Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 114
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                     104-86
_______________________________________________________________________


 
            NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1995

                                _______


     May 22 (legislative day, May 15), 1995.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. Chafee, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 440]
    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 440), to amend title 23, United States 
Code, to provide for the designation of the National Highway 
System, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that 
the bill do pass.

                           General Statement

                               background

National Highway System

    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 (ISTEA) requires Congress to designate the National 
Highway System (NHS) by September 30, 1995. ISTEA authorized a 
6-year total of $21 billion for the proposed NHS. Without 
passage of the NHS bill, States will not receive their annual 
apportionments of approximately $6.5 billion, beginning on 
October 1, 1995. This $6.5 billion consists of $3.6 billion in 
annual apportionments for the NHS and $2.9 billion for 
Interstate Maintenance.
    The purpose of the National Highway System as stated in 
ISTEA is ``to provide an interconnected system of principal 
arterial routes which will serve major population centers, 
international border crossings, ports, airports, public 
transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation 
facilities and other major travel destinations; meet national 
defense requirements; and serve interstate and regional 
travel.''
    The Secretary of Transportation has transmitted to Congress 
a system map of routes to be included on the final NHS. The NHS 
as designated is comprised of approximately 159,000 miles of 
which 119,000 miles are rural and 40,000 miles are urban. ISTEA 
requires 67,500 miles as components of the NHS. These 
components consist of: 45,000 miles of Interstate highways; 
4,500 miles of high priority corridors identified in ISTEA; 
15,700 miles of non-Interstate Strategic Highway Network routes 
(STRAHNET); and 1,900 miles of STRAHNET connectors. The 
remaining 91,000 miles of the NHS were identified by the States 
in cooperation with local officials and the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA).
    Congress will not approve or disapprove any modifications 
made to the NHS subsequent to enactment of this legislation. At 
the request of a State, the Secretary may add a new route 
segment to the NHS or delete an existing route segment and any 
connection to the route segment, as long as the segment or 
connection is within the jurisdiction of the requesting State 
and the total mileage of the NHS does not exceed 165,000 miles.
    According to the FHWA, the NHS carries over 40 percent of 
the nation's highway traffic and 70 percent of its truck 
freight traffic. The NHS represents 4 percent of the country's 
4 million miles of public roads.
    Over 90 percent of the U.S. population lives within 5 miles 
of an NHS road. The NHS serves 93 percent of small urban areas 
with populations of between 5,000 and 50,000. The small urban 
areas are within 5 miles of the system, as are all urbanized 
areas with populations over 50,000. Urban roads make up 26 
percent of the NHS and the remaining 74 percent is comprised of 
rural roads. Furthermore, 98 percent of all roads that make up 
the NHS have already been built. The NHS will allow States to 
focus their investments on connecting rail, air, commercial 
water ports, and highways so that performance of the entire 
system can be maximized.
    Nearly 90 percent of U.S. counties have NHS mileage running 
through them. These counties account for 99 percent of all 
manufacturing jobs, 97 percent of the mining jobs, and 93 
percent of all farming jobs.
    The development of the NHS was carried out by the U.S. 
Department of Transportation through the FHWA in cooperation 
with the States. The FHWA and the States cooperatively 
developed the system based on criteria of efficiency, 
connectivity, and equity among States. State and local 
officials were actively involved in the process, especially in 
the identification of routes. Although local approval was not 
required by ISTEA, the local officials (Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations, or MPOs) in 30 States endorsed the State-
submitted NHS.
    The FHWA determined that traffic volume, service to 
destination points, and interstate, intrastate, and 
interregional connectivity were useful indicators of 
efficiency. These indicators became the analytical criteria for 
including individual routes in the illustrative system. Another 
important element that the FHWA considered was the mileage 
distribution among the States and between urban and rural 
areas.
    Road density (miles of road per square mile of land area), 
travel density (vehicle miles traveled per mile of roadway), 
and percentage for statewide travel served were the major 
factors used to achieve rural mileage equity among the States.
    To establish the urban mileage targets, the FHWA analyzed 
several proposed systems submitted by the States and MPOs 
representing urbanized areas of varying sizes. The FHWA 
analyzed the ability of these systems to connect with important 
interstate and intrastate routes and to serve major traffic 
generators within the urbanized areas. Based upon this 
analysis, the FHWA identified an NHS urban mileage target of 6 
percent of total urban road and street mileage. This provided 
an equitable system for all States and provided travel service 
consistent with the rural component.
    Section 1006(c) of ISTEA also required the States to 
complete a functional reclassification of all public roads and 
streets and required the Secretary of Transportation to use the 
functional reclassification in preparing the NHS. 
Reclassification was important for the NHS designation process 
because it identified roads eligible for designation as NHS 
routes. Under ISTEA, only principal arterials are eligible as 
NHS routes, unless they are part of the STRAHNET.
    Cooperation among the States over many years had resulted 
in generally recognized interstate and interregional routes 
that connected across State borders. In cases where 
inconsistencies existed, FHWA consulted with the States and 
made determinations of routes to be included based on 
considerations such as traffic volumes, connectivity and 
service to destinations as well as inclusion of routes in 
existing State longrange plans.

Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge

    The construction of the 6-lane Woodrow Wilson Memorial 
Bridge was authorized by Congress in 1954 (Public Law 83-704) 
to provide an interstate highway connection between Maryland 
and Virginia across the Potomac River. The Bridge was built by 
the Department of Commerce, which, at that time, included the 
Bureau of Public Roads. The Bridge was transferred later to the 
Department of Transportation and was opened in 1961.
    As owner of the Bridge, the Federal Government is 
responsible for annual rehabilitation costs to ensure that the 
Bridge meets Federal safety standards. Since 1961, Virginia, 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia have financed the annual 
operation and maintenance costs.
    The Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge remains the only segment 
of the 44,000-mile Interstate Highway System that is owned by 
the Federal government. The Bridge was designed 40 years ago to 
carry 75,000 vehicles per day, with 10 percent of the traffic 
consisting of heavy trucks. Today, the Bridge carries 167,000 
vehicles per day, and 11 percent of that volume is truck 
traffic.
    This facility is the only bascule span drawbridge on the 
regional Interstate network, the only segment of the region's 
8-lane Capital Beltway that is limited to six lanes, and the 
only section of the Capital Beltway with a remaining lifespan 
of less than 10 years.
    Congress has recognized the responsibility of Federal 
ownership of the Bridge and has provided funding for 
reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation of 
the Bridge. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 provided funds 
for the Department to undertake a major resurfacing and 
redecking project. In 1985, a new agreement was executed 
between the Federal government and Virginia, Maryland and the 
District of Columbia which required the Federal government to 
fully rehabilitate the Bridge and to provide Federal funds for 
future reconstruction and widening before ownership of the 
Bridge was transferred to the States and the District.
    In fulfilling the terms of this agreement, it was 
recognized that the rehabilitation needs of the Woodrow Wilson 
Bridge were significant. A 1994 study commissioned by the 
Federal Highway Administration to assess the current condition 
of the Bridge confirmed that annual repairs fail to extend the 
useful life of the facility and are no longer cost-effective. 
The report concluded that unless a new facility is constructed 
within the next 9 years, significant truck size and weight 
restrictions may be imposed to address safety concerns on this 
segment of the Capital Beltway.
    Section 1099 of ISTEA established the Interstate Study 
Commission to examine the existing planning and implementation 
mechanisms to meet transportation demands in the National 
Capital Region. Appointed in 1992, the Commission submitted its 
final report to the Congress in December, 1994. The Commission 
found that the region's transportation planning process was 
responsive to the region's needs, but that other innovative 
options were necessary to facilitate the implementation of 
transportation projects.
    The consensus of the Commission was a recommendation ``that 
an interstate authority be established to finance, build and 
operate a Potomac River crossing (as recommended by the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge Coordination Committee and endorsed by the 
National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board).'' Title 
II implements the Commission's findings by creating an 
interstate authority to serve as a financing mechanism to 
facilitate the construction of a replacement facility and to 
provide for the transfer of ownership of the Bridge from the 
Federal government to the interstate authority.
Congressional legislation

    Congress is required by law to designate the National 
Highway System (NHS) by September 30, 1995. Section 1006 of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
(ISTEA) provides, ``[N]o funds made available for carrying out 
this title may be apportioned for the National Highway System 
or the Interstate Maintenance program under this title unless a 
law has been approved designating the National Highway 
System.'' If the Congress does not enact the designation by the 
September 30 deadline, the States will not receive their NHS or 
Interstate Maintenance funds starting October 1, 1995. At stake 
is $6.5 billion per year.
    During the 103d Congress, the Committee reported S. 1887, 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1994, a bill to 
approve the most recent NHS submitted to Congress by the 
Secretary of Transportation. The Senate unanimously approved S. 
1887 on September 22, 1994.
    On May 25, 1994, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 
4835, its own NHS designation package. In addition to the 
approval of the NHS, H.R. 4835 included other transportation 
provisions. Because of the difference between the House and 
Senate measures, the NHS designation was not approved by the 
103d Congress prior to adjournment.
    On February 16, 1995, Senator Warner, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, introduced 
S. 440, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, to 
approve the NHS designation. Since that time, the Subcommittee 
has held four hearings on the NHS and the related issues of the 
Department of Transportation fiscal year 1996 budget; Clean Air 
Act/transportation conformity requirements; ISTEA safety and 
environmental requirements; and innovative financing proposals.
    The bill, as amended, was ordered reported unanimously, by 
rollcall vote of 9 to 0, from the Subcommittee on May 3, 1995. 
The Full Committee ordered the bill reported, as amended, on 
May 10, 1995, by a rollcall vote of 15 to 1.

                           The Reported Bill

    The reported legislation contains two titles. Title I 
designates the NHS, and amends the current surface 
transportation law to provide greater flexibility to the States 
and to reduce certain administrative burdens. Title II 
establishes a Regional Interstate Transportation Authority to 
own, construct, maintain, and operate a new crossing of the 
Potomac River on Interstate 495 at the present location of the 
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge.

                      title i--highway provisions

    Title I designates the most recent National Highway System 
that the Secretary of Transportation has submitted to Congress 
at the time of enactment. The legislation as reported does not 
designate any new NHS mileage; however, it permits the 
Secretary to add or delete routes to the system, provided that 
the total mileage of the NHS does not exceed 165,000 miles. The 
bill designates certain already existing NHS routes as High 
Priority Corridors.
    Title I upholds the core principles of ISTEA by providing 
Federal-aid eligibility for public highways connecting the NHS 
to intermodal facilities. The legislation makes technical 
corrections to specific ISTEA provisions to enable the States 
to better utilize their NHS funds. It also provides the States 
with greater flexibility in their infrastructure investment 
decisions. Certain measures to relieve the States from the 
administrative burdens involved in management systems, 
transportation enhancements, and metric requirements, are also 
in the bill.
    Specifically, the bill includes the following substantive 
changes to current law:
    Innovative finance--Current Federal restrictions on 
Interstate tolls are repealed. States may credit private sector 
donations 100 percent to the State cost share, and the costs 
associated with bond financing are eligible for Federal-aid 
highway funds. Because of the shrinking Federal budget, it is 
important to find new sources of capital for transportation 
infrastructure as well as new ways to leverage existing 
sources. It is imperative to give States increased flexibility 
and to increase the private sector's access to various methods 
of funding the three stages of a project: design development, 
construction, and longterm financing.
    Transportation conformity requirements--Conformity 
requirements apply to Clean Air Act nonattainment areas and 
nonattainment areas that have been redesignated as 
``maintenance'' areas. The amount of money each State receives 
under its Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) 
improvement program will stay at fiscal year 1995 levels, 
regardless of a nonattainment area's redesignation to 
maintenance, or additional areas designated as nonattainment.
    Design standards--On non-Interstate NHS roads, States are 
given the flexibility to use design standards that address 
environmental, scenic, historic, community and other intermodal 
concerns.
    Management systems--States are no longer required to 
implement the six management systems required in ISTEA.
    Transportation enhancements--The process for implementing 
the transportation enhancement program is streamlined.
    Preventive maintenance--States may use Federal-aid funds 
for the cost-effective preventive maintenance of all Federal-
aid highways.
    Rubberized asphalt--The rubberized asphalt sanction in 
ISTEA is repealed. A crumb rubber modifier research and 
development program is established to develop better mix 
designs, perform field tests, and expand State programs.
    Recreational trails--The National Recreational Trails 
Program will receive $15 million in contract authority for each 
of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
    National maximum speed limit--The national maximum speed 
limit is repealed.
    Davis-Bacon--The prevailing wage requirement no longer 
applies to any project authorized by title 23, United States 
Code.

                  Title ii--the woodrow wilson bridge

    Title II provides Federal authorization to the Commonwealth 
of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of 
Columbia to establish the National Capital Region Interstate 
Transportation Authority; and to authorize the transfer of 
ownership of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge to the authority for the 
purpose of owning, constructing, maintaining, and operating a 
bridge or tunnel or a bridge and tunnel project across the 
Potomac River.
    Title II provides $17.5 million in contract authority for 
fiscal year 1996 and $80 million in contract authority for 
fiscal year 1997 for the rehabilitation of the bridge and the 
planning, design and right-of-way acquisition for a new 
crossing of the Potomac River. Title II also requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to submit to Congress by May 31, 
1997 a report identifying the Federal share of constructing a 
new crossing.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                      title i--highway provisions

Section 1. Short title; table of contents

    Section 1 titles this bill as the ``National Highway System 
designation Act of 1995''.

Sec. 101. National Highway System designation

    Section 101 approves the most recent National Highway 
System (NHS), submitted to Congress by the Secretary of 
Transportation. The section also specifies the procedure for 
future changes and modifications to the NHS after Congress has 
adopted the initial system. At the request of a State, the 
Secretary may add a new route segment to the NHS or delete an 
existing route segment and any connection to the route segment, 
as long as the segment or connection is within the jurisdiction 
of the requesting State and the total mileage of the NHS 
(including any route segment or connection proposed to be 
added) does not exceed 165,000 miles.
    If a State requests a modification to the NHS as adopted by 
Congress, the State must establish that each change in a route 
segment or connection has been identified by the State in 
cooperation with local officials. This cooperative process 
between the State and local officials will be carried out under 
the existing transportation planning activities for 
metropolitan areas and the statewide planning processes 
established under ISTEA.
    Congress will not approve or disapprove any modifications 
made to the NHS subsequent to enactment of this legislation. 
The cooperative planning process between State and local 
officials, along with the approval of the Secretary, is the 
appropriate forum for considering modifications to the NHS 
following enactment of this legislation.
    The State of Oklahoma has requested a functional 
reclassification of US-81 from Duncan, Stephens County, 
Oklahoma southward 44.1 miles to the Oklahoma/Texas State line 
north of Ringgold, TX, as a rural principal arterial. If this 
portion of US-81 is reclassified as a rural principal arterial, 
it will be eligible for designation on the National Highway 
System and should be included as part of the NHS. It is 
expected that the Federal Highway Administration will give 
prompt consideration to any request regarding US-81 by the 
State of Oklahoma.

Sec. 102. Eligible projects for the National Highway System

    Section 102 amends subsections 101(a) and 103(i) of title 
23, United States Code, to permit States to use NHS funds for 
the costs of operating traffic management, monitoring, and 
control facilities and programs for an indefinite period, in 
lieu of the 2-year period set forth in the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). This section 
will make the eligibility of NHS funds and Surface 
Transportation Program (STP) funds for such costs the same.
    Under current law, States may use Federal-aid funds for 
operations of traffic control systems which use Intelligent 
Transportation System technology. This section permits States 
to use Federal-aid funds for the maintenance of these systems 
as well. It is difficult to draw a distinction between 
operation and maintenance of these high technology systems. 
System reliability is critical to public benefit and timely 
maintenance is an integral part of ensuring proper operations 
and lowest life-cycle costs. The maintenance required to keep 
traffic control systems operating is considered as part of the 
cost of operation.
    Section 102 amends subsection 103(i) of title 23, United 
States Code, to allow the construction, reconstruction, 
resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of, and 
operational improvements for, any public road, regardless of 
its functional classification, which connects the National 
Highway System to any port, airport, rail, truck or other 
intermodal freight transportation facility and public 
transportation facility. The intent of this section is that 
public roads that provide access to intermodal facilities are 
eligible for these funds. Therefore, public roads which do not 
provide access to another mode of transportation are not 
included as eligible by this section.
    This section adds construction and operational improvements 
for the Alameda Transportation Corridor (between the ports of 
Los Angeles and Long Beach to Interstate 10 in central Los 
Angeles) to the list of projects eligible for the National 
Highway System. The Alameda Transportation Corridor is a rail 
freight and highway transportation project, which will expedite 
the movement of containers between the Los Angeles/Long Beach 
harbor complex and intermodal rail yards in downtown Los 
Angeles. The project will consolidate four rail lines 
constituting 90 miles of track into a single, 20-mile, high-
capacity corridor for truck and train traffic. It will also 
reduce air pollution and traffic congestion and improve highway 
safety by eliminating numerous highway-railroad grade crossings 
and improving access to port facilities.

Sec. 103. Transferability of apportionments

    Section 103 amends subsection 104(g) of title 23, United 
States Code, by increasing the percentage of Highway Bridge 
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) apportionments 
that the States can transfer to their NHS or surface 
transportation program accounts. The percentage is increased 
from 40 percent to 60 percent.

Sec. 104. Design criteria for the National Highway System

    Section 104 amends section 109 of title 23, which relates 
to standards for proposed highway projects, to indicate that 
planned, as opposed to merely probable, future traffic needs 
should be met by the proposed project. This change recognizes 
that it may not be possible to meet all probable future traffic 
needs, and allows approval of projects that are designed to 
meet planned amounts of traffic.
    In addition, section 109(c) is amended to assure that the 
``constructed'' and ``natural'' environment, the environmental, 
scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and preservation 
impacts, and access to other modes of transportation are 
considered in the design of the National Highway System 
projects for new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing 
(except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, or 
rehabilitation. This does not apply to Interstate System 
projects. The section further directs the Secretary, in 
cooperation with State highway agencies, to develop National 
Highway System criteria for such projects that include the 
consideration of factors noted above. The Secretary shall also 
consider the results of the AASHTO committee process, as set 
forth in its ``Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 
Streets,'' after appropriate public input.
    Section 109(q) of title 23 is amended to allow the 
Secretary to approve projects for the National Highway System, 
including the Interstate System, that may not meet the criteria 
developed in response to subsections (b) and (c) but are 
designed to preserve environmental, scenic, or historic values; 
to ensure safe use of the facility; and to comply with 
subsection (a). Under existing law, States have the flexibility 
to determine design standards for all non-NHS Federal-aid 
highways and bridges. The specific reference in subsection (q), 
therefore, is no longer necessary. States continue to have the 
flexibility to approve projects that may not meet the criteria 
in subsections (b) and (c) but are designed to preserve 
environmental, scenic, or historic values on all non-NHS 
Federal-aid highways, and NHS projects which cost less than $1 
million.
    The application of Interstate design standards across all 
NHS routes or the application of a design standard higher than 
warranted by the type of traffic using the particular NHS route 
is inappropriate and counterproductive. A single NHS design 
standard is unnecessary. Given the wide recognition that at 
times it will be neither possible nor desirable to develop 
facilities that meet forecast travel, these facilities should 
be designed for planned future traffic. The State 
transportation departments are given the flexibility to 
determine the most appropriate level of design for particular 
routes and to use approved criteria based on functional 
classification, type of traffic, safety, environmental, scenic, 
aesthetic, historic, community and preservation concerns, as 
well as enhancing access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 
There will be a liberal design exception process for the 
specified considerations as long as the safe use of the 
facility is ensured. There has been collaborative work between 
AASHTO and representatives of organizations with expertise in 
safety, environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community 
and preservation issues to identify good design practices. This 
collaboration is encouraged to continue.
Sec. 105. Applicability of transportation conformity requirements

    Section 105 amends section 109(j) of title 23 to confirm 
that the transportation conformity requirements of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 apply only to areas 
designated as ``nonattainment'' under the Clean Air Act, and to 
areas that have been redesignated as attainment, but that are 
still subject to the maintenance plan requirements of the Clean 
Air Act section 175A (24 U.S.C. 7505a). Nonattainment areas are 
those geographical areas that have been designated as 
nonattainment under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 
U.S.C. 7404(d)) because they do not meet national primary or 
secondary ambient air quality standards for certain pollutants. 
The transportation conformity provisions of ISTEA and the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990 serve to link transportation plans 
and projects with a State's plan to reduce pollutant emissions 
identified in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) required under 
the Clean Air Act.
    Section 105 also clarifies that areas designated as 
nonattainment under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 
U.S.C. 7407(d)) are required only to conduct a conformity 
analysis for those specific transportation-related pollutants 
for which an area is designated nonattainment.
    This section supports EPA's determination in the existing 
transportation conformity regulation (58 Fed. Reg. 62, 188 
(Nov. 24, 1993) that the conformity program should not be 
applied to attainment areas, and eliminates the ambiguity that 
was the basis of a recent U.S. District Court decision 
(Environmental Defense Fund v. Browner, NO. C-92-1636 THE (N.D. 
Cal. Feb. 10, 1995) that would mandate that transportation 
conformity requirements be applied to attainment areas.

Sec. 106. Use of recycled paving material

    Section 106 repeals subsection 1038(d) of the ISTEA and 
replaces it with a new provision. Subsection 1038(d) contains 
the mandate and penalty provisions for the use of recycled 
scrap tire rubber in asphalt pavements. All other provisions of 
Section 1038 would remain in force. States may construct 
pavements containing recycled rubber with Federal funds and 
FHWA will continue technology transfer and research efforts 
required under section 1038.
    The new subsection 1038(d) requires the Federal Highway 
Administration, within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, to begin development of testing procedures and 
conduct research to develop performance grade classifications, 
in accordance with the Strategic Highway Research Program 
(SHRP), for crumb rubber modifier binders. These testing 
procedures and performance grade classifications are to be 
developed in consultation with representatives of the crumb 
rubber modifier industry and other interested parties.
    Section 106 also requires the FHWA to make grants of up to 
$500,000 to each State for the development of programs to use 
crumb rubber from scrap tires to modify asphalt pavements. 
These grants may be used to develop mix designs, for placement 
and evaluation of field tests and for the expansion of State 
crumb rubber modifier programs in existence on the date the 
grant is made available.
    This section provides funding for these research and grant 
programs from previously authorized funds under section 6005 of 
the ISTEA for section 307(e)(13) of title 23. This section 
directs that $500,000 be expended for the research in fiscal 
year 1996, and $10 million be expended in each of the fiscal 
years 1996 and 1997 for grants to States to develop crumb 
rubber modifier programs. The funds for section 307(e)(13) of 
title 23 are deducted from FHWA's general operating expenses.
    In addition, this section strikes the definition of the 
term ``asphalt pavement containing recycled rubber'' as it 
appears in paragraph 1038(e)(1) and redefines it as ``any 
mixture of asphalt and crumb rubber derived from whole scrap 
tires, such that the physical properties of the asphalt are 
modified through the mixture, for use in pavement maintenance, 
rehabilitation, or construction applications.''
    The purpose of Section 106 is to continue to encourage 
States to use crumb rubber modifier materials in cost-effective 
pavement construction applications. This is accomplished in 
this section through grants to States instead of a State 
minimum-use requirement.

Sec. 107. Inapplicability of Davis-Bacon Act to highway programs

    Section 107 amends section 113 of title 23 to state that 
the Act, commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act, requiring the 
payment of prevailing wages on Federal construction contracts 
does not apply with respect to any project carried out or 
assisted under any chapter of title 23, United States Code. Any 
applicable State minimum wage rates (i.e., ``Little Davis-
Bacon'' rates) continue to apply, however, to Federal-aid 
projects. The Davis-Bacon Act will not apply to direct Federal 
highway construction projects.
    The existing section 113 of title 23 requires the payment 
of a prevailing minimum wage rate to all laborers and mechanics 
employed for work performed on Federal-aid highway construction 
projects. The Davis-Bacon Act, which is the source of this 
requirement, was enacted in 1931 to prevent contractors from 
using cheap labor to unfairly compete with local firms for 
Federal public works projects. Since that time, Congress has 
enacted the Federal minimum wage and other labor protections to 
protect against such unfair competition. Therefore, the Davis-
Bacon requirement is no longer necessary.
    Section 107 improves the existing Federal-aid highway 
program in several ways. First, the costs saved by the repeal 
promote the more effective utilization of limited highway 
resources and strengthen the efforts to reduce the Federal 
deficit. The prevailing wage requirement inflates the costs of 
highway construction. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office's most recent statistics, the repeal of Davis-Bacon for 
title 23-related projects would save the Federal highway 
program $721 million annually. The States can use this cost-
savings to address more compelling needs, such as the 
replacement of deteriorating roads and bridges.
    Second, the repeal of section 113 expands the economic 
opportunities available to lower wage workers. The existing law 
protects large national construction firms and union laborers 
at the expense of smaller, independent firms and less skilled 
workers, particularly minorities and women. The end result 
under current law is higher unemployment rates and increased 
taxes. Section 107 creates a level playing field for all 
workers and reduces the nation's tax burden.
    Finally, Section 107 alleviates the costly requirements of 
complying with Davis-Bacon. Under current law, contractors and 
subcontractors are required to submit weekly wage reports and 
certification of wages. The repeal of these administrative 
burdens promotes efficiency and expedites the completion of 
highway projects.

Sec. 108. Limitation on advance construction

    Section 108 amends section 115(d) of title 23, United 
States Code, to permit the Secretary to approve an application 
for advance construction provided the project is on the State's 
transportation improvement program (STIP). The STIP is fiscally 
constrained under section 135(f) of title 23. The current 
limitation on advance construction requires that an 
authorization be in effect one year beyond the fiscal year for 
which the application for advance funding is sought, thus 
limiting the States' flexibility to advance construct in the 
final year of a multiyear authorization act, even though the 
life of the Highway Trust Fund extends beyond the authorization 
period. This section provides greater flexibility to the States 
to engage in advance construction and is consistent with sound 
fiscal management of the Highway Trust Fund.

Sec. 109. Preventive maintenance

    Section 109 amends section 116 of title 23 to expand 
Federal-aid participation in preventive maintenance activities 
to include those preventive maintenance activities on Federal-
aid highways that States demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
Secretary will be cost-effective means of extending the life of 
highways. The only identified preventive maintenance activities 
currently eligible for Federal-aid participation are those 
performed on the Interstate System that are demonstrated 
through a pavement management system to be a cost-effective 
means of extending Interstate pavement life.

Sec. 110. Eligibility of bond and other debt instrument financing for 
        reimbursement as construction expenses

    Section 110 provides that eligible bond or debt financing 
instrument costs include bond and debt financing instrument 
principal and interest, and other costs associated with bond or 
debt financing instrument issuances, provided that the proceeds 
of such bonds or debt financing instruments are used on 
eligible Federal-aid projects. Existing section 122 of title 
23, United States Code, relating to payments to States for bond 
retirement, limits Federal participation to retirement of bond 
principal on the former Federal-aid primary and urban systems, 
and to Interstate substitute projects (and authorizes 
participation in interest and incidental costs as well as 
principal retirement, in connection with the sale of such bonds 
relating to Interstate System projects).
    Since enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 eliminated the Federal-aid primary, 
secondary, and urban systems, and provided greater flexibility 
to the States, this section clearly defines eligible bond 
costs, provides greater flexibility and broadens eligibility to 
States for Federal-aid projects constructed with bond or debt 
financing instrument proceeds, and permits States to leverage 
additional infrastructure investment. At the same time, this 
section makes clear that although bond or debt financing 
instrument costs are eligible for Federal participation (as a 
cost of construction under section 101 as amended), such 
eligibility does not constitute a Federal commitment, 
obligation or guarantee, thus preserving the tax exempt status 
of any State issued bonds or debt financing instruments under 
sections 103 and 149(b) of title 26 thereby attracting 
additional investment in such issuances at a lower cost to the 
State.
    This section also makes a conforming amendment to the 
definition of ``construction'' in section 101(a) of title 23, 
inserting ``bond costs and other costs relating to the issuance 
of bonds or other debt instrument financing in accordance with 
section 122'' to the definition.

Sec. 111. Federal share for highways, bridges, and tunnels

    Section 111 amends paragraph 129(a)(5) of title 23, United 
States Code, to provide that the Federal share for 
participation in toll highways, bridges and tunnels shall be a 
percentage as determined by the State, but shall not exceed 80 
percent. The current maximum Federal share for toll facilities 
ranges from 50 to 80 percent depending on the type of toll 
facility, the type of work, and the status of prior toll 
agreements for the toll facility. This change simplifies the 
Federal share provisions and provides for a more consistent 
Federal share for eligible Federal-aid projects on toll 
facilities.

Sec. 112. Streamlining for transportation enhancement projects

    Section 112 amends section 133(e) of title 23 to provide an 
optional payment provision whereby the FHWA may advance to the 
State amounts necessary to advance a project: (1) if the State 
has a process of selecting enhancement projects that involves 
representatives of affected local agencies and private citizens 
with expertise related to transportation enhancement 
activities; and (2) in only those amounts necessary to make 
prompt payments for project costs. States are permitted to 
receive annual transportation enhancement activity 
apportionments in advance rather than as project reimbursements 
for the purpose of distributing these funds to project sponsors 
as advance payments at the beginning of the project rather than 
as reimbursements at the completion of the project.
    The advance of funds may be exercised upon the Secretary's 
annual certification that the State has authorized and utilizes 
a process for the selection of transportation enhancement 
projects that includes representatives of affected public and 
citizen interests.
    Section 112 also requires the Secretary to treat 
enhancement activities as categorical exclusions under the 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA). Transportation enhancement projects generally have a 
positive environmental impact and are not major Federal actions 
for which an Environmental Impact Statement is required. Such 
actions are typically covered by Categorical Exclusions (CEs) 
and FHWA has developed several CEs to accommodate some kinds of 
enhancement projects. There are categories of enhancement 
activities, however, that are not compatible with any existing 
CE. This section does not alter in any way NEPA's important 
public policy objectives. It retains the protection of NEPA in 
the unlikely event that an enhancement project will 
significantly affect the environment.
    Finally, this section requires the Federal Highway 
Administrator, in consultation with the National Conference of 
State Historic Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council 
on Historic Preservation, to develop a nationwide programmatic 
agreement governing the review of transportation enhancements 
under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 
the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation.

Sec. 113. Non-Federal share for certain toll bridge projects

    Section 113 amends section 144(l) of title 23 to allow any 
non-Federal funds expended for the seismic retrofit of the 
Golden Gate bridge described in section 144(l) to be credited 
towards the required non-Federal match of Federal-aid seismic 
retrofit projects authorized for this bridge. Section 113 
permits the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation 
District to proceed with the seismic protection project with 
non-Federal funding without prejudice that these funds would 
not be considered a cost share for possible future Federal 
funding. The California Governor's Board of Inquiry in 1990 
following the Loma Prieta earthquake recommended retrofitting 
the structure. The District has set aside local financing to 
complete seismic engineering and to creating a 20 percent local 
cost share for the construction.
    The Golden Gate Bridge is a designated part of the National 
Highway System and is the only highway artery connecting San 
Francisco on U.S. Highway 101 with the coastal counties to the 
north. The bridge carries 130,000 vehicles a day, and is 
vulnerable to a moderate earthquake along two major fault lines 
in its vicinity.

Sec. 114. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

    Section 114 freezes the amount of money each State receives 
under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
(CMAQ) Program at the fiscal year 1995 level. Geographical 
areas that are redesignated to attainment status or areas that 
are newly designated as nonattainment will not affect a State's 
CMAQ apportionment. This section also allows the States to use 
their funds apportioned under the CMAQ program in any such 
maintenance area, as well as in other nonattainment areas, 
within the State.
    Under this section as under current law, CMAQ funds may not 
be used for projects in areas designated as ``transitional'' or 
``incomplete data'' nonattainment areas for ozone or in ``not 
classified'' nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide.
    Subsection (b) of this section lifts the previous 
restriction against using CMAQ funds for the removal of pre-
1980 vehicles (``scrappage'' programs) and for programs to 
reduce motor vehicle emissions resulting from extreme cold 
start conditions. It requires that activities under these 
programs and all programs listed in section 108(f) of the Clean 
Air Act must be publicly sponsored to be eligible for CMAQ 
funding.
    This section does not alter the obligation of the 
Secretary, under section 149(B)(1)(A) of title 23, to determine 
whether projects developed pursuant to section 108(f)(1)(A) of 
the Clean Air Act are ``likely to contribute to the attainment 
of a national ambient air quality standard.'' For automobile 
scrappage programs that are eligible for CMAQ funding pursuant 
to this section, the Secretary will apply EPA guidance to such 
programs, specifically including Accelerated Retirement of 
Vehicles, U.S. EPA, March 1992; Interim Guidance on the 
Generation of Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits, 58 Fed. 
Reg. 11134 (Feb. 23, 1993); and Guidance on the Implementation 
of Accelerated Retirement of Vehicles Programs, U.S. EPA, 
February 1993.
    In the event that scrappage programs developed pursuant to 
EPA's 1993 guidance generate emission reduction ``credits,'' 
such credits are not intended to be owned by State and local 
transportation agencies, but shall be administered by relevant 
air quality agencies.

Sec. 115. Repeal of national maximum speed limit

    Section 115 repeals the National Maximum Speed Limit 
Compliance Program. Section 154 of title 23, United States 
Code, states that the Secretary of Transportation shall not 
approve any project under section 106 of title 23 in any State 
which has a maximum speed limit on its highways in excess of 55 
miles-per-hour (m.p.h.) within urbanized areas of greater than 
50,000 population, or 65 m.p.h. on Interstates and other 
highways outside of such urbanized areas. Section 141(a) of 
title 23, requires each State to certify annually to the 
Secretary that it is enforcing all speed limits on public 
highways in accordance with section 154. Section 115 strikes 
both sections 141(a) and 154, and makes conforming amendments 
to title 23 and other laws.

Sec. 116. Federal share for bicycle transportation facilities and 
        pedestrian walkways

    Section 116 amends subsection 217(f) of title 23, United 
States Code, by eliminating the current provision that sets the 
Federal share for bicycle and pedestrian projects at 80 
percent. Instead, the Federal share for these projects will be 
established under the provisions of subsection 120(b) of title 
23. This will permit the States to apply the Federal lands 
sliding scale match to bicycle and pedestrian projects, thus 
treating the Federal share for bicycle and pedestrian projects 
in a similar manner to that allowed for Federal-aid highway 
projects in general.

Sec. 117. Repeal of restrictions on toll facilities

    Section 117 repeals section 301 and amends paragraph 
129(a)(1) of title 23, United States Code, to remove the 
prohibition from the tolling of Federal-aid highways, including 
the Interstate system. It revises current law to allow a State 
to use Federal-aid funds to construct new Interstate toll 
facilities and to convert existing free Interstate highways to 
toll Interstate highways. Further, it allows a State to convert 
existing free non-Interstate bridges, tunnels or highways to 
toll facilities without first having to complete a 
reconstruction project. The States may impose tolls on any 
Federal-aid highway.
Sec. 118. Suspension of management systems

    Section 118 strikes subsection (c) of Section 303 of title 
23 which contains sanctions that could be imposed in the event 
States do not implement--either in whole or in part--any one of 
the Management Systems required under ISTEA. This section does 
not preclude a State from developing any or all of the 
Management Systems at the discretion of the State. Should a 
State choose not to implement a Management System, the 
Department of Transportation may not withhold any Federal-aid 
highway funds or project approval.
    Section 118 also provides for the Secretary to report, in 
consultation with the States, on the Management Systems and 
make recommendations as to whether, to what extent, and how 
they should be implemented. The report is due by October 1, 
1996.

Sec. 119. Intelligent vehicle-highway systems

    Subsection (a) of section 119 amends section 6054 of ISTEA 
to provide the Department of Transportation with authority to 
administer Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 
(CRADAs) for the national Intelligent Vehicle-Highways Systems 
program (now known as the Intelligent Transportation Systems 
program). This authority includes planning, research, 
development, and testing activities, all of which are important 
to encouraging innovative solutions to highway problems and 
stimulating the marketing of new technology by industry.
    Subsection (b) of section 119 amends section 6058 of the 
ISTEA by adding a new subsection. Subsection 6058(f) requires 
that funds authorized for certain Intelligent Vehicle-Highway 
Systems projects be obligated within one year of the end of the 
fiscal year in which those funds were made available. The 
Secretary of Transportation may reallocate any funds not 
obligated by the end of that period to any other activity 
eligible for funding under subsections 6058(a) and (b).

Sec. 120. Donations of funds, materials, or services for federally 
        assisted activities

    Section 120 amends section 323 of title 23, United States 
Code, to allow private funds and the value of materials and 
services donated to a specific Federal-aid project to be 
credited toward the required State share of that project. For 
materials or services donations to qualify for the credit, they 
must involve an activity eligible for Federal participation on 
the Federal-aid project. This will allow the States greater 
flexibility in the use of leveraged donations on Federal-aid 
projects and will make the donations credit provisions of title 
23 more consistent with the reimbursement provisions 
established in the Common Rule.

Sec. 121. Metric conversion of traffic control signs

    Section 121 provides that, notwithstanding any requirements 
of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, no State is required to 
erect signs which establish speed limits, distance or other 
measurements using the metric system. If a State chooses to use 
its Federal-aid highway funds for such a purpose, it may do so.

Sec. 122. Identification of high priority corridors

    Section 122 designates an alignment in Virginia, North 
Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio for the I-73/74 
North-South High Priority Corridor from Charleston, SC, to 
Detroit, MI, and specifies an applicable Interstate route 
number for route segments. It also requires the Secretary, at 
the request of either of the two States, to designate a route 
segment as an Interstate route when it is constructed to 
Interstate standards without regard to whether the segment is a 
logical addition or connection to the Interstate System as 
defined by section 139 of title 23. Section 122 creates no 
Federal financial responsibility for the upgrading of these 
routes to Interstate standards. States may use their own 
apportionments under title 23 on these routes. Nothing in this 
section shall imply that these routes are to be included in any 
future Interstate Cost Estimate.
    Section 122 amends section 1105(c) of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 by adding a 
corridor, described as the I-35 Corridor, from Laredo, TX, to 
Duluth, MN. This corridor will be eligible to compete for 
feasibility studies under section 1105(h) of the ISTEA.
    Section 122 amends section 1105(c) of the ISTEA by adding, 
as the 22d High Priority Corridor on the NHS, the Alameda 
Transportation Corridor from the entrance to the ports of Los 
Angeles and Long Beach to Interstate 10. As a High Priority 
Corridor, the Alameda Corridor will be eligible to compete for 
feasibility studies under section 1105(h) of the ISTEA, and for 
the revolving loan fund under section 1105(i).

Sec. 123. Revision of authority for innovative project in Florida

    Section 123 permits Florida to spend funds available for a 
magnetic levitation project in the vicinity of Orlando on any 
regionally significant, intercity ground transportation 
projects.

Sec. 124. Revision of authority for priority intermodal project in 
        California

    Section 124 modifies the description of the highway 
demonstration project in Los Angeles, CA, authorized by section 
1108(b), item 31, of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240. It changes an 
itemized project, which now provides for improved ground access 
from Sepulveda Boulevard to Los Angeles, to provide for 
projects for the Los Angeles International Airport's central 
terminal access, for the widening of Aviation Boulevard both 
north and south of Imperial Highway, and for transportation 
systems management improvements in the vicinity of the 
Sepulveda Boulevard/Los Angeles International Airport tunnel.
Sec. 125. National Recreational Trails Funding Program

    Section 125 provides contract authority for the National 
Recreational Trails Funding Program. The Program was 
established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991. This section amends the ISTEA to provide that the 
Federal share of any trails project funded under the ISTEA 
Trails Program is 50 percent. The existing State fuel tax 
requirement is eliminated. Further, this section defines the 
term ``eligible State'' to conform with the definition of that 
term contained in title 23, United States Code. This section 
also makes a conforming change to the Trust Fund Code of 1981, 
striking a reference to annual appropriation acts. This section 
adds a provision to section 104 of title 23 to provide that the 
funds authorized shall be expended from those administrative 
funds deducted under section 104(a).

Sec. 126. Intermodal facility in New York

    Section 126 provides an authorization for a total amount of 
$69,500,000, beginning in fiscal year 1995 and for the 
following years until expended, from general revenues for a 
Federal building in New York City in need of repair that will 
be converted into an intermodal transportation facility, and 
for necessary improvements to and redevelopment of Pennsylvania 
Station and associated service buildings in New York City.

Sec. 127. Clarification of eligibility

    Section 127 allows the State to use its Federal-aid highway 
funds apportioned under sections 103(e)(4), 104(b), and 144, of 
title 23 (NHS, CMAQ, STP, Bridge program and Interstate 
Transfer) for improvements to a rail freight corridor between 
Central Falls and Davisville, RI.

Sec. 128. Bristol, Rhode Island, street marking

    The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 
establishes the national standard for traffic control devices. 
Section 3B-1 of the MUTCD, Center Lines states, ``The center 
line marking on two-lane, two-way highways shall be: . . . 3. a 
double line consisting of two normal solid yellow lines where 
passing is prohibited in both directions.''
    Section 128 authorizes an exception to the MUTCD to permit 
the town of Bristol, RI, to permanently replace the existing 
double yellow center line on its Main Street with a red, white, 
and blue center line. A red, white, and blue line has been used 
temporarily in the past in conjunction with the town's 
longstanding Fourth of July parade which is the oldest in the 
country.

Sec. 129. Public use of rest areas

    Section 129 allows, upon request of the State, the 
conversion of the use of any rest area adjacent to I-95 in 
Rhode Island that was closed on May 1, 1995. The conversion 
from a rest area to the use as a motor vehicle emissions 
testing facility is allowed with access to and from the 
facility directly from I-95, notwithstanding the provisions of 
section III of title 23, or the provisions of any project 
agreement entered into thereunder.

Sec. 130. Collection of tolls to finance certain environmental projects 
        in Florida

    Section 130 allows the State of Florida to use the tolls 
collected along that portion of I-75 referred to as ``Alligator 
Alley'' to be used for environmental projects in Florida that 
are approved by the State and Secretary of the Interior. Use of 
toll revenues is not governed by the provisions and 
restrictions of section 129(a) of title 23.

Sec. 131. Hours of service of drivers of ground water well drilling 
        rigs

    Section 131 extends to drivers of ground water well 
drilling rigs the same relief from limitations on cumulative 
hours of service over an eight consecutive day period currently 
provided to drivers of vehicles used exclusively in oilfield 
operations under section 395.1(d)(1) of title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations. The drivers of ground well water drilling 
rigs remain subject to other Federal and State safety 
regulations, including other hours of limitations, applicable 
to their operations.
    Drivers of ground water well drilling rigs operate much the 
same equipment as oil well drilling rig operators; tend to work 
for small businesses; and operate relatively few miles each 
year.
    The section further provides that the Secretary of 
Transportation shall monitor the effects of this provision, 
and, if the Secretary finds that commercial motor vehicle 
safety has been adversely affected as a result of this 
provision, the
    Secretary shall report such findings to the Congress.

 title ii--national capital region interstate transportation authority

Sec. 201. Short title

    Section 201 establishes the short title of the bill as the 
``National Capital Region Interstate Transportation Authority 
Act of 1995.''

Sec. 202. Findings

    Section 202 identifies the capacity problems and 
deteriorating condition of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, 
concluding that a replacement facility is necessary and that 
the transfer of the ownership of the bridge from the Federal 
government to a regional authority created by Virginia, 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia would facilitate the 
region's efforts to provide for a new Potomac River crossing.

Sec. 203. Purposes

    Section 203 provides that the purposes of the bill are to 
grant consent to the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia to establish the 
National Capital Region Interstate Transportation Authority; 
and to authorize the transfer of ownership of the Bridge to the 
Authority for the purposes of owning, constructing, 
maintaining, and operating a bridge or tunnel or a bridge and 
tunnel project across the Potomac River.
Sec. 204. Definitions

    Section 204 defines the terms ``Authority,'' ``Authority 
facility,'' ``Board,'' ``Bridge,'' ``Capital Region 
Jurisdiction,'' ``Interstate system,'' ``National Capital 
Region,'' and ``Secretary.''

Sec. 205. Establishment of authority

    In section 205, Congress grants consent to Virginia, 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into an 
interstate agreement or compact to establish the National 
Capital Interstate Transportation Authority, and provides that, 
upon the execution of this compact, the Authority shall be 
considered established. This section also generally defines the 
duties and powers of the Authority.

Sec. 206. Government of authority

    Section 206 establishes a board of 13 members to govern the 
Authority. It provides the methods for their appointment, lists 
their required qualifications, and establishes term lengths and 
limits.

Sec. 207. Ownership of bridge

    Section 207 conveys all of the Department of 
Transportation's and Department of Interior's interests in the 
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge to the Authority and requires 
the Authority to accept such interests. This section also 
addresses interim responsibilities by the Capital Region 
jurisdictions to maintain and operate the Bridge and the 
Secretary of Transportation to rehabilitate the Bridge and 
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Sec. 208. Capital improvements and construction

    Section 208 requires the Authority to address the 
Washington, D.C. area's need for an enhanced southern Beltway 
crossing of the Potomac River. Any new crossing must serve the 
traffic currently served by the existing structure and must be 
constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared for this project. 
This section also provides that the Authority shall have the 
sole responsibility for all duties concerning the ownership 
construction, operation, and maintenance of the new Potomac 
river crossing.

Sec. 209. Additional powers and responsibilities of authority

    Section 209 lists the express powers and responsibilities 
of the Authority. Subsection 7(a) provides that any bonds 
issued by the Authority shall not constitute a debt of the 
United States, Virginia, Maryland, or the District of Columbia, 
and also provides that these bonds shall be free from Federal 
income tax. This section does not grant the Authority the power 
to levy taxes.

Sec. 210. Authorization of appropriations

    Section 210 provides $17,550,000 for fiscal year 1996 and 
$80,050,000 for fiscal year 1997 from the Highway Trust Fund 
established by section 9503 of the Internal Revenue code of 
1986. Funds made available under this section shall be 
available for obligation in the manner provided for funds 
apportioned under chapter I of title 23, United States Code, 
except that; the Federal share of the cost of any project 
funded under this section shall be 100 percent, and the funds 
made available under this section shall remain available until 
expended.
    This section further provides that the Secretary shall 
submit a report to Congress by May 31, 1997, identifying the 
Federal share of the cost of the activities to be carried out 
under section 208.

Sec. 211. Availability of prior authorizations

    Section 212 provides that funds made available for the 
rehabilitation of-the bridge under sections 1069(i) and 1103(b) 
of ISTEA shall continue to be available after conveyance of the 
Bridge to the Authority.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure held 
four hearings on S. 440, all in Washington, DC.
    The first hearing was held on February 23, 1995 to examine 
the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1996 for the 
Department of Transportation. Testimony was given by Mortimer 
L. Downey, Deputy Secretary of Transportation; Rodney E. 
Slater, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; Ricardo 
Martinez, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration; Gordon J. Linton, Administrator, Federal 
Transit Administration; Harry W. Blunt, Jr., Concord Coach 
Lines, Inc., Concord, NH; Hank Dittmar, Surface Transportation 
Policy Project, Washington, DC; and Robert E. Martinez, 
Secretary, Virginia Department of Transportation, and 
representing the American Association of Highway and 
Transportation Officials.
    The second hearing was held on March 23, 1995 to consider 
the effects of transportation conformity requirements of the 
Clean Air Act of 1990 and the air quality programs of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. 
Testimony was given by Governor George Allen of Virginia; Jane 
F. Garvey, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway 
Administration, Department of Transportation; Mary D. Nichols, 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Environmental 
Protection Agency; Kirk Brown, Illinois Secretary of 
Transportation, Springfield, IL; William J. Roberts, 
Environmental Defense Fund; and Brian R. Holmes, Connecticut 
Road Builders Association, Wethersfield, CT.
    The third hearing was held on March 30, 1995 to consider 
transportation and safety matters. Testimony was given by 
Senators Snowe, Lautenberg, Campbell, and Nickles; Rhode Island 
State Senator William Enos, Providence, RI; New Hampshire 
Representative Sherman A. Packard, Londonderry, NH; Illinois 
State Senator John Cullerton, Chicago, IL; Mark L. Rosenberg, 
Director, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA; Gary B. 
Sauer, chairman, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, 
MD; and Jed S. Billings, president, FNF Construction, Inc., 
Tempe, AZ.
    The fourth hearing was held on April 6, 1995, to consider 
infrastructure financing issues, as well as the status of the 
Woodrow Wilson Bridge, on I-95 between Virginia and Maryland, 
receiving testimony from Jane Garvey, Deputy Administrator, 
Federal Highway Administration; Jack Herrity, chairman, 
Interstate Study Commission, Fairfax, VA; Ann Stern, chairman, 
Financial Guaranty Insurance Corporation, New York, NY; Ralph 
Stanley, senior vice president, United Infrastructure, Chicago, 
IL; and Daniel V. Flanagan, chairman, Commission to promote 
Investment in America's Infrastructure, Arlington, VA.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Section 7(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate and the rules of the Committee require that any rollcall 
votes taken during the consideration of a bill be noted in the 
report.
    The Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure met 
on May 3, 1995 to consider S. 440. Senator Faircloth moved the 
adoption of an amendment to amend title 23, U.S. Code, relative 
to highway speed limits. The amendment was agreed to by a vote 
of 6 to 3. In support were Senators Baucus, Faircloth, Graham, 
Kempthorne, Reid, and Smith. In opposition were Senators Bond, 
Moynihan, and Warner. A motion to report the bill as amended to 
the full Committee was agreed to on a rollcall vote by 9 ayes 
to 0 nays.
    The full Committee met on May 10, 1995 to consider S. 440. 
Senator Smith moved the approval of an amendment by Senator 
Warner with respect to certain prevailing wage provisions of 
current law. The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 8 ayes to 
7 nays. Voting in support were Senators Faircloth, Inhofe, 
Kempthorne, McConnell, Smith, Thomas, Warner, and Chafee. In 
opposition were Senators Baucus, Boxer, Graham, Lautenberg, 
Lieberman, Moynihan, and Reid. A motion to report S. 440, as 
amended, to the Senate was agreed to by a vote of 15 ayes to 1 
nay. In support were Senators Baucus, Bond, Boxer, Faircloth, 
Graham, Inhofe, Kempthorne, Lieberman, McConnell, Moynihan, 
Reid, Smith, Thomas, Warner, and Chafee. In opposition was 
Senator Lautenberg.

                    Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

    Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires publication in the report the committee's 
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported. 
That estimate follows:
    The bill reduces mandates on States and increases 
flexibility for States to allocate funds to meet their own 
needs.
    The national maximum speed limit is repealed, the crumb 
rubber mandate is repealed and the transportation enhancement 
process is streamlined. The management systems requirement in 
ISTEA is suspended and no State is required to convert traffic 
control signs to the metric system. The transportation 
conformity requirements are amended to apply only to attainment 
areas. The drivers of ground water well drilling rigs are 
exempted from certain portions of the commercial motor vehicle 
hours of service requirement. The provisions of the Davis-Bacon 
Act no longer apply to any project carried out under title 23.
    Greater flexibility in the bill for States allows for 
larger transfers from the Highway Bridge and Rehabilitation 
Program to other accounts. Federal-aid eligibility is extended 
to public highways connecting the NHS to intermodal facilities. 
The toll prohibition on the Interstate System is repealed, a 
provision provides for ``soft match'' which allows private 
funds, materials and services to be donated and applied to the 
State matching share. States are allowed to use advance 
construction funds for projects beyond the ISTEA authorization 
period, and bond costs are eligible for reimbursement as a cost 
of construction. On non-Interstate NHS roads, States are given 
the flexibility to use design standards that address 
environmental, scenic, historic, community and intermodal 
concerns.
    The bill will not affect the personal privacy of 
individuals.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act 
requires that a statement of the cost of a reported bill, 
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the 
report. That statement follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 19, 1995.
Hon. John H. Chafee,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 440, the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
    Enactment of S. 440 would affect direct spending and 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to 
the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                 June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: S. 440.
    2. Bill title: The National Highway System Designation Act 
of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
on Environment and Public Works on May 10, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose:

                      title i--highway provisions

    Title I of S. 440 would designate the National Highway 
System and establish procedures for modifying the system. Other 
provisions of the title would grant states greater flexibility 
by:
          allowing some federal funds to be used for 
        Intelligent Vehicle Highway System operational expenses 
        indefinitely rather than for the two years stipulated 
        in current law,
          excluding the Federal-Aid Highway projects from the 
        prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act,
          extending advance construction authority beyond the 
        current authorization of the Federal-Aid Highways 
        program,
          making debt instrument costs eligible for federal 
        reimbursement,
          advancing transportation enhancement project funds to 
        states,
          allowing highway money to be used for railroad track 
        improvements in Rhode Island, and
          providing various other measures for more flexible 
        use by states of their federal highway grants.
    S. 440 would provide funding for new projects by:
          earmarking $500,000 of existing contract authority 
        for crumb rubber research and $10 million for a crumb 
        rubber program in each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997,
          earmarking $107 million of contract authority for 
        demonstration projects in Florida and California, and
          earmarking $15 million of Federal-Aid Highway 
        contract authority for the National Recreational Trails 
        program in each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
    In addition, S. 440 would freeze each state's share of 
congestion mitigation and air quality funds at 1995 levels and 
authorize the appropriation of $70 million for the construction 
of an intermodal transportation facility and the rehabilitation 
of Pennsylvania Station in New York City.
    Finally, Title I would improve the budget picture for state 
and local governments by eliminating the requirement that a 
specified percentage of paving material contain crumb rubber 
and by eliminating restrictions against tolls on highways 
funded by the Federal-Aid Highways program.

 title ii--national capital region interstate transportation authority

    Title II would:
          grant the federal government's consent for the 
        creation of the National Capital Region Interstate 
        Transportation Authority, which would replace the 
        Woodrow Wilson Bridge in suburban Washington, D.C., 
        with a bridge, tunnel, or combination of the two,
          convey the current bridge and surrounding land to the 
        authority,
          allow the authority to issue tax-exempt bonds,
          instruct the Secretary of Transportation to negotiate 
        the federal share of the project costs,
          earmark $18 million in 1996 and $80 million in 1997 
        from existing Federal-Aid Highway contract authority 
        for rehabilitating the current bridge and initiating 
        design and construction of the new river crossing, and
          eliminate the current authorization of appropriations 
        of $15 million for the rehabilitation of the current 
        bridge.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: S. 440 would 
earmark funds for various projects, change existing 
authorizations of appropriations, eliminate the Davis-Bacon 
prevailing wage requirements for highway projects, and allow 
the National Capital Region Transportation Authority to issue 
tax-exempt bonds. The following table summarizes the estimated 
budgetary impact of these provisions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               1996     1997     1998     1999     2000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Mandatory Spending and                                               
          Revenues                                                      
Estimated revenues.........  .......  .......  .......  .......       15
Direct spending:                                                        
    Federal aid-highway                                                 
     equity accounts budget                                             
     authority.............    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
                                                                        
    Spending Subject to                                                 
       Appropriations                                                   
                                                                        
Authorization of                                                        
 appropriations:                                                        
    Intermodal                                                          
     transportation                                                     
     facility..............       70  .......  .......  .......  .......
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge..      -15  .......  .......  .......  .......
                            --------------------------------------------
      Total................       55  .......  .......  .......  .......
                            ============================================
Federal aid-highway                                                     
 obligations \1\:                                                       
    Davis-Bacon............     -309     -333     -327     -337     -348
    Recreational trails....       15       15  .......  .......  .......
                            --------------------------------------------
      Total................     -294     -318     -327     -337     -348
                            ============================================
Estimated outlays \1\:                                                  
    Intermodal                                                          
     transportation                                                     
     facility..............        5       35       18        7        5
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge..       -3       -8       -2       -1       -1
    Recreational trail.....        3       10       10        3        1
    Davis Bacon............      -46     -210     -266     -289     -307
                            --------------------------------------------
      Total................      -41     -173     -240     -280     -302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated changes in budget authority and outlays for the equity    
  accounts are not available at this time; CBO will provide these       
  estimates as soon as possible.                                        

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 400.
Effect on Federal revenues

    Because the National Capital Region Transportation 
Authority would issue tax-exempt bonds, income tax receipts 
would drop. The amount of bonds the authority would issue is 
very uncertain. The new bridge, tunnel, or bridge/tunnel is 
expected to cost between $1.6 billion and $2.3 billion. (The 
cost includes designing and constructing the new river crossing 
and altering six interchanges in the vicinity of the crossing.) 
In addition, the Secretary of Transportation would negotiate 
the federal share of the project cost. Although the amount of 
bonds issued could vary significantly, and would depend on the 
results of such negotiations, CBO estimates that the authority 
would issue $1 billion of bonds at the beginning of fiscal year 
2000--the date construction is expected to begin. Funds 
provided in this act and future federal contributions would 
likely cover any design and right-of-way costs between now and 
2000. Based on this information, the Joint Committee on 
Taxation estimates that the federal government would lose $15 
million of income tax revenues in 2000 and additional amounts 
in subsequent years.

Impact on equity accounts

    The $98 million in earmarks for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge 
would affect the four Federal-Aid Highway equity accounts--
Minimum Allocation, Hold Harmless, Donor State, and 90 Cents on 
the Dollar. The equity account programs are aimed at ensuring 
that each state gets a fair share of highway funds. For 
example, the Minimum Allocation program guarantees that each 
state's percentage of apportioned funds from a specified subset 
of Federal-Aid Highway programs will be at least 90 percent of 
the percent of the funds that a state contributes to the 
Highway Trust Fund from gas tax revenues. Therefore, if a state 
contributes 10 percent of the funds deposited in the Highway 
Trust Fund, that state is guaranteed at least 9 percent of the 
appointment from the specified programs. If the state does not 
receive the guaranteed percentage by regular apportionment, the 
Minimum Allocation program makes up the difference.
    Because the Woodrow Wilson Bridge earmarks would reduce the 
amount of contract authority apportioned to the states, the 
base from which Minimum Allocation is calculated and the size 
of the Minimum Allocation program is reduced. In the above 
hypothetical example, the state would be guaranteed 9 percent 
of a reduced base of funds. CBO has yet to receive the new 
equity account numbers from the Federal Highway Administration 
that are necessary to determine any change in budget authority 
that would be scored to S. 440 as direct spending. (Any change 
in outlays would be scored to the transportation appropriations 
bill.)

Authorization of appropriations

    CBO assumed the full amount authorized for the New York 
City intermodal transportation facility will be appropriated at 
the start of fiscal year 1996 and the full amount currently 
authorized for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge would have been 
appropriated at the start of fiscal year 1996. The Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge authorization has existed since 1992; however, 
the project has yet to receive an appropriation. We based our 
outlay estimates on outlay rates for similar programs.

Earmarked funds

    Earmarking existing contract authority for the crumb rubber 
program, Florida and California demonstration projects, and 
Woodrow Wilson Bridge would not create any additional spending 
authority or outlays. Because the funds earmarked for the 
National Recreational Trails program would be exempt from the 
Federal-Aid Highway obligation limitation, however, outlays 
would increase as a result of this earmarking. CBO estimates 
that an additional $15 million would be obligated in each of 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

Davis-Bacon

    Exempting the Federal-Aid Highway program from the Davis-
Bacon prevailing wages could save the federal government $1.1 
billion over the next five years if Federal-Aid Highway 
obligations are reduced to reflect the cost savings. (CBO 
assumed that highway projects also would be exempted from the 
Copeland Act reporting requirements.) The projected savings are 
based on CBO's estimate that the Davis-Bacon Act adds about 1.7 
percent to construction costs. Contract authority savings would 
occur if the authorizing committees reduce the amount of 
contract authority that will become available for highway 
projects. Because this bill does not reduce contract authority, 
however, this estimate does not reflect any contract authority 
savings. If the federal government does not reduce highway 
funding, states would be able to do more with their federal 
highway dollars as construction costs are reduced.

Impact on Federal-Aid Highway outlay ratefy

    The various provisions in Title I that grant states more 
flexibility in the use of their federal highway grants could 
result in a faster rate of spending for the Federal-Aid 
Highways program. Over at least the next few years, however, 
CBO does not expect the outlay rate to increase significantly.

Obligations exempt from an obligation limitation

    If S. 440 is enacted before the transportation 
appropriations bill, all Federal-Aid Highway outlays resulting 
from 1996 obligation are scored to the appropriations bill.
    If the appropriations bill is enacted first, then S. 440 
would be scored with the change in outlays resulting from 
additional 1996 obligations for Recreational Trails and Minimum 
Allocations.
    6. Comparison with spending under current law: The New York 
City intermodal transportation facility, currently under design 
for development as part of the Pennsylvania Station facility, 
received a $40 million appropriation in 1995. However, Public 
Law 104-6 rescinded these funds and appropriated $22 million 
for safety improvements to Pennsylvania Station. The other 
provisions of S. 440 would provide new funds for projects that 
are not funded under current law.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enactment 
of S. 440 would decrease tax revenues and change the level of 
contract authority for the Federal-Aid Highway equity accounts. 
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill. 
CBO estimates that the revenue loss would occur beginning in 
the year 2000 and thus would not appear on the pay-as-you-go 
scorecard.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          1995         1996         1997         1998   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays...            0            0            0            0
Change in receipts..            0            0            0            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: S. 440 
would save state and local governments money by eliminating the 
requirement that paving materials contain crumb rubber, 
precluding Federal-Aid Highway projects from Davis-Bacon 
prevailing wage and Copeland reporting requirements, and 
eliminating restrictions against tolls on Federal-Aid Highways.
    The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in total 
states would have to spend up to $1 billion annually to comply 
with the crumb rubber requirements. These requirements are a 
condition of federal assistance. In addition, the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 
(Public Law 103-331) prohibits the department from withholding 
federal transportation funds to enforce the requirement.
    Eliminating the Davis-Bacon requirement for Federal-Aid 
Highway projects, would save states about $200 million over the 
next five years, assuming a 15 percent local match for federal 
funds. If appropriations do not decrease to reflect these 
savings, states will be able to buy more with their federal 
highway funds because each project will cost less.
    CBO cannot estimate how much additional toll revenues 
states would collect upon elimination of the restriction 
against tolls on highways eligible for federal funds.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: John Patterson (226-2860), 
Christi Hawley (226-2820), and Pearl Richardson (226-2691).
    12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
         ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

    I support passage of legislation to designate the National 
Highway System (NHS) as directed by the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. I was, in fact, 
an original cosponsor of legislation in both the 103rd and 
104th Congresses to accomplish this task.
    The $6.5 billion this bill authorizes is critically needed. 
Consider just a few grim facts:
    Almost one-fourth of our highways are in poor or mediocre 
condition, while another 36 percent are rated only fair;
    One in five of the Nation's bridges is structurally 
deficient, meaning that weight restrictions have been set to 
limit truck traffic;
    On urban interstate highways, the percentage of peak-hour 
travel approaching gridlock conditions increased from 55 
percent in 1983 to 70 percent in 1991, generating costs to the 
economy of $39 billion.
    Experts indicate that an additional annual investment of 
$32 billion is needed to bring our highway and bridge 
infrastructure up to standard. Failure to make those 
investments increases costs in both the short and long term. 
For example, failure to invest one dollar today in needed 
highway resurfacing can mean up to four dollars in highway 
reconstruction costs two years from now.
    The ability of our country to sustain higher productivity 
is the key to economic growth and a higher standard of living. 
Higher productivity is, in part, a function of public and 
private investment. Recognizing that reality, over 400 of our 
nation's leading economists recently urged our government to 
increase public investment. They urged us to remember that 
public investment in our people and in our infrastructure is 
essential to economic growth.
    The NHS was designed to be a part of a comprehensive 
program of public investment. However, as much as I support 
moving this legislation forward, I voted against the NHS bill 
approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 
because of my opposition to provisions that would eliminate 
federal speed limit requirements on our nation's interstates.

                       speed limits requirements

    During Subcommittee consideration of the NHS bill, an 
amendment was adopted that gutted the federal government's 
ability to protect innocent men, women and children from death 
and injury as a result of speeding. Current federal speed limit 
law prohibits the states from posting speed limits in excess of 
55mph or 65mph, depending on the road and the road's location. 
In addition, current law requires that states meet a certain 
level of compliance with posted speed limits or shift part of 
their construction funding to safety programs.
    These laws were put in place to save lives. One-third of 
all traffic accidents are caused by excessive speed. The 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
estimates that total repeal of federal speed limit requirements 
will increase the number of Americans killed on our nation's 
highways by approximately 4,750 each year. In addition, there 
will be financial consequences associated with a repeal: death 
and injuries as a result of ending federal speed limit 
restrictions would cost tax payers $17 billion annually in lost 
productivity, taxes and increased health care costs. This loss 
would be on top of the $24 billion we already lose as a result 
of motor vehicle accidents which are caused by excessive speed.
    Speed limits laws also enjoy the strong support of the 
American people. A recent poll conducted by Advocates of 
Highway and Auto Safety asked if the federal government should 
have a strong role in setting auto safety standards. Over 4 out 
of 5 people surveyed, or 82.6%, responded yes. That same poll 
asked respondents if they favor or oppose allowing states to 
raise speed limits above 65mph on interstates and freeways. 
Less than one out of every three people surveyed, 31%, favored 
raising current speed limit standards.
    People don't want higher speed limits because they know it 
increases their chances of dying as the result of a speed 
related motor vehicle accident. Congress should not repeal 
federal speed limit requirements.

                               conclusion

    Recognizing the importance of the NHS bill to our country's 
infrastructure, I was reluctant to vote against reporting it. 
But, I am convinced that the Committee acted unwisely when it 
approved repeal of our speed limit laws.
    I hope that when this bill is considered by the full 
Senate, we can address the concerns of Senators without 
increasing the carnage on our highways.

                                               Frank R. Lautenberg.
   ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS BAUCUS, MOYNIHAN, LAUTENBERG, REID, 
                      GRAHAM, LIEBERMAN, AND BOXER

Introduction
    In general, S. 440 is a good bill that builds on the work 
that the Committee did on NHS legislation last year. The bill 
will provide important benefits to the nation by designating 
the National Highway System and improving the surface 
transportation law.
    We appreciate the bipartisan approach that Chairman Chafee 
and Subcommittee Chairman Warner have taken, and we 
congratulate them for moving ahead expeditiously.
    We are, however, deeply concerned about one provision of 
the bill. Section 107 repeals the requirement that federal 
highway contractors pay their workers the prevailing local 
wage. In our opinion, this provision is dangerous, unnecessary, 
and unwise.
Background
    In the latter part of the 19th Century, progressive groups 
proposed a series of reforms intended to improve the conditions 
of American workers. As one study recently put it, ``the heart 
of these reforms was a notion that the American labor market 
should be based upon highly skilled workers earning decent 
wages with time for family and a childhood of learning for the 
young.''
    Accordingly, the proposed reforms included child labor 
laws, an eight-hour work day, and compulsory education for all 
children. They also included payment of prevailing local wages 
for the construction of public buildings and other public 
works. In 1891, the Kansas legislature passed the first 
prevailing wage law, which provided that prevailing local wages 
must be paid on all state construction projects. Over the next 
few decades, Arizona, Idaho, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, 
New Jersey, and Oklahoma passed similar laws.
    In 1927, Congressman Robert Bacon (R.-NY) introduced the 
first federal prevailing wage bill. The bill did not pass, but 
Congressman Bacon and others continued to introduce bills 
requiring that federal contractors pay the prevailing local 
wage, and several hearings were held. In the Senate, the 
corresponding effort eventually was led by Senator James J. 
Davis (R.-Pa), who had served as Labor Secretary under 
President's Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.
    The bill was finally enacted in 1931, when the depression 
was at its deepest point. President Hoover had recommended an 
expanded public works program to create jobs and help revive 
local economies. As part of this program, the government 
attempted to require federal contractors to pay the prevailing 
local wage, as a way to prevent a few contractors from 
importing cheap labor to ``lowball'' the bid and thereby 
disrupt the local labor market. After the Comptroller General 
concluded that the government did not have the legal authority 
to impose this requirement, President Hoover recommended swift 
enactment of the Davis-Bacon bill. The Secretary of Labor 
testified that the bill was necessary because some building 
contracts ``were being awarded to companies that want to bring 
in cheap labor and, in effect, we were having our wage levels 
reduced in many . . . communities.'' The Senate report 
explained that the bill would ``generally benefit the country 
at large by requiring that those who have been awarded public-
building contracts pay their employees wages comparable to the 
prevailing wage scales where they are employed.'' The bill was 
passed by bipartisan majorities.
    When the federal highway program was initiated, there was 
concern that Davis-Bacon would not apply directly to most 
highway construction, because the contracts were formally 
awarded by states rather than the federal government. 
Therefore, Congress enacted a complementary provision, the 
current version of which is now codified as section 113 of 
title 23, requiring that contractors performing work on 
federally-assisted highway projects pay their workers the 
prevailing local wage.
    Under section 113 and Davis-Bacon, the Secretary of Labor 
determines the prevailing local wage for various highway 
construction jobs, and contractors bidding for contracts in the 
local area must agree to pay no less than that wage. Since 
1956, this system has applied to the roughly $335 billion worth 
of construction undertaken pursuant to the federal highway 
program.
    Section 107 of the bill would delete the current text of 
section 113 of title 23 and instead provide that the Davis-
Bacon Act ``shall not apply with respect to any project carried 
out or assisted under any chapter of [title 23].'' By doing so, 
section 107 would effectively repeal both the indirect 
application of Davis-Bacon (pursuant to current section 113) in 
cases in which highway construction contracts are awarded by 
states, and the direct application of the Davis-Bacon in cases 
in which highway construction contracts are awarded directly by 
the federal government (for example, under the Federal Lands 
Highway Program). When this provision was offered as an 
amendment in full committee, we opposed it.
               The Amendment is Dangerous and Unnecessary

    We support reasonable reforms of the general Davis-Bacon 
prevailing local wage requirement.
    However, as a threshold matter, we believe that S. 440 is 
not the appropriate forum to debate the wisdom of reforming or 
repealing the Davis-Bacon Act. In fact, we believe that 
including section 107 in the bill is both dangerous and 
unnecessary.
    It is dangerous because section 107 jeopardizes the passage 
of NHS legislation. Proposals to repeal the prevailing local 
wage requirement inevitably provoke sharp controversy. It is, 
therefore, not surprising that six other Senators have 
indicated that they will engage in extended floor debate in 
order to prevent the enactment of section 107. If that happens, 
S. 440 may fail to pass by September 30, 1995, and, as a 
result, states risk losing $6.5 billion in fiscal 1996 highway 
funds. That would be disastrous to our states, to our local 
communities, and to the small businesses that depend on highway 
construction. Because of this, the American Road and 
Transportation Builders Association, which supports reform of 
the Davis-Bacon Act, urged the Committee not to include section 
107 in the bill, expressing concern that its inclusion would 
``greatly increase the likelihood that the NHS bill will not 
become law.''
    In any event, section 107 is unnecessary. The Labor and 
Human Resources Committee has reported a bill, S. 141, that 
would completely repeal Davis-Bacon. The minority members of 
that Committee have proposed their own package of reforms. 
Consequently, during this Congress, the Senate has an 
opportunity to debate the wisdom of the prevailing local wage 
requirement. If the debate results in reforms, the reforms 
would apply fully to the highway program; likewise, if the 
debate results in repeal of the prevailing local wage 
requirement, the repeal would apply fully to the highway 
program.
    In light of this, we are concerned that section 107 makes a 
purely symbolic statement that jeopardizes the passage of a 
truly important bill.

                       Uncertain Cost Reductions

    Beyond that, we believe that repeal of the prevailing local 
wage requirement is unwise.
    A major argument that has been made against the general 
prevailing local wage requirement is that it increases federal 
construction costs and consequently either makes less money 
available for other projects or increases the budget deficit. 
In the case of the highway program, the Committee report says 
that the prevailing local wage requirement ``inflates the costs 
of highway construction'' and that repeal would allow states to 
``use this cost savings to address more compelling needs, such 
as the replacement of deteriorating roads and bridges.''
    The evidence to support this argument is, at best, mixed. 
Over the years, the Environment and Public Works Committee has 
frequently considered the economic effect of prevailing local 
wage requirements; for example, last Congress, the Committee 
debated the economic effect of prevailing local wage 
requirements under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. In each case, the argument that the prevailing wage 
requirement increases federal construction costs was met by the 
counterargument that it does not, because, over the long run, a 
prevailing wage requirement results in fewer delays, fewer cost 
overruns, more productive workers, and sturdier construction.
    Many economists support this latter view. For example, 
former Labor Secretary John Dunlop concluded that ``the net 
effect of Davis-Bacon was neutral with respect to costs.'' And 
a recent study by the University of Utah evaluates the 
experience of Utah and other states that recently repealed 
their ``little Davis-Bacon'' laws. It concludes that the states 
actually lost money, for two main reasons. First, lower initial 
bids were offset by higher cost overruns. Second, lower wage 
rates for state construction resulted in lower wages in the 
overall construction industry, which significantly reduced tax 
revenue. Extrapolating, the study estimates that repeal of the 
overall Davis-Bacon prevailing local wage requirement would 
cost the federal government about $500 million a year.
    Moreover, empirical evidence supports the view that the 
prevailing local wage requirement does not increase highway 
construction costs. FHWA data for the years 1980 to 1993 allows 
us to compare the overall cost of highway construction in high-
wage states and low-wage states (for the 26 states that spent 
the most on highway construction). This data shows that it was 
cheaper to construct highways in high-wage states than it was 
in low-wage states. For example, the average construction wage 
on federally assisted highway projects in Wisconsin ($15.55/hr) 
was more than twice that on projects in Mississippi ($6.69/
hr.); however, the total construction cost per mile was lower 
in Wisconsin ($394,405) than Mississippi ($641,238) and the 
labor cost per mile was lower in Wisconsin ($78,083) than 
Mississippi ($95,329). On average, both the total cost per mile 
and the labor cost per mile were lower for the 13 high wage 
states than for the 13 low-wage states.
    We are aware that the Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that the full repeal of Davis-Bacon would reduce federal 
construction spending by $3.2 billion over five years. However, 
there are several flaws in this estimate. Most significantly, 
it appears to be based on pre-1983 data, which may not have 
been sufficiently updated to reflect changes in the 
construction industry, including a reduction in real wages, a 
reduction in the rate of unionization, increased productivity, 
and significant reforms in the implementation of the prevailing 
local wage requirement.
    In any event, a recent CBO report itself is replete with 
limitations that should make us cautious about relying on the 
estimate. For instance, the report warns that ``[a]ny estimate 
of the cost implications of the DBA [Davis-Bacon Act] is 
uncertain. Very little empirical work has been published on the 
subject since CBO's 1983 report, and even than there was little 
consensus as to the precise cost impacts.'' It also warns that 
``relevant data are sparse, the broad trends are ambiguous, and 
the applicability of the available information to estimating 
the impact of DBA is uncertain.'' In short, the report is not 
exactly overflowing with confidence, and we are reluctant to 
give it more weight than its authors intended.

          Protecting Local Workers, Communities and Businesses

    Despite the piles of studies on either side, the overall 
long-term economic effect of prevailing local wage requirements 
is not certain. But one thing is. If we repeal the requirement 
that the federal government pay prevailing local wages on 
highway contracts, we will significantly reduce the incomes of 
many construction workers and their families.
    Currently, the average construction worker earns about 
$28,000 a year; in recent years, this amount has fallen, not 
risen. Even so, the construction industry is one of the few 
remaining industries in which a person who doesn't have a 
college degree can buckle down, work hard, and make a decent 
wage that can help support a family.
    The Labor Department predicts that the repeal of prevailing 
local wage requirements will result in ``lower wages, reduced 
earnings, and an erosion of the standard of living for many 
construction workers.'' At a time when there is increasing 
concern about the decline of good-paying jobs for skilled 
workers, we believe that this is the wrong course to take.
    In addition, repeal of the prevailing local wage 
requirement will reduce the amount of training that is given to 
new construction industry workers, by eliminating the primary 
incentive for many contractors to participate in the formal 
apprenticeship and training programs necessary to insure that 
unskilled and semi-skilled workers such as helpers eventually 
become qualified journeymen or laborers.\1\ Without the Davis-
Bacon Act, highway contractors will be allowed to hire helpers 
at lower wages but without providing them with training or 
enrolling them in bona-fide apprenticeship programs. If fewer 
contractors participate in formal apprenticeship programs, it 
will cause their eventual erosion and a further diminution in 
the availability of skilled construction workers.
    \1\ Under current law, a worker can be paid less than the 
prevailing local wage rate on a project covered by the Davis-Bacon Act 
if he or she is enrolled in a legitimate training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also are concerned about the impact the repeal will have 
on local communities. The Davis-Bacon Act is frequently 
described as establishing a ``union wage'' or some artificial 
government wage. That's not the case. It doesn't set some 
artificial government wage. It requires federal contractors to 
pay their workers the prevailing local wage, which is based on 
the wages paid to workers employed at similar trades in the 
local community (recently, more than 70 percent of prevailing 
local wages have been set at rates lower than the local union 
wages).
    Without the prevailing local wage requirement, a contractor 
can chase after lucrative federal contracts by using cheap 
labor to undercut local contractors. That, in turn, drives down 
overall wages and makes the construction market less stable. 
Consequently, requiring the federal government to pay the 
prevailing local wage doesn't protect just local workers, but 
also local companies and local communities. For this reason, a 
wide range of companies and business groups opposes the repeal 
of the Davis-Bacon Act, and the National Electrical Contractors 
Association has written that ``[p]revailing wage laws have an 
important place in levelling the playing field to prevent the 
undermining of local economies and employment practices.''

                         The Racism Red Herring

    Some critics of Davis-Bacon have argued that its enactment 
was motivated primarily by racism and that it currently 
discriminates against minority workers.
    We believe that this argument is a red herring, for three 
reasons.
    First, Labor Department data indicates that minority 
employment is as high or higher at federal construction 
projects, which are covered by the Davis-Bacon Act, than it is 
at other projects, which are not. Overall, the rate of minority 
employment at federal construction projects is virtually the 
same as the rate at other construction projects. What's more, 
for job classifications covered by the Davis-Bacon Act 
(craftworkers, operators, and laborers) the rate of minority 
employment at federal construction projects is higher than it 
is at other projects. Specifically, data collected by the Labor 
Department in 1991 showed that the rates of minority employment 
in various job classifications were the following:

                                                                        
                              [In percent]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Federal projects    Other projects 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craftworkers......................              17.61              17.41
Operators.........................              26.22              24.40
Laborers..........................              41.18              39.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, one of the nation's leading civil rights groups, 
the NAACP, recently considered the argument that prevailing 
local wage requirements discriminate against black workers and 
firmly rejected the argument. Instead, the NAACP approved a 
resolution saying that ``the NAACP supports the Davis-Bacon 
Act.''
    Third, those who rely on the legislative history to support 
the argument that the Davis-Bacon Act was enacted primarily for 
racist reasons take a selective approach to that legislative 
history. They frequently rely on scattered remarks, taken out 
of context from an extensive legislative record. The 
Congressional Research Service recently reviewed the 
legislative history in light of charges that the Act was 
enacted primarily for racist reasons, and reached the following 
conclusion:

          Based upon the evidence presented by the advocates of 
        ``the racial thesis,'' there seems little justification 
        for an assertion of racial motivation on the part of 
        the Congress. Even were some Members motivated by 
        racism (which has not been proved), it is painting with 
        a very broad brush to infer, from two brief quotations 
        and a few words selected out of context, that any 
        significant number of Members of Congress, either then 
        or now, were inspired by a racial intent.

    Rather, the prevailing local wage requirement evolved over 
a long period of time as part of a broad set of progressive 
reforms, was initially enacted by several states, and finally 
was enacted into federal law as part of President Hoover's 
response to the depression. The evolution of the prevailing 
wage requirement shows that, as the Assistant Secretary of 
Labor recently testified.

        the primary purpose of the law is to assure, by 
        requiring the payment of locally prevailing wages, that 
        Federal spending practices do not undercut the wages of 
        hard-working people who aspire to the middle-class and 
        do not put local contractors--and their employees--in 
        an unfair position.

Conclusion

    This purpose, we believe, is just as important today as it 
was in 1931. Accordingly, we respectfully oppose section 107 
and urge that it be deleted from the bill.
                                   Max Baucus.
                                   Daniel Moynihan.
                                   Frank R. Lautenberg.
                                   Harry Reid.
                                   Bob Graham.
                                   Joseph I. Lieberman.
                                   Barbara Boxer.
                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, 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 23, UNITED STATES CODE

                    CHAPTER 1.--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
Section
     * * * * * * *
[122. Payment to States bond retirement]]
122. Payments to States for bond and other debt instrument financing
     * * * * * * *
[154. National maximum speed limit]
154. Repealed.
     * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 3.--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section
[301. Freedom from tolls]
301. Repealed
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 101. Definitions and declaration of policy

    (a) As used in this title, unless the context requires 
otherwise--
          * * * * * * *
    The term ``construction'' means the supervising, 
inspecting, actual building, [and all expenses incidental to 
the construction or reconstruction of a] highway, including 
bond costs and other costs relating to the issuance of bonds or 
other debt instrument financing in accordance with section 122, 
locating, surveying, and mapping (including the establishment 
of temporary and permanent geodetic markers in accordance with 
specifications of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration in the Department of Commerce), resurfacing, 
restoration, and rehabilitation, acquisition of rights-of-ways, 
relocation assistance, elimination of hazards of railway grade 
crossings, elimination of roadside obstacles, acquisition of 
replacement housing sites, acquisition and rehabilitation, 
relocation, and construction of replacement housing, and 
improvements which directly facilitate and control traffic 
flow, such as grade separation of intersections, widening of 
lanes, channelization of traffic, traffic control systems, and 
passenger loading and unloading areas. The term also includes 
capital improvements which directly facilitate an effective 
vehicle weight enforcement program, such as scales (fixed and 
portable), scale pits, scale installation, and scale houses and 
also includes costs incurred by the State in performing 
Federal-aid project related audits which directly benefit the 
Federal-aid highway program.
          * * * * * * *
    [The term ``startup costs for traffic management and 
control'' means initial costs (including labor costs, 
administration costs, cost of utilities, and rent) for 
integrated traffic control systems, incident management 
programs, and traffic control centers.]
    The term ``operating costs for traffic monitoring, 
management, and control'' includes labor costs, administrative 
costs, costs of utilities and rent, and other costs associated 
with the continuous operation of traffic control activities, 
such as integrated traffic control systems, incident management 
programs, and traffic control centers.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 103. Federal-aid systems

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) National Highway System Designation.--
          (1) Designation.--The most recent National Highway 
        System (as of the date of enactment of this Act) as 
        submitted by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant 
        to this section is designated as the National Highway 
        System.
          (2) Modifications.--
                  (A) In general.--At the request of a State, 
                the Secretary may--
                          (i) add a new route segment to the 
                        National Highway System, including a 
                        new intermodal connection; or
                          (ii) delete a route segment in 
                        existence on the date of the request 
                        and any connection to the route 
                        segment;
                if the total mileage of the National Highway 
                System (including any route segment or 
                connection proposed to be added under this 
                subparagraph) does not exceed 165,000 miles 
                (265,542 kilometers).
                  (B) Procedures for changes requested by 
                states.--Each State that makes a request for a 
                change in the National Highway System pursuant 
                to subparagraph (A) shall establish that each 
                change in a route segment or connection 
                referred to in the subparagraph has been 
                identified by the State, in cooperation with 
                local officials, pursuant to applicable 
                transportation planning activities for 
                metropolitan areas carried out under section 
                134 and statewide planning processes carried 
                out under section 135.
        (3) Approval by the secretary.--The Secretary may 
        approve a request made by a State for a change in the 
        National Highway System pursuant to paragraph (2) if 
        the Secretary determines that the change--
                  (A) meets the criteria established for the 
                National Highway System under this title; and
                  (B) enhances the national transportation 
                characteristics of the National Highway System.
          * * * * * * *
    (i) Eligible Projects for NHS.--Subject to project approval 
by the Secretary, funds apportioned to a State under section 
104(b)(1) for the National Highway System may be obligated for 
any of the following:
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(8) Startup costs for traffic management and control 
        if such costs are limited to the time period necessary 
        to achieve operable status but not to exceed 2 years 
        following the date of project approval, if such funds 
        are not used to replace existing funds.]
          (8) Capital and operating costs for traffic 
        monitoring, management, and control facilities and 
        programs.
          * * * * * * *
          (14) Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, 
        restoration, and rehabilitation of, and operational 
        improvements for, public highways connecting the 
        National Highway System to--
                  (A) ports, airports, and rail, truck, and 
                other intermodal freight transportation 
                facilities; and
                  (B) public transportation facilities.
          (15) Construction of, and operational improvements 
        for, the Alameda Transportation Corridor along Alameda 
        Street from the entrance to the ports of Los Angeles 
        and Long Beach to Interstate 10, Los Angeles, 
        California. The Federal share of the cost of the 
        construction and improvements shall be determined in 
        accordance with section 120(b). .
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 104. Apportionment

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (b) On October 1 of each fiscal year except as provided in 
paragraph (5)(A) of this subsection, the Secretary, after 
making the deduction authorized by subsection (a) of this 
section and the set asides authorized by [subsection (f)] 
subsections (f) and (i) of this section and section 307 of this 
title, shall apportion the remainder of the sums authorized to 
be appropriated for expenditure on the surface transportation 
program, the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
program, the National Highway System, and the Interstate System 
for that fiscal year, among the several States in the following 
manner:
          (1) National highway system.--For the National 
        Highway System 1 percent to the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
        American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of Northern 
        Mariana Islands and the remaining 99 percent 
        apportioned in the same ratio as funds are apportioned 
        under paragraph (3).
          (2) Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
        program.--For the congestion mitigation and air quality 
        improvement program, in the ratio which the weighted 
        nonattainment area population of each State bears to 
        the total weighted nonattainment area population of all 
        States. The weighted nonattainment area population 
        shall be calculated by multiplying the population of 
        each area within any State that [is a nonattainment 
        area (as defined in the Clean Air Act [42 USCS 
        Sec. Sec. 7401 et seq.]) for ozone] was a nonattainment 
        area (as defined in section 171(2) of the Clean Air Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 7501(2))) for ozone during any part of 
        fiscal year 1995 by a factor of--
                  (A) 1.0 if the area is classified as a 
                marginal ozone nonattainment area under subpart 
                2 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act [42 
                USCS Sec. Sec. 7511 et seq.];
                  (B) 1.1 if the area is classified as a 
                moderate ozone nonattainment area under such 
                subpart;
                  (C) 1.2 if the area is classified as a 
                serious ozone nonattainment area under such 
                subpart;
                  (D) 1.3 if the area is classified as a severe 
                ozone nonattainment area under such subpart; or
                  (E) 1.4 if the area is classified as an 
                extreme ozone nonattainment area under such 
                subpart.
        If the area [is] was classified under subpart 3 of D of 
        title I of such Act [42 USCS Sec. Sec. 7512 et seq.] as 
        a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide during any 
        part of fiscal year 1995, for purposes of calculating 
        the weighted nonattainment area population, the 
        weighted nonattainment area population of the area, as 
        determined under the preceding provisions of this 
        paragraph, shall be further multiplied by a factor of 
        1.2. Notwithstanding any provision of this paragraph, 
        in the case of States with a total 1990 census 
        population of 15,000,000 or greater, the amount 
        apportioned under this paragraph in a fiscal year to 
        all of such States in the aggregate, shall be 
        distributed among such States based on their relative 
        populations; except that none of such States shall be 
        distributed more than 42 percent of the aggregate 
        amount so apportioned to all such States.
          * * * * * * *
    (g) Not more than [40] 60 per centum of the amount 
apportioned in any fiscal year to each State in accordance with 
sections 130, 144, and 152 of this title, or section 203(d) of 
the Highway Safety act of 1973 [23 USCS Sec. 130 note], may be 
transferred from the apportionment under one section to the 
apportionment under any other of such sections if such a 
transfer is requested by the State highway department and is 
approved by the Secretary as being in the public interest. The 
Secretary may approve the transfer of 100 per centum of the 
apportionment under one such section to the apportionment under 
any other of such sections if such transfer is requested by the 
State Highway department, and is approved by the Secretary as 
being in the public interest, if he has received satisfactory 
assurances from such State highway department that the purposes 
of the program from which such funds are to be transferred have 
been met. A State may transfer not to exceed 40 percent of the 
State's apportionment under section 144 in any fiscal year to 
the apportionment of such State under subsection (b)(1) or 
subsection (b)(3) of this section. Any transfer to subsection 
(b)(3) shall not be subject to section 133(d). Nothing in this 
subsection authorizes the transfer of any amount apportioned 
from the Highway Trust Fund to any apportionment the funds for 
which were not from the Highway Trust Fund, and nothing in this 
subsection authorizes the transfer of any amount apportioned 
from funds not from the Highway Trust Fund to any apportionment 
the funds for which were from the Highway Trust Fund.
    (h) National Recreational Trails Funding.--The Secretary 
shall expend, from administrative funds deducted under 
subsection (a), to carry out section 1302 of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 U.S.C. 1261) 
$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
    (i) Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge.--Before making an 
apportionment of funds under subsection (b), the Secretary 
shall set aside $17,550,000 for fiscal year 1996 and 
$80,050,000 for fiscal year 1997 for the rehabilitation of the 
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge and for the planning, 
preliminary design, engineering, and acquisition of a right-of-
way for, and construction of, a new crossing of the Potomac 
River.
    [(h)] (j) The Secretary shall submit to Congress not later 
than the 20th day of each calendar month which begins after the 
date of enactment of this subsection [Nov. 6, 1978] a report on 
(1) the amount of obligation, by State, for Federal-aid 
highways and the highway safety construction programs during 
the preceding calendar month, (2) the cumulative amount of 
obligation, by State, for that fiscal year, (3) the balance as 
of the last day of such preceding month of the unobligated 
apportionment of each State by fiscal year, and (4) the balance 
of unobligated sums available for expenditure at the discretion 
of the Secretary for such highways and programs for that fiscal 
year.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 109. Standards

    [(a) The Secretary shall not approve plans and 
specifications for proposed projects on any highway projects 
under this chapter [23 USCS Sec. Sec. 101 et seq.] if they fail 
to provide for a facility (1) that will adequately meet the 
existing and probable future traffic needs and conditions in a 
manner conducive to safety, durability, and economy of 
maintenance; (2) that will be designed and constructed in 
accordance with standards best suited to accomplish the 
foregoing objectives and to conform to the particular needs of 
each locality.]
    (a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that the plans 
and specifications for each proposed highway project under this 
chapter provide for a facility and will--
          (1) adequately serve the existing and planned future 
        traffic of the highway in a manner that is conducive to 
        safety, durability, and economy of maintenance; and
          (2) be designed and constructed in accordance with 
        criteria best suited to accomplish the objectives 
        described in paragraph (1) and to conform to the 
        particular needs of each locality.;
          * * * * * * *
    [(c) Design and construction standards for NHS. Design and 
construction standards to be adopted for new construction on 
the National Highway System, for reconstruction on the National 
Highway System, and for resurfacing, restoring, and 
rehabilitating multilane limited access highways on the 
National Highway System shall be those approved by the 
Secretary in cooperation with the State highway departments. 
All eligible work for such projects shall meet or exceed such 
standards.]
    (c) Design Criteria for the National Highway System.--
          (1) In general.--A design for new construction, 
        reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance 
        resurfacing), restoration, or rehabilitation of a 
        highway on the National Highway System (other than a 
        highway also on the Interstate System) shall take into 
        account, in addition to the criteria described in 
        subsection (a)--
                  (A) the constructed and natural environment 
                of the area;
                  (B) the environmental, scenic, aesthetic, 
                historic, community, and preservation impacts 
                of the activity; and
                  (C) as appropriate, access for other modes of 
                transportation.
          (2) Development of criteria.--The Secretary, in 
        cooperation with State highway agencies, shall develop 
        criteria to implement paragraph (1). In developing the 
        criteria, the Secretary shall consider the results of 
        the committee process of the American Association of 
        State Highway and Transportation Officials as adopted 
        and published in `A Policy on Geometric Design of 
        Highways and Street', after adequate opportunity for 
        input by interested parties.
          * * * * * * *
    (j) The Secretary, after consultation with the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall 
develop and promulgate guidelines to assure that highways 
constructed pursuant to this title are consistent with any 
approved [plan for the implementation of any ambient air 
quality standard for any air quality control region designated 
pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended.]
plan for--
          (1) the implementation of a national ambient air 
        quality standard for which an area is designated as a 
        nonattainment area under section 107(d) of the Clean 
        Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)); or
          (2) the maintenance of a national ambient air quality 
        standard in an area that was designated as a 
        nonattainment area but that was later redesignated by 
        the Administrator as an attainment area for the 
        standard and that is required to develop a maintenance 
        plan under section 175A of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
        7505a).
          * * * * * * *
    [(q) Historic and Scenic Values. If a proposed project 
under sections 103(e)(4), 133, or 144 involves a historic 
facility or is located in an area of historic or scenic value, 
the Secretary may approve such project notwithstanding the 
requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of this section and 
section 133(c) if such project is designed to standards that 
allow for the preservation of such historic or scenic value and 
such project is designed with mitigation measures to allow 
preservation of such value and ensure safe use of the 
facility.]
    (q) Environmental, Scenic, and Historic Values.--
Notwithstanding subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary may 
approve a project for the National Highway System if the 
project is designed to--
          (1) allow for the preservation of environmental, 
        scenic, or historic values;
          (2) ensure safe use of the facility; and
          (3) comply with subsection(a).
          * * * * * * *
[Sec. 113.  Prevailing rate of wage

    (a) The Secretary shall take such action as may be 
necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by 
contractors or subcontractors on the construction work 
performed on highway projects on the Federal-aid highways 
authorized under the highway laws providing for the expenditure 
of Federal funds upon the Federal-aid systems, shall be paid 
wages at rates not less than those prevailing on the same type 
of work on similar construction in the immediate locality as 
determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act 
of March 3, 1931, known as the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 
276a).
    (b) In carrying out the duties of subsection (a) of this 
section, the Secretary of Labor shall consult with the highway 
department of the State in which a project on any of the 
Federal-aid systems is to be performed. After giving due regard 
to the information thus obtained, he shall make 
predetermination of the minimum wages to be paid laborers and 
mechanics in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) 
of this section which shall be set out in each project 
advertisement for bids and in each bid proposal form and shall 
be made of the contract covering the project.
    (c) The provisions of the section shall not be applicable 
to employment pursuant to apprenticeship and skill training 
programs which have been certified by the Secretary of 
Transportation as promoting equal employment opportunity in 
connection with Federal-aid highway construction programs.]
Sec. 113.  Prevailing rate of wage

    The Act entitled ``An Act relating to the rate of wages for 
laborers and mechanics employed on public buildings of the 
United States and the District of Columbia by contractors and 
subcontractors, and for other purposes'', approved March 3, 
1931 (commonly known as the ``Davis-Bacon Act'') (40 U.S.C. 
276a et seq.), shall not apply with respect to any project 
carried out or assisted under any chapter of this title.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 115.  Advance construction

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    [(d) Limitation on Advanced Funding.--The Secretary may not 
approve an application under this section unless an 
authorization for section 103(e)(4), 104, 144, or 307 of this 
title, as the case may be, is in effect for the fiscal year for 
which the application is sought beyond the currently authorized 
funds for each State. No applications may be approved which 
will exceed the State's expected apportionment of such 
authorizations.]
    (d) Requirement of Inclusion in Transportation Improvement 
Program.--The Secretary may not approve an application under 
this section unless the project is included in the 
transportation improvement program of the State developed under 
section 135(f).
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 116. Maintenance

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    [(d)](e) [Repealed]
    (d) Preventive Maintenance.--A preventive maintenance 
activity shall be eligible for Federal assistance under this 
title if the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
Secretary that the activity is a cost-effective means of 
extending the life of a Federal-aid highway.
          * * * * * * *
[Sec. 122. Payment of States for bond retirement

    Any State that shall use the proceeds of bonds issued by 
the State, county, city, or other political subdivision of the 
State for the construction of one or more projects on the 
Federal-aid primary or Interstate System, or extensions of any 
of the Federal-aid highway systems in urban areas, or for 
substitute highway projects approved under section 103(e)(4) of 
this title, may claim payment of any portion of the sums 
apportioned to it for expenditure on such system or on highway 
projects approved under section 103(e)(4) of this title to aid 
in the retirement of the principal of such bonds the proceeds 
of which were used for projects on the Federal-aid primary 
system or extensions of any of the Federal-aid highway systems 
in urban areas or for substitute highway projects approved 
under section 103(e)(4) of this title and the retirement of the 
principal and interest of such bonds the proceeds of which were 
used for projects on the Interstate System at their maturities, 
to the extent that the proceeds of such bonds have been 
actually expended in the construction of one or more of such 
projects. Such claim for payment may be made only when all of 
the provisions of this title have been complied with to the 
same extent and with the same effect as though payment were to 
be made to the State under section 121 of this title, instead 
of this section, and the Federal share payable shall not exceed 
the pro rata basis of payment authorized in section 120 of this 
title. This section shall not be construed as a commitment or 
obligation on the part of the United States to provide for the 
payment of the principal or interest of any such bonds. The 
payment of interest on such bonds and incidental costs in 
connection with the sale of such bonds shall not be included in 
the estimated cost of completing the Interstate System.]
Sec. 122. Payments to States for bond and other debt instrument 
                    financing

    (a) Definition of Eligible Debt Financing Instrument.--In 
this section, the term `eligible debt financing instrument' 
means a bond or other debt financing instrument, including a 
note, certificate, mortgage, or lease agreement, issued by a 
State or political subdivision of a State, the proceeds of 
which are used for an eligible Federal aid project under this 
title.
    (b) Federal Reimbursement.--Subject to subsections (c) and 
(d), the Secretary may reimburse a State for expenses and costs 
incurred by the State or a political subdivision of the State, 
for--
          (1) interest payments under an eligible debt 
        financing instrument;
          (2) the retirement of principal of an eligible debt 
        financing instrument;
          (3) the cost of the issuance of an eligible debt 
        financing instrument;
          (4) the cost of insurance for an eligible debt 
        financing instrument; and
          (5) any other cost incidental to the sale of an 
        eligible debt financing instrument (as determined by 
        the Secretary).
    (c) Conditions on Payment.--The Secretary may reimburse a 
State under subsection (b) with respect to a project funded by 
an eligible debt financing instrument after the State has 
complied with this title to the extent and in the manner that 
would be required if payment were to be made under section 121.
    (d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
project payable under this section shall not exceed the pro-
rate basis of payment authorized in section 120.
    (e) Statutory Construction.--Notwithstanding any other law, 
the eligibility of an eligible debt financing instrument for 
reimbursement under subsection (a) shall not--
          (1) constitute a commitment, guarantee, or obligation 
        on the part of the United States to provide for payment 
        of principal or interest on the eligible debt financing 
        instrument; or
          (2) create any right of a third party against the 
        United States for payment under the eligible debt 
        financing instrument.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 129. Toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries

    (a) Basic Program.--
          [(1) Authorization for federal participation.--
        Notwithstanding section 301 of this title and subject 
        to the provisions of this section, the Secretary shall 
        permit Federal participation in--
                  (A) initial construction of a toll highway, 
                bridge, or tunnel (other than a highway, 
                bridge, or tunnel on the Interstate System) or 
                approach thereto;
                  (B) reconstructing, resurfacing, restoring, 
                and rehabilitating a toll highway, bridge, or 
                tunnel (including a toll highway, bridge, or 
                tunnel subject to an agreement entered into 
                under this section or section 199(e) as in 
                effect on the day before the date of the 
                enactment of the Intermodal Surface 
                Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [Dec. 18, 
                1991]) or approach thereto;
                  (C) reconstruction or replacement of a toll-
                free bridge or tunnel and conversion of the 
                bridge or tunnel to a toll facility;
                  (D) reconstruction of a toll-free Federal-aid 
                highway (other than a highway on the Interstate 
                System) and conversion of the highway to a toll 
                facility; and
                  (E) preliminary studies to determine the 
                feasibility of a toll facility for which 
                Federal participation is authorized under 
                subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D);
        on the same basis and in the same manner as in the 
        construction of free highways under this chapter [23 
        USCS Sec. Sec. 101 et seq.].]
          (1) Authorization for federal participation.--Subject 
        to the other provisions of this section, the Secretary 
        shall permit Federal participation in Federal-aid 
        projects involving toll highways, bridges, and tunnels 
        on the same basis and in the same manner as in the 
        construction of free highways under this chapter.
          * * * * * * *
          [(5)Limitation on federal share.--Except as otherwise 
        provided in this paragraph, the Federal share payable 
        for construction of a highway, bridge, tunnel, or 
        approach thereto or conversion of a highway, bridge, or 
        tunnel to a toll facility under this subsection shall 
        be such percentage as the State determines but not to 
        exceed 50 percent. The Federal share payable for 
        construction of a new bridge, tunnel, or approach 
        thereto or for reconstruction or replacement of a 
        bridge, tunnel, or approach thereto shall be such 
        percentage as the Secretary determines but not to 
        exceed 80 percent. In the case of a toll facility 
        subject to an agreement under section 119 or 129, the 
        Federal share payable on any project for resurfacing, 
        restoring, rehabilitating, or reconstructing such 
        facility shall be 80 percent until the scheduled 
        expiration of such agreement (as in effect on the day 
        before the date of the enactment of the Intermodal 
        Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [Dec. 18, 
        1991]).]
          (5) Limitation on federal share.--The Federal share 
        payable for an activity described in paragraph (1) 
        shall be a percentage determined by the State, but not 
        to exceed 80 percent.
          * * * * * * *
    (b) [Notwithstanding the provisions of section 301 of this 
title, the] The Secretary may permit Federal participation 
under this title in the construction of a project constituting 
an approach to a ferry, whether toll or free, the route of 
which has been classified as a public road and has not been 
designated as a route on the Interstate System. Such ferry may 
be either publicly or privately owned and operated, but the 
operating authority and the amount of fares charged for passage 
shall be under the control of a State agency or official, and 
all revenues derived from publicly owned or operated ferries 
shall be applied to payment of the cost of construction or 
acquisition thereof, including debt service, and to actual and 
necessary costs of operation, maintenance, repair, and 
replacement.
    (c) [Notwithstanding section 301 of this title, the] the 
Secretary may permit Federal participation under this title in 
the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities, 
whether toll or free, subject to the following conditions:
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 133. Surface transportation program

    (a) Establishment.--* * *
          * * * * * * *
    (e) Administration.--
          (1) Noncompliance.--If the Secretary determines that 
        a State or local government has failed to comply 
        substantially with any provision of this section, the 
        Secretary shall notify the State that, if the State 
        fails to take corrective action within 60 days from the 
        date of receipt of the notification, the Secretary will 
        withhold future apportionments under section 104(b)(3) 
        until the Secretary is satisfied that appropriate 
        corrective action has been taken.
          (2) Certification.--The Governor of each State shall 
        certify before the beginning of each quarter of a 
        fiscal year that the State will meet all the 
        requirements of this section and shall notify the 
        Secretary of the amount of obligations expected to be 
        incurred for surface transportation program projects 
        during such quarter. A State may request adjustment to 
        the obligation amounts later in each of such quarters. 
        Acceptance of the notification and certification shall 
        be deemed a contractual obligation of the United States 
        for the payment of the surface transportation program 
        funds expected to be obligated by the State in such 
        quarter for projects not subject to review by the 
        Secretary under this chapter.
          [(3) Payments. The] (3) Payments._
                  (A) In general._Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall make 
                payments to a State of costs incurred by the 
                State for the surface transportation program in 
                accordance with procedures to be established by 
                the Secretary. Payments shall not exceed the 
                Federal share of costs incurred as of the date 
                the State requests payments.
                  (B) Advance payment option for transportation 
                enhancement activities.--
                          (i) In general.--The Secretary may 
                        advance funds to the State for 
                        transportation enhancement activities 
                        funded from the allocation required by 
                        subsection (d)(2) for a fiscal year if 
                        the Secretary certifies for a fiscal 
                        year that the State has authorized and 
                        uses a process for the selection of 
                        transportation enhancement projects 
                        that involves representatives of 
                        affected public entities, and private 
                        citizens, with expertise related to 
                        transportation enhancement activities.
                          (ii) Limitation on amounts.--Amounts 
                        advanced under this subparagraph shall 
                        be limited to such amounts as are 
                        necessary to make prompt payments for 
                        project costs.
                          (iii) Effect on other requirements.--
                        This subparagraph shall not exempt a 
                        State from other requirements of this 
                        title relating to the surface 
                        transportation program.
          (4) Population determinations.--The Secretary shall 
        use estimates prepared by the Secretary of Commerce 
        when determining population figures for purposes of 
        this section.
          (5) Transportation enhancement activities.--
                  (A) Categorical exclusions.--To the extent 
                appropriate, the Secretary shall develop 
                categorical exclusions from the requirement 
                that an environmental assessment or an 
                environmental impact statement under section 
                102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
                1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) be prepared for 
                transportation enhancement activities funded 
                from the allocation required by subsection 
                (d)(2).
                  (B) Nationwide programmatic agreement.--The 
                Administrator of the Federal Highway 
                Administration, in consultation with the 
                National Conference of State Historic 
                Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council 
                on Historic Preservation established under 
                title II of the National Historic Preservation 
                Act (16 U.S.C. 470i et seq.), shall develop a 
                nationwide programmatic agreement governing the 
                review of transportation enhancement activities 
                funded from the allocation required by 
                subsection (d)(2), in accordance with--
                          (i) section 106 of the National 
                        Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
                        470f); and
                          (ii) the regulations of the Advisory 
                        Council on Historic Preservation.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 141. Enforcement of requirements

    [(a) Each State shall certify to the Secretary before 
January 1 of each year that it is enforcing all speed limits on 
public highways in accordance with section 154 of this title. 
The Secretary shall not approve any project under section 106 
of this title in any State which has failed to certify in 
accordance with this subsection.]
    [(b)] (a) Each State shall certify to the Secretary before 
January 1 of each year that it is enforcing all State laws 
respecting maximum vehicle size and weights permitted on the 
Federal-aid primary system, the Federal-aid urban system, and 
the Federal-aid secondary system, including the interstate 
System in accordance with section 127 of this title. Each State 
shall also certify that it is enforcing and complying with the 
provisions of section 127(d) of this title and section 31112 of 
title 49.
    [(c)] (b)(1) Each State shall submit to the Secretary such 
information as the Secretary shall, by regulation, require as 
necessary, in his opinion, to verify the certification such 
State under such subsection [(b)](a) of this section.
    (2) If a State fails to certify as required by subsection 
[(b)](a) of this section or if the Secretary determines that a 
State is not adequately enforcing all State laws respecting 
such maximum vehicle size and weights, notwithstanding such a 
certification, the Federal-aid highway funds apportioned to 
such State for such fiscal year shall be reduced by amounts 
equal to 10 per centum of the amount which would otherwise be 
apportioned to such State under section 104 of this title.
    (3) If within one year from the date that the apportionment 
for any State is reduced in accordance with paragraph (2) of 
this subsection the Secretary determines that such State is 
enforcing all State laws respecting maximum size and weights, 
the apportionment of such State shall be increased by an amount 
equal to such reduction. If the Secretary does not make such a 
determination within such one-year period, the amounts so 
withheld shall be reapportioned to all other eligible States.
    [(d)](c) The Secretary shall reduce the State's 
apportionment of Federal-aid highway funds under section 
104(b)(5) of this title in an amount up to 25 per centum of the 
amount to be apportioned in any fiscal year beginning after 
September 30, 1984, during which heavy vehicles, subject to the 
use tax imposed by section 4481 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1954 [26 USCS Sec. 4481], may be lawfully registered in the 
State without having presented proof of payment, in such form 
as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, of the 
use tax imposed by section 4481 of such Code [26 USCS 
Sec. 4481]. Amounts withheld from apportionment to a State 
under this subsection shall be apportioned to the other States 
pursuant to the formulas of section 104(b)(5) of this title and 
shall be available in the same manner and to the same extent as 
other Interstate funds apportioned at the same time to other 
States.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 144. Highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any bridge 
which is owned and operated by an agency (1) which does not 
have taxing powers, (2) whose functions include operating a 
federally assisted public transit system subsidized by toll 
revenues, shall be eligible for assistance under this section 
but the amount of such assistance shall in no event exceed the 
cumulative amount which such agency has expended for capital 
and operating costs to subsidize such transit system. Before 
authorizing an expenditure of funds under this subsection, the 
Secretary shall determine that the applicant agency has 
insufficient reserves, surpluses, and projected revenues (over 
and above those required for bridge and transit capital and 
operating costs) to fund the necessary bridge replacement or 
rehabilitation project. Any non-Federal funds expended for the 
seismic retrofit of the bridge may be credited toward the non-
Federal share required as a condition of receipt of any Federal 
funds for seismic retrofit of the bridge made available after 
the date of the expenditure.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 149. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program

    (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program in 
accordance with this section.
    (b) Eligible Projects.--Except as provided in subsection 
(c), a State may obligate funds for areas in the State that 
were designated as nonattainment areas under section 107(d) of 
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)) apportioned to it under 
section 104(b)(2) for the congestion mitigation and air quality 
improvement program only for a transportation project or 
program--
          (1)(A) if the Secretary, after consultation with the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
        determines, on the basis of information published by 
        the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 
        108(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act [42 USCS 
        Sec. 7408(f)(1)(A)] [(other than clauses (xii) and 
        (xvi) of such section), that the project or program] 
        that the publicly sponsored project or program is 
        likely to [contribute to the] contribute to--(i) the 
        attainment of a national ambient air quality standard; 
        [or (ii) the maintenance of a national ambient air 
        quality standard in an area that was designated as a 
        nonattainment area but that was later redesignated by 
        the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency as an attainment area under section 107(d) of 
        the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)); or
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 153. Use of safety belts and motorcycle helmets.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (i) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the 
following definitions apply:
          (1) Motorcycle.--The term ``motorcycle'' means a 
        motor vehicle which is designed to travel on not more 
        than 3 wheels in contact with the surface.
          [(2) Motor vehicle.--The term ``motor vehicle'' has 
        the meaning such term has under section 154 of this 
        title.]
          (2) Motor vehicle. The term ``motor vehicle'' means 
        any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power 
        manufactured primarily for use on public highways, 
        except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or 
        rails.
          * * * * * * *
[Sec. 154. National maximum speed limit

    (a) The Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any 
project under section 106 in any State which has (1) a maximum 
speed limit on any public highway within its jurisdiction in 
excess of fifty-five miles per hour other than a highway on the 
Interstate System located outside of an urbanized area of 
50,000 population or more, (2) a maximum speed limit on any 
highway within its jurisdiction on the Interstate System 
located outside of an urbanized area of 50,000 population or 
more in excess of 65 miles per hour, (3) a maximum speed limit 
in excess of 65 miles per hour on any highway within its 
jurisdiction located outside an urbanized area of 50,000 
population or more (A) which is constructed to interstate 
standards in accordance with section 109(b) of this title and 
connected to a highway on the Interstate System , (B) which is 
a divided 4-lane fully controlled access highway designed or 
constructed to connect a highway on the Interstate System 
posted at 65 miles per hour and constructed to design and 
construction standards as determined by the Secretary which 
provide a facility adequate for a speed limit of 65 miles per 
hour, or (C) which is constructed to the geometric and 
construction standards adequate for current and probable future 
traffic demands and for the needs of the locality and is 
designated by the Secretary as part of the Interstate System in 
accordance with section 139(c) of this title, or (4) a speed 
limit on any other portion of a public highway within its 
jurisdiction which is not uniformly applicable to all types of 
motor vehicles using such portion of highway, if on November 1, 
1973, such portion of highway had a speed limit which was 
uniformly applicable to all types of motor vehicles using it. A 
lower speed limit may be established for any vehicle operating 
under a special permit because of any weight or dimension of 
such vehicle, including any load thereon. Clause (4) of this 
subsection shall not apply to any portion of a highway during 
such time that the condition of the highway, weather, an 
accident, or other condition creates a temporary hazard to the 
safety of traffic on such portion of a highway.
    (b) As used in this section the term ``motor vehicle'' 
means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power 
manufactured primarily for use on public highways, except any 
vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
    (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 120 sums 
apportioned to any State under section 104 shall be available 
to pay the entire cost of any modification of the signing of 
the Federal-aid highways for which such sums are apportioned 
within such State due to a reduction in speed limits to 
conserve fuel if such change in signing occurs or has occurred 
after November 1, 1973.
    (d) The requirements of this section shall be deemed 
complied with by administration action lawfully taken by the 
Governor or other appropriate State officials that complies 
with this section.
    (e) Each State shall submit to the Secretary such data as 
the Secretary determines by rule is necessary to support its 
certification under section 141 of this title for the twelve-
month period ending on September 30 before the date the 
certification is required including data on the percentage for 
motor vehicles exceeding the speed limit on maximum speed limit 
highways in accordance with criteria to be established by the 
Secretary, including criteria which takes into account the 
variability of speedometer readings and criteria based upon the 
speeds of all vehicles or a representative sample of all 
vehicles. Such data shall include, but not be limited to, data 
or citations, travel speeds, and the posted speed limit and the 
design characteristics of roads from which such travel speed 
data are gathered. The Secretary shall issue regulations which 
ensure (1) that the monitoring programs conducted by the States 
to collect data for purposes of this subsection are uniform, 
(2) that devices and equipment under such programs are placed 
at locations on maximum speed limit highways or a 
scientifically random basis which takes into account the 
relative risk, as determined by the Secretary, of motor vehicle 
accidents occurring considering the classes of such highways 
and the speeds at which vehicles are traveling on such classes 
of highways, and (3) that the data submitted under this 
subsection will be in such form as the Secretary determines is 
necessary to carry out this section.
    (f)-(h) [Repealed]
    (i) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall transmit to 
Congress an annual report on travel speeds of motor vehicles on 
roads subject to subsection (a), State enforcement efforts with 
respect to speeding violations on such roads, and speed-related 
highway safety statistics.]

Sec. 154. Repealed.

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 157. Minimum allocation

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (d) Treatment of Withheld Apportionments.--For purposes of 
subsection (a), and funds which, but for section [154(f) or] 
158(a) of this title or any other provision of law under which 
Federal-aid highway funds are withheld from apportionment, 
would be apportioned to a State in a fiscal year under a 
section referred to in subsection (a) shall be treated as being 
apportioned in such year.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 217. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Federal Share.--For all purposes of this title, 
construction of a pedestrian walkway and a bicycle 
transportation facility shall be deemed to be a highway project 
and the Federal share payable on account of such construction 
shall be [80 percent.] determined in accordance with section 
120(b).
          * * * * * * *

[Sec. 301. Freedom from tolls

    Except as provided in section 129 of this title with 
respect to certain toll bridges and toll tunnels, all highways 
constructed under the provisions of this title shall be free 
from tolls of all kinds.]

Sec. 301. Repealed.

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 303. Management systems

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    [(c) State Requirements.--The Secretary may withhold up to 
10 percent of the funds appropriated under this title and under 
chapter 53 of title 49 [49 USCS Sec. Sec. 5301 et seq.] for any 
fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1995, to any State 
and any recipient of assistance under such Act in the State 
unless, in the preceding fiscal year, the State was 
implementing each of the management systems described in 
subsection (a) and, before January 1 of the preceding fiscal 
year, the State certified, in writing, to the Secretary, that 
the State was implementing each of such management systems in 
the preceding fiscal year.]
    (c) State Election.--A State may, at the option of the 
State, elect, any time, not to implement, in whole or in part, 
1 or more of the management systems required under this 
section. The Secretary may not impose any sanction on, or 
withhold any benefit from, a State on the basis of such an 
election.
          * * * * * * *

    (f) [Annual report. Not] Reports.--(1) Annual reports.--Not 
later than January 1 of each calendar year beginning after 
December 31, 1992, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 
report on the progress being made by the Secretary and the 
State in carrying out this section.
          (2) Report on implementation._Not later than October 
        1, 1996, the Secretary, in consultation with States, 
        shall transmit to Congress a report on the management 
        systems required under this section that makes 
        recommendations as to whether, to what extent, and how 
        the management systems should be implemented.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 307. Research and planning

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (e) Applied Research and Technology Program.--(1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (13) Funding.--The Secretary shall expend from 
administrative and research funds deducted under section 104a 
of this title and funds made available under section 5313(a) of 
title 49, [``]$35,000,000 for fiscal year 1992 and $41,000,000 
per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995, 
1996, and 1997 to carry out this subsection. Of such amounts, 
in each of the fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 
1997, the Secretary shall expend not less than $4,000,000 per 
fiscal year to carry out projects related to heated bridge 
technologies under paragraph (4), not less than $2,500,000 per 
fiscal year to carry out projects related to thin bonded 
overlay and surface lamination of pavements under paragraph 
(7), and not less than $2,000,000 per fiscal year to carry out 
projected related to all weather pavement markings under 
paragraph (8). Of the amounts authorized to be expended under 
this paragraph, $500,000 shall be expended in fiscal year 1996 
to carry out section 1038(d)(1) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 23 
U.S.C. 109 note) and $10,000,000 shall be expended in each of 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to carry out section 1038(d)(2) of 
the Act. Amounts made available under this subsection shall 
remain available until expended and shall not be subject to any 
obligation limitation.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 323. Donations

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Credit for Donations of Funds, Materials, or 
Services.--Nothing in this title or any other law shall prevent 
a person from offering to donate funds, materials, or services 
in connection with an activity eligible for Federal assistance 
under this title. In the case of such an activity with respect 
to which the Federal Government and the State share in paying 
the cost, any donated funds, or the fair market value of any 
donated materials or services, that are accepted and 
incorporated into the activity by the State highway agency 
shall be credited against the State share.
    [(c)] (d) Procedures.--A gift or donation in accordance 
with subsection (a) may be made at any time during the 
development of a project. Any document executed as part of such 
donation prior to the approval of an environmental document 
prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 shall clearly indicate that--
          (1) all alternatives to a proposed alignment will be 
        studied and considered pursuant to such Act;
          (2) acquisition of property under this section shall 
        not influence the environmental assessment of a project 
        including the decision relative to the need to 
        construct the project or the selection of a specific 
        location; and
          (3) any property acquired by gift or donation shall 
        be revested in the grantor or successors in interest if 
        such property is not required for the alignment chosen 
        after public hearings, if required, and completion of 
        the environmental document.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 410. Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (i) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the 
following definitions apply:
          (1) Alcoholic beverage.-- The term ``alcoholic 
        beverage'' has the meaning such term has under section 
        158(c) of this title.
          (2) Controlled substances.--The term ``controlled 
        substances'' has the meaning such term has under 
        section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
        U.S.C. 802(6)).
          [(3) Motor vehicle.--The term ``motor vehicle'' has 
        the meaning such term has under section 154(b) of this 
        title.]
          (3) Motor vehicle.--The term ``motor vehicle'' means 
        any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power 
        manufactured primarily for use on public highways, 
        except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or 
        rails.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              

                    TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

          * * * * * * *

                      CHAPTER 98. TRUST FUND CODE

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 9511. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS TRUST FUND.

    (a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
`National Recreational Trails Trust Fund', consisting of such 
amounts as may be credited or paid to such Trust Fund as 
provided in this section, section 9503(c)(6), or section 
9602(b).
    (b) Crediting of Certain Unexpended Funds.--There shall be 
credited to the National Recreational Trails Trust Fund amounts 
returned to such Trust Fund under section 1302(e)(8) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
    (c) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the National 
Recreational Trails Trust Fund shall be available, [as provided 
in appropriation Acts,] for making expenditures before October 
1, 1997, to carry out the purposes of sections 1302 and 1303 of 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, 
as in effect on the date of the enactment of such Act.''
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              

                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

          * * * * * * *

    CHAPTER 85. AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL, PROGRAMS AND 
            ACTIVITIES AIR QUALITY AND EMISSION LIMITATIONS

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 7506. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Activities Not Conforming to Approved or Promulgated 
Plans.--No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
Federal Government shall (1) engage in, (2) support in any way 
or provide financial assistance for, (3) license or permit, or 
(4) approve, any activity which does not conform to a plan 
after it has been approved or promulgated under section 110 [42 
USCS Sec. 7410]. No metropolitan planning organization 
designated under section 134 of title 23, United States Code, 
shall give its approval to any project, program, or plan which 
does not conform to a plan approved or promulgated under 
section 110 [42 USCS Sec. 7410]. The assurance of conformity to 
such a plan shall be an affirmative responsibility of the head 
of such department, agency, or instrumentality.
          (5) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply only 
        with respect to--
                  (A) a nonattainment area and each specific 
                pollutant for which the area is designated as a 
                nonattainment area; and
                  (B) an area that was designated as a non-
                attainment area but that was later redesignated 
                by the Administrator as an attainment area and 
                that is required to develop a maintenance plan 
                under section 175A with respect to the specific 
                pollutant for which the area wad designated 
                non-attainment.
          * * * * * * *

                              ----------                              

                             92 STAT. 2689

                    PUBLIC LAW 95-599 95TH CONGRESS

  AN ACT To authorize appropriations for the construction of certain 
  highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, for 
 highway safety, for mass transportation in urban and in rural areas, 
                         and for other purposes

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
Act may be cited as the ``Surface Transportation Assistance Act 
of 1978''.

                                TITLE I

                              short title

    Sec. 101. This title may be cited as the ``Federal-Aid 
Highway Act of 1978''.
          * * * * * * *
    Sec. 123. Enforcement of Vehicle Weight Limitations.--
    (a)--* * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Not later than January 1 of the second calendar year 
which begins after the date of enactment of this section and 
each calendar year thereafter the Secretary shall submit to 
Congress an annual report together with such recommendations as 
the Secretary deems necessary on (1) the latest annual 
inventory of State systems of penalties required by subsection 
(a) of this section; (2) the latest annual inventory of State 
systems for the issuance of special permits required by 
subsection (b) of this section; (3) the annual certification 
submitted by each State required by section [141(b)] 141(a) of 
title 23, United States Code.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


                             105 STAT. 1914

                    PUBLIC LAW 102-240 102d CONGRESS

AN ACT To develop a national intermodal surface transportation system, 
  to authorize funds for construction of highways, for highway safety 
    programs, and for mass transit programs, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991''.
          * * * * * * *

                    TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

                       PART A--TITLE 23 PROGRAMS

          * * * * * * *
SEC. 1002. OBLIGATION CEILING.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (e) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary shall--
          (1) provide all States with authority sufficient to 
        prevent lapses of sums authorized to be appropriated 
        for Federal-aid highways and highway safety 
        construction which have been apportioned or allocated 
        to a State, except in those instances in which a State 
        indicates its intention to lapse sums appropriated 
        under section 104(b)(5)(A) of title 23, United States 
        Code;
          (2) after August 1 of each of fiscal years 1992, 
        1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, revise a distribution 
        of the funds made available under subsection (c) for 
        such fiscal year if a State will not obligate the 
        amount distributed during such fiscal year and 
        redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to 
        obligate amounts in addition to those previously 
        distributed during such fiscal year giving priority to 
        those States having large unobligated balances of funds 
        apportioned under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, 
        United States Code; and
          (3) not distribute amounts authorized for 
        administrative expenses, Federal lands highways 
        programs, and the national high speed ground 
        transportation programs and amounts made available 
        under section 149(d) of the Surface Transportation and 
        Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and the 
        National Capital Region Interstate Transportation 
        Authority Act of 1995.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 1029. NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    [(d) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out 
sections 154 and 141(a) of title 23, United States Code, 
through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and 
the Federal Highway Administration.]
    [(e)] (d) Annual Report.--Section 154 of title 23, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(i) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall transmit to 
Congress an annual report on travel speeds of motor vehicles on 
roads subject to subsection (a), State enforcement efforts with 
respect to speeding violations on such roads, and speed-related 
highway safety statistics.''.
    [(f)] (e) Enforcement Moratorium.--No State shall be 
subject under section 141 or 154 of title 23, United States 
Code, to withholding of apportionments for failure to comply in 
fiscal years 1990 and 1991 with section 154 of such title, as 
in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
Act, or section 141(a) of such title.
    [(g)] (f) Repeal of Obsolete Enforcement Provisions.--On 
the 730th day following the date of the enactment of this Act, 
subsections (f), (g), and (h) of section 154 of title 23, 
United States Code, are repealed.
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 1038. USE OF RECYCLED PAVING MATERIAL.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
[(d) Use of Asphalt Pavement Containing Recycled Rubber.--
          (1) State certification.--Beginning on January 1, 
        1995, and annually thereafter, each State shall certify 
        to the Secretary that such State has satisfied the 
        minimum utilization requirement for asphalt pavement 
        containing recycled rubber established by this section. 
        The minimum utilization requirement for asphalt 
        pavement containing recycled rubber as a percentage of 
        the total tons of asphalt laid in such State and 
        financed in whole or part by any assistance pursuant to 
        title 23, United States Code, shall be--
                  (A) 5 percent for the year 1994;
                  (B) 10 percent for the year 1995;
                  (C) 15 percent for the year 1996; and
                  (D) 20 percent for the year 1997 and each 
                year thereafter.
          (2) Other materials.--Any recycled material or 
        materials determined to be appropriate by the studies 
        under subsection (b) may be substituted for recycled 
        rubber under the minimum utilization requirement of 
        paragraph (1) up to 5 percent.
          (3) Increase.--The Secretary may increase the minimum 
        utilization requirement of paragraph (1) for asphalt 
        pavement containing recycled rubber to be used in 
        federally assisted highway projects to the extent it is 
        technologically and economically feasible to do so and 
        if an increase is appropriate to assure markets for the 
        reuse and recycling of scrap tires. The minimum 
        utilization requirement for asphalt pavement containing 
        recycled rubber may not be met by any use or technique 
        found to be unsuitable for use in highway projects by 
        the studies under subsection (b).
          (4) Penalty.--The Secretary shall withhold from any 
        State that fails to make a certification under 
        paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, a percentage of the 
        apportionments under section 104 (other than subsection 
        (b)(5)(A)) of title 23, United States Code, that would 
        otherwise be apportioned to such State for such fiscal 
        year under such section equal to the percentage 
        utilization requirement established by paragraph (1) 
        for such fiscal year.
          (5) Secretarial waiver.--The Secretary may set aside 
        the provisions of this subsection for any 3-year period 
        on a determination, made in concurrence with the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
        with respect to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this 
        paragraph, that there is reliable evidence indicating
                  (A) that manufacture, application, or use of 
                asphalt pavement containing recycled rubber 
                substantially increases the threat to human 
                health or the environment as compared to the 
                threats associated with conventional pavement;
                  (B) that asphalt pavement containing recycled 
                rubber cannot be recycled to substantially the 
                same degree as conventional pavement; or
                  (C) that asphalt pavement containing recycled 
                rubber does not perform adequately as a 
                material for the construction or surfacing of 
                highways and roads.
        The Secretary shall consider the results of the study 
        under subsection (b)(1) in determining whether a 3-year 
        set-aside is appropriate.
          (6) Renewal of waiver.--Any determination made to set 
        aside the requirements of this section may be renewed 
        for an additional 3-year period by the Secretary, with 
        the concurrence of the Administrator with respect to 
        the determinations made under paragraphs (5)(A) and 
        (5)(B). Any determination made with respect to 
        paragraph (5)(C) may be made for specific States or 
        regions considering climate, geography, and other 
        factors that may be unique to the State or region and 
        that would prevent the adequate performance of asphalt 
        pavement containing recycled rubber.
          (7) Individual state reduction.--The Secretary shall 
        establish a minimum utilization requirement for asphalt 
        pavement containing recycled rubber less than the 
        minimum utilization requirement otherwise required by 
        paragraph (1) in a particular State, upon the request 
        of such State and if the Secretary, with the 
        concurrence of the Administrator of the Environmental 
        Protection Agency, determines that there is not a 
        sufficient quality of scrap tires available in the 
        State prior to disposal to meet the minimum utilization 
        requirement established under paragraph (1) as the 
        result of recycling and processing uses (in that State 
        or another State), including retreading or energy 
        recovery.]
    (d) Asphalt Pavement Containing Recycled Rubber.--
          (1) Crumb rubber modifier research.--Not later than 
        180 days after the date of enactment of the National 
        Highway System Designation Act of 1995, the 
        Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration 
        shall develop testing procedures and conduct research 
        to develop performance grade classifications, in 
        accordance with the strategic highway research program 
        carried out under section 307(d) of title 23, United 
        States Code, for crumb rubber modifier binders. The 
        testing procedures and performance grade 
        classifications should be developed in consultation 
        with representatives of the crumb rubber modifier 
        industry and other interested parties (including the 
        asphalt paving industry) with experience in the 
        development of the procedures and classifications.
          (2) Crumb rubber modifier program development.--
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator of the 
                Federal Highway Administration shall make 
                grants to States to develop programs to use 
                crumb rubber from scrap tires to modify asphalt 
                pavements. Each State may receive not more than 
                $500,000 under this paragraph.
                  (B) Use of Grant Funds.--Grant funds made 
                available to States under this paragraph may be 
                used--
                          (i) to develop mix designs for crumb 
                        rubber modified asphalt pavements;
                          (ii) for the placement and evaluation 
                        of crumb rubber modified asphalt 
                        pavement field tests; and
                          (iii) for the expansion of State 
                        crumb rubber modifier programs in 
                        existence on the date the grant is made 
                        available.
    (e) Definitions.--For purpose of this section--
          [(1) the term ``asphalt pavement containing recycled 
        rubber'' means any hot mix or spray applied binder in 
        asphalt paving mixture that contains rubber from whole 
        scrap tires which is used for asphalt pavement base, 
        surface course or interlayer, or other road and highway 
        related uses and--]
          (1) the term ``asphalt pavement containing recycled 
        rubber'' means any mixture of asphalt and crumb rubber 
        derived from whole scrap tires, such that the physical 
        properties of the asphalt are modified through the 
        mixture, for use in pavement maintenance, 
        rehabilitation, or construction applications; and
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 1069. MISCELLANEOUS HIGHWAY PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    [(i) Woodrow Wilson Bridge.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $15,000,000 for rehabilitation of the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge. The Federal share of such project shall be 100 
percent.]
    (i) Repealed.
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 1105. HIGHER PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Identification of High Priority Corridors on National 
Highway System.--The following are high priority corridors on 
the National Highway System:
          (1) North-South Corridor from Kansas City, Missouri, 
        to Shreveport, Louisiana.
          (2) Avenue of the Saints Corridor from St. Louis, 
        Missouri, to St. Paul, Minnesota.
          (3) East-West Transamerica Corridor.
          (4) Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor from 
        Lafayette, Indiana, to Toledo, Ohio.
          [(5) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, 
        South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina 
        to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, 
        Michigan.]
          (5)(A) I-73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, 
        South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 
        to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, 
        Michigan.
          (B)(i) In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Corridor 
        shall generally follow--
                  ((I) United States Route 220 from the 
                Virginia-North Carolina border to I-581 south 
                of Roanoke;
                  (II) I-581 to I-81 in the vicinity of 
                Roanoke;
                  (III) I-81 to the proposed highway to 
                demonstrate intelligent vehicle-highway systems 
                authorized by item 29 of the table in section 
                1107(b) in the vicinity of Christiansburg to 
                United States Route 460 in the vicinity of 
                Blacksburg; and
                  (IV) United States Route 460 to the West 
                Virginia State line.
          (ii) In the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and 
        Ohio, the Corridor shall generally follow--
                  (I) United States Route 460 from the West 
                Virginia State line to United States Route 52 
                at Bluefield, West Virginia; and
                  (II) United States Route 52 to United States 
                Route 23 at Portsmouth, Ohio.
          (iii) In the State of North Carolina, the Corridor 
        shall generally follow--
                  (I) in the case of I-73--
                          (aa) United States Route 220 from the 
                        Virginia State line to State Route 68 
                        in the vicinity of Greensboro;
                          (bb) State Route 68 to I-40;
                          (cc) I-40 to United States Route 220 
                        in Greensboro;
                          (dd) United States Route 220 to 
                        United States Route 74 near Rockingham;
                          (ee) United States Route 74 to United 
                        States Route 76 near Whiteville;
                          (ff) United States Route 74/76 to 
                        United States Route 17 near Calabash; 
                        and
                          (gg) United States Route 17 to the 
                        South Carolina State line; and
                  (II) in the case of I-74--
                          (aa) I-88 from Bluefield, West 
                        Virginia, to the junction of I-77 and 
                        the United States Route 52 connector in 
                        Surry County, North Carolina;
                          (bb) I-77/United States Route 52 
                        connector to United States Route 52 
                        south of Mount Airy, North Carolina;
                          (cc) United States Route 52 to United 
                        States Route 311 in Winston-Salem, 
                        North Carolina; and
                          (dd) United States Route 311 to 
                        United States Route 220 in the vicinity 
                        of Randleman, North Carolina.
          (iv) Each route segment referred to in clause (i), 
        (ii), or (iii) that is not a part of the Interstate 
        System shall be designated as a route included in the 
        Interstate System, at such time as the Secretary 
        determines that the route segment--
                  (I) meets Interstate System design standards 
                approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) 
                of title 23, United States Code; and
                  (II) meets the criteria for designation 
                pursuant to section 139 of title 23, United 
                States Code, except that the determination 
                shall be made without regard to whether the 
                route segment is a logical addition or 
                connection to the Interstate System
          * * * * * * *
          (22) The Alameda Transportation Corridor along 
        Alameda Street from the entrance to the ports of Los 
        Angeles and Long Beach to Interstate 10, Los Angeles, 
        California.
          (23) The Interstate Route 35 Corridor from Laredo, 
        Texas, through Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to Wichita, 
        Kansas, to Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri, to Des Moines, 
        Iowa, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Duluth, Minnesota.
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 1107. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS.

    (a) In General.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
assistance for highway projects demonstrating innovative 
techniques of highway construction and finance. Each State in 
which 1 of the projects authorized by subsection (b) is located 
shall select and use, in carrying out such project, innovative 
techniques in highway construction or finance. Such techniques 
may include state-of-the-art technology for pavement, safety, 
or other aspects of highway construction; innovative financing 
techniques; or accelerated procedures for construction.
    (b) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized 
to carry out the innovative projects described in this 
subsection. Subject to subsection (c), there is authorized to 
be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to 
carry out each such project the amount listed for each such 
project:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       City/State          Innovative projects      Amount in millions  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cadiz, Ohio.........  Construction of 4-lane                     20.0
                          Limited Access                                
                          Highway from Cadiz,                           
                          OH to Interstate 70                           
                          Interchange at St.                            
                          Clairsville, OH along                         
                          U.S. Rt. 250.                                 
      * * *              * * *                                          
196. [Orlando,] Florida  [Land & right-of-way                       97.5
                          acquisition &                                 
                          guideway construction                         
                          for magnetic                                  
                          limitation project] 1                         
                          or more regionally                            
                          significant,                                  
                          intercity ground                              
                          transportation                                
                          projects.                                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 1108. PRIORITY INTERMODAL PROJECTS.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       City/State          Intermodal projects      Amount in millions  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Long Beach,           Interchange at                             11.8
 California.              Terminal Island                               
                          Freeway and Ocean                             
                          Boulevard.                                    
      * * *              * * *                                          
31. Los Angeles,         [To improve ground                         8.95
 California.              access from Sepulveda                         
                          Blvd. to Los Angeles,                         
                          California] For the                           
                          Los Angeles                                   
                          International Airport                         
                          central terminal ramp                         
                          access project,                               
                          $3,500,000; for the                           
                          widening of Aviation                          
                          Boulevard south of                            
                          Imperial Highway,                             
                          $3,500,000; for the                           
                          widening of Aviation                          
                          Boulevard north of                            
                          Imperial Highway,                             
                          $1,000,000; and for                           
                          transportation                                
                          systems management                            
                          improvements in the                           
                          vicinity of the                               
                          Sepulveda Boulevard/                          
                          Los Angeles                                   
                          International Airport                         
                          tunnel, $950,000.                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          * * * * * * *
             PART B--NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUND ACT

SEC. 1301. SHORT TITLE.

    This part may be cited as the ``Symms National Recreational 
Trails Act of 1991''.

SEC. 1302. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUNDING PROGRAM.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    [(c) State Eligibility.--
          (1) Transitional provision.--Until the date that is 3 
        years after the date of enactment of this part, a State 
        shall be eligible to receive moneys under this Act only 
        if such State's application proposes to use the moneys 
        as provided in subsection (e).
          (2) Permanent provision.--On and after the date that 
        is three years after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, a State shall be eligible to receive moneys under 
        this part only if--
                  (A) a recreational trail advisory board on 
                which both motorized and nonmotorized 
                recreational trail users are represented exists 
                within the State;
                  (B) in the case of a State that imposes a tax 
                on non-highway recreational fuel, the State by 
                law reserves a reasonable estimation of the 
                revenues from that tax for use in providing and 
                maintaining recreational trails;
                  (C) the Governor of the State has designated 
                the State official or officials who will be 
                responsible for administering moneys received 
                under this Act; and
                  (D) the State's application proposes to use 
                moneys received under this part as provided in 
                subsection (e).]
    (c) State Eligibility.--A State shall be eligible to 
receive moneys under this part if--
          (1) the Governor of the State has designated the 
        State agency responsible for administering allocations 
        under this section;
          (2) the State proposes to obligate and ultimately 
        obligates any allocations received in accordance with 
        subsection (e); and
          (3) a recreational trail advisory board on which both 
        motorized and nonmotorized recreational trail users are 
        represented exists in the State.
    (d) Allocation of Moneys in the Fund.--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(3) Limitation on obligations.--The provisions of 
        paragraphs (1) and (2) notwithstanding, the total of 
        all obligations for recreational trails under this 
        section shall not exceed--
                (A) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1992;
                (B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1993;
                (C) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1994;
                (D) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
                (E) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1996; and
                (F) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.]
          * * * * * * *
    (e) Use of Allocated Moneys.--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Grants.--
                  (A) In general.--A State may provide moneys 
                received under this part to make grants to 
                private individuals, organizations, city and 
                county governments, and other government 
                entities as approved by the State after 
                considering guidance from the recreational 
                trail advisory board satisfying the 
                requirements of subsection [(c)(2)(A)](c)(3) 
                for uses consistent with this section.
          * * * * * * *
          (5) Diversified trail use.--
                  (A) Requirement.--To the extent practicable 
                and consistent with other requirements of this 
                section, a State shall expend moneys received 
                under this part in a manner that gives 
                preference to project proposals which--
                          (i) provide for the greatest number 
                        of compatible recreational purposes 
                        including, but not limited to, those 
                        described under the definition of 
                        ``recreational trail'' in subsection 
                        [(g)(5)](i)(5); or
                          (ii) provide for innovative 
                        recreational trail corridor sharing to 
                        accommodate motorized and non-motorized 
                        recreational trail use.
                This paragraph shall remain effective until 
                such time as a State has allocated not less 
                than 40 percent of moneys received under this 
                part in the aforementioned manner.
                  (B) Compliance.--The State shall receive 
                guidance for determining compliance with 
                subparagraph (A) from the recreational trail 
                advisory board satisfying the requirements of 
                subsection [(c)(2)(A)](c)(3).
          * * * * * * *
          (8) Return of moneys not expended.--
                  (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
                moneys paid to a State that are not expended or 
                dedicated to a specific project within 4 years 
                after receipt for the purposes stated in this 
                subsection shall be returned to the Fund and 
                shall thereafter be reallocated under the 
                formula stated in subsection (d).
                  (B) If approved by the State recreational 
                trail advisory board satisfying the 
                requirements of subsection [(c)(2)(A)](c)(3), 
                may be exempted from the requirements of 
                paragraph (4) and expended or committed to 
                projects for purposes otherwise stated in this 
                subsection for a period not to extend beyond 4 
                years after receipt, after which any remaining 
                moneys not expended or dedicated shall be 
                returned to the Fund and shall thereafter be 
                reallocated under the formula stated in 
                subsection (d).
          * * * * * * *
    (g) Contract Authority.--Funds authorized to be 
appropriated under this section shall be available for 
obligation in the manner as if the funds were apportioned under 
title 23, United States Code, except that the Federal share of 
any project under this section shall be determined in 
accordance with this section and shall not be subject to any 
limitation on obligation applicable generally to the Federal-
aid highway program.
    (h) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
project under this section shall be 50 percent.
    [(g)] (i) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
          [(1) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' 
        means a State that meets the requirements stated in 
        subsection (c).]
          (1) Eligible state._ The term ``eligible State'' 
        means a State (as defined in section 101 of title 23, 
        United States Code) that meets the requirements of 
        subsection (c).

SEC. 6054. STRATEGIC PLAN, IMPLEMENTATIONS, AND REPORT TO CONGRESS.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (e) Collaborative Research and Development.--In carrying 
out this part, the Secretary may carry out collaborative 
research and development in accordance with section 307(a)(2) 
of title 23, United States Code.
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 6058. FUNDING.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Obligation of Funds.--
          (1) In general.--Funds made available pursuant to 
        subsections (a) and (b) after the date of enactment of 
        this subsection, and other funds made available after 
        that date to carry out specific intelligent vehicle-
        highway systems projects, shall be obligated not later 
        than the last day of the fiscal year following the 
        fiscal year with respect to which the funds are made 
        available.
          (2) Reallocation of funds.--If funds described in 
        paragraph (1) are not obligated by the date described 
        in the paragraph, the Secretary may make the funds 
        available to carry out any other activity with respect 
        to which funds may be made available under subsection 
        (a) or (b).
          * * * * * * *