous material incidents in a timely and coordinated 
fashion. Because RSPA and FHWA are sharing in these costs, some 
decrease in FRA's allocation is warranted. The Committee urges 
FRA to consider having states and local communities pay for 
this type of training.
    Non-pay inflationary adjustment.--The Committee's 
recommendation allows a 1.5 percent increase for all non-pay 
inflation for all modes of the department (+$500,000).
    Unobligated balances.--The Committee has reduced the Office 
of the Administrator's request by $3,722,000 due to high 
unobligated balances from prior years, which could be used to 
fund programs under this account. At the end of the fiscal year 
1994, this office still had $11,408,000 in unobligated funds 
available. At the end of April 1995, the unobligated balance in 
this office was $15,493,000. Some of this balance is necessary 
to fund the yearly mortgage payment at Union Station in 
Washington DC in case the Union Station Redevelopment 
Corporation cannot pay. This mortgage payment is $1,418,000 per 
year. Another $1,000,000 is set aside for unexpected payments 
for Alaskan railroad liabilities.
    Air rights over Union Station.--The Committee recommends 
that FRA request the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation to 
have the air rights over Union Station assessed for their 
property value. FRA should report back to the House and Senate 
no later than March 31, 1996 about the results of the 
assessment.
                     Local Rail Freight Assistance
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $17,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     -17,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

\1\ Of this amount, $6,563,000 was rescinded.

    The local rail service assistance (LRSA) program was 
established by the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 to 
provide financial support to states for the continuation of 
rail freight service on abandoned light density lines in the 
Northeast. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform 
Act of 1976 expanded the program to all states. In 1978 the 
program was further expanded and amended to allow capital 
assistance for rehabilitation prior to, rather than after, 
abandonment. Amendments in 1981 prohibited the use of these 
funds for operating subsidies. The program was reauthorized in 
1989 and renamed local rail freight assistance (LRFA).
    The Committee recommends no funds for this program, as 
requested in the budget. This program provides benefits which 
are predominately local, not federal, and should be financed by 
local units of government.

                            Railroad Safety
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................  \1\$47,729,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      51,104,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      49,940,660
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      +2,211,660
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -1,163,340

\1\ Reductions of $93,000 to comply with working capital fund and award 
provisions not reflected.

    The federal role in the railroad safety program is to 
protect railroad employees and the public by ensuring the safe 
operation of passenger and freight trains. The authority to 
accomplish this role is found in the Federal Railroad Safety 
Act of 1970 (as amended), the Department of Transportation Act, 
and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Greatly 
expanded railroad safety authority was granted to the FRA under 
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$49,940,660 for railroad safety programs in fiscal year 1996. 
This is an increase of $2,211,660 (5 percent) above the level 
provided in fiscal year 1995, and a reduction of $1,163,340 
below the level proposed in the President's budget.
    Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are as 
follows:

                                                                 Changes
Decrease other services costs by 2 percent..............       -$105,340
Hold supplies and materials costs increase to 34 percent        -566,000
Defer new partnership program...........................        -400,000
Decrease equipment costs................................        -150,000
Increase non-pay inflationary adjustment................         +58,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net adjustment....................................      -1,163,340

    Other services.--The Committee recommends $5,161,660 for 
other services due to budget constraints. This is an increase 
of $130,660 over 1995 but a decrease of $105,340 (or 2 percent) 
from the budget request.
    Supplies and materials.--The Committee recommends $350,000 
for supplies and materials, which is $51,000 more than 1995 
enacted levels. FRA had requested $916,000 (or a 206 percent 
increase over 1995 funding levels). This increase is not well 
justified, and consequently, the Committee has reduced funding 
accordingly.
    Labor-management partnership program.--The Committee 
recommends deferring funding for the new labor-management 
partnership program. This is a decrease of $400,000 from the 
budget request. This program was designed to create and 
increase the level of partnerships FRA has with its customers 
in the railroad community. FRA currently works with a number of 
railroad associations and with most of the railroad companies. 
In these tight budgetary times, the Committee does not believe 
that further outreach is well justified.
    Equipment costs.--The Committee recommends $401,000 for 
equipment costs, which is an increase of $40,000 over 1995 
levels. This will allow an 11 percent increase in equipment 
costs over last year, as opposed to an increase of 53 percent 
as requested in the budget.
    Non-pay inflationary adjustment.--The Committee's 
recommendation allows a 1.5 percent increase for all non-pay 
inflation for all modes of the department (+$58,000).

                   Railroad Research and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................  \1\$20,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      48,947,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      21,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................        +500,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -27,947,000

\1\ Reductions of $301,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards 
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.

    The railroad research and development appropriation 
finances contract research activities as well as salaries and 
expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and 
administrative functions. The objectives of this program are to 
reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to 
provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and 
enforcement activities.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,000,000 
for fiscal year 1996, which represents an increase of $500,000 
above the fiscal year 1995 appropriation and a decrease of 
$27,947,000 below the budget request. The budget requested a 
137 percent increase in its railroad research and development 
program, with the majority of this increase in the high speed 
rail ground transportation system activity.
    Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are as 
follows:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year             
                                  Fiscal year       1996     Recommended
                                 1995 enacted     request    in the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment, operations, and                                              
 hazardous materials..........      $5,413,000   $5,010,000   $5,010,000
Track, structures, and train                                            
 control......................       9,165,000    8,082,000    8,082,000
High speed ground                                                       
 transportation...............       3,300,000   33,225,000    5,378,000
R&D; facilities................         200,000      400,000      400,000
Administration................       2,121,000    2,230,000    2,130,000
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................  \1\ 20,199,000   48,947,000   21,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $301,000 for working capital fund, awards, and
  procurement reform provisions.                                        

     High speed ground transportation.--The Committee 
recommends $5,378,000 for the high speed rail ground 
transportation system activity. This is an increase of 
$2,078,000 over 1995 enacted levels and $27,947,000 less than 
requested. The Committee recommendation provides an increase of 
63 percent, rather than 907 percent requested in the budget. 
The significant growth in this program would have allowed FRA 
to begin initiatives in a variety of projects, such as 
passenger/freight interaction, communications reliability, 
evaluating corridor results, developing flywheel energy 
storage, and demonstrating warning and protective signals. Such 
significant growth in the high speed activity is not warranted, 
especially since funding for this program just began in 1993 
and no funds were appropriated in 1994. The Committee notes 
that FRA appears not to have a focus or priority among its 
various projects.
    The Committee believes that there are few places at the 
present time in the United States that have the market demand 
or the financial ability to establish a high speed rail 
corridor without significant federal contribution. GAO reported 
that an electrified high speed rail corridor would cost at 
least $10,000,000 per mile (or $2 billion for a 200-mile 
corridor). A non-electrified high speed rail corridor would be 
less costly. Based on preliminary planning studies for the 
three corridors on which FRA has initiated high speed rail 
demonstrations, the costs to construct a non-electrified 
corridor range between $1,400,000 and $8,000,000 per mile. 
Maximum speeds range between 110 and 125 miles per hour. Faster 
speeds would require electrification, new alignment and 
trackage, new or upgraded stations, and total separation of 
freight trains, all of which add more to the cost.
    If the Administration is going to focus on high speed rail, 
it makes more sense to work on achieving high speed service in 
one corridor before expanding it to other parts of the United 
States. The GAO stated in their testimony before this 
Subcommittee that the Northeast Corridor is the most likely 
candidate for a high speed rail corridor. Amtrak has initiated 
contracts for procurement of high speed trainsets, and has an 
established market. Even in the Northeast Corridor, achieving 
high speed service involves overcoming a liability problem. 
Amtrak and freight railroads are currently discussing this 
issue and there are proposed legislative changes. However, this 
issue still remains problematic.
    Corridor development.--Last year, the Committee deleted 
funding for corridor risk analytical model development and 
requested a plan that incorporated joint funding with the 
railroad industry, which would be the primary beneficiary of 
advanced train control system (ATC). In 1995, FRA began 
evaluating ATC in various proposed high speed rail corridors, 
such as Detroit to Chicago, Chicago to St. Louis, and Seattle 
to Portland. The Committee directs FRA to submit the plan to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation for evaluation 
before further corridor development work outside the Northeast 
Corridor occurs.
    National Academy of Sciences high speed rail study.--The 
Committee directs FRA to request the National Academy of 
Sciences to undertake a study that will provide the House and 
Senate Committees on Transportation and the Department of 
Transportation with guidance on how to promote the advances 
derived from FRA's high speed rail projects and how these 
sponsored programs could be best deployed by the states and/or 
the private sector. This study should focus on FRA's ongoing 
high speed ground safety and technology research and 
development program, next generation high speed rail program, 
the integration of the research and development program, and 
federal policies and programs to promote high speed rail 
corridor planning and implementation. The Committee requests 
that the study be submitted by April 1, 1996.
    Magnetic levitation systems.--The Committee recommends 
$425,000 for magnetic levitation systems. The Committee has 
provided sufficient resources to enable the FRA to particiate 
in the few magnetic levitation projects ongoing in the United 
States including Atlanta for the 1996 Olympics and the State of 
Florida. Furthermore, the Committee notes the low probability 
that magnetic levitation systems will enter revenue service in 
this country in the near future.
    Administrative costs.--The Committee recommends reducing 
administrative costs by $100,000 consistent with the 
Committee's reduction in FRA's overall research and development 
program.

                 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................           (\1\)
Recommended in the bill.................................     100,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................    -100,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................              NA

\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (UTIIP)

    Title VII of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act) authorized $2,500,000,000 for the 
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. That Act was later 
amended to add a list of projects to be funded in the event the 
total amount of authorized funding became available. This 
project list was again amended in the Rail Safety Improvement 
Act of 1988 to authorize new safety-related projects which the 
Committee initiated in the aftermath of the Chase, Maryland, 
Conrail-Amtrak accident. Currently, the program includes a 
major upgrade of the north end of the corridor to improve 
running speeds between New York City and Boston, including 
electrification of the rail line between New Haven, Connecticut 
and Boston, Massachusetts. The program also includes routine 
upgrades and rehabilitation of the south end of the corridor 
between Washington, D.C. and New York City.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommendation would provide $100,000,000 for 
Northeast Corridor improvements in fiscal year 1996, which 
represents a reduction of $100,000,000 below the level provided 
in fiscal year 1995.
    The budget requested $200,000,000 (85 percent) for the 
northern portion of the corridor (from New York to Boston) for 
electrification, high-speed trainsets, equipment maintenance 
facilities, and track and fixed facilities. The remaining 
$35,000,000 (15 percent) was requested for the southern part of 
the corridor (from Washington D.C. to New York) to upgrade the 
electric traction and the New York tunnels. Since the 
transmittal of the President's budget, Amtrak has redefined its 
needs along the Northeast Corridor and now intends to focus 
financial resources on the southern end of the corridor. GAO 
has reported that Amtrak will need at least $2.5 billion to 
return the southern end of the corridor to a state of good 
repair. This need is immediate, although the work will continue 
over 15 years because of its complexity and volume. This is 
Amtrak's most profitable route segment and the flagship for 
high speed rail service in the United States. As such, the 
Committee emphasizes funding support for the critical southern 
end of the corridor, and recommends the following distribution 
of total funding:

New York-Boston Corridor:
    Infrastructure in the northern corridor.............     $20,700,000
Washington D.C.-New York Corridor:
    Track Improvements..................................      30,000,000
    Electric traction...................................      13,000,000
    Communications and Signals..........................      11,000,000
    Structures..........................................      21,000,000
    Station/yards/shops/vehicles........................       4,300,000

    High-speed trainsets.--The Committee has not provided any 
funding for trainsets because Amtrak has $115,000,000 that can 
be used to cover the trainset costs during fiscal year 1996. 
The procurement of high-speed trainsets is one year behind 
schedule. As such, Amtrak does not expect to begin receiving 
trainsets until the second half of 1999.
    Electrification.--The Committee has not provided any 
funding for electrification. Amtrak has funds available for 
electrification purposes, which it can use to supplement its 
northern corridor work. Through fiscal year 1995, $298,200,000 
was appropriated for electrification, of which most remains 
unexpended by the corporation.
    Electrification-related construction on the New Haven to 
Boston rail line has not yet begun. This is a delay of two 
years from the original plan. Amtrak has told the Committee 
that this occurred for two reasons: first, the design of the 
electrification system has taken longer than expected; second, 
FRA took longer to complete its environmental impact statement 
(EIS). The EIS was issued in May, 1995. Amtrak believes that 
electrification-related construction can begin in September 
1995; however, the Committee has some doubts about this time 
frame. Specifically, one of the three contractors Amtrak 
awarded the electrification project to is experiencing 
financial difficulties. Amtrak believes that this contractor's 
financial difficulties should not impact design or construction 
of the electrification. However, the Committee believes the 
joint venture will have difficulties obtaining financing, which 
is backed by a surety and guarantees the completion of the work 
even if the joint venture is unable to undertake the 
construction after receiving the notice to proceed. If the 
joint venture cannot begin construction, then Amtrak would have 
to rebid the construction phase of the project this summer, 
which would delay the project by an estimated six months. 
Assuming the current schedule and significant federal funding, 
electrification would be completed by the end of 1998. If the 
contract needs to be rebid; however, electrification would not 
be completed until mid-1999, at the same time that Amtrak 
begins receiving high-speed trainsets. Reliable, three hour 
service will occur subsequent to these actions being completed.
    Detailed market and ridership survey.--The Committee is 
still concerned that up-to-date and detailed market and 
ridership estimates have not been performed to validate the 
estimates being made for the electrified New York to Boston 
service. While the Committee directed more work in this area 
three years ago, little has been done. According to Amtrak, a 
survey and demand model produced in 1986 ``continues to serve 
as the foundation for all projections of northeast corridor 
rail ridership''. These estimates will be fifteen years old by 
the time reliable three hour electrified service begins in the 
year 2001. Amtrak, in conjunction with the Volpe National 
Transportation System Center, should complete this study, as 
directed in the 1995 Department of Transportation conference 
report, as soon as possible.

                     rhode island rail development
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................        (1)
Recommended in the bill.................................               0
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -5,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................              NA

\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (UTIIP)

    The Committee does not recommend any funding for the Rhode 
Island rail development project. Language in the 1995 
Department of Transportation Appropriations Act requires that 
the project have matching state funds. As of June 1, 1995, the 
state has not been able to match the federally appropriated 
money.
    The Governor of Rhode Island has committed $2,500,000 in 
funding for this project; however, it will not be available 
until after September 15, 1995. Thus, fiscal year 1995 money 
will not be obligated until that date, at the earliest. The 
first chance that the state could match the remaining 1995 
amount of $2,500,000 is in a November 1995 bond referendum, 
when voters will decide whether or not to provide money for 
this project. If the referendum is successful, then the state 
could receive the remaining federally appropriated fiscal year 
1995 dollars during fiscal year 1996.
    The Rhode Island project relates directly to Amtrak's 
electrification project along the northern section of the 
Corridor. Since the Committee is not funding much work on the 
northern section (including any electrification work) further 
funding on this project can be deferred. However, the Committee 
is willing to reconsider funding for this project in fiscal 
year 1997 if the available funds are obligated.
            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

    Section 511 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 1996 
consistent with the budget request.

           National Magnetic Levitation Prototype Development

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Limitation, fiscal year 1995............................            ($0)
Limitation, fiscal year 1996............................             (0)
Recommended in the bill.................................             (0)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1995..............(........................)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.........(........................)

    Section 1036 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 establishes a national magnetic 
levitation prototype program. Contract authority totaling 
$500,000,000 through fiscal year 1997 was provided for this 
program, to be derived from the highway trust fund. This 
includes $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1992, $45,000,000 in fiscal 
year 1993, $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1994 and 1995, 
and $125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The 
Act authorized an additional $225,000,000 from the general fund 
of the Treasury.
    The Committee recommends a zero obligation limitation for 
this program in fiscal year 1996, which is the same as provided 
for fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995.

                    Next Generation High Speed Rail
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $20,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      30,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      10,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     -10,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -20,000,000

\1\ Reductions of $1,000 to comply with award provisions not reflected.

    In fiscal year 1995 a new program was established to 
develop, demonstrate, and implement high speed rail 
technologies, to be managed in conjunction with the program 
authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 for similar purposes.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 from the general fund 
for this program in fiscal year 1996, and an additional 
$5,000,000 obligation limitation under ``Trust fund share of 
next generation high speed rail''. Total program funding is 
therefore $15,000,000, which is $10,000,000 less than enacted 
in 1995 and $20,000,000 less than the budget request. 
Adjustments in total program funding from the budget estimate 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year 1996      Committee    
                                         request          Recommended   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced train control............        $10,000,000         $9,000,000
Non-electric locomotive...........         15,500,000                  0
Grade crossing hazards............          7,000,000          4,500,000
Corridor planning technology......          2,000,000          1,000,000
Administrative....................            500,000            500,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total \1\...................         35,000,000         15,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 in limitation on obligation from the highway    
  trust fund.                                                           

    Non-electric locomotives.--The Committee is not providing 
any funds for non-electric locomotives because Amtrak is 
already procuring two non-electric locomotives as part of its 
high speed trainset acquisition. Further investments in this 
area would be a duplication of federal dollars and work. Also, 
Congress has previously provided funds to retrofit two existing 
turbine locomotives with engines to demonstrate the potential 
of a fossil fuel operating locomotive to achieve 125 miles per 
hour. This demonstration occurred in March 1995 between 
Schenectady and Albany, New York. After completing this 
successful demonstration and in light of Amtrak's procurement, 
the Committee believes that the federal government's role 
should largely be safety related. Developing rolling stock that 
railroads might acquire is a more appropriate role for private 
industry.
    Before the Committee would consider additional funding for 
the development of non-electric locomotives, FRA should submit 
a report on the results of the high speed rail demonstration 
between Schenectady and Albany, New York. This report should 
include information on how FRA plans to use the two retrofitted 
locomotives for service and for other planned high speed rail 
demonstrations throughout the United States.
    Other reduction in the next generation high speed rail 
account.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee has reduced 
the advanced train control program by $1,000,000, grade 
crossing hazards by $2,500,000, and corridor planning studies 
by $1,000,000. The Committee finds that a lot of this work is 
duplicative of efforts ongoing under FRA's research and 
development program.

          Trust Fund Share of Next Generation High Speed Rail

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................    ($3,400,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................     (7,118,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................     (5,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................    (+1,600,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................    (-2,118,000)

    Section 1036 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 establishes a program of research, 
development, and demonstrations of high speed ground 
transportation technologies, and provides $5,000,000 in 
contract authorization for each of fiscal years 1993 through 
1997. In fiscal year 1994 a general fund portion was added to 
the program.
    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $5,000,000 for the high speed ground transportation program 
in fiscal year 1996. This is $1,600,000 more than enacted in 
fiscal year 1995 and $2,118,000 less than the budget request.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of 
$5,000,000 for this program in fiscal year 1996. This 
limitation provides the trust fund share of overall program 
funding, discussion of which can be found under the heading 
``Next generation high speed rail''.

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................\1\ $793,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................           (\2\)
Recommended in the bill................................. \3\ 628,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................    -165,500,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................              NA

\1\ Includes $150,000,000 for mandatory payments and a supplemental 
appropriation of $21,500,000 for capital grants.
\2\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the 
United Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (UTIIP).
\3\ Assumes $120,000,000 for mandatory payments and $62,000,000 for 
transition costs.

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total funding level of 
$628,000,000 for grants to Amtrak to cover operating losses, 
capital expenses, and transition costs in fiscal year 1996 
subject to authorization. The total funding recommended in the 
bill compares to $793,500,000 for comparable expenses in fiscal 
year 1995. The budget proposed to consolidate Amtrak funding 
under the UTIIP; however, agency officials specified funding 
requests for Amtrak as reflected in later sections of this 
report.
    The President of Amtrak testified before this Committee 
that in order to reduce operating expenses, legislative reform 
must occur. He cited 13 specific examples, including liability 
costs, contracting out, and labor reforms. For example, Amtrak 
could save between $20,000,000 and $40,000,000 on maintenance 
of equipment costs if it could contract out. In addition, he 
later wrote to the Committee that removing constraints on 
Amtrak's ability to negotiate with non-freight Northeast 
Corridor users would reduce Amtrak's dependence on federal 
operating support. Estimates show that Corridor maintenance 
costs are $200,000,000 per year, of which the commuter 
railroads pay Amtrak approximately $60,000,000. By removing 
these constraints, Amtrak could collect up to $30,000,000 more. 
The Committee's recommended funding is predicated on the belief 
that reforms will occur, reducing Amtrak's cost.

                         Budget Justifications

    In the past, Amtrak has provided grant requests detailing 
operating and capital expenses. In 1996, Amtrak did not provide 
a comparable document. This made it extremely difficult for the 
Committee to compare 1995 revenue and expenses to the 1996 
request. Because of the new grant request format, Amtrak was 
unable to provide information on maintenance facility 
workloads, station renovations, insurance and interest 
expenses, administrative costs, wage and price increases, 
depreciation, and inflation. The Committee expects these types 
of issues to be addressed in Amtrak's grant request next year.

                            Status of Amtrak

    Since its establishment, Amtrak's financial condition has 
always been precarious. This condition has deteriorated 
steadily since 1990, as the gap between operating expenses and 
total financial resources has widened. At the same time, 
requirements for capital investments, such as the need for new 
equipment and improvements to facilities and tracks, have grown 
significantly. For example, GAO has estimated that Amtrak will 
require $5 billion to complete electrification, improve 
capacity, rehabilitate or replace aging right-of-way components 
along the northern end of the Northeast Corridor, and 
rehabilitate the southern end of the Corridor. To meet its 
needs, Amtrak has had to draw down its working capital from a 
positive balance to a negative balance of $227,000,000 in 1994. 
In addition, Amtrak has deferred maintenance and reduced staff.
    On December 14, 1994, Amtrak announced an aggressive, five-
year strategic business plan to improve its service quality and 
productivity. As part of this plan, Amtrak expects to decrease 
its annual expenses by reducing service by 21 percent through 
route eliminations and route adjustments, retiring its oldest 
cars, and reducing 5,500 staff. Also, Amtrak plans to replace 
all of its non-diner, non-specialty Heritage cars with modern 
cars, and is promoting the more profitable product lines, like 
the Auto Train, to provide incremental profits where possible. 
In addition, Amtrak has formed stronger partnerships with 
states and cities. In turn, the localities have increased their 
contributions to reflect the true costs of operating these 
services. Amtrak expects these actions will close the gap 
between the operating deficit and federal grants for fiscal 
year 1995. If successful, the Plan will yield more than $2.1 
billion in net savings between the years 1996 and 2000.
    Monthly financial performance reports show that Amtrak has 
achieved $81,300,000, or 47 percent of the goal highlighted in 
the Plan. From October 1994 through March 1995, budget results 
were better than expected; however, in April and May, 1995, 
budget results were slightly worse than expected. Amtrak 
currently predicts that, in the best case, it will have a 
positive cash flow of $700,000 by the end of fiscal year 1995. 
In the worst case, if results continue to decline, Amtrak 
predicts that it would have a $108,300,000 negative cash flow 
by the beginning of fiscal year 1996.
    Although these results are encouraging, the Committee 
continues to remain concerned about the status of Amtrak in 
light of today's fiscal realities. The gulf between Amtrak's 
needs and the federal funding available is just too great. 
While this Committee and the Congress have proven their 
willingness to finance Amtrak's needs in increasing amounts, 
the huge magnitude of those needs for the long-term is only now 
coming to light. The Committee plans to monitor this situation 
closely.

                           operating expenses

    The Committee's recommendation provides $398,000,000 for 
Amtrak's operating losses in fiscal year 1996. This is 
$144,000,000 less than the level provided for comparable 
activities in fiscal year 1995 and $122,000,000 less than the 
administration's request. Included in this total is funding for 
operating expenses, mandatory retirement payments, and long-
term transition and restructuring costs. In this bill, the 
Committee has reduced operating subsidies for other modal 
Administrations in addition to Amtrak.
    The Committee has provided $216,000,000 for routine 
operating expenses, which is $44,000,000 less than Amtrak had 
requested and $84,000,000 less than the administration's 
request. Under its new Strategic Business Plan, Amtrak proposed 
to reduce its federal operating assistance needs. The Committee 
has reduced this assistance because monthly financial 
performance reports show that Amtrak's budget results, year to 
date, are ahead of the plan. Based on the better than expected 
results from changes made, the Committee is optimistic that 
with further service adjustments in June and September, as well 
as the fact that states are buying back some of the truncated 
services, Amtrak will have lower operating expenses than 
earlier projected.
    Also, the Committee has provided $120,000,000 for mandatory 
passenger rail service payments. This is the same amount as 
requested by the administration. These payments are made by 
Amtrak to the railroad retirement fund and the railroad 
unemployment insurance account. Should the requirement for 
these funds be less than anticipated, as has occurred in the 
past, Amtrak has the flexibility immediately to use those funds 
for other purposes, rather than await further Congressional 
action.
    Finally, the Committee included $62,000,000 for long-term 
transition and restructuring costs as part of the operating 
subsidy. The Administration had requested $100,000,000 in a 
separate line item for these costs. The Committee believes that 
Amtrak will have fewer transition costs than earlier estimated 
and, as such, provide funding in the following manner:

Management Buyouts......................................     $33,000,000
Route and Service, C-2..................................      17,000,000
Asset Retirement........................................               0
Relocation, Training, and Other.........................      12,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      62,000,000

    Route and Service Liabilities (C-2).--Proposed changes to 
Amtrak's C-2 liabilities may occur during the reauthorization 
process. Currently, Amtrak is required to provide six years of 
severance pay for those employees whose routes are terminated 
or whose frequency is reduced to less than three times per 
week. There are ongoing discussions to reduce these payments, 
which could decrease the costs related to route reductions in 
September significantly.
    States' Services.--The Committee believes that some of the 
transition costs can be reduced or delayed because many states 
have bought back the reduced or truncated services. For 
example, in California, the San Jose/Roseville line bought back 
half a year's service, which reduced C-2 liabilities by 
$850,000. These buybacks mean that some of the C-2 liability 
cost will not be incurred in 1995.
    Asset Retirement.--As part of these transition costs, 
Amtrak is requesting $48,000,000 for asset retirement. This 
money is for the value of the fleet being retired (or 
depreciation). This is a capital requirement, not a transition 
cost. This Committee has never appropriated money for 
depreciation and will not do so now.

                                Capital

    The Committee's recommendation provides $230,000,000 for 
Amtrak's capital program in fiscal year 1996. This is 
$21,500,000 less than provided in 1995 and the same as the 
administration's request. Consistent with the budget request 
and action taken in fiscal year 1995, the availability of funds 
is delayed until July 1, 1996.
    Amtrak has made a compelling case over the past few years 
that to become self-sufficient, it needs to replace and 
modernize its physical assets, such as getting rid of its old 
equipment, overhauling cars and locomotives, and renovating 
maintenance facilities. In the past, Amtrak has deferred these 
efforts to save money. Equipment that is not overhauled or 
serviced on a regular basis has a higher incidence of failure. 
Both Amtrak and GAO have reported that, by not undertaking 
these efforts, Amtrak has created costly and inefficient 
operations.
    Due to a high backlog of equipment requiring overhaul, 
Amtrak implemented a progressive overhaul and maintenance 
program, that is designed to maximize the use of available 
funds for these efforts as well as increase annual inspections 
and target component replacement. Amtrak has reported some 
successes from this effort. For example, in the first quarter 
of 1995, the total number of locomotive failures declined by 
close to 30 percent below the failure rate in the preceding 
year. Funding capital at the budget request will allow Amtrak 
to more effectively address these issues and reflects the 
Committee's emphasis on capital investment across all 
transportation modes.
    Statutory and regulatory requirements.--Proposed changes to 
regulatory and statutory requirements may allow Amtrak to 
postpone when capital is required to meet these deadlines from 
1996 to 2001. The Committee directs Amtrak to determine if any 
of the $35,000,000 requested in the budget for these 
requirements could be postponed to later years, which would 
free up funds for other capital needs.
    Maintenance facilities.--Officials from GAO testified last 
year about the extremely dilapidated condition of Amtrak's 
maintenance facilities. At the Beech Grove, Indiana facility, 
for example, there were holes in the roof and scaffolds on the 
walls to catch falling masonry. This year, officials from Beech 
Grove testified about the importance of this maintenance 
facility. Specifically, Beech Grove overhauls 61 percent of 
Amtrak's fleet today, including 1,200 cars and 265 locomotives 
that operate outside of the Northeast Corridor. The Committee 
sees no way for Amtrak to achieve its new progressive 
maintenance requirements, or adequately maintain its rolling 
stock as new equipment is delivered, unless rehabilitation of 
this and other facilities is undertaken. For this reason, the 
Committee suggests that Amtrak allocate some funding to 
rehabilitation of maintenance facilities unless action in the 
Amtrak reauthorization process makes this unnecessary.
    Revenue utilization.--The Committee is concerned that 
Amtrak is not collecting sufficient revenue and is incurring 
high costs which reduce the amount of funding available for 
capital improvements, especially along the Northeast Corridor. 
A recent Amtrak Inspector General report found that Amtrak had 
a number of uncollected revenues. For example, the report noted 
that Amtrak had collected $1,550,000 less in rent payments in 
and around Pennsylvania Station than it was due. In addition, 
the same report noted that changes in commuter and Amtrak 
operations were not adequately reflected in data to accurately 
apportion electric traction maintenance and propulsion power 
costs. As such, Amtrak incurred a disproportionate percentage 
of these costs. The report noted that Amtrak should be 
reimbursed $1,700,000 from commuter agencies. The Committee 
directs Amtrak to undertake a study to determine if there are 
better ways to utilize their assets so that Amtrak would have 
more funds available for its operating and capital needs in 
future years.

               Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $40,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................           (\2\)
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     -40,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................              NA

\1\ Amount rescinded in April 1995 but provided $21,500,000 for 
emergency, life safety needs under Amtrak's capital grant.
\2\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the 
United Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (UTIIP).

    The Committee recommends no funding for grants to Amtrak to 
redevelop Pennsylvania Station in New York City in fiscal year 
1996.
    Because of emerging priorities in the southern end of the 
corridor and delays in the electrification project and in 
procurement of high-speed trainsets, the time it takes Amtrak 
to reach reliable 3-hour service on the New York to Boston 
corridor may be delayed further. Since the requirement for 
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment is based on ridership from 
high speed service, which is likely to be delayed, Amtrak will 
not have as many riders using Pennsylvania Station and thus, 
its redevelopment of the station can be delayed.
    Overestimation of contract costs.--A recent Amtrak 
Inspector General report identified a number of problems that 
Amtrak has at Pennsylvania Station, such as tenants underpaying 
rent, as previously noted. In addition, the report identified 
contractual weaknesses. For example, a purchase order for a 
comprehensive design to rehabilitate and modify the electrical 
and mechanical systems in the Pennsylvania Station tunnels 
revealed a number of overstated costs. In another tunnel 
contract, the Inspector General questioned costs related to 
asbestos abatement compliance monitoring. The Committee directs 
Amtrak to pay closer attention to the sole source contracts and 
purchase orders it enters into for the tunnel work.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 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 (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
Federal Transit Administration administers the federal 
financial assistance programs for planning, developing and 
improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both 
urban and non-urban areas.
    Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration 
is provided by contract authority, with program levels 
established by annual limitations on obligations provided in 
appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are 
required for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
as well as for portions of certain other accounts.
    The total recommended funding for FTA for fiscal year 1996 
is $3,992,510,000 including $1,217,510,000 in direct 
appropriations and $2,775,000,000 in limitations on the use of 
contract authority. This is $621,830,000 less than the enacted 
fiscal year 1995 program level.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program 
levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal year                
          Program             Fiscal year    1996 budget     Committee  
                             1995 enacted     estimate    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses...     \1\ $43,060  \2\ ($44,202                
                                                       )         $39,260
Formula grants............       2,500,000  \2\ (500,000                
                                                       )       2,000,000
Discretionary grants \3\..       1,725,000  \4\ (724,976                
                                                       )       1,665,000
Transit planning and                                                    
 research.................          92,250  \2\ (100,027                
                                                       )          82,250
University transportation                                               
 centers..................           6,000   \2\ (6,000)           6,000
Interstate transfer                                                     
 grants--transit..........          48,030  ............  ..............
Washington Metro..........         200,000  \2\ (200,000                
                                                       )         200,000
Violent Crime Reduction                                                 
 Program..................  ..............         5,000  ..............
                           ---------------------------------------------
      Total...............       4,614,340         5,000       3,992,510
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reductions of $277,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards  
  and procurement reform provisions and transfer of $188,300 for        
  consolidated civil rights office not reflected.                       
\2\ Funding included under UTIIP.                                       
\3\ Includes obligation limitation on contract authority in 1995 and    
  1996.                                                                 
\4\ Full Funding grant agreements included under Unified Transportation 
  Infrastructure Investment Program within the line item ``Prior        
  Commitments''.                                                        

                        Administrative Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................     $43,060,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      44,202,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      39,260,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -3,800,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -4,942,000

    The bill includes a total of $39,260,000 for administrative 
expenses of the Federal Transit Administration. This amount, 
plus the use of any available unrestricted authorities, should 
provide sufficient funds for FTA's personnel and support 
requirements. The recommendation should fund 492 full time 
equivalent staff years, a reduction of 13 from 1995 levels.
    The recommendation assumes the following adjustments to the 
request:

Disallow transfer of external civil rights functions....       +$953,000
Hold non-pay inflationary adjustment to 1.5 percent.....         -53,000
Reduce funds for employee relocation and training.......        -300,000
Reduce funds for electronic grant making and area wide 
    network systems to $450,000.........................        -777,000
Undistributed...........................................      -4,871,000

    WMATA oversight.--The Committee is displeased to learn that 
the Federal Transit Administration has elected to transfer the 
oversight of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
(WMATA) to the regional office located in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania. Regional offices were created to bring the 
federal government closer to the grantee. This transfer moves 
the federal government farther from the grantee and adds an 
additional layer of red tape. With the transfer, all 
significant decisions will have to go through Philadelphia and 
will inevitably be referred to FTA headquarters. This appears 
to make little sense since WMATA is located in the nation's 
capital and literally a few blocks from the Department of 
Transportation's Washington metropolitan offices. Furthermore, 
the Department has not provided an analysis of the efficiencies 
and cost-savings associated with this transfer. Therefore, the 
bill includes language that requires FTA oversight of WMATA be 
conducted from FTA's Washington metropolitan offices.
    Grants management.--The Committee has provided $450,000 to 
support full implementation of the grants management system in 
fiscal year 1996. The Committee commends the Federal Transit 
Administration for the substantial progress that it has made in 
addressing its grants management weaknesses. Over the last two 
years, a concerted effort has been sustained to improve FTA 
oversight procedures, and, more importantly, change the 
attitudes of its oversight staff and its grantees toward 
safeguarding federal funds.
    However, the Committee is concerned that the FTA has no 
mechanism in place to assess the effectiveness of its actions. 
The FTA is directed to develop and establish performance 
measures to evaluate whether the actions being implemented are 
achieving their expected results. These performance measures 
are to be developed and implemented by December 31, 1995.
                             Formula Grants

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Appropriation(General   Limitation(Trust
                                        Fund)                Fund)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year                                              
 1995.........................     1 $1,350,000,000     ($1,150,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year                                            
 1996.........................                  (-)                  (2)
Recommended in the bill.......          890,000,000      (1,110,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
     1995.....................         -460,000,000        (-40,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal                                             
     year 1996................                   NA                   NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Reductions of $89,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards and 
  procurement reform provisions not reflected.                          
2 The president's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the  
  Unified Transportation Infrastructure Program.                        

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 for formula grants. 
This amount is $500,000,000 less than the 1995 levels. Formula 
grant funds are available for capital and operating assistance 
to both urbanized and non-urbanized areas, and for capital 
assistance to organizations providing service to elderly and 
disabled persons.
    Operating assistance.--The administration's budget proposed 
to reduce transit operating assistance by $210,000,000, or 30 
percent below the level provided in fiscal year 1995. Transit 
operating grants have been funded at approximately $800,000,000 
for seven years. The effects of inflation alone have greatly 
eroded the purchasing power of the federal contribution to 
operating assistance. In 1980, federal operating assistance 
represented 16.8 percent of all transit revenue for operations. 
By 1992, federal operating assistance had declined to only 5.8 
percent. At the same time that the federal contribution for 
operating assistance has declined, the federal government has 
placed additional unfunded mandates on transit operators. When 
fully implemented, the Americans with Disabilities Act will 
result in additional operating costs for transit operators of 
$700,000,000 to $900,000,000. The Clean Air Act, Buy American, 
and federal alcohol and drug testing requirements place 
additional burdens on transit authorities.
    Numerous transit authorities and Members of Congress 
communicated to the Committee the hope that transit operating 
subsidies could be restored to the 1995 level. Unfortunately, 
budget limitations preclude the Committee from making a 
restoration. The Committee's recommendation for operating 
subsidies is $400,000,000. The Committee notes that for larger 
cities, federal operating assistance generally represents 10 
percent or less of total operating expenses. A reduction of 25 
percent in the federal contribution for the larger cities is 
painful but they have more resources on which to rely. For 
smaller communities, where federal assistance may represent 30 
to 40 percent or more of total operating costs, such a 
reduction could be painful. Without adequate time to prepare 
for alternative funding sources, such reductions could pose 
special difficulties. Many smaller authorities might face 
options of either cutting back on service or raising prices 
significantly to make up the shortfall.
    The Committee urges the Federal Transit Administration to 
review the program thoroughly in conjunction with submittal of 
the fiscal year 1997 budget and make further recommendations as 
appropriate. Further reductions in the level of operating 
assistance may be unavoidable, and the Committee would hope 
that a system could be devised that would take performance-
based criteria into account, rather than merely reducing 
properties by a uniform percentage across the board. The 
Committee also encourages the appropriate authorizing 
committees to review the formula by which operating assistance 
is distributed and take appropriate action to minimize the 
effect on small and rural authorities. In addition, the FTA is 
urged to work with various transit agencies and their 
associations to determine what additional regulatory relief may 
be necessary.
    In light of this difficult funding decision, the Committee 
has included two provisions that should mitigate the reductions 
in operating assistance by at least $200,000,000 annually: (1) 
repeal of 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act and an abrogation of 
existing labor agreements, and (2) a provision that will permit 
bus overhauls to be considered as a capital expense.
    13(c) of the Federal Transit Act.--The Committee has 
included a provision (Sec. 343) that repeals Section 13(c) of 
the Federal Transit Act, and cancels existing agreements. 
Section 13(c) generally requires, as a precondition to a grant 
of federal assistance by the Federal Transit Administration, 
that protective arrangements must be made by the grantee to 
protect employees affected by such assistance. The statute 
requires that provisions addressing specific matters, including 
preservation of collective bargaining rights, must be included 
in such protective arrangements. Like Amtrak, these protective 
arrangements also provide transit workers, depending on their 
length of employment, up to 6 years of full compensation and 
benefits.
    Many transit authorities have informed the Committee that 
section 13(c) labor protection has become a costly, outdated 
and burdensome component of the federal transit program that 
has impeded innovation, efficiency and growth in the provision 
of transit services, including the institution of new or 
restructured services. Last year, the Committee noted that 
numerous grants for section 3 and 9 transit projects had been 
delayed due to processing by the Department of Labor under 
section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. In many instances, 
these transit projects provide not only critical operating and 
capital assistance to improve transit services, but also 
provide needed jobs and funding for compliance with 
Congressional mandates, such as the Clean Air Act and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.
    When Federal support for transit operating assistance and 
capital programs is diminishing, transit authorities must have 
the flexibility to adjust to these reductions. At this time, 
transit authorities cannot forgo cost savings inherent in 
contracting out services, using part-time workers, 
restructuring routes or schedules and using more cost effective 
equipment which have been lost due to 13(c) obligations or the 
threat of 13 (c) claims.
    Bus overhauls.--The Committee has also included language 
(Sec. 334) that amends federal transit laws to permit periodic 
bus overhauls to be considered as a capital expense, as 
requested in the budget and advocated by the American Public 
Transit Association. Under existing law, bus rehabilitations 
are eligible as capital expenses after March 31, 1996, only if 
they increase the useful life of the vehicle by more than 5 
years, and bus remanufacturing is eligible if it extends the 
useful life by more than 8 years. The provision would make the 
ground rules for bus remanufacturing consistent with the 
legislation already in place for rail rolling stock.
    The intent of this provision is to provide transit 
operators with increased flexibility to use federal funds in 
the most effective manner, remove the bias towards purchasing 
new equipment rather than maintaining existing equipment (much 
of which was acquired with federal funds), and make federal 
highway and transit funding requirements more consistent. This 
change will help alleviate the impact of federal operating 
assistance reductions and help assure that transit service and 
fare levels are maintained. Bus operators will immediately 
benefit from greater flexibility in how they manage and 
maintain federally funded assets. The Committee and the 
Administration estimates that allowing periodic bus overhauls 
to be considered as a capital expense could make eligible for 
capital grants as much as $200,000,000 per year in rebuilding 
costs.
    The Committee notes that capital costs for transit projects 
eligible for assistance under the Federal Transit Act and 
publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals and 
facilities are eligible expenses under the surface 
transportation program (STP). Public transportation facilities 
and equipment and intermodal transportation facilities and 
systems, where it can be demonstrated they are likely to 
contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality 
standard are eligible expenses of the congestion mitigation/air 
quality improvement program (CMAQ). Funds made available for 
these programs may be ``flexed'' and alleviate reductions in 
transit capital funds. The Committee recommendation includes 
$4,733,993,000 for STP and $967,017,000 for CMAQ, increases of 
$331,877,000 and $56,778,000, respectively, over last year.
    Flexible funds transferred from the FHWA to the FTA have 
increased significantly since the passage of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), 
especially funding from the STP and CMAQ programs. The FTA 
reports that nearly $2 billion in flexible funding from STP and 
CMAQ programs has been transferred to transit and intermodal 
projects since ISTEA's passage, indicating that transit 
systems, metropolitan planning organizations, and state 
departments of transportation are succesfully implementing the 
planning provisions of ISTEA.

   SUMMARY TABLE OF FLEXIBLE FUNDING TRANSFERS TO FTA AND OBLIGATIONS   
              [As of May 31, 1995, In millions of dollars]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Fiscal year--                        
                     ---------------------------------------- Cumulative
                        1992      1993      1994      1995              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers to FTA:                                                       
    CMAQ............    $177.0    $298.4    $317.0    $353.6   $1,146.0 
    STP.............      25.2     146.9     183.2     117.1      472.4 
    Interstate                                                          
     substitute.....     100.0       0.1      83.3      83.3      266.7 
    FHWA earmarks...       1.4      23.8      26.2      31.3       82.7 
    FAUS............       0.2  ........  ........  ........        0.2 
                     ---------------------------------------------------
      Total                                                             
       transfers to                                                     
       FTA..........     303.6     469.2     609.7     585.3    1,967.8 
Carryover from                                                          
 previous year                                                          
 (including                                                             
 recoveries/                                                            
 adjustments):                                                          
    CMAQ............       n/a      55.8      65.8     106.9            
    STP.............       n/a       4.4      25.3     112.6            
    Interstate                                                          
     substitute.....       n/a  ........  ........  ........            
    FHWA earmarks...       n/a  ........       9.9      20.1            
    FAUS............       n/a  ........  ........  ........            
                     ----------------------------------------           
      Total                                                             
       carryover....       n/a      60.2  \1\ 101.                      
                                                 0     239.6            
Available to FTA:                                                       
    CMAQ............     177.0     354.2     382.8     460.5            
    STP.............      25.2     151.3     208.5     229.7            
    Interstate                                                          
     substitute.....     100.0       0.1      83.3      83.3            
    FHWA earmarks...       1.4      23.8      36.1      51.4            
    FAUS............       0.2  ........  ........  ........            
                     ----------------------------------------           
      Total                                                             
       available to                                                     
       FTA..........     303.8     529.4     710.7     824.9            
Obligated by FTA:                                                       
    CMAQ............     121.2     289.0     259.7     340.1    1,010.0 
    STP.............      20.8     125.7     114.8     138.7      400.0 
    Interstate                                                          
     substitute.....     100.0       0.1      83.3      83.3      266.7 
    FHWA earmarks...       1.4      13.8      16.0      44.8       76.0 
    FAUS............       0.2  ........  ........  ........        0.2 
                     ---------------------------------------------------
      Total                                                             
       obligated by                                                     
       FTA..........     243.6     428.6     473.8     606.9    1,752.9 
Pending obligation                                                      
 (carryover):                                                           
    CMAQ............      55.8      65.2     123.1     120.4            
    STP.............       4.4      25.6      93.7      91.0            
    Interstate                                                          
     substitute.....  ........  ........  ........  ........            
    FHWA earmarks...  ........      10.0      20.1       6.6            
    FAUS............  ........  ........  ........  ........            
                     ----------------------------------------           
      Total pending                                                     
       obligation...      60.2     100.8     236.9     218.0            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note.--Carryover includes current year recoveries/adjustments from  
  prior year(s) obligations/transfers.                                  
FY 92 obligations represent 26 projects in 18 states.                   
FY 93 obligations represent 155 projects in 38 states.                  
FY 94 obligations represent 166 projects in 38 states.                  
FY 95 obligations represent 134 projects in 30 states.                  

    The Committee encourages the Federal Transit Administration 
to work with transit authorities to maximize the full potential 
of the flexible funding provisions of ISTEA.
    Formula grants apportionments.--The Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) made a number of 
major changes in the formula grants program of the Federal 
Transit Administration. As indicated, the Federal Transit Act 
still provides formula allocated programs of capital and 
operating assistance for urbanized areas under section 9 and 
for non-urbanized areas under section 18. However, as a result 
of ISTEA, the section 16(b)(2) program of grants for services 
to elderly and disabled persons is now distributed by a 
statutory formula rather than by a discretionary administrative 
formula and thus becomes a part of the FTA's formula grants 
program. In addition, the rural transit assistance program, 
which was formerly a part of the formula grants program, is now 
a part of the authorization for transit planning and research 
and is described under that heading.
    The amount recommended would be distributed as follows:
    Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These 
areas would receive $1,656,335,386 (not including the one-half 
percent set-aside).
    Urbanized areas under 200,000 population.--These areas 
would receive $176,382,304 (not including the one-half percent 
set-aside) to be distributed 50 percent based on population and 
50 percent based on population density.
    Non-urbanized areas.--These areas would receive 
$107,202,119. These funds are distributed based on non-
urbanized area population.
    Elderly and disabled.--The section 16(b)(2) program would 
receive $50,870,554. The ISTEA made the following changes in 
the elderly and disabled program: (1) the former administrative 
allocation is now statutory; (2) eligibility is expanded to 
public bodies that coordinate elderly and disabled services; 
(3) project eligibility is expanded to cover certain capital 
costs in operating contracts; and (4) vehicles purchased under 
this program may be leased to public bodies and may be used for 
meals-on-wheels service.
    Table showing the distribution of formula grant funding 
recommended in the bill follow:

           Fiscal Year 1996 Section 9 Formula Apportionments

   AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS OVER 1,000,000 IN POPULATION  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Operating    
           Ubanized area                  Total            assistance   
                                      apportionment       limitations   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA.......................        $24,614,444         $3,029,801
Baltimore, MD.....................         22,462,363          4,849,442
Boston, MA........................         49,857,478          9,104,802
Chicago, IL-Northwestern IN.......        125,994,715         25,224,844
Cincinnati, OH-KY.................          9,065,773          2,626,818
Clevland, OH......................         15,354,750          4,806,205
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX.............         23,167,191          4,309,939
Denver, CO........................         14,064,351          2,942,363
Detroit, MI.......................         23,737,452         10,670,060
Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano                                        
 Bch, FL..........................         12,858,244          3,659,453
Houston, TX.......................         26,760,365          4,528,840
Kansas City, MO-KS................          6,586,626          2,225,760
Los Angeles, CA...................        117,234,520         28,459,056
Miami-Hialeah, FL.................         26,952,080          4,180,275
Milwaukee, WI.....................         11,310,759          2,723,649
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN..........         16,225,779          3,631,574
New Orleans, LA...................         10,244,538          3,294,360
New York, NY-Northeastern NJ......        402,078,449         65,909,181
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport                                          
 News, VA.........................          7,698,559          2,092,594
Philadelphia, PA-NJ...............         73,506,364         15,866,092
Phoenix, AZ.......................         14,268,460          2,346,418
Pittsburgh, PA....................         21,619,779          4,736,007
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA.........         13,689,336          2,194,440
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA......         10,668,751          1,254,240
Sacramento, CA....................          8,200,858          1,734,602
San Antonio, TX...................         12,169,587          2,282,428
San Diego, CA.....................         22,496,954          3,641,907
San Francisco-Oakland, CA.........         74,426,318          9,697,006
San Jose, CA......................         18,718,182          3,294,592
San Juan, PR......................         16,567,835          3,744,556
Seattle, WA.......................         31,053,345          3,077,101
St. Louis, MO-IL..................         14,131,498          4,781,113
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,                                        
 FL...............................         10,447,664          2,603,143
Washington, DC-MD-VA..............         61,140,220          8,417,938
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................      1,349,373,587        257,940,602
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS 200,000 TO 1,000,000 IN     
                               POPULATION                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Operating    
          Urbanized area                  Total            assistance   
                                      apportionment       limitations   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akron, OH.........................         $3,753,207         $1,148,687
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY.......          4,485,474          1,114,100
Albuquerque, NM...................          3,598,403            769,914
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ.          2,821,851          1,164,829
Anchorage, AK.....................          1,535,538            380,142
Ann Arbor, MI.....................          2,403,474            488,418
Augusta, GA-SC....................          1,303,574            389,076
Austin, TX........................          7,331,311            732,699
Bakersfield, CA...................          2,340,553            477,745
Baton Rouge, LA...................          1,858,541            638,412
Birmingham, AL....................          3,706,281          1,172,716
Bridgeport-Milford, CT............          3,962,452          1.018,133
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY.........          8,218,665          2,988,539
Canton, OH........................          1,263,221            562,523
Charleston, SC....................          1,964,142            533,329
Charlotte, NC.....................          3,812,871            642,938
Chattanooga, TN-GA................          1,597,602            484,686
Colorado Springs, CO..............          2,413,191            481,153
Columbia, SC......................          1,738,934            544,473
Columbus, GA-AL...................          1,131,383            407,956
Columbus, OH......................          7,324,428          2,167,529
Corpus Christi, TX................          2,347,424            428,127
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA-                                       
 IL...............................          1,919,302            557,060
Dayton, OH........................          8,048,369          1,442,320
Daytona Beach, FL.................          1,404,776            386,832
Des Moines, IA....................          1,748,300            542,546
Durham, NC........................          1,773,523            398,718
El Paso, TX-NM....................          5,357,699            887,385
Fayetteville, NC..................            972,805            366,925
Flint, MI.........................          2,947,988            754,704
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL.........          1,391,332            281,786
Fort Wayne, IN....................          1,274,563            538,143
Fresno, CA........................          3,398,317            724,199
Grand Rapids, MI..................          2,831,669            765,449
Greenville, SC....................          1,355,759            369,980
Harrisburg, PA....................          1,649,004            558,765
Hartford-Middletown, CT...........          5,904,933          1,133,925
Honolulu, HI......................         14,292,094          1,404,341
Indianapolis, IN..................          5,518,618          1,886,916
Jackson, MS.......................          1,263,106            446,062
Jacksonville, FL..................          5,214,342            999,771
Knoxville, TN.....................          1,594,193            444,669
Lansing-East Lansing, MI..........          2,175,867            574,012
Las Vegas, NV.....................          6,437,138            681,390
Lawrence-Haverhill, MA-NH.........          2,304,442            421,807
Lexington-Fayette, KY.............          1,355,989            639,856
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR.          1,657,790            511,637
Lorain-Elyria, OH.................            857,444            385,955
Louisville, KY-IN.................          7,048,873          1,927,119
Madison, WI.......................          3,243,770            492,277
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX......            891,131            408,979
Melbourne-Palm Bay, FL............          2,252,910            347,717
Memphis, TN-AR-MS.................          5,945,993          1,786,033
Mobile, AL........................          1,619,882            497,703
Modesto, CA.......................          1,918,493            489,838
Montgomery, AL....................          1,055,846            506,435
Nashville, TN.....................          3,530,254            828,076
New Haven-Meriden, CT.............          6,164,211          1,144,081
Ogden, UT.........................          1,958,844            345,789
Oklahoma City, OK.................          3,414,538          1,146,097
Omaha, NE-IA......................          3,824,408          1,175,399
Orlando, FL.......................          6,851,996            864,885
Oxnard-Ventura, CA................          2,620,873            670,751
Pensacola, FL.....................          1,249,359            374,848
Peoria, IL........................          1,487,534            522,279
Providence-Pawtucket, RI-MA.......         10,497,418          2,347,879
Provo-Orem, UT....................          1,757,036            402,524
Raleigh, NC.......................          1,796,819            361,204
Reno, NV..........................          2,580,586            416,401
Richmond, VA......................          4,251,141            956,723
Rochester, NY.....................          4,798,391          1,533,651
Rockford, IL......................          1,247,727            480,621
Salt Lake City, UT................          8,328,259          1,213,000
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL............          2,434,998            626,163
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA.........          2,249,759            860,514
Shreveport, LA....................          1,732,155            521,516
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI.......          1,568,347            569,709
Spokane, WA.......................          3,763,931            552,822
Springfield, MA-CT................          4,312,934          1,004,381
Stockton, CA......................          2,069,073            663,194
Syracuse, NY......................          3,395,661            941,616
Tacoma, WA........................          6,039,100            769,671
Toledo, OH-MI.....................          3,792,671          1,111,998
Trenton, NJ-PA....................          2,970,471            981,809
Tucson, AZ........................          5,567,145            822,607
Tulsa, OK.........................          2,984,602            778,857
West Palm Bch-Boca Raton-Delray                                         
 Bch, FL..........................          8,464,696            819,758
Wichita, KS.......................          2,038,667            673,803
Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD-PA...........          3,818,567            996,549
Worcester, MA-CT..................          2,223,483            575,229
Youngstown-Warren, OH.............          1,637,365            886,167
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        306,961,799         72,237,949
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO STATE GOVERNORS FOR URBANIZED AREAS 50,000 TO  
                          200,000 IN POPULATION                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Operating    
       State/Urbanized areas              Total            assistance   
                                      apportionment       limitations   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................         $3,312,538         $1,480,233
Alaska............................                  0                  0
Arizona...........................            525,971            155,467
Arkansas..........................          1,265,629            599,943
California........................         19,386,682          5,108,923
Colorado..........................          3,572,184          1,381,582
Connecticut.......................         11,888,266          3,412,754
Delaware..........................            269,494             71,673
Florida...........................          8,213,586          2,368,432
Georgia...........................          3,596,112          1,629,865
Hawaii............................            955,758            357,448
Idaho.............................          1,891,612            608,269
Illinois..........................          8,664,535          4,034,863
Indiana...........................          5,053,534          2,301,402
Iowa..............................          2,751,078          1,335,448
Kansas............................          1,335,736            570,870
Kentucky..........................          1,052,778            477,421
Louisiana.........................          3,117,891          1,403,885
Maine.............................          1,356,961            607,297
Maryland..........................          1,509,010            564,518
Massachusetts.....................          5,976,384          3,012,942
Michigan..........................          5,099,999          2,466,676
Minnesota.........................          1,817,491            819,479
Mississippi.......................          1,560,348            681,074
Missouri..........................          2,150,185            905,344
Montana...........................          1,431,385            650,382
Nebraska..........................          1,591,263            588,626
Nevada............................  .................  .................
New Hampshire.....................          1,932,360            699,260
New Jersey........................          1,464,117            872,978
New Mexico........................            797,291            260,185
New York..........................          4,423,632          2,168,937
North Carolina....................          7,181,334          2,860,008
North Dakota......................          1,395,326            522,021
Ohio..............................          3,836,494          1,844,101
Oklahoma..........................            597,129            290,265
Oregon............................          3,114,023          1,070,503
Pennsylvania......................          8,140,607          3,853,309
Puerto Rico.......................          7,520,213          2,487,985
Rhode Island......................            478,682            185,005
South Carolina....................          2,027,155            761,051
South Dakota......................          1,006,544            393,123
Tennessee.........................          1,557,802            666,941
Texas.............................         14,423,855          5,774,321
Utah..............................            288,287             76,674
Vermont...........................            505,860            183,576
Virginia..........................          3,357,868          1,510,205
Washington........................          3,173,247          1,083,128
West Virginia.....................          2,438,801          1,360,681
Wisconsin.........................          6,676,323          2,955,935
Wyoming...........................            698,945            346,441
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        176,382,304         69,821,449
                                   =====================================
over 1,000,000 in population......      1,349,373,587        257,940,602
200,000-1,000,000 in population...        306,961,799         72,237,949
50,000-200,000 in population......        176,382,304         69,821,449
                                   -------------------------------------
      Totals......................      1,832,717,690        400,000,000
Section 23 Set-Aside..............          9,209,637  .................
                                   -------------------------------------
      National Totals.............      1,841,927,327        400,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


          SECTION 16 APPORTIONMENTS AMOUNTS ALLOCATED TO STATES         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     State                              Allocation      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................                 $882,486
Alaska.........................................                  169,522
American Samoa.................................                   51,753
Arizona........................................                  782,367
Arkansas.......................................                  627,542
California.....................................                4,620,468
Colorado.......................................                  614,985
Connectiut.....................................                  699,407
Delaware.......................................                  237,388
District of Columbia...........................                  235,897
Florida........................................                3,129,691
Georgia........................................                1,133,542
Guam...........................................                  130,830
Hawaii.........................................                  292,096
Idaho..........................................                  298,073
Illinois.......................................                2,035,960
Indiana........................................                1,085,471
Iowa...........................................                  671,906
Kansas.........................................                  569,161
Kentucky.......................................                  847,253
Louisiana......................................                  849,876
Maine..........................................                  363,595
Maryland.......................................                  853,724
Massachusetts..................................                1,213,668
Michigan.......................................                1,747,157
Minnesota......................................                  865,249
Mississippi....................................                  610,703
Missouri.......................................                1,100,274
Montana........................................                  276,472
Nebraska.......................................                  412,003
Nevada.........................................                  315,815
New Hampshire..................................                  300,362
New Jersey.....................................                1,449,798
New Mexico.....................................                  366,726
New York.......................................                3,311,609
North Carolina.................................                1,284,166
North Dakota...................................                  240,751
Northern Marianas..............................                   51,601
Ohio...........................................                2,123,177
Oklahoma.......................................                  736,126
Oregon.........................................                  686,925
Pennsylvania...................................                2,538,362
Puerto Rico....................................                  653,508
Rhode Island...................................                  327,622
South Carolina.................................                  712,760
South Dakota...................................                  257,080
Tennessee......................................                1,035,435
Texas..........................................                2,620,396
Utah...........................................                  344,223
Vermont........................................                  218,817
Virgin Islands.................................                  132,403
Virginia.......................................                1,075,698
Washington.....................................                  968,491
West Virginia..................................                  530,611
Wisconsin......................................                  988,018
Wyoming........................................                  191,555
                                                ------------------------
      Total....................................               50,870,554
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 SECTION 18 FORMULA APPORTIONMENTS AND RURAL TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
             ALLOCATIONS TO THE STATES FOR NONURBANIZED AREA            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Section 18                      
               State                  apportionment     RTAP allocation 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................         $2,546,646            $92,760
Alaska............................            379,760             56,376
American Samoa....................             54,128             10,909
Arizona...........................          1,167,922             69,610
Arkansas..........................          2,035,938             84,185
California........................          4,969,061            133,434
Colorado..........................          1,060,696             67,810
Connecticut.......................            962,151             66,155
Delaware..........................            240,034             54,030
Florida...........................          3,194,332            103,635
Georgia...........................          3,723,468            112,520
Guam..............................            154,089             12,587
Hawaii............................            417,902             57,017
Idaho.............................            843,106             64,156
Illinois..........................          3,416,074            107,358
Indiana...........................          3,299,850            105,407
Iowa..............................          2,122,496             85,638
Kansas............................          1,688,378             78,349
Kentucky..........................          2,787,144             96,798
Louisiana.........................          2,305,170             88,705
Maine.............................          1,112,334             68,677
Maryland..........................          1,388,696             73,317
Massachusetts.....................          1,488,260             74,989
Michigan..........................          4,030,463            117,674
Minnesota.........................          2,319,299             88,943
Mississippi.......................          2,263,334             88,003
Missouri..........................          2,701,386             95,358
Montana...........................            682,982             61,468
Nebraska..........................          1,030,534             67,303
Nevada............................            336,454             55,649
New Hampshire.....................            890,841             64,958
New Jersey........................          1,273,714             71,387
New Mexico........................          1,001,332             66,813
New York..........................          4,483,625            125,283
North Carolina....................          4,762,934            129,973
North Dakota......................            505,096             58,481
Northern Marianas.................             50,161             10,842
Ohio..............................          4,848,998            131,418
Oklahoma..........................          2,072,897             84,805
Oregon............................          1,645,898             77,636
Pennsylvania......................          5,409,108            140,823
Puerto Rico.......................          1,616,412             77,141
Rhode Island......................            207,065             53,477
South Carolina....................          2,383,873             90,027
South Dakota......................            615,672             60,338
Tennessee.........................          3,077,307            101,670
Texas.............................          6,497,051            159,092
Utah..............................            466,714             57,836
Vermont...........................            550,464             59,243
Virgin Islands....................            117,817             11,978
Virginia..........................          2,728,331             95,811
Washington........................          1,911,707             82,099
West Virginia.....................          1,625,502             77,293
Wisconsin.........................          2,808,677             97,160
Wyoming...........................            392,825             56,596
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................       $106,666,108         $4,381,000
                                   =====================================
Section 23 set-aside..............            536,011  .................
                                   -------------------------------------
      National total..............       $107,202,119         $4,381,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   University Transportation Centers
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................           (\1\)
Recommended in the bill.................................       6,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................              NA

\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.

    The Committee has approved the budget request of $6,000,000 
for the university transportation centers program. ISTEA added 
three centers to the ten previously established. These centers 
conduct research, training, and development activities related 
to the transportation of passengers and property.
    The Regional Centers and their focus areas are:
    Region I--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Strategic 
Management of Transportation Systems.
    Region II--City University of New York, Regional Mobility 
and Accessibility Investment Strategies.
    Region III--Pennsylvania State University, Advanced 
Technologies in Transportation Operations and Management.
    Region IV--University of Tennessee, Transportation Safety.
    Region V--University of Michigan, Commercial Highway 
Transportation.
    Region VI--Texas A&M; University, Mobility for Regional 
Development.
    Region VII--University of Nebraska, Midwestern and Rural 
Transportation Policy, Planning, and System Management.
    Region VIII--North Dakota State University, Rural and Non-
Metropolitan Transportation.
    Region IX--University of California, Berkeley, Improving 
Accessibility for All.
    Region X--University of Washington, Operations Management 
and Planning.
    The National Centers are:
    National Center for Transportation and Industrial 
Productivity at the New Jersey Institute of Technology,
    National Center for Transportation Management, Research & 
Development at Morgan State University, and
    Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center 
at the University of Arkansas.

                     Transit Planning and Research
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $92,250,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................     100,027,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      82,250,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     -10,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -17,777,000

\1\ Reductions of $171,000 to comply with procurement reform provision 
not reflected.

    The Committee recommends a total of $82,250,000 for the 
planning and research, training, and human resources programs 
of the FTA. The bill reduces appropriations for all programs of 
the transit planning and research by five percent due to budget 
constraints, other than the national program which is reduced 
by $14,472,000. The bill contains language specifying that 
$39,436,250 shall be available for the metropolitan planning 
program, $4,381,000 for the rural transit assistance program, 
$8,051,250 for the transit cooperative research program, 
$19,480,000 for the national program, $8,051,250 for the state 
program and $2,850,000 for the National Transit Institute.
    National program.--The Committee has reduced the national 
transit planning and research program in fiscal year 1996. A 
number of low-priority, non-essential programs, including the 
transit ambassadors program, step-by-step diversity training 
for FTA grantees, outreach activities, grants to universities 
and colleges to create transportation courses, the 
environmental justice program, transit educational materials 
for children, the ``Coming and Going'' education program, and 
livable communities initiatives have been deleted.
    Continued support in fiscal year 1996 is provided for a 
number of important, ongoing initiatives including:

Team transit program of the Minnesota Metropolitan 
    Commission..........................................        $500,000
Project ACTION (Accessible Community Transportation in 
    our Nation).........................................       2,000,000
Advanced technology transit bus.........................       2,000,000
Fuel cell bus technology................................       2,000,000
Research on large circuit breakers and switch gears.....       1,000,000
Dulles corridor studies.................................       1,000,000
Hennepin County, Minnesota community works program......       1,000,000

    Santa Barbara Electric Transportation Institute.--The FTA 
is urged to give consideration to a proposal developed by the 
Santa Barbara Electric Transportation Institute relating to an 
automatic data collection and safety monitoring program to 
assist driver, safety and maintenance functions.
    Battery-powered buses.--Recognizing the potential for U.S. 
industry expansion, the Committee has consistently expressed 
its support for alternative fueled vehicles and advanced 
transportation technology. The Committee urges the 
administrator to assist the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit 
District in acquiring state-of-the-art battery-powered buses to 
contribute to the planned demonstration of battery-powered 
buses at the 1996 Olympic games so not to diminish the scope of 
the demonstration.
    Hennepin County, Minnesota community works program.--The 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Hennepin County 
community works program. This program will show how public 
works programs can be developed in communities nationwide to 
promote alternative forms of transportation, employment and 
tax-base development. The Hennepin County community works 
program shall examine potential unique and alternative 
transportation and transportation corridor enhancement projects 
in Hennepin County and serve as a national model.
                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................$(1,150,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (1,120,850,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,120,850,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................   (-29,150,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................            (--)

    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has provided 
$1,120,850,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of 
transit expenses.

                          Discretionary Grants

                      (Limitation on obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)
Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................\1\ ($1,725,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................           (\2\)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,665,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................   (-60,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................              NA

\1\ Reductions of $96,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards 
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.
\2\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.

    The bill includes language limiting to $1,665,000,000 
obligations for the discretionary grants program. This level 
represents the fully-authorized amount for expenditures from 
the trust fund. The Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 provides $1,665,000,000 in contract 
authority for the discretionary grants program from the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund. In addition, the 
legislation authorizes $385,000,000 in general Treasury funds 
for this program.
    The following table shows the fiscal year 1995 limitation, 
fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, and Committee recommendation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1995 Enacted       1996 Request       Recommended   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed guideway                                                          
 mod...........       $725,000,000              (\1\)        666,000,000
Bus and bus                                                             
 facilities....        353,330,000              (\1\)        333,000,000
New starts.....        646,670,000      (724,926,000)        666,000,000
                --------------------------------------------------------
    Total......      1,725,000,000              (\1\)      1,665,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
  Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.             

                         bus and bus facilities

    The Committee recommends $333,000,000 for bus purchases and 
bus facilities, including maintenance garages. Bus systems are 
expected to continue to play a vital role in the mass 
transportation systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates 
that approximately 95 percent of the areas that provide mass 
transit service do so through bus transit only and over 60 
percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus. The 
Committee believes that the $333,000,000 recommended under this 
heading, together with other appropriations that are available 
for bus projects, should provide the funding necessary to 
retain existing bus riders as well as to attract new riders who 
currently use private automobiles.
    Under ISTEA the federal share for most bus projects is 80 
percent. However, the federal share increases to 90 percent for 
the incremental costs of bus-related equipment needed to meet 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act and Americans with 
Disabilities Act.
    The recommended amount includes the following allocations:

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Busway system...........      $8,000,000
Atlanta, Georgia; buses.................................       7,500,000
Altoona, Pennsylvania; ISTEA set-aside requirement......       2,000,000
Ames, Marshalltown, Ottumwa, and regions 6, 14, 15, and 
    16, Iowa; bus and bus facilities....................       4,000,000
Beaver County, Pennsylvania; bus facility...............       1,600,000
Buffalo, New York, Crossroads intermodal station........       1,000,000
Clark County, Nevada; buses and bus facility............      14,000,000
Cleveland, Ohio; Triskett bus facility..................       2,500,000
Coachella Valley, California; SunLine bus facility......       1,000,000
Corpus Christi, Texas; bus facilities...................       2,500,000
El Paso, Texas; alternatively fueled buses..............       6,000,000
El Paso, Texas; bus equipment...........................       2,900,000
El Paso, Texas; satellite transit terminal..............       1,500,000
Fort Collins and Greely, Colorado; buses................       2,500,000
Gary and Hammond, Indiana; buses........................         520,000
King County, Washington; buses..........................       2,500,000
Lexington, Kentucky; buses..............................       2,000,000
Los Angeles, California; Gateway intermodal center......       8,000,000
Maryland Transit Authority, Maryland; buses.............      10,000,000
Metropolitan Council, Minnesota; articulated buses......      15,000,000
Metropolitan Dade County, Florida; buses................       4,000,000
Nashville, Tennessee; electric buses....................         600,000
New Orleans, Louisiana; bus facility....................       6,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana; buses...........................      12,000,000
New Rochelle, New York; intermodal facility.............       1,500,000
North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; intermodal center.....       6,000,000
Norwich, Connecticut; intermodal center.................       3,000,000
Orlando, Florida; Lynx buses and bus facility...........       8,500,000
Palm Beach County, Florida; bus facilities..............       4,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; buses.......................       3,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; lift-equipped buses.........      15,000,000
Pierce County, Washington; Tacoma Dome station..........       3,000,000
Rensselaer, New York; intermodal station................       7,500,000
Saint Bernard Parish, Louisiana; intermodal facility....       3,000,000
San Francisco, California; buses........................      13,480,000
San Gabriel Valley, California; Foothill bus facilities.      12,500,000
Santa Cruz, California; bus facility....................       3,000,000
Sonoma County, California; park and ride facilities.....       2,500,000
South Bend, Indiana; intermodal facility................       5,000,000
Syracuse, New York; buses...............................       2,000,000
Syracuse, New York; intermodal station..................       2,000,000
Utah Transit Authority, Utah; buses.....................       3,500,000
Ventura County, California; bus facility................       1,200,000
Volusia County, Florida; buses and park and ride 
    facility............................................       2,500,000
Westchester, New York; bus facility.....................       4,500,000
Worcester, Massachusetts; intermodal center.............       4,000,000
Yolo County, California; buses..........................       3,000,000
State of Arkansas; buses................................       6,000,000
State of Delaware; buses................................       2,700,000
State of Illinois; buses................................      20,000,000
State of Indiana; buses and bus facilities..............      13,000,000
State of Michigan; ISTEA set-aside requirement..........      10,000,000
State of North Carolina; buses and bus facilities.......      10,000,000
State of Ohio, buses....................................      20,000,000
State of Wisconsin; buses...............................      20,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     333,000,000

    Alternatively fueled vehicles.--In the Energy Policy Act of 
1992, Congress expressed its intent that the federal government 
should promote the acquisition and use of alternative fueled 
vehicles in public transit fleets. In light of this intent, the 
Committee urges the Federal Transit Administration to give 
special consideration to grant applications of transit 
authorities seeking to purchase alternative fueled vehicles.
    State of Michigan bus and bus-facilities.--The Committee 
has provided $10,000,000 for buses and bus facilities for the 
state of Michigan. This set-aside is required under the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. This 
amount includes $4,400,000 for buses and bus facilities in 
Flint; $2,600,000 for an intermodal facility in Lansing; and 
$3,000,000 for the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional 
Transportation (SMART).
    Altoona bus testing facility.--$2,000,000 has been provided 
for the Altoona bus testing facility, located in Altoona, 
Pennsylvania. This recommendation is consistent with the 
requirements of ISTEA.
    Ames, Marshalltown, Ottumwa and regions 6, 14, 15, and 16, 
Iowa.--The Committee has provided the following amounts for 
buses and vans and bus facilities for various communities and 
areas of the state of Iowa: $2,714,700 for buses and bus 
facilities for Ames; $189,500 for buses for Marshalltown; 
$708,600 for buses for Ottumwa; $17,600 for region 6 for 
rehabilitation of vans; $121,100 for region 14 for bus 
replacement and rehabilitation; $159,400 to region 15 for bus 
replacement; and $89,100 for region 16 for buses and bus 
rehabilitation.
    State of Arkansas.--The Committee has provided $6,000,000 
for the Arkansas Department of Transportation for buses and bus 
facilities. The amount includes funds for the following transit 
agencies: $250,000 for Pine Bluff Transit; $400,000 for 
Razorback Transit Authority; $400,000 for Intra-City Transit of 
Hot Springs; $150,000 for Miller County Area Transit in 
Texarkana; $300,000 for South Central Arkansas Transit of 
Malvern; and $1,000,000 for Southeast Arkansas Transit in Pine 
Bluff.
    State of Illinois.--The Committee has provided $20,000,000 
for the Illinois Department of Transportation for replacement 
buses and transit facilities. This amount includes funds for 
replacement buses for the following transit agencies: 
$1,760,000 for Champaign-Urbana, $528,000 for Decatur, 
$2,640,000 for Madison County, $528,000 for Quincy, $528,000 
for Rockford, $880,000 for Rock Island, $1,248,000 for 
Springfield, and $1,840,000 for Pace. This amount also includes 
$720,000 for a transfer facility in Peoria and $800,000 for bus 
facilities for the South Central MTD. In addition, $7,000,000 
is provided for a new bus communications system for the Chicago 
Transit Authority.
    Foothill transit zone.--The Committee has provided $12.5 
million for Phase I of a bus facility project which will 
further enhance the cost effectiveness and service delivery of 
a bus transit system which the Committee believes could serve 
as a national model for how government can tap private sector 
know-how to provide better service at lower cost. Serving the 
highly congested eastern portion of Los Angeles county, 
Foothill Transit's decision-making is provided by a board of 
directors comprised of elected officials in the 20 cities in 
the San Gabriel Valley. Daily operations are provided by a 
private contractor. Under this public-private partnership, 
Foothill has increased ridership more than 50 percent while 
holding operating costs to 1986 levels. By replacing its two 
leased bus maintenance centers with owned facilities, Foothill 
will be able to eliminate recurring depreciation costs and the 
repeated equipment purchases triggered by each new contract. 
Also, ownership of the facilities will allow for proper siting 
to reduce dead heading. The Committee believes that Foothill 
Transit Zone represents the kind of creative management and 
financing that should be considered by transit properties 
nationwide. Accordingly, the Committee encourages the Federal 
Transit Administration to publicize this success story as a 
model for other systems.

                      fixed guideway modernization

    The Committee recommends $666,000,000 from the 
discretionary grants program to modernize existing rail transit 
systems. The funds are to be distributed as follows:

New York................................................    $228,317,868
Southwestern Connecticut................................      30,238,186
Northeastern New Jersey.................................      59,852,995
Chicago/Northwestern Indiana............................      94,083,037
Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey........................      68,353,400
Boston..................................................      46,966,395
San Francisco...........................................      43,346,200
Pittsburgh..............................................      14,619,242
Cleveland...............................................      10,234,467
Baltimore...............................................      11,252,003
New Orleans.............................................       1,977,169
Los Angeles.............................................       5,163,433
Washington, DC..........................................      14,498,674
Seattle.................................................       4,716,616
Atlanta.................................................       5,363,201
San Diego...............................................       1,865,716
San Jose................................................       3,367,284
Providence..............................................         886,831
Dayton..................................................       1,415,918
Tacoma..................................................         170,335
Wilmington..............................................         278,710
Trenton.................................................         493,550
Lawrence-Haverhill......................................         432,833
Chattanooga.............................................          17,404
Baltimore...............................................       2,077,988
Minneapolis.............................................         970,638
St. Louis...............................................         134,739
Denver..................................................         323,695
Norfolk.................................................         341,533
Kansas City.............................................          18,106
Honolulu................................................         221,697
Hartford................................................         376,909
Madison.................................................         176,241
San Juan................................................         891,176
Detroit.................................................         165,760
Dallas..................................................         266,485
Sacramento..............................................         841,768
Houston.................................................       1,413,969
Buffalo.................................................         378,659
Portland................................................         743,813
Miami...................................................       2,752,667
Phoenix.................................................         997,690
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     661,005,000
        \3/4\-percent takedown..........................       4,995,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total appropriation...............................     666,000,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
                              new systems

    The bill includes a total of $666,000,000 for preliminary 
engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management, 
oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions. 
Though the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 authorizes the federal share for transit programs up to 80 
percent of the project costs, the Committee encourages local 
transit authorities to consider contributing more than the 
minimum 20 percent required under the law. Such an overmatch 
would indicate significant local and state support and 
commitment to a project. Inasmuch as federal assistance for 
many programs may be declining in the future, including transit 
capital and operating programs, an overmatch leverages limited 
federal funds and may provide the basis for continuing federal 
support in the future.
    The Committee has deferred consideration of funding in 
fiscal year 1996 for projects that have not received funding in 
the past. The section 3 program has become increasingly 
oversubscribed and the cost for completing all projects in the 
development process at any one time far exceeds the amount of 
federal funds likely to be available. In fact, the federal cost 
for completing the projects currently under development is now 
$20 billion, compared to approximately $8 billion just four 
years ago. Funding for new project systems and planning and 
preliminary engineering should be borne by local authorities 
and would indicate significant local commitment to a proposed 
new system.
    The funds are to be distributed as follows:

Atlanta--North Springs..................................     $42,410,000
Boston--South Boston MOS-2..............................      17,500,000
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail....................       6,500,000
Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail.............       2,000,000
Dallas--South Oak Cliff Line............................      16,941,000
Dallas--North Central light rail extension..............       2,500,000
Dallas-Ft. Worth RAILTRAN...............................       5,000,000
Florida Tri-County commuter.............................      10,000,000
Houston--Regional bus plan..............................      22,630,000
Jacksonville--Automated skyway express..................      12,500,000
Los Angeles MOS-3.......................................     125,000,000
Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN)..........................      10,000,000
Maryland Rail Commuter..................................      10,000,000
Maryland Central Corridor...............................       3,000,000
Miami-North 27th Avenue.................................       2,000,000
Memphis regional rail plan..............................       2,500,000
New Jersey Urban Core--Secaucus.........................      75,000,000
New Orleans Canal Street Corridor.......................      10,000,000
New York Queens Connector...............................     114,989,000
Orange County transitway................................       5,000,000
Pittsburgh--Airport phase I.............................      22,630,000
Portland--Westside......................................      85,500,000
Whitehall ferry terminal, New York......................       5,000,000
Wisconsin Central commuter..............................      14,400,000
Sacramento..............................................       2,000,000
St. Louis Metrolink.....................................      10,000,000
Salt Lake City..........................................       5,000,000
San Francisco BART extension............................      10,000,000
San Juan, Puerto Rico Tren-Urbano.......................      15,000,000
Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail............................       1,000,000

    Salt Lake City light rail project.--The Committee 
recommends funding of $5,000,000 for the Salt Lake City light 
rail project. The bill includes language that allows the funds 
to be available for related high-occupancy vehicle lane and 
intermodal corridor design costs.
    San Francisco BART extension to the airport.--The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 for the BART extension to the San 
Francisco airport. Numerous concerns have been raised regarding 
the redesignation of the locally preferred alternative chosen 
under the recently concluded draft environmental impact 
statement in May of 1995. Alternative VI, calling for an 
underground segment to the airport, is the most expensive 
design option among all those considered. The current cost 
estimates for completing this project exceed the ISTEA 
authorization by approximately $270,000,000. The Committee 
directs Bay Area Rapid Transit, the San Mateo County Transit 
District and the Metropolitan Transit Commission to pursue 
additional state and local funding sources while recognizing 
that the airlines operating from the San Francisco Airport are 
already participating in a $2.5 billion airport expansion. The 
Committee directs a re-examination of the design alternatives 
should non-federal and non-airport financing not materialize.
    Jacksonville Automated Skyway Express (ASE).--The Committee 
recommends $12,500,000 to complete the 2.5 mile Jacksonville 
Automated Skyway Express. Funding is provided to construct .35 
mile of dual guideway and the duPont Center Station as well as 
the guideway access between the Acosta Bridge and the operation 
and maintenance center on Riverside Avenue. It is the 
Committee's understanding that the Jacksonville Transit 
Authority (JTA) has a cash fund consisting of sales tax dollars 
that can be used on highway and bridge projects but cannot be 
used for Skyway construction or operation. The Committee 
expects that the JTA will contribute $25,000,000 to the Florida 
Department of Transportation exclusively for the reconstruction 
of the Fuller Warren Bridge as a condition of funding for the 
Jacksonville ASE.
    Chicago central area circulator.--The City of Chicago 
central area circulator project has a full funding grant 
agreement (FFGA) with the Federal Transit Administration 
pursuant to a completed final environmental impact statement, 
which concludes that the proposed light rail transit system is 
the most effective approach. Due to the failure of the state of 
Illinois to appropriate funding for its share of the project 
this year, the full project cannot go forward at this time. The 
project is now proposing a phased plan to proceed initially 
with the design and construction of a core system, whereby the 
federal share of the core system will not exceed 50 percent nor 
the $258,000,000 currently designated in the FFGA. The city's 
local funding is in place. The Federal Transit Administration 
believes that a core system could work. Due to the uncertainty 
caused by the failure of the state of Illinois to appropriate 
funds for the project this year, the Committee is not 
allocating any new fiscal year 1996 funding to the project. 
However, this does not prejudice the project from receiving 
funding in future appropriations bills. The Committee 
encourages the city to seek FTA approval for its core system 
phasing approach and incorporate the plan into an amended FFGA 
reflecting the new project scope. The Committee will then make 
every effort to provide funding according to FFGA funding 
schedule.
    St. Louis Metro Link.--The Committee has provided 
$10,000,000 for the Illinois-Missouri Metro Link project. This 
amount includes $8,000,000 for additional cars to address 
extraordinary ridership increases on the system and $2,000,000 
for design for Illinois extension.
    Tacoma-Seattle commuter rail.--The Committee, in previous 
years, has appropriated $22,500,000 to establish commuter rail 
service over existing railroad rights-of-way in the heavily 
congested Puget Sound area, including the Tacoma-Seattle-
Everett corridor. The Committee notes that a Regional 
Transportation Authority (RTA) has been created which could 
operate such service and that the legislature of the state of 
Washington has enacted legislation permitting city governments 
to construct, operate and maintain passenger rail systems. The 
Committee expects, therefore, that significant progress shall 
be made in fiscal year 1996 toward implementing the commuter 
rail project for which funding has been provided by this 
Committee.
                       Mass Transit Capital Fund

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................($1,500,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (1,700,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (2,000,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................  (+500,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................  (+300,000,000)

    This liquidating cash appropriation covers obligations 
incurred under contract authority provided for activities 
previously discussed under the discretionary grant program. The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 in liquidating cash for 
mass transit capital programs. The Department has indicated 
that an increase over the President's request is necessary due 
to an increased pace of obligations and outlays in 1995 and 
anticipated in 1996 and insufficient reestimates of liquidating 
cash in prior years. This appropriation does not score as new 
budget authority under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

                  Interstate Transfer Grants--Transit
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................     $48,030,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     -48,030,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

    This program, established by the Federal-aid highway act, 
allowed state and local officials to withdraw planned 
interstate highway segments and substitute transit projects. 
The cut-off date for approval of new interstate withdrawal 
requests was September 30, 1983. Funding in 1995 exhausts the 
Federal commitment to transit capital projects substituted for 
previously withdrawn segments of the interstate highway system 
under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4). No funds are 
requested or made available in fiscal year 1996 to carry out 
the provisions of section 1045 of Public Law 102-240 given 
funding provided in fiscal year 1995.

             Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................     200,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................     200,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

    The bill includes the budget estimate of $200,000,000 for 
the construction of the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system. The 
Committee recognizes that the administration, the transit 
authority and the state and local governments in the 
metropolitan Washington region have reached agreement on 
financing the remaining 13.5 miles of the adopted regional 
system and are committed to completion of the system on the 
``fast track'' schedule. The Committee further recognizes that 
a reliable federal appropriation is critical to securing the 
necessary credit arrangement required to keep the ``fast 
track'' construction program on schedule. The Committee 
supports the completion of the remaining 13.5 miles and is 
recommending the budget request to permit WMATA to proceed with 
the ``fast track'' construction program.

                    Violent Crime Reduction Program

                       (violent crime trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      $5,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -5,000,000

    Section 40131 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 authorizes $10,000,000 to establish 
programs for capital improvements and studies to prevent crime 
in public transportation. The Committee has not funded this new 
program in fiscal year 1996 given the current budget 
constraints. Further, a separate, categorical program is 
duplicative and unnecessary as the capital expenses described 
above are allowable expenses under the formula program.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    The Corporation's operations program consists of lock and 
marine operations, maintenance, dredging, planning and 
development activities related to the operation and maintenance 
of that part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and 
Lake Erie within the territorial limits of the United States.
    The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the 
commercial use and competitive position of the Saint Lawrence 
Seaway. The general language under this heading is the same as 
the language provided last year and requested in the fiscal 
year 1996 budget. Continuation of this language in addition to 
that under the operations and maintenance appropriation will 
provide the Corporation the flexibility and access to available 
resources needed to finance costs associated with unanticipated 
events which could threaten the safe and uninterrupted use of 
the Seaway. The language permits the Corporation to use sources 
of funding not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund 
by Public Law 99-662, but which have been historically set 
aside for non-routine or emergency use-cash reserves derived 
primarily from prior-year revenues received in excess of costs; 
unused borrowing authority; and miscellaneous income.

                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $10,251,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      10,243,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      10,190,500
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................         -60,500
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................         -52,500

\1\ Reducations of $22,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards 
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.

    The bill includes an appropriation of $10,190,500 for the 
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, a decrease of 
$60,500 from the 1995 level and $52,500 below the budget 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
request. The Committee recommends the changes to the request:

Reduce travel and transportation costs..................         -$6,000
Reduce other miscellaneous services.....................          -5,500
Decrease non-pay inflationary adjustment................         -41,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
  Net change to the budget..............................         -52,500

    Travel and transportation of persons.--The Committee 
recommends $196,000. This is the same amount as 1995 but $6,000 
less than requested. Included in the budget request is money to 
pay for the five-member Board's travel; however, the Seaway has 
only had one Board member for the past several years. Thus, the 
request was reduced to reflect travel for only one Board 
member. Furthermore, if the Seaway becomes an independent 
agency as proposed by the Department of Transportation, this 
Board will be abolished and travel funds will not be necessary.
    Other services.--The Committee recommends $608,500, which 
is $67,500 less than 1995 and $5,500 less than requested. Under 
this account, the Seaway provides bottled water for its 
employees in Massena, New York, at a cost of $5,500 per year. 
In other government agencies, employees typically buy their own 
bottled water. This Committee believes that the Seaway should 
follow suit.
    Non-pay inflationary adjustment.--The Committee has reduced 
the Seaway's non-pay inflationary adjustment by $41,000 so that 
every Administration within the Department of Transportation 
has a 1.5 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment. The Seaway 
had requested a 3 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment in 
its 1996 budget request.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

    The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was 
originally established by the Secretary of Transportation's 
organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received 
statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad 
portfolio. Its diverse jurisdictions include hazardous 
materials, pipelines, aviation statistics, international 
standards, emergency transportation, and university research. 
As the department's only multimodal administration, RSPA 
provides research, analytical and technical support for 
transportation programs through headquarters offices and the 
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program

    The Committee recommends $65,261,000 in new budget 
authority and obligation limitations to continue the 
operations, research and development, and grants-in-aid 
administered by the Research and Special Programs 
Administration. This is $20,557,000 less than the budget 
request and $9,601,000 less than the 1995 amount. The bill 
includes language to limit the availability of research and 
development, state pipeline safety grant funds, and emergency 
preparedness grants to a three-year period, rather than 
providing for unlimited availability as requested. Also, the 
bill includes language to transfer $2,322,000 to the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics for the necessary expenses to conduct 
activities related to airline statistics. The following table 
summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program levels, the fiscal year 
1996 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Fiscal year      Fiscal year     Recommended in
       Program           1995 enacted    1996 estimate       the bill   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special                                                    
 programs............      $26,238,000      $31,662,000      $26,030,000
Pipeline safety......       37,424,000       42,418,000       29,941,000
Emergency                                                               
 preparedness                                                           
 training curriculum.          400,000          400,000          400,000
Emergency                                                               
 preparedness grants                                                    
 \1\.................       10,800,000       11,338,000        8,890,000
                      --------------------------------------------------
    Total............       74,862,000       85,818,000       65,261,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligation.                                           

                     Research and Special Programs
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $26,238,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      31,662,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      26,030,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................        -208,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................      -5,632,000

\1\ Reductions of $225,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards 
and procurement reform provisions and transfer of $17,900 for 
consolidated civil rights office not reflected.

    Research and special programs administers a comprehensive 
nationwide safety program to protect; (1) the nation from the 
risks inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by 
water, air, highway and railroad; (2) oversee the execution of 
the Secretary of Transportation's statutory responsibilities 
for providing transportation services during national 
emergencies; and (3) coordinate the department's research and 
development policy planning, university research, and 
technology transfer. Overall policy, legal, financial, 
management and administrative support to RSPA's programs also 
is provided under this appropriation. The total recommended 
program level for research and special programs is $26,030,000. 
This is an decrease of $208,000 below the amount provided in 
1995 and a reduction of $5,632,000 below the budget request. 
Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year     Recommended in
                                                                1995 enacted     1996 estimate       the bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety.................................       $12,879,000       $12,782,000      $12,600,000
    (Positions)............................................             (113)             (111)            (111)
Aviation information management............................         2,453,000         2,282,000        2,322,000
    (Positions)............................................              (29)              (24)             (22)
Emergency transportation...................................         1,326,000         1,301,000        1,086,000
    (Positions)............................................               (7)               (7)              (7)
Research and technology....................................         2,530,000         7,604,000        3,209,000
    (Positions)............................................              (13)              (14)             (13)
Program support............................................         7,032,000         7,693,000        7,394,000
    (Positions)............................................              (45)              (45)             (46)
Accountwide adjustment.....................................  .................  ...............         -581,000
    Total, Research and Special Program....................        26,238,000        31,662,000       26,030,000
        (Positions)........................................             (207)             (201)            (199)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request for this appropriation:

                                                                 Changes
Hazardous materials:
    Reduce registration program's administrative costs..       -$182,000
Airline information management:
    Aviation statistics program operating expenses......         +40,000
Emergency transportation:
    Reduce funding for crisis management center.........        -215,000
Research and technology:
    Reduce technology planning and development..........      -2,951,000
    Delete technology promotion activities..............        -874,000
    Reduce technology deployment........................        -500,000
    Do not fund new FTE.................................         -70,000
Program and administrative support:
    Hold policy and program support at 1995 level.......         -30,000
    Decrease civil rights...............................         -25,000
    Hold personnel support at 1995 level................         -15,000
    Hold information resource management at 1995 level..         -45,000
    Reduce contract program to 6 percent increase.......         -53,000
    Reduce working capital fund costs to reflect 
      transfer of programs and FTEs to BTS and OST......        -231,000
    Add one FTE for airline statistics program..........        +100,000
Accountwide adjustments:
    Recommend a five percent reduction in operating 
      expenses..........................................        -170,000
    Hold training to 1995 level.........................        -109,000
    Hold equipment costs to 1995 level..................        -302,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Net change to budget request......................      -5,632,000

    Hazardous material registration program.--The Committee 
recommends $750,000 for this program, which is $182,000 less 
than requested. A $50.00 administration and processing fee is 
collected from over 26,000 shippers and carriers who register 
annually under the hazardous materials program. This year, RSPA 
tried to increase the total fee that was collected, from $300 
up to a maximum of $5,050; however, due to numerous concerns, 
RSPA decided against raising this fee.
    Under this program, RSPA collects between $6,000,000 and 
$6,500,000 per year. Based on current collections, about one-
sixth of the total amount is required to administer and process 
registration fees. The remainder of the money is distributed to 
states and Indian tribes to support their emergency response 
programs. The Committee is concerned about the high costs of 
administering and processing this program and believes that 
RSPA should undertake measures to reduce these costs.
    Airline statistics program.--The Committee recommends 
increasing this program by $40,000. In June, 1995, RSPA signed 
a memorandum of understanding to transfer the airline 
statistics program and its associated positions to the bureau 
of transportation statistics (BTS). The Committee approves this 
transfer because it will put the responsibility for the 
compilation and analysis of airline economic data with the 
office that has broad authority to collect and analyze 
transportation statistics across a wide spectrum. The program's 
small field office in Anchorage, Alaska, which provides 
consumers with airline data related to essential air service 
and intra-Alaskan mail rate will continue under BTS. The 
additional $40,000 will provide working capital funds for this 
program after its transfer to the BTS.
    Airline tariff program.--RSPA has proposed transferring one 
full-time equivalent and the associated expenses to the office 
of aviation and international affairs in office of the 
secretary. OST administers the Department's program of air 
carrier tariff filings, which analyzes proposed tariff rate 
changes for international flights, makes recommendations for 
approval/disapproval, and maintains the official record file. 
The transfer of RSPA's airline tariff program to OST will merge 
tariff program administration with the air tariff policy and 
approval responsibility. The Committee approves the transfer of 
these functions. One FTE and $91,000 has been transferred from 
this program to the OST.
    Crisis response management.--The Committee recommends 
reducing funding for the crisis management center by $215,000. 
This center is used by the Secretary of Transportation and 
other staff during times of national emergencies and during 
national or technological disasters. In the past, the center 
became overwhelmed by unexpected demands during major emergency 
events. As such, in 1995, the Committee funded a one-time 
increase to upgrade this center. However, the 1996 budget 
request included this increase for a second year. The Committee 
will fund part of the request because the center's role has 
expanded to include national security issues due to the 
Oklahoma City bombing. This money would allow the center to 
improve its communications capabilities and acquire software to 
interact with the Department of Defense's and the Department of 
Energy's proprietary systems, as well as continue funding the 
basic emergency training programs.
    Technology planning and development.--The Committee 
recommends $1,266,000 for technology planning and development 
activities. This is a decrease of $2,951,000 from the budget 
request. This account more than doubled between 1994 and 1995, 
and RSPA has requested a 416 percent increase in funding for 
1996. The Committee does not believe that such a significant 
growth in planning and development is warranted in such a short 
time frame and urges RSPA to focus on a few priority items, 
such as the surface transportation technology plan and the 
national transportation system/national information 
infrastructure, instead of seven varied activities.
    The Committee has not provided any funding for the 
partnership for new generation of vehicles because it is too 
early in the prototype's development process for RSPA to begin 
peer review of advanced vehicle research or begin developing 
alternative design data bases. According to current plans, a 
prototype vehicle will not be constructed until the year 2004.
    Technology promotion.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has not funded this new effort (-$874,000). According 
to RSPA management, the technology promotion activities were 
its least important priority under the research and technology 
program.
    Technology deployment.--The Committee has provided $500,000 
for technology deployment activities, which is $500,000 less 
than requested. This is a new initiative for RSPA. The agency 
will work with the national science and technology counsel to 
identify and deploy promising, commercially viable 
transportation technology applications based on marketing 
demands and to make sure that there is no overlap among various 
government agencies. In 1995, over half a year's work in this 
area was done by the office of the secretary for $400,000. A 
slightly higher amount has been provided to RSPA.
    Full-time equivalent position.--The Committee does not a 
approve one new full-time equivalent position under the 
research and technology account because the program is not 
increasing as much as requested in fiscal year 1996. As such, 
the request has been reduced by $70,000.
    Civil rights.--The Committee recommends $29,000 for civil 
rights activities. In 1994 and 1995, RSPA operated its office 
of civil rights on $4,000; however, the Administration is 
requesting a 1,250 percent increase in the office for 1996 to 
monitor the civil rights compliance by recipients of grants and 
for travel and training. The Committee believes that these 
efforts are important; however, travel and training expenses 
could be reduced.
    Working capital fund.--The Committee has appropriated 
$1,407,000 for the working capital fund. This is $231,000 less 
than requested and it reflects the transfer of the airline 
statistics program and FTEs to the bureau of transportation 
statistics and the office of the secretary. These transfers are 
based on two memorandums of understandings that RSPA signed 
with BTS and OST in June 1995.
    Full-time equivalent positions.--The Committee has approved 
a $100,000 increase to the program and administrative support 
office. This increase reflects a transfer of one full-time 
equivalent position from the airline information management 
program.
    Other program and administrative support.--Due to budgetary 
constraints, the Committee recommends holding policy and 
program support, personnel support, and information management 
resources at the 1995 levels. The requested increase for these 
activities has not been well justified. Also, the Committee 
recommends reducing the contract program to a 6 percent 
increase instead of the 16 percent increase requested.
    Accountwide adjustments.--The Committee recommends reducing 
operating expenses by $170,000. RSPA is requesting a fifteen 
percent increase in operating expenses. The Committee believes 
that this administration should make every effort possible to 
reduce these expenses, and has reduced the amount funded to ten 
percent.
    The Committee recommends $470,000 for equipment costs. This 
is the same level of funding as 1995, but a decrease of 
$302,000 from the budget request. RSPA has just modernized most 
of its offices and computer services. The Committee does not 
believe that an additional increase in this area is necessary. 
Furthermore, the Committee notes that the department may not be 
reorganized in 1996.
    The Committee recommends $183,000 for training, which does 
not allow for the requested increase of $107,000. RSPA is 
requesting additional funds for training needs based on the 
department's reorganization.

                            Pipeline Safety

                         (pipeline safety fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................  \1\$37,424,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      42,418,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      29,941,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      -7,483,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -12,477,000

\1\ Recuctions of $84,000 to comply with working capital fund provisions 
not reflected.

    The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national 
regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to 
life and property in the transportation of natural gas, 
petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The 
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the 
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection 
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and 
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The 
office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and 
administers a grants-in-aid program to state pipeline programs.

                        committee recommendation

    The bill includes $29,941,000 to continue pipeline safety 
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid 
in fiscal year 1996. This represents a decrease of $7,483,000 
below the level provided in 1995 and a reduction of $12,477,000 
below the budget request. The bill specifies that, of the total 
appropriation, $2,698,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund and $27,243,000 is to be derived from the 
pipeline safety fund.
    The proposed Pipeline Safety Act of 1995, which has passed 
in both the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, reduces 
authorization of appropriations from the pipeline safety fund 
to $20,700,000 in fiscal year 1996. This is a 6 percent 
increase over the level authorized in fiscal year 1995, but it 
is a 41 percent decrease below the 1995 enacted level. No 
changes were made to the authorized level derived from the oil 
spill liability trust fund.
    The Committee believes that a reduction to the proposed 
authorized level would require a draconian cut of $19,020,000 
in the office of pipeline safety (OPS). The Committee 
recommends funding the office at $29,941,000 to assure that the 
system operates safely, while seeking not to impose an undue 
burden on the natural gas and liquid petroleum industries. The 
Committee recommends the following changes to the President's 
budget request for this appropriation:
                                                                 Changes
Provide salaries and benefits for 85 FTEs...............       -$532,000
Decrease operating expenses.............................        -306,000
Reduce information systems operations...................        -802,000
Decrease risk assessment and technical studies..........        -770,000
Delete most field engineering support for compliance....      -3,596,000
Reduce training and information dissemination...........        -171,000
Postpone mapping program................................      -1,200,000
Delete non-destructive evaluation efforts...............      -2,100,000
Maintain state grants at 1995 level.....................      -1,200,000
Delete risk assessment grants...........................      -1,800,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     -12,477,000

    Personnel.--The Committee has provided $6,590,000 for 
personnel, compensation and benefits, which is $532,000 less 
than requested. In 1995, the Committee increased pipeline 
safety personnel by 33 positions, of which half the FTEs could 
be hired in fiscal year 1995 and the remainder were to be hired 
the following year. To date, RSPA has filled 10 of these 
positions. The Committee recommends not hiring the remaining 5 
FTEs allocated in fiscal year 1995 or hiring any additional 
FTEs in 1996. Not filling the remaining positions will still 
give RSPA a net increase in the number of pipeline inspectors 
over 1994 levels. Also, since RSPA will not begin hiring the 
remaining inspectors, there is no reason to annualize their 
salaries.
    Operating expenses.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee recommends $2,450,000 for operating expenses, which 
is $306,000 less than requested. At this level, staff will be 
able to meet a 3 year inspection cycle for pipelines, 
investigate a number of reported accidents, and inspect the new 
inventory of low stress pipelines. RSPA would like to inspect 
all pipelines once every two years; however, prior to 1995, the 
staff inspected pipelines once every four years. This level of 
operating expense will provide an improvement over 1994 levels.
    Information systems.--The Committee recommends $950,000 for 
information systems, which is a reduction of $802,000 from the 
requested level. At this level, the OPS can continue to support 
the systems it uses to maintain its pipeline data and support 
risk assessment efforts. The Committee recommends that efforts 
to acquire and standardize new software and hardware, as well 
as upgrade communications should be implemented on a slower 
schedule.
    Risk assessment.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee 
recommends $1,480,000 for risk assessment, which is a reduction 
of $770,000 from the budget request. At the reduced level, OPS 
will be able to gather information necessary to rank pipeline 
risk factors (e.g. age of pipeline, material, location, soil), 
determine the possibility of incidents, and develop national 
standards, which will be used to evaluate operator risk 
assessment plans. The Committee recommends postponing the 
implementation of operator risk management programs until the 
collection of this data is completed. Also, the Committee did 
not provide funding for risk management demonstration projects.
    Field engineering support for compliance.--The Committee 
recommends $850,000 for compliance efforts, which is a 
reduction of $3,596,000 from the budget request. Last year, the 
Committee disagreed with the department's decision to use 
contract personnel to inspect new pipeline construction and to 
assess risk factors associated with gas transmission pipelines 
nationwide. The Committee believed that these inspection 
activities should be done periodically by permanent inspectors. 
However, the Committee did not require permanent inspectors 
until 1996. In this year's budget, RSPA is planning on 
continuing to use contract personnel as inspectors. In light of 
the significant decrease in the proposed authorization, this 
Committee recommends deleting most of this program. The 
remaining funding should be used to contract out for 
metallurgical, fracture mechanics, and radiography expertise 
and continue the drug testing portion of this program.
    Training and information dissemination.--The Committee 
recommends $700,000 for training and information dissemination, 
which is a decrease of $171,000 from the budget request. At 
this level, the Committee believes that core training, 
dissemination of related training materials and guidance should 
continue, but that less training for new federal inspectors and 
state pipeline inspectors is needed because fewer will be 
hired. The Committee also recommends that the risk management 
curriculum should be postponed.
    Mapping.--The Committee has not funded the $1,200,000 
request for a nationwide, digitized mapping system because the 
office of pipeline safety has not yet completed its long range 
plan for this project, which will explain, among other things, 
how available industry and state mapping will be incorporated. 
Once this plan is completed, the Committee believes that RSPA 
could use the funds appropriated in 1995 and other available 
funds in fiscal year 1996 to begin work in this area.
    Non-destructive evaluation efforts.--Due to budgetary 
constraints, the Committee recommends that the OPS scale back 
its non-destructive evaluation efforts. In fiscal year 1995, 
$1,742,000 was appropriated to begin research on stress 
corrosion and detection of outside force damage. The 1995 work 
should continue; however, the Committee has not provided the 
$2,100,000 that was requested for fiscal year 1996. The 
Committee believes that it is more appropriate for the private 
sector to invest in the research and development of these new 
technologies. The office of pipeline safety should work with 
the industry and with the new gas research institute, which are 
already undertaking a variety of similar research efforts on 
these issues.
    State pipeline safety grants.--The Committee recommends 
$12,000,000 for state grants. This maintains funding for this 
program at the 1995 level and reduces it by $1,200,000 from the 
budget request.
    Currently, under both the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act 
and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act, RSPA can 
reimburse states for up to 50 percent of their incurred costs 
for carrying out pipeline safety programs. Until 1995, RSPA did 
not fund near the 50 percent ceiling. For example, in 1994, 
RSPA only reimbursed states for $7,500,000 in costs. However, 
beginning in 1995, RSPA placed additional burdens on the states 
to inspect state liquid pipelines, to improve program 
performance through the adoption of federal regulations, and to 
take over safety jurisdiction of all intrastate pipelines.
    Funding at $12,000,000 for state grants is $1,236,000 
higher than the proposed authorized level. If the Committee 
wanted to reach this authorized level, it would need to reduce 
the amount of money RSPA provides to states for pipeline safety 
grants, perhaps significantly below the proposed authorized 
level. Deep cuts to the grant program means states might 
consider eliminating their intrastate pipeline safety 
responsibilities. Then, OPS must assume jurisdiction for states 
who lack pipeline safety programs, which could be time 
intensive and expensive. For example, OPS has responsibility 
for the inspection of the city of Philadelphia's gas 
distribution system. This requires one inspector from the 
eastern region to dedicate 10-20 percent of his workload to the 
gas works. Those states remaining in the program could cut back 
on intrastate inspections to offset the loss in grant funding. 
Also, funding to states to establish one-call notification 
systems might be eliminated at the lower authorized level.
    Risk assessment grants.--The Committee has not funded the 
$1,800,000 risk assessment grant program to states. OPS already 
conducts these types of assessments. If states want to 
undertake this work, the Committee recommends that RSPA 
consider reimbursing this work under the pipeline safety grant 
program.
    One-call notification.--The Committee believes that the 
adoption of comprehensive one-call notification systems by the 
states may be the single most important action that states 
could take to prevent future pipeline incidents. About 60 
percent of all damages to pipelines occur due to third party 
damages. For example, a third party may have caused excavation 
damage to pipelines in both the Texas Eastern gas explosion in 
New Jersey and the Colonial oil spill in Virginia. The 
Committee recommends that $1,000,000 of the state pipeline 
safety grant program be earmarked for grants to states in 
developing and implementing a comprehensive ``one-call'' 
program.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (emergency preparedness fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................    \1\ $400,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................         400,000
Recommended in the bill.................................         400,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

\1\ Reductions of $71,000 to comply with procurement reform provisions 
not reflected.

    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a 
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 
public sector emergency response training and planning and 
provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions 
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a 
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
    The bill includes $400,000, the same amount provided in 
1995 and requested for fiscal year 1996, for activities related 
to emergency response training curriculum development and 
updates, as authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    As in fiscal year 1995, and requested in the budget, the 
bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred 
for the public sector emergency response training and planning 
grants, technical assistance and administrative activities. For 
fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends a total limitation 
of $8,890,000 for these activities, a decrease of $1,910,000 
below the 1995 level and $2,448,000 below the budget request. 
The Committee's recommendations are detailed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Fiscal year 1995   Fiscal year 1996    Recommended in 
                      enacted            estimate           the bill    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants.........         $9,650,000         $9,738,000         $7,350,000
Technical                                                               
 assistance....            400,000            400,000            400,000
Administrative                                                          
 costs.........            500,000            500,000            440,000
Emergency                                                               
 response                                                               
 guidebook.....  .................                                      
                          ........            700,000            700,000
Supplemental                                                            
 training                                                               
 grants........            250,000  .................                   
                                             ........  .................
                                                                ........
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total....         10,800,000         11,338,000          8,890,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Committee Recommendation

    Public sector emergency response training and planning 
grants.-- The Committee recommends $7,350,000 for emergency 
preparedness planning and training grants. This is $2,300,000 
less than enacted in 1995 and $2,388,000 less than the budget 
request. During fiscal year 1995, the agency reduced the 1995 
grant level to $7,351,000 because it could not collect the 
$9,650,000 allowed for under the obligation limitation. Thus, 
the Committee's 1996 recommendation is based on what RSPA 
actually believes it can collect.
    The 1996 budget requested a 32.5 percent increase, which 
was based on an expected increase in collections from the 
hazardous materials transportation registration and fee 
assessment program. Each year, RSPA has experienced shortfalls 
in hazardous materials registration receipts, that are used to 
finance the grant program. In January, 1995, RSPA sought to 
increase the fees it charges shippers and carriers of hazardous 
materials to register with the Department of Transportation. 
Due to a significant number of concerns that were raised during 
the rulemaking process, the administration decided not to 
increase the fees. The Committee recommends that the 
administration try to determine ways to collect more revenues, 
without increasing fees. For example, RSPA should review how 
many shippers and carriers are subject to the registration 
requirements and what compliance rates are being achieved.
    Administrative costs.--The Committee recommends $440,000 
for administrative costs, which is $60,000 less than the budget 
request. The Committee recommends a reduction in the 
administrative costs of this program because there is no 
increase in fees collected.

                      Office of Inspector General

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $40,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      40,238,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      40,238,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................        +238,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

\1\ Reductions of $97,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards 
and procurement reform provisions and transfer of $11,800 for 
consolidated civil rights office not reflected.

    The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to 
provide an objective and independent organization that would be 
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, 
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2) 
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportaion and 
the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and 
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and 
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the 
Inspector General is to report dually to the Secretary of 
Transportation and to the Congress.
    The bill provides a $238,000 increase over the fiscal year 
1995 enacted level, which is an increase of less than one 
percent. The recommendation fully funds the budget request.
    Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector 
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to 
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to 
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review 
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings.
    Office of legal counsel.--The Committee continues to 
believe that the office of inspector general should be 
supported by its own legal counsel. Accordingly, within the 
total resources provided, the IG should ensure sufficient 
resources are available, at a minimum, to (1) provide legal 
advice, guidance, and analysis; (2) draft legal opinions, 
briefs, pleadings, and memoranda on significant litigation and 
policy matters; and (3) represent the IG on matters involving 
the Merit Systems Protection Board, Equal Opportunity 
Employment Commission, and other employee relations issues.
    Defense Contract Audit Agency audits.--The Committee is 
disturbed to learn that, once again this year, the office of 
inspector general (OIG) may experience problems in obtaining 
contract audits, primarily from the Defense Contract Audit 
Agency (DCAA). Semiannual reports of the IG to Congress 
indicate that these audits save the Department of 
Transportation (primarily the FAA and Coast Guard) millions of 
dollars each year, by providing valuable assistance to 
government contract negotiators and contract oversight 
personnel. The Committee views the inability to obtain these 
audits as a serious problem, and strongly encourages the 
department to consider transferring funding responsibility for 
these audits from the OIG to the operating administrations. 
This is consistent with recommendations made by OMB in its 
December 3, 1992 Interagency Task Force Report on the Federal 
Contract Audit Process, and would require those agencies 
receiving the direct benefit of the service to pay for it.

                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................      $3,350,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................       3,656,000
Recommended in the bill.................................       3,656,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................        +306,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

    The Committee recommends $3,656,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
an increase of $306,000 above the 1995 levels, and the same as 
the budget estimate. This level will maintain the Board at the 
fiscal year 1995 level and provide a one-time appropriation for 
accounting systems acquistions.
    The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance 
with the standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers 
Act; ensuring that public conveyances, including rolling stock, 
are readily accessible to and usable by physically handicapped 
persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to 
the elimination of architectural, transportation, communication 
and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being 
taken to eliminate these barriers; developing minimum 
guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards; and 
providing technical assistance to all programs affected by 
Title V of the Rehabilitation Act.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................     $37,392,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................      38,774,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      38,774,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................      +1,382,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................

    Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving 
transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting 
special studies, developing recommendations to prevent 
accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation 
safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of 
adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and 
licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of 
Transportation.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $38,774,000 for the 
NTSB, an increase of $1,382,000 above the 1995 level. This 
amount is the same as the budget request. The amount 
recommended provides for a full-time equivalent employment 
(FTE) level of 350.
    On May 5, 1995, the Committee received correspondence from 
NTSB of an internal realignment of the Board's administrative 
functions. The impetus for these changes is a recommendation of 
an internal audit and review committee and is designed to 
better align the Board's administrative functions with the 
organizational units with which they primarily interface. The 
realignment is subsequent to the budget request and the 
Committee's recommendation reflects these changes. The 
following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program level, 
the President's fiscal year 1996 request, and the Committee's 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year 1995       Fiscal year 1996 estimate     Recommended in bill
                                             enacted       -----------------------------------------------------
               Program               ----------------------                                                     
                                       Staff      Budget      Staff years       Budget       Staff      Budget  
                                       years    authority                      authority     years    authority 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction................       50   $5,879,000              45      $5,662,000       45   $5,662,000
Aviation safety.....................      122   12,859,000             122      13,334,000      122   13,334,000
Surface transportation..............       91    9,782,000              94      10,473,000       94   10,473,000
Research and engineering............       51    5,411,000              48       5,281,000       48    5,281,000
Administration......................       32    2,689,000              31       2,692,000       31    2,692,000
Administrative law judges...........        4      781,000              10       1,332,000       10    1,332,000
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................      350   37,392,000             350      38,774,000      350   38,774,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes 
to deviate in any way from its total FTE allocations or by more 
than ten percent from the funding allocations listed above.

                             Emergency Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................        $360,802
Recommended in the bill.................................         160,802
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................        -200,000

    The bill includes an appropriation of $160,802 for the 
emergency fund, which is $200,000 less than the 1996 budget 
request. Under Public Law 97-267, Supplemental Appropriations 
Act, 1982, Congress provided a $1,000,000 emergency fund to be 
used for accident investigation expenses when investigations 
would otherwise have been hampered by lack of funding. The 
emergency fund has been used twice--in 1985 to assist in 
recovery of portions of an Air India wreckage and in 1989 to 
locate and recover the cargo door separated from a United 
Airlines flight. Because this emergency fund has been below the 
$1,000,000 mark since 1985 and NTSB has been able to carry out 
its unpredictable accident investigations without any 
difficulties, the Committee has only increased the emergency 
fund to $800,000.
                     INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................     $30,302,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................  \1\ 28,844,000
Recommended in the bill.................................      13,379,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................     -16,923,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................     -15,465,000

\1\ The President's budget request was for $33,202,000; however, it was 
later amended to $28,844,000.

    The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) is an independent 
federal agency responsible for regulating interstate surface 
transportation within the United States. In carrying out its 
regulatory responsibilities, the Commission attempts to ensure 
that competitive, efficient, and safe transportation services 
are provided to meet the needs of shippers, receivers, and 
consumers.
    The ICC today maintains jurisdiction over approximately 
60,000 for-hire companies providing surface transportation in 
the United States. These companies include railroads, trucking 
firms, bus lines, water carriers, one coal slurry pipeline, 
freight forwarders, and transportation brokers.
    The administration plans to sunset ICC in 1996. As part of 
this effort, the administration has proposed legislation that 
would make sweeping changes to current ICC functions. These 
changes include deregulating some motor carrier and railroad 
functions, deregulating both inland and offshore domestic 
shipping, and eliminating all remaining restrictions against 
intermodal transportation.
    Although the President's budget proposes half a year of 
funding for the ICC before the Commission's relevant functions 
are sunsetted or transferred, the ICC has been working towards 
a September 30, 1995 sunset date. To do so, the ICC requires 
authorizing legislation 90 days prior to the Commission's 
closure so that it can provide its employees with 60 days 
termination notices, close field offices, transfer ongoing work 
to the appropriate departments, and dispose of property. At 
this time, the legislation to sunset ICC has not been reported 
by the appropriate authorizing committees.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$13,379,000. This is $16,923,000 less than was appropriated in 
fiscal year 1995 and is $15,465,000 less than was requested. 
This appropriation consists of the following components:

Salaries and expenses...................................      $8,395,000
Severance and closedown costs...........................       4,984,000

    Salaries and expenses.--The Committee has included 
$8,395,000 to provide for the salaries and expenses of 392 
staff years in fiscal year 1996. This funding level is provided 
to ensure that the Commission terminates it operations by 
December 31, 1995.
    Severance and closedown costs.--The Committee has provided 
$4,984,000 for severed employees and for closure and transition 
costs. Of this sum, $3,600,000 has been provided to separate 
headquarter and regional employees by December 31, 1995. The 
remainder ($1,384,000) has been provided for closure and 
transition expenditures, such as closing out personnel records, 
boxing records, microfilming records, and disposing of the 
library. The Committee strongly encourages that Commission to 
work with the telephone company so that ICC does not incur a 
$900,000 charge for disconnecting the telephone service.
    User fees.--In fiscal year 1994, ICC collected $8,178,500 
in user fees from various motor and rail activities, such as 
case processing, tariffs, insurance, licensing, and 
registration. In fiscal year 1995, the Commission expects to 
collect $8,941,600. The Committee has included language 
continuing the collection of these fees in fiscal year 1996. 
These fees will supplement the expenses incurred by the ICC and 
will be made available in monthly increments.

                   Payments for Directed Rail Service

                      (limitation on obligations)
Limitation, fiscal year 1995............................      ($475,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................       (475,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................       (475,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................ (.............)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... (.............)

    If a railroad ceases operations due to the lack of cash or 
a court order, the ICC is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 11125 to 
direct other railroads to continue the service of the railroad 
that ceased its operations. The directed carriers are 
reimbursed for the losses incurred and paid six percent of 
gross revenues on the service performed. This authority is 
limited to an initial 60-day period. The Commission may extend 
this period for up to an additional 180 days.
    The bill includes an obligation limitation of $475,000 for 
fiscal year 1996, as proposed in the budget. The ICC has 
indicated that no directed rail costs are anticipated.

                        PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

    The Commission was established by the Panama Canal Act of 
1979 to carry out the responsibilities of the United States 
with respect to the Panama Canal under the Panama Canal Treaty 
of 1977. The authority of the President of the United States 
with respect to the Commission is exercised through the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. The 
Commission is supervised by a nine-member Board. Five members 
are nationals of the United States and four are Panamanians. 
Board members who are U.S. nationals are appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The 
Commission will remain in existence until the treaty terminates 
on December 31, 1999, when the Republic of Panama will assume 
full responsibility for the Canal.
    The Commission is the successor agency to the Panama Canal 
Company and Canal Zone Government and has as its primary 
function the operation and maintenance of the interoceanic 
Panama Canal. The operation of the waterway is conducted on a 
commercial basis with revenues derived from tolls collected 
from vessels and other essential supporting services. These 
revenues are deposited into the Panama Canal revolving fund.
    Public Law 100-203, approved December 22, 1987, amended the 
Panama Canal Act of 1979 to convert the Panama Canal Commission 
from an appropriated-fund agency to a revolving-fund agency 
beginning on January 1, 1988. This legislation provided for the 
termination of the Panama Canal Commission special fund and 
established the Panama Canal revolving fund. The legislation 
prescribed that on the effective date of the Panama Canal 
Revolving Fund Act: (1) the unappropriated balance of the 
Panama Canal Commission fund, including undeposited receipts as 
of the close of business on the day before the effective date 
of the Act, shall be transferred to the Panama Canal revolving 
fund; and (2) the unexpended balance of appropriations, 
including the $10,000,000 unobligated emergency fund 
appropriation, shall be transferred to the Panama Canal 
revolving fund. Such amounts, including amounts appropriated 
for capital expenditures, remain available until expended. In 
addition, Public Law 100-203 establishes borrowing authority 
for the Commission, the amount of which cannot exceed 
$100,000,000 at any time.

    Administrative Expenses and Limitation on Operating and Capital 
                                Expenses

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Administrative     Limitation on  
                                         expenses      operating/capital
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation, fiscal year 1995......      ($50,030,000)     ($540,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.       (50,741,000)  .................
Recommended in the bill...........       (50,741,000)  .................
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Limitation, fiscal year 1995..         (+711,000)     (-540,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
     1996.........................  .................  .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $50,741,000 
for the administrative expenses of the Panama Canal Commission. 
The activities funded under administrative expenses include: 
executive direction, operations direction, financial 
management, personnel administration, and those employment 
costs of the Commission that are general in nature and not 
identifiable with other specified activities.
    Reception and representation expenses, as provided in the 
bill, would be limited to $11,000 for the Board, $5,000 for the 
Secretary, and $30,000 for the Administrator.
    The bill has deleted language limiting obligations for non-
administrative operating expenses and capital projects, 
consistent with the budget request.

                               TITLE III

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     (including transfers of funds)

    The Committee concurs with the general provisions that 
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
as proposed in the budget with the following changes:
    The Committee has not approved the requested deletion of 
the following sections, all of which were contained in the 
fiscal year 1995 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act:
    Section 316 prohibits the use of funds for regulations that 
would establish a vessel traffic safety fairway in California.
    Section 323 prohibits the use of funds to enforce certain 
regulations relating to slot management at O'Hare International 
Airport.
    Section 325 pertains to the collection of tolls on bridges 
connecting the boroughs of Brooklyn and Staten Island, New 
York.
    Section 326 limits funds to compensate in excess of 335 
staff years under the federally-funded research and development 
contract between the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.
    Section 332 provides for a full and open competition for 
the Coast Guard acquisition of 47-foot motor life boats for 
fiscal years 1995 through 2000.
    Section 333 prohibits the use of funds to be used for 
planning, engineering, design or construction of a sixth runway 
at the new Denver International Airport.
    The Committee has included the following general provisions 
as requested with modifications:
    Section 310 would be continued with modifications. The 
Committee would limit first quarter obligations to 12 percent 
instead of 15 percent. The Committee would not subject to the 
obligation limitation for federal-aid highways programs and 
activities currently exempt from the limitation. Also, the 
Committee would not set-aside $30,000,000 for the Symms 
National Recreational Trails Act, and $300,000,000 for 
congestion relief and mitigation projects.
    Section 334 that allows for the use of transit capital 
funds to overhaul buses that extend the economic life of the 
bus. The Committee would include an effective date of March 31, 
1996.
    The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the 
budget: (1) prohibiting the change in status of the Volpe 
National Transportation Center or the Turner-Fairbank Highway 
Research Systems Center; and (2) pertaining to the 
reorganization of the Department of Transportation and the 
creation of a unified transportation infrastructure investment 
program.
    In addition, the following new general provisions are 
recommended by the Committee:
    Section 327 reduces funding for activities of the working 
capital fund of the Department of Transportation and limits 
obligational authority of the fund to $92,231,000.
    Section 330 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, 
or promulgate any regulation pursuant title V of the Motor 
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate 
average fuel economy standards for automobiles as defined in 
such title, in any model year that differs from standards 
promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
section.
    Section 336 cancels $25,000,000 for personnel compensation 
and benefits and other administrative costs associated with 
streamlining the Department of Transportation's regional and 
division offices and providing the Secretary transfer authority 
among appropriations accounts to carry out this restructuring.
    Section 337 allows the Secretary to transfer funds from 
other office of the secretary accounts for rental payments in 
excess of the amounts provided in the bill.
    Section 338 prohibits funds for any type of training which: 
(a) is personally offensive to students; (b) discusses or 
teaches religious concepts or ideas; (c) attempts to teach or 
modify one's personal values or lifestyle; (d) is for AIDS 
awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical 
ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights of employees; or (e) 
does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities 
bearing directly on the performance of official duties.
    Section 339 allows parks on Hot Springs, Arkansas, airport 
property to operate without regard to revenue diversion/rent 
maximization laws.
    Section 340 requires the Federal Aviation Administration's 
retirement-eligible employees on workers' compensation to 
retire.
    Section 341 prohibits funds for technical training, tours, 
research fellowships, or other forms of technology transfer 
with citizens of the Peoples' Republic of China.
    Section 342 requires Federal Transit Administration 
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
to be based in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
    Section 343 repeals 49 USC 5333(b) (section 13(c) of the 
Federal Transit Act).
    Section 344 provides $8,421,000 for certain rail and motor 
carrier functions for the successor of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission and provides for the collection of user fees by that 
successor.
    Section 345 requires the Massachusetts Department of 
Transportation to submit a financial plan for the cost-to-
complete the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. Such 
plan must be approved by the Secretary before authorizing 
funding for additional federal-aid projects, and the financial 
plan must be updated and approved biannually until the project 
is complete.

                                TITLE IV

   PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF MANDATORY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES 
   GOVERNING THE ACTIONS OF ARBITRATORS IN THE ARBITRATION OF LABOR 
 DISPUTES INVOLVING TRANSIT AGENCIES OPERATING IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL 
                                 REGION

    Title IV of the bill provides standards for an arbitrator 
to consider in making an arbitration award involving the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). The 
arbitrator may not make an award unless several factors have 
been considered, including the financial ability of the transit 
agency and the participating governments, the regional consumer 
price index, and wages and benefits for comparable work 
elsewhere in the region. This title ensures that the arbitrator 
will consider financial ability of the local jurisdictions, 
i.e., Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, and the 
transit agency in making a determination. This measure will 
assist WMATA manage its labor costs at a time when federal 
dollars are increasingly scarce and state and local 
jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, are facing 
severe budget constraints.
    There is a clear federal interest in providing affordable 
public transit in the national capital region. In view of the 
large federal workforce and the millions of visitors each year 
to the national capital region, Congress has a responsibility 
to address this significant labor issue facing WMATA. It is the 
Committee's expectation that this title will preserve 
affordable transit in the nation's capital in perpetuity.

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the House of Representatives 
requires that each Committee report on a bill or resolution 
shall contain a statement as to whether enactment of such bill 
or resolution may have an inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the operation of the national economy.
    The accompanying bill contains appropriations and other new 
spending authority totaling $37,754,558,806. Of the amount 
recommended, about 22 percent is for personnel and operating 
costs of the various transportation bureaus and agencies.
    The Committee does not believe that these personnel costs 
will have a measurable impact on the aggregate rate of 
inflation. Approximately three percent of the amounts 
recommended in the bill will finance transportation planning 
and operating costs for states, cities, and certain private 
organizations, and one percent will finance various 
transportation research and development activities.
    The remaining 73 percent will finance transportation 
construction and development projects in various parts of the 
nation. The Committee believes these activities will improve 
our nation's transportation system. Improved and lower cost 
transportation can reduce the prices of goods by lowering the 
costs of production and by improving labor productivity through 
specialization. The Committee also believes that improved and 
lower cost transportation provides more producers with the 
opportunity to sell their products in more markets, thereby 
enhancing competition and providing consumers with broader 
choices and lower prices. Consequently, the level of financing 
provided for transportation construction activities would have 
an inflationary impact only to the extent that the benefits 
resulting from lower cost transportation were offset by higher 
prices resulting from insufficient capacity in the construction 
industry to meet all of the demands for construction by the 
public and private sectors.

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of 
Representatives, the following table is submitted describing 
the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:

Office of the Secretary, Payments to air carriers.......    -$30,386,971
Federal Aviation Administration, Facilities and 
    equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)...........     -60,000,000
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
    Operations and Research.............................      -4,547,185
                           Transfers of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of 
Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee recommends the following transfers between 
accounts:
    Under Federal Highway Administration, highway-related 
safety grants: Provided, That not to exceed $100,000 of the 
amount appropriated herein shall be available for ``Limitation 
on general operating expenses.''
    Under Research and Special Programs Administration, 
Research and special programs: Provided, That $2,322,000 shall 
be transferred to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 
the expenses necessary to conduct activities related to Airline 
Statistics.
    Under section 322 of the general provisions: 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds 
appropriated before October 1, 1993, under chapter 53 of title 
49 U.S.C., that remain available for expenditure may be 
transferred to and administered under the most recent 
appropriation heading for any such section.
    Under section 336 of the general provisions: Provided 
further, That the Secretary may for the purpose of 
consolidation of offices and facilities other than those at 
Headquarters * * * transfer the funds made available by this 
Act for civilian and military personnel compensation and 
benefits and other administrative expenses to other 
appropriations made available to the Department of 
Transportation as the Secretary may designate, to be merged 
with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same 
time period as the appropriations of funds to which 
transferred.
    Under section 337 of the general provisions: The Secretary 
of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated 
for any office of the Office of the Secretary to ``Rental 
payments'' for any expense authorized by that appropriation in 
excess of the amounts provided in this Act.

                           ``Ramseyer'' Rule

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):
                      TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

             Subtitle III--General and Intermodal Programs

          * * * * * * *

                    CHAPTER 53--MASS TRANSPORTATION

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5302. Definitions

    (a) General.--In this chapter--
          (1) ``capital project'' means a project for--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) rehabilitating a bus [that extends the 
                economic life for a bus for at least 5 years];
                  (C) remanufacturing a bus [that extends the 
                economic life of a bus for at least 8 years]; 
                or
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 5333. Labor standards

    (a) Prevailing Wages Requirement.--The Secretary of 
Transportation shall ensure that laborers and mechanics 
employed by contractors and subcontractors in construction work 
financed with a grant or loan under this chapter be paid wages 
not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the 
locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor under the Act 
of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act) (40 U.S.C. 
276a--276a-5). The Secretary of Transportation may approve a 
grant or loan only after being assured that required labor 
standards will be maintained on the construction work. For a 
labor standard under this subsection, the Secretary of Labor 
has the same duties and powers stated in Reorganization Plan 
No. 14 of 1950 (eff. May 24, 1950, 64 Stat. 1267) and section 2 
of the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 276c).
    [(b) Employee Protective Arrangements.--(1) As a condition 
of financial assistance under sections 5307-5312, 5318(d), 
5823(a)(1), (b), (d), and (e), 5328, 5337, and 5338(j)(5) of 
this title, the interests of employees affected by the 
assistance shall be protected under arrangements the Secretary 
of Labor concludes are fair and equitable. The agreement 
granting the assistance under sections 5307-5312, 5318(d), 
5323(a)(1), (b), (d), and (e), 5328, 5337, and 5338(j)(5) shall 
specify the arrangements.
    [(2) Arrangements under this subsection shall include 
provisions that may be necessary for--
          [(A) the preservation of rights, privileges, and 
        benefits (including continuation of pension rights and 
        benefits) under existing collective bargaining 
        agreements or otherwise;
          [(B) the continuation of collective bargaining 
        rights;
          [(C) the protection of individual employees against a 
        worsening of their positions related to employment;
          [(D) assurances of employment to employees of 
        acquired mass transportation systems;
          [(E) assurances of priority of reemployment of 
        employees whose employment is ended or who are laid 
        off; and
          [(F) paid training or retraining programs.
    [(3) Arrangements under this subsection shall provide 
benefits at least equal to benefits established under section 
11347 of this title.]
          * * * * * * *

                        Changes in Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effects of provisions in the accompanying bill 
which might be construed, under some circumstances, as directly 
or indirectly changing the application of existing law.
    The bill provides that appropriations shall remain 
available for more than one year for a number of programs for 
which the basic authorizing legislation does not explicitly 
authorize such extended availability.
    The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, 
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of 
Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, and 
Panama Canal Commission. Similar provisions have appeared in 
many previous appropriations Acts.
    The bill provides for transfer of funds which might be 
construed as changing the application of existing law. Similar 
provisions have appeared in previous appropriations Acts. These 
items are discussed under the appropriate heading in the 
report.
    The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase 
of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar 
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
    Several limitations on obligations are contained in Title 
I. Although these provisions are strict limitations, they do 
have the effect of reducing obligations below the levels that 
otherwise would be available.
    Language is included in several instances permitting 
certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
    Language is included that does not permit the Department of 
Transportation to maintain duplicate physical copies of airline 
tariffs.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Salaries and expenses,'' which would allow crediting the 
account with up to $1,000,000 in user fees to support the 
electronic tariff filing system.
    Language is included that limits operating costs and 
capital outlays of the Department of Transportation working 
capital fund.
    Language is included under ``Payments to air carriers'' 
limiting the liquidating cash under the program, stipulating 
that no claims may be paid except in accordance with the 
limitation, and requiring a matching share to participate in 
the ``Payments to air carriers'' program.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' which specifies that the number of aircraft on hand 
at any one time cannot exceed two hundred and eighteen.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' which specifies that none of the funds appropriated 
shall be available for pay or administrative expenses in 
connection with shipping commissioners.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation 
to the amount of fees collected from yacht owners.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both 
military and civilian employment levels to comply with 
Executive Order No. 12839.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that specifies that not less than $314,200,000 shall 
be available for drug enforcement activities.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds received 
from the sale of the VC-11A and HU-25 aircraft to this account 
to purchase new aircraft.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' that allows the Secretary to 
transfer $50,000,000 in total for the year solely for providing 
funds for streamlining plans.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Research, 
development, test, and evaluation'' that credits funds received 
from state and local governments and other entities for 
expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and 
evaluation.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Emergency 
fund'' that limits obligations to $3,000,000.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Operations,'' that prohibits the use of funds for new 
applicants of the second career training program.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' that 
prohibits the use of funds for premium pay unless an employee 
actually performed work during the time corresponding to the 
premium pay.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' 
permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant agreement 
with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop 
safety standards.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Facilities and 
equipment,'' that allows certain funds received for expenses 
incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 
navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Research, 
engineering, and development,'' that allows certain funds 
received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and 
development to be credited to the account.
    Language is included providing borrowing of not to exceed 
$1,600,000 for payment of defaulted aircraft loan guarantees.
    The bill includes a limitation on general operating 
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration.
    The bill includes language prohibiting obligations for 
right-of-way acquisition.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Operations and research'' prohibiting the 
planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling 
passenger car tires for low rolling resistance.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration,'' highway traffic safety grants limiting 
obligations for certain safety grant programs.
    Language in the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration highway traffic safety grants that withholds 
$3,000,000 from the Section 402 apportionment formula and 
distributes it to three states to prototype and evaluate the 
benefits of the safe communities program.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Office of the administrator,'' authorizing the Secretary to 
receive payments from the Union Station Redevelopment 
Corporation, credit them to the appropriation charged with the 
first deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of 
trust.
    Language is included authorizing the Secretary to issue 
fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under 
section 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
Regulatory Reform Act and to expend proceeds from the sale of 
fund anticipation notes.
    The bill included language prohibiting obligations for the 
National Magnetic Levitation Prototype Development program.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,'' that 
provides that the funds for Amtrak are not available unless 
authorized by law.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,'' 
regarding the use of funds for lease or purchase of passenger 
motor vehicles.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Formula grants,'' limiting mass transportation operating 
assistance.
    Language is included under the Federal Transit 
Administration, ``Discretionary grants,'' allowing Salt Lake 
City light rail transit project funds to be used for high 
occupancy vehicle lane and intermodal design costs.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' which would 
allow up to $1,000,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 
5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
offsetting receipts.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' that credits 
certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and 
other activities.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that provides not to exceed 
$1,000,000 for one-call notification systems.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants,'' limiting the 
individuals who may obligate funds provided under this head.
    Language is included under ``Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, ``Salaries and 
expenses,'' that provides that funds received for publications 
and training may be credited to the appropriation.
    Language is included under Interstate Commerce Commission, 
``Salaries and expenses,'' allowing for the collection of fees 
by the ICC and providing that one-twelfth of $8,300,000 of 
those fees collected shall be available for salaries and 
expenses each month the ICC remains in existence.
    The Committee is recommending language limiting to $475,000 
obligations for payments for directed rail service under the 
Interstate Commerce Commission.
    Language is included in several instances rescinding budget 
authority previously provided.
    Sections 301 through 345 of the bill contain a number of 
general provisions that place limitations on the use of funds 
in the bill and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law.
    The bill includes language regarding the administration of 
the federal-aid highways obligation limitation.
    The bill includes several new or modified provisions that 
could be construed as changing existing law as follows:
    Section 327 reduced funding for activities of the working 
capital fund of the Department of Transportation and limits 
obligational authority of the fund to $92,231,000.
    Section 330 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, 
or promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle 
Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average 
fuel economy standards for automobiles.
    Section 334 that allows for the use of transit capital 
funds to overhaul buses that extend the economic life of the 
bus, effective after March 31, 1996.
    Section 336 cancels $25,000,000 for personnel compensation 
and benefits and other administrative costs associated with 
streamlining the Department of Transportation's regional and 
division offices and providing the Secretary transfer authority 
among appropriations accounts to carry out this restructuring.
    Section 337 allows the Secretary to transfer funds from 
other office of the secretary accounts for rental payments in 
excess of the amounts provided in the bill.
    Section 338 prohibits funds for any type of training which: 
(a) is personally offensive to students; (b) discusses or 
teaches religious concepts or ideas; (c) attempts to teach or 
modify one's personal values or lifestyle; (d) is for AIDS 
awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical 
ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights of employees; or (e) 
does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities 
bearing directly on the performance of official duties.
    Section 339 allows parks on Hot Springs, Arkansas, airport 
property to operate without regard to revenue diversion/rent 
maximization laws.
    Section 340 requires the Department of Transportation 
(excluding the Maritime Administration) retirement-eligible 
employees on workers' compensation to retire.
    Section 341 prohibits funds for technical training, tours, 
research fellowships, or other forms of technology transfer 
with citizens of the People's Republic of China.
    Section 342 requires Federal Transit Administration 
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
to be based in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
    Section 343 repeals 49 USC 5333(b) (section 13(c) of the 
Federal Transit Act).
    Section 344 provides $8,421,000 for certain rail and motor 
carrier functions for the successor of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission and provides for the collection of user fees by that 
successor.
    Section 345 requires the Massachusetts Department of 
Transportation to submit a financial plan for the approval of 
the Secretary of Transportation based on the costs-to-complete 
the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project before any 
additional federal-aid funding for projects may be authorized; 
and requires that the financial plan be updated and approved 
biannually until the project is complete.
    The bill also includes a new title, ``National Capital Area 
Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 1995.''

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the 
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
          United States Coast Guard
          Federal Aviation Administration, Operations, Office 
        of Commercial Space Transportation
          Research and Special Programs Administration, 
        Research and special programs
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
        Operations and Research
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
        Highway traffic safety grants
          Federal Railroad Administration, Northeast corridor 
        improvement program
          Federal Railroad Administration, Grants to the 
        National Railroad Passenger Corporation
          Research and Special Programs Administration, 
        Pipeline Safety

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing 
new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the new 
authority compares with the reports submitted under section 
602(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information 
follows:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          602(b) allocation             This bill       
                     ---------------------------------------------------
                         Budget                    Budget               
                       authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary.......       12,600       36,947       12,218       37,064
Mandatory...........          584          581          582          581
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The amount included in this bill as shown above does not include 
  estimates of the effect of H.R. 1944, The Emergency Supplemental      
  Appropriations and Rescissions Bill for FY 1995. The estimates were   
  not included since H.R. 1944 had not received final Congressional     
  approval at the time this report was filed. If H.R. 1944 is approved, 
  the amount scored to this bill will change and the new amount will be 
  within the 602(b) subdivision.                                        

    The bill provides new spending authority as defined under 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, as 
follows: Under Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad 
rehabilitation and improvement financing funds, authority is 
provided to issue notes necessary to pay obligations under 
sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
Regulatory Reform Act. This provision has been included at the 
request of the administration because the government's 
financial obligations under this program are difficult to 
determine in advance and may require immediate expenditures of 
funds. The Committee has received no indication to date that 
this authority will be used in fiscal year 1995. Similar 
provisions have been included in many previous appropriations 
Acts.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, the following information was provided to the 
Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                (In millions of dollars)
Budget authority in the bill............................          12,218
Outlays:
    1996................................................          12,092
    1997................................................          14,077
    1998................................................           5,484
    1999................................................           1,977
    2000................................................           1,814

\1\ Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.
          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

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

                                                (In millions of dollars)
Budget authority........................................           1,206
Fiscal year 1996 outlays................................           3,720
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(1)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number 1

    Date: June 30, 1995.
    Measure: Department of Transportation appropriations bill, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of motion: Adds $150 million for mass transit; 
$4.9 million for FAA safety operations; and deletes funding for 
essential air services.
    Results: Rejected 20 to 28.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Bunn
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Fazio                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Foglietta                       Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hefner                          Mr. Durbin
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Forbes
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Istook
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Kingston
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Lewis
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Livingston
Mr. Thornton                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Torres                          Mr. Myers
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Wilson                          Mr. Neumann
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(1)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number 2

    Date: June 30, 1995.
    Measure: Department of Transportation appropriations bill, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Coleman.
    Description of motion: Strikes and inserts bill language 
relating to labor protections in Federal transit programs.
    Results: Rejected 23 to 25.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bunn                            Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. DeLay
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Dickey
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Fazio                           Mr. Istook
Mr. Foglietta                       Mr. Kingston
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Lewis
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Livingston
Mr. Neumann                         Mr. Miller
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Myers
Mr. Riggs                           Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Packard
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Porter
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Regula
Mr. Thornton                        Mr. Rogers
Mr. Torres                          Mr. Skeen
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Taylor
Mr. Wilson                          Mrs. Vucanovich
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(1)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number 3

    Date: June 30, 1995.
    Measure: Department of Transportation appropriations bill, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Foglietta.
    Description of motion: Adds $135 million for transit 
subsidies by limiting to $200 million the amount States could 
spend on highway demonstration projects.
    Results: Rejected 20 to 27.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Bunn
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Dickey
Mr. Fazio                           Mr. Forbes
Mr. Foglietta                       Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Livingston
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Miller
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Myers
Mr. Thornton                        Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Torres                          Mr. Neumann
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Packard
Mr. Wilson                          Mr. Porter
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Riggs
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HONORABLE DAVID OBEY, HONORABLE MARTIN OLAV SABO, 
  HONORABLE RICHARD J. DURBIN, HONORABLE RONALD D. COLEMAN, HONORABLE 
                          THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA

    The Department of Transportation Appropriations Bill is an 
important bill for our nation's continued economic prosperity 
and for the safety and security of the traveling public. All 
Americans are touched by this bill as they travel to and from 
work on the nation's highways and subways, travel by airplane 
to conduct business and visit family and friends, and consume 
goods transported across the country by truck, railroads, 
barges and airplanes.
    There is no doubt that this bill makes significant progress 
toward providing funding for some of our nation's critical 
infrastructure needs, particularly to address the nation's 
roads, highways and bridges that are in desperate need of 
repair and rehabilitation and to expand capacity at our most 
heavily congested airports. We support the increases 
recommended for the Federal-aid Highways Program and the 
Airport Improvement Program.
    We are deeply concerned, however, about the 
disproportionate reductions in transit capital and operating 
assistance. We believe that it is shortsighted not to provide 
the level of federal assistance needed to ensure the viable and 
safe operation of buses and rapid transit for the millions of 
Americans who rely on mass transit. Twenty percent of our 
nation's population, over 52 million people, live in rural 
areas and many of them will be affected by the 44 percent 
reduction in transit operating assistance recommended in this 
bill. Further, the reductions in transit funding will impede 
urban transit properties' efforts to move people to work, to 
break the traffic gridlock that grips cities, and to improve 
air quality in cities across the country. We believe that the 
recommended $250 million reduction in funding to maintain, 
revitalize and extend bus and transit infrastructure is penny-
wise and pound-foolish. Mass transit investments provide 
mobility to disadvantaged individuals, ease congestion on our 
already crowded highways, and provide jobs to middle-class 
Americans. They are a wise investment in our nation's 
productivity.
    Further, we reject the arguments made by some that the 
recommended reductions for transit somehow justify the 
termination of the collective bargaining rights of transit 
workers. While we share some legitimate concerns about the 
Department of Labor's administration of Section 13(c) of the 
Federal Transit Act, these concerns have largely been addressed 
in its June 30, 1995 proposed notice of rulemaking which would 
both streamline and expedite the program by guaranteeing 
certification of all grants within sixty days and impose other 
reforms that will make the 13(c) process more efficient. Not 
only is it inappropriate to include provisions repealing 
Section 13(c) and abrogating existing contracts in this bill, 
but it is also unsound and unjust public policy. These 
provisions threaten the jobs, pay and benefits of thousands of 
middle-class families. They are simply wrong and we strongly 
oppose them.
    Moreover, we believe that many important transportation 
technology and safety-enhancing activities are cut too deeply 
in this bill, simply because they are funded in budget accounts 
that ``spend out'' at a high rate. For example, one of the 
deepest reductions in the bill is in the Federal Aviation 
Administration's research and development program which is 
reduced by nearly 50 percent below the fiscal year 1995 funding 
level. It is folly to believe that a cut of this magnitude 
would not affect the future safety and security of the nation's 
skies. In light of recent terrorist and bomb threats, the $10.6 
million cut in the bill for research on airport security 
technologies, aviation security and aircraft hardening research 
is particularly unwise. Equally ill-advised is the denial of 
additional funding for aviation safety inspectors to address 
commercial aviation safety concerns that are at an all-time 
high after the several tragic air crashes last year. We note, 
as well, that section 341 which prohibits funding for technical 
training and assistance to the People's Republic of China would 
potentially reduce the level of safety for U.S. air carriers 
operating into China as well as U.S. citizens traveling on 
China's domestic aviation system.
    Important search and rescue and other maritime safety 
operations of the Coast Guard will also not escape the impact 
of recommended funding reductions. Funding for Coast Guard 
operations in this bill is $37 million below current levels, 
and will require the Coast Guard to decommission more boats, 
cutters and aircraft, and reduce operating hours.
    We remain disappointed with some of the reductions in the 
bill that undermine our nation's ability to expand 
transportation capacity, not through bricks and mortar, but 
through capacity-enhancing transportation technologies and 
innovations that have the by-product of encouraging greater 
private investment in transportation. A careful analysis of the 
bill reveals a bias against research, development, and 
technology investments that could yield real gains in highway 
safety and congestion relief.
    Gains in streamlining the Department of Transportation 
should also be made and the Secretary of Transportation has 
taken on this task head-on. Nevertheless, it is unfair to 
mandate the consolidation of DOT's offices and operations, as 
recommended in the bill, while at the same time denying funding 
for the development of automated systems that would facilitate 
the mandated downsizing.
    We also take issue with the bill's provisions which 
prohibit funds from being used for certain types of training 
activities, including AIDS awareness training. The Committee is 
placing new restrictions on the Department for improper conduct 
and a lack of oversight which existed under the Reagan and Bush 
administrations--a negligence that this administration has 
moved swiftly to correct. These new restrictions jeopardize all 
training activities conducted by the Department--safety-related 
technical training, as well as management training. Moreover, 
we believe that these provisions will be extremely difficult to 
enforce. We hope that this provision can be improved when the 
bill is considered by the entire House.
    We had hoped for a better vision, bolder ideas and a more 
balanced approach to the critical transportation infrastructure 
and safety issues financed in this bill.
                                   David Obey.
                                   Martin Olav Sabo.
                                   Dick Durbin.
                                   Ron Coleman.
                                   Thomas M. Foglietta.