Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-648
_______________________________________________________________________


 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  1999

                                _______
                                

 July 24, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4328]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999.


                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number
                                                            Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action......................
                                                                      2
Program, project, and activity.............................
                                                                      5
Title I--Department of Transportation:
        Office of the Secretary............................     2
                                                                      5
        Coast Guard........................................     6
                                                                     19
        Federal Aviation Administration....................    11
                                                                     43
        Federal Highway Administration.....................    17
                                                                     80
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.....    19
                                                                    101
        Federal Railroad Administration....................    22
                                                                    111
        Federal Transit Administration.....................    26
                                                                    122
        Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation......    35
                                                                    168
        Research and Special Programs Administration.......    36
                                                                    169
        Office of Inspector General........................    38
                                                                    174
        Surface Transportation Board.......................    38
                                                                    174
Title II--Related Agencies:
        Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
            Compliance Board...............................    39
                                                                    176
        National Transportation Safety Board...............    39
                                                                    176
Title III--General Provisions..............................    40
                                                                    178
House Report Requirements:
        Appropriations not authorized by law...............
                                                                    189
        Changes in existing law............................
                                                                    184
        Comparison with budget resolution..................
                                                                    189
        Constitutional authority...........................
                                                                    180
        Financial assistance to state and local governments
                                                                    190
        Five-year projections of outlays...................
                                                                    190
        Ramseyer...........................................
                                                                    181
        Rescissions........................................
                                                                    180
        Transfers of funds.................................
                                                                    181
Tabular summary of the bill................................
                                                                    192

             Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill

    The accompanying bill would provide $13,735,899,900 in new 
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies, an increase 
of $276,728,900 above the $13,459,171,000 requested in the 
budget. In total, the bill includes obligational authority (new 
budget authority, guaranteed obligations contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), 
limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations) of 
$46,891,913,900. This is $4,767,529,134 more than the 
comparable fiscal year 1998 enacted levels and $3,878,791,043 
more than the budget request.
    Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill 
are:
          (1) An appropriation of $7,677,558,000 for the 
        Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of 
        $275,964,000 above the fiscal year 1998 level;
          (2) A provision providing for $1,800,000,000 for 
        grants-in-aid for airports, an increase of $100,000,000 
        over the fiscal year 1998 level and the budget request;
          (3) An appropriation of $2,700,000,000 for operating 
        expenses of the Coast Guard, including $406,000,000 for 
        counter-drug activities (an increase of $40,000,000 or 
        11 percent) above the fiscal year 1998 level;
          (4) An appropriation of $609,230,000 for grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), 
        to cover capital expenses;
          (5) An appropriation of $50,000,000 to complete the 
        construction of the 103-mile Washington, D.C. metrorail 
        system;
          (6) A total of $73,230,900 for the office of the 
        secretary, $4,993,100 below fiscal year 1998 and 
        $5,175,100 below the budget request;
          (7) Highway program obligation limitations of 
        $25,511,000,000, consistent with provisions of TEA21, 
        and $4,011,000,000 over fiscal year 1998; and
          (8) Transit program obligation limitations of 
        $5,365,000,000 consistent with provisions of TEA21, and 
        $521,262,000 over fiscal year 1998.

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

    Over the objections of the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations and the House and Senate Budget Committees, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) amended 
the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two new additional 
spending categories or ``firewalls'', the highway category and 
the mass transit category. The highway category is comprised of 
all funding for federal-aid highways, motor carrier safety 
programs, highway safety grants, and highway safety research 
and development programs. The highway category obligations are 
capped at $25,883,000,000 and outlays are capped at 
$21,885,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. If appropriations action 
forces highway obligations or outlays to exceed these levels, 
the difference is charged against the non-defense discretionary 
spending category. Likewise, the transit category is comprised 
of funding for transit formula grants, transit capital 
projects, Federal Transit Administration administrative 
expenses, transit planning and research programs, and 
university transportation research. The mass transit category 
obligations are capped at $5,365,000,000 and outlays are capped 
at $4,401,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. Any additional 
appropriated funding above the levels specified as guaranteed 
for each transit program in TEA21 (that which could be 
appropriated from general funds authorized under section 
5338(h) of TEA21) is charged to the non-defense discretionary 
category.
    These ``firewalls'' make it virtually impossible for the 
Appropriations Committee to make downward adjustments to those 
funding levels in the annual appropriations process over the 
next five years. This Committee argued that providing large 
increases for those programs, and guaranteeing those amounts 
through firewall mechanisms and points of order in the House, 
essentially created mandatory appropriations within the 
discretionary caps, which would undermine Congressional 
flexibility to fund other equally important programs. As a 
result, of the $46,891,913,900 of budgetary resources provided 
in this bill, nearly 70 percent, is not controlled by annual 
appropriations Acts but is predetermined by TEA21. The 
remaining $14,800,000,000 includes appropriations and budgetary 
resources principally for the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation (Amtrak), the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the offices of the secretary, the 
Research and Special Programs Administration, and a number of 
smaller independent agencies. These appropriations are 
currently controlled by annual appropriations action.
    The Committee has worked hard in this new environment to 
produce a balanced bill, which provides adequately for all 
modes of transportation. The transportation subcommittee has 
been allocated a 7.4 percent increase ($2.8 billion) in outlays 
for the coming fiscal year, while the non-defense discretionary 
budget as a whole is at a hard freeze. Clearly, this increase 
will cause non-transportation programs all across the 
government to be under more severe budget pressures, in order 
to keep the overall budget in balance. However, the effect of 
the firewalls also leaves its mark on those transportation 
programs and activities not covered within the surface 
transportation guarantees--most notably the Coast Guard and the 
Federal Aviation Administration. Since the highway and transit 
guarantees consume the full 7.4 percent increase provided to 
the Subcommittee, other agencies in the bill must compete for 
leftover funding, which is essentially at a hard freeze. The 
FAA and the Coast Guard together requested an increase of 
almost $600,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 outlays. Although 
reasonable, this level of funding is simply not possible 
because of the firewalls, resulting in a Committee bill 
approximately $250,000,000 below the request for these safety-
related agencies. Since the Subcommittee is required to 
allocate all of its increased resources to firewalled programs, 
these other agencies will continue to feel the budgetary 
pressures.
    The Committee has done the best it can considering the new 
firewalls. However, the Committee is concerned that this new 
legislation skews transportation priorities inappropriately, by 
providing a banquet of increases to highway and transit 
spending while leaving safety-related agencies such as the 
Coast Guard and FAA to scramble for the remaining crumbs. In 
addition, high priority policy initiatives such as increased 
funding for drug interdiction could not be fully funded without 
offsetting cuts in Coast Guard spending because of the 
firewalls. The Committee continues to believe that safety 
should remain the Federal Government's highest responsibility 
in the transportation area. Were it not for the firewalls, a 
portion of the generous 7.4 percent increase could have been 
allocated to improvements in aviation or maritime safety, and 
more could have been done to fight the menace of illegal drug 
trafficking, while still providing significant increases in 
highway and transit programs. The Committee has also been 
unable to consider increases above the guaranteed levels for 
highways and transit programs, because it would have required 
even further reductions in critical FAA and Coast Guard 
programs.

                            Tabular Summary

    A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 
1998 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 
1999 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end 
of this report.

                           Committee Hearings

    The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the 
programs and projects provided for in the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 
fiscal year 1999. These hearings are contained in seven 
published volumes totaling approximately 9,000 pages. The 
Committee received testimony from officials of the executive 
branch, Members of Congress, officials of the General 
Accounting Office, officials of state and local governments, 
and private citizens.
    The bill recommendations for fiscal year 1999 have been 
developed after careful consideration of all the information 
available to the Committee.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 1999, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions 
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or 
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory 
statements of the committee of conference. This definition 
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) 
authority is provided, as well as to capital investment grants, 
Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage 
reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds 
appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and 
improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each 
``budget item'' that is listed under said accounts in the 
budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent 
appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, 
conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the 
committee of conference.

                            Safety Programs

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

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................       $61,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        61,930,000
Recommended in the bill \2\...........................      (57,979,900)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        -3,020,100
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................       -3,950,100 
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $343,000 for TASC.                           
\2\ Total amount appropriated in separate accounts.                     

    The bill provides a total program level of $57,979,900 for 
the salaries and expenses of the various offices comprising the 
Office of the Secretary. This year, however, the Committee has 
not approved the consolidated appropriations request for the 
various offices within the office of the secretary. Specific 
program recommendations are discussed in this report under the 
individual appropriations accounts.
    Congressional justifications.--The Committee was displeased 
with the untimely submission of the department's fiscal year 
1999 congressional justifications. While other executive 
departments are able to submit their congressional 
justifications concurrent with the official submission of the 
President's budget to Congress, the department has not been 
able to do the same. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
department to submit all of the department's fiscal year 
congressional justifications on the first Monday in February, 
concurrent with the official submission of the President's 
budget to Congress.
    Moreover, the department is directed to submit its fiscal 
year 2000 congressional justification materials for the 
salaries and expenses of the office of the secretary at the 
same level of detail provided in the congressional 
justifications presented in fiscal year 1994.
    Staffing levels.--The offices comprising the offices of the 
secretary are directed not to fill any positions in fiscal year 
1998 that are currently vacant, particularly if such vacancies 
are proposed in this Act for elimination in fiscal year 1999 
and not to fill those positions in 1998 unless the statement of 
managers accompanying the conference report for this bill 
specifically references the individual positions being 
restored.
    The Committee has endeavored to eliminate various positions 
that the department had indicated were vacant at the time the 
Committee was finalizing its recommendations. It is the intent 
of the Committee to avoid any reductions in force and the 
Committee intends to work with the department as the final 
conference report is developed to avoid serious personnel 
disruptions.
    Travel.--The Committee directs that travel funds 
appropriated for offices of the secretary shall not be 
supplemented with funds from other elements of the department 
excluding those related to the use of military aircraft.

                           General Provisions

    Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The 
Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), 
similar to provisions in past Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which limits the number 
of political and Presidential appointees within the Department 
of Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 1999 is 88 
personnel, which is 19 below the ceiling enacted in fiscal year 
1998 and the same level as on board at the end of fiscal year 
1997. The Committee notes that the department had only 77 
political and presidential appointees on board this spring, and 
at no time since 1991 have such positions exceeded 100. The 
bill specifies that no political or presidential appointee may 
be detailed outside the Department of Transportation.
    Advisory committees.--The Committee has continued bill 
language that was included in past Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts which limit the funds 
used for advisory committees of the Department of 
Transportation. The budget requested that the limitation be 
deleted.

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($1,916,300)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (1,988,800)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,623,800
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -292,500
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................         -365,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary 
responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 
control of departmental affairs. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $1,623,800 for expenses of the Immediate 
Office of the Secretary, which represents a reduction of 
$292,500 from comparable levels provided for fiscal year 1998, 
and $365,000 below the budget request. The recommendation 
assumes the following staffing and other reductions:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Eliminate 1 staff assistant...........................         -$100,000
Eliminate 1 deputy chief of staff.....................          -150,000
Disallow printing costs related to Garrett A. Morgan                    
 technology and transportation futures program........           -15,000
Reduction in travel costs.............................          -100,000
                                                                        

    Eliminate various staff positions.--The Committee 
recommendation assumes the elimination of one staff assistant 
position and one deputy chief of staff. The Committee believes 
that these positions can be eliminated without affecting the 
core responsibilities, duties and functions of the department 
or the office of the secretary. In light of other downsizing 
and staff reductions planned by the department and recommended 
by the Committee, the office of the secretary should set the 
example for the department.
    Disallow printing costs related to Garrett A. Morgan 
technology and transportation futures program.--The Committee 
has not provided $15,000 requested to print documents related 
to the Garrett A. Morgan program, a program that seeks to 
encourage minority students to pursue transportation careers. 
Funds for this activity are included within the $200,000 
provided to RSPA for the Garrett A. Morgan program in fiscal 
year 1999.
    Reduction in travel costs.--The Committee recommends that 
travel expenses of the immediate office of the secretary be 
reduced by $100,000. Travel expenses of this office have 
increased by almost 70 percent in one year, far in excess of 
the rate of inflation. Increases in travel of this magnitude 
are not justified. The Committee recommendation will provide a 
total of $160,000 for travel in fiscal year 1999, the same 
level as approved by the Congress in fiscal year 1998. In light 
of other downsizing and staff reductions planned by the 
department and recommended by the Committee, the office of the 
secretary should set an example of economy for the department.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................        ($554,700)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................         (595,900)
Recommended in the bill...............................           585,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................           +30,300
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................          -10,900 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the 
primary responsibility to assist the Secretary in the overall 
planning, direction and control of departmental affairs. The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $585,000 for expenses 
of the office of the deputy secretary, which represents an 
increase of $30,300 from comparable levels provided for fiscal 
year 1998, and $10,900 below the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes a staffing level of 7 full time 
equivalent positions and the following reduction:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Reduction in travel costs.............................          -$10,900
                                                                        

    Reduction in travel costs.--The Committee recommends that 
travel expenses of the immediate office of the deputy secretary 
be reduced by $10,900. Travel expenses of this office have 
increased by over 130 percent since 1995 and almost 63 percent 
since 1996, far in excess of the rate of inflation. This 
reduction will provide a total of $15,100 for travel in fiscal 
year 1999, the same level as provided in fiscal year 1996. In 
light of other downsizing and staff reductions planned by the 
department and recommended by the Committee, the immediate 
offices of the secretary and deputy secretary should set the 
example of economy for the department.

                     Office of the General Counsel

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($8,745,800)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (9,195,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................         8,895,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          +149,200
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................         -300,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services 
to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the 
legal work of the chief counsels' offices of the operating 
administrations.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,895,000 for 
expenses of the office of general counsel, which represents an 
increase of $149,200 from comparable levels provided for fiscal 
year 1998, and $300,000 below the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes the elimination of 3 attorney advisors 
(-$300,000).

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($2,795,500)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (2,767,200)
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,667,200
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -128,300
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................         -100,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Assistant Secretary for Policy is the chief domestic 
policy officer of the department and is responsible to the 
Secretary for analysis, development, communication and review 
of policies and plans for domestic transportation issues.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,667,200 for 
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for policy, 
which represents a reduction of $128,300 from comparable levels 
provided for fiscal year 1998, and $100,000 below the level 
requested in the budget. The recommendation assumes the 
elimination of 2 policy analysts (-$100,000).

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($7,554,300)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (7,427,200)
Recommended in the bill...............................         7,002,200
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -552,100
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................         -425,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs is responsible for administering economic regulatory 
functions regarding the airline industry and provides 
departmental leadership and coordination on international 
transportation policy issues relating to maritime, trade, 
technical assistance and cooperative programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,002,200 for 
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for aviation 
and international affairs, which represents a reduction of 
$552,100 from comparable levels provided for fiscal year 1998, 
and $425,000 below the level requested in the budget. The 
recommendation assumes the following staffing reductions:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Eliminate 4 transportation industry analysts..........         -$300,000
Eliminate 1 special assistant.........................          -125,000
                                                                        

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($6,119,800)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (6,464,300)
Recommended in the bill...............................         6,069,300
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................           -50,500
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................         -395,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is 
responsible for developing, reviewing and presenting budget 
resource requirements for the department to the Secretary, 
Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,069,300 for 
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for budget 
and programs, which represents a decrease of $50,500 from 
comparable levels provided for fiscal year 1998, and $395,000 
below the budget request. The recommendation assumes the 
following reductions:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Disallow increase in reception and representation                       
 costs................................................          -$20,000
Eliminate 1 staff accountant and 1 program analyst....          -175,000
General reduction due to budget constraints...........          -200,000
                                                                        

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

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($1,873,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (1,940,600)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,672,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -201,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................         -268,600 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental 
Affairs is responsible for coordinating all Congressional, 
intergovernmental, and consumer activities of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,672,000 for 
this office, which represents a decrease of $201,000 from the 
comparable 1998 level and a decrease of $268,600 from the 
budget request. The recommendation assumes a staffing level of 
22 full time equivalent positions, one fewer than provided in 
fiscal year 1998 and requested in the budget. The 
recommendation assumes the following reductions:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Eliminate deputy assistant secretary for governmental                   
 affairs..............................................         -$150,000
General reduction due to budget constraints...........          -100,000
Travel reductions.....................................           -18,600
                                                                        

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................     ($20,137,200)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................      (20,213,100)
Recommended in the bill...............................        19,147,100
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -990,100
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................       -1,066,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account  
  and includes reduction of $343,000 for TASC and carryover of $505,900.
                                                                        
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is 
responsible for coordinating, overseeing and conducting various 
accounting, procurement, personnel management, and ADP 
operations of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,147,100 
for expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for 
administration, which represents a reduction of $990,100 from 
comparable levels provided for fiscal year 1998, and $1,066,000 
below the budget request. The recommendation assumes the 
following reductions:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Disallow increase in travel expenses..................          -$16,000
Eliminate 3 positions (1 budget analyst, 1 program                      
 analyst, 1 procurement analyst)......................          -300,000
Eliminate 10 procurement analysts from the office of                    
 acquisition..........................................          -750,000
                                                                        

    Eliminate 3 positions.--The Committee recommendation 
eliminates three positions within the office of administration: 
1 budget analyst, 1 program analyst, and 1 procurement analyst. 
These positions are currently vacant and there does not appear 
to be any plan to fill them.
    Eliminate 10 procurement analysts from the office of 
acquisition.--The Committee recommendation reduces by 10 the 
number of procurement analysts in the office of acquisition and 
grants management. While the Committee once supported the 
department's intended aggressive initiative to improve 
acquisition oversight at the departmental level, the Committee 
now questions the value added by limited, informal secretarial 
reviews. Over the past years, the FAA, which is responsible for 
the majority of the department's major initiatives, has been 
provided new acquisition authorities, including greater 
flexibility and latitude in its procurement program, and as a 
result, the administrative offices of the secretary have 
little, if any, oversight role.

                        Office of Public Affairs

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($1,746,600)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (1,752,600)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,377,600
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -369,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................         -375,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Office of Public Affairs is responsible for news 
releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, 
publications, and audio-visual materials of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,377,600 for 
expenses of the office of public affairs, which represents a 
reduction of $369,000 from comparable levels provided for 
fiscal year 1998, and $375,000 below the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes the following reductions:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Eliminate public affairs associate director of                          
 speechwriting and research...........................         -$125,000
Eliminate 2 public affairs specialists................          -100,000
Eliminate special assistant to the associate director.          -125,000
                                                                        

    Eliminate various positions.--The Committee recommends 
elimination of four positions within the office of public 
affairs. In light of budget constraints and other government 
downsizing, public affairs operations not critical to the 
department can be reduced without significantly affecting the 
core responsibilities of the office of the secretary.

                         Executive Secretariat

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($1,088,500)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (1,046,900)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,046,900
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................           -41,600
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary in carrying out their management functions and 
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and 
external written materials.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,046,900 for 
expenses of the office of the executive secretariat, which 
represents a reduction of $41,600 from comparable levels 
provided for fiscal year 1998, and the same level as the budget 
request. The recommendation assumes a staffing level of 15 full 
time equivalent (FTE) positions, the same level as the budget 
request and a reduction of one FTE from fiscal year 1998.

                       Board of Contract Appeals

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................        ($480,700)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................         (675,500)
Recommended in the bill...............................           675,500
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          +194,800
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Board of Contract Appeals provides an independent forum 
for considering all contract-related claims by or against a 
contractor involving any element of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $675,500 for 
expenses of the board of contract appeals, which represents an 
increase of $194,800 from comparable levels provided for fiscal 
year 1998, and the same level as the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes a staffing level of 6 full time 
equivalent positions, the same level as in fiscal year 1998 and 
requested in the budget.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($1,053,600)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................         (909,200)
Recommended in the bill...............................           839,200
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -214,400
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................          -70,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
is responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business 
participation in the department's procurement and grants 
programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $839,200 
for expenses of the office of small and disadvantaged business 
utilization, which represents a reduction of $214,400 from 
comparable levels provided for fiscal year 1998, and $70,000 
below the budget request. The recommendation assumes the 
elimination of one financial analyst.
    Small business procurements.--The Committee encourages the 
department to increase small business procurement opportunities 
arising from projects that involve federal funding. Outreach 
and assistance to minority, women-owned and disadvantaged 
businesses should be promoted to increase participation in the 
department's procurements. The Committee recommends that a 
focused effort be made to increase the opportunity and 
participation of small businesses in DOT-related procurements.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($1,025,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (1,036,100)
Recommended in the bill...............................           961,100
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................           -63,900
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................          -75,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Office of Intelligence and Security was created during 
fiscal year 1990 to address transportation intelligence and 
security issues. The primary purposes of the office are to 
provide intelligence and security oversight of the operating 
administrations to increase the safety and security of the 
traveling public, and to provide the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary with current intelligence and security information, 
with special emphasis on potential or actual terrorist threats 
to transportation interests.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $961,100 for 
expenses of the office of intelligence and security, which 
represents a decrease of $63,900 from comparable levels 
provided for fiscal year 1998, and $75,000 below the level in 
the budget request. The recommendation assumes elimination of 
one transportation security specialist.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($4,777,700)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (4,874,600)
Recommended in the bill...............................         4,400,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -377,700
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................         -474,600 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer serves as the 
principal advisor to the Secretary on matters involving 
information resources and information systems management, 
including responsibility over the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Year 2000 compliance efforts.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,400,000 for 
expenses of the office of the chief information officer, which 
represents a reduction of $377,700 from comparable levels 
provided for fiscal year 1998, and $474,600 below the budget 
request. The recommendation assumes a staffing level of 14 full 
time equivalent positions, the same level as provided in fiscal 
year 1998 and requested in the budget. The recommendation 
includes $200,000 for tracking, renovation and validation of 
the department's Year 2000 efforts and reductions in other 
services due to outlay constraints (-$474,600).

                        Office of Intermodalism

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      ($1,294,200)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................       (1,041,900)
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,018,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -276,200
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................          -23,900 
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriated within the consolidated salaries and expenses account. 
\2\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.        

    Congress mandated that an office of intermodalism be 
established within the office of the secretary in Title V of 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. 
As an organization within the office of the secretary, the 
office works on intermodal initiatives involving multiple 
operating administrations, and on special projects assigned to, 
or by, the associate deputy secretary. Within the department, 
the office works with operating administrations through a 
partnership approach to problem solving. This approach ensures 
project outcomes that are shaped by the policies, programs, and 
regulatory interpretations of the operating administrations and 
the office of the secretary.
    The Committee has provided $1,018,000 for the office of 
intermodalism, which represents a reduction of $276,200 from 
comparable levels provided for fiscal year 1998 and $23,900 
below the budget request. The recommendation assumes a 
reduction of $23,900 in travel expenses, which holds travel to 
the levels approved in fiscal year 1998. The Committee notes 
that an excessive amount of travel to attend overseas forums 
has occurred over the past year, despite numerous vacancies 
within the office.

                         Office of Civil Rights

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................        $5,574,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................         6,966,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         6,966,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        +1,392,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $12,000 for TASC.                            

    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and 
ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity 
precepts in all of the Department's official actions and 
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and 
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated 
and federally assisted transportation programs. This office 
also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of 
Transportation employees.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,966,000 for 
expenses of the office of civil rights, which represents an 
increase of $1,392,000 from fiscal year 1998 enacted levels and 
the same level as the budget request.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................        $4,400,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................         4,710,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,035,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        -1,365,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................       -1,675,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $8,000 for TASC.                             

    This appropriation finances those research activities and 
studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information 
development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities 
in the formulation of national transportation policies. The 
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with 
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit 
research organizations, and private firms.
    The Committee recommends $3,035,000 for this appropriation, 
which represents a decrease of $1,675,000 below the request and 
$1,365,000 from the 1998 enacted level. Within the total 
provided, the recommended level holds transportation planning 
and studies to $700,000; provides the budget request of 
$1,935,000 for salaries and administrative expenses; and holds 
transportation system planning to $400,000. These levels will 
permit annualization and other pay-related costs for 15 FTE and 
will fully fund all ongoing activities, and will provide 
nominal increases for proposed studies and evaluations, albeit 
below the budget estimate.
    The recommended level also provides $400,000 for the 
department's transportation system planning activities, which 
represents a decrease of $462,000 from the 1998 enacted level 
and $770,000 below the budget request. The recommended level 
defers funding for continued development of the electronic 
grants system, automated coordination, and the FOIA response 
system. A requirements analysis study for the FOIA response 
system, including costs and benefits, has yet to be completed, 
and therefore the need for such a system has not been 
quantified.
    None of the funds provided under this appropriation shall 
be for activities related to sustainable transportation.
    Within the amounts provided for transportation planning, 
research and development, the Committee has included sufficient 
resources to fund a collaboration of industry, education, and 
government entities to develop a skilled workforce for the 
transportation industry, provided that total federal support 
for this activity not exceed $1,000,000 in total.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................    ($121,800,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................     (175,715,000)
Recommended in the bill \3\...........................     (109,124,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................     (-12,676,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................    (-66,591,000) 
                                                                        
\1\ In fiscal year 1998, the limitation on transportation administrative
  service center expenses was reduced by $3,000,000.                    
\2\ Proposed without limitation. Amount reflected is the estimated      
  program level for FY 1999.                                            
\3\ In fiscal year 1999, the limitation on transportation administrative
  service center expenses is also addressed in a general provision (-   
  $20,000,000).                                                         

    The transportation administrative service center was 
created in fiscal year 1997 to provide common administrative 
services to the various modes and outside entities that desire 
those services for economy and efficiency. The fund is financed 
through negotiated agreements with the department's operating 
administrations and other governmental elements requiring the 
center's capabilities.
    The Committee agreed to create the transportation 
administrative service center in fiscal year 1997 at the 
department's request. In agreeing to that request, the 
Committee limited (1) the activities that can be transferred to 
the transportation administrative service center to only those 
approved by the agency administrator and (2) special 
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those 
assessments or reimbursable agreements and the basis for them 
are presented to and approved by the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are continued 
in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $109,124,000, a 
decrease of $12,676,000 from the enacted level and $66,591,000 
below the request. The recommended reductions from the budget 
request reflect the following adjustments:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Eliminate the transportation computer center..........      -$15,000,000
Disallow proposed transfer of the National Oceanic and                  
 Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical                    
 Charting and Cartography to the TASC.................       -51,591,000
                                                                        

    Transportation computer center.--The conference agreement 
accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act directed the 
department's Inspector General to evaluate TASC's utility and 
cost effectiveness both to the individual operating 
administrations and the department in general and determine 
whether TASC is providing quality services that are responsive 
to customer needs at competitive prices. The IG's audit 
concluded that TASC generally provides services of utility to 
its users; however, the audit also disclosed that several 
services raised substantive cost effectiveness issues.
    Specifically, the IG determined that the Computer Center is 
currently capable of operating at only two-thirds of the level 
that OMB considers cost effective. The IG report concluded that 
this lack of cost effectiveness correlates closely with 
customer survey results indicating that 75 percent of the 
Computer Center's users expressed dissatisfaction with the cost 
competitiveness of the computer center.
    The IG also obtained an evaluation report of the computer 
center prepared by a DOT consultant. Based upon that report and 
its own audit, the IG concluded that computer center does not 
have the customer base to operate in a cost effective manner 
and noted that ``the justification for continued operation of 
the computer center is in doubt.''
    The Committee's recommendation eliminates the 
transportation computer center within the transportation 
administrative service center and permits the operating 
administrations to procure similar services from other 
governmental or private providers.
     Disallow proposed transfer of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting 
and Cartography to the TASC.--The budget proposed that the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of 
Aeronautical Charting and Cartography (AC&C;) be transferred 
from the Department of Commerce and placed within the TASC. 
While the department believes that the AC&C; product offerings 
are closely aligned with the services provided by TASC, the 
Committee asserts that the aeronautical charting services 
ultimately support aviation safety missions within the FAA, and 
it is more logical that these services be performed within the 
FAA. The Committee recommendation includes funding for this 
activity within the FAA's appropriation for fiscal year 1999. 
Accordingly, the TASC obligation limitation has been reduced by 
$51,591,000 and staff reduced by 379 FTE.
    General provision.--The Committee has included a general 
provision which provides that amounts budgeted for the 
transportation administrative service center in this bill are 
reduced, on a pro-rata basis, to a limitation of $89,124,000. 
The Committee believes that this reduction is justified given 
the significant personnel reductions that have occurred within 
the department over the past several years. For example, the 
department projects that if staffing adjustments continue at 
current rates through the end of fiscal year 1998, the 1998 
civilian full time equivalent (FTE) employment will be about 
1,620, or two percent, below the levels provided for in the 
fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act. As such, common administrative 
expenses like copying, supplies, computer services, motor pool, 
parking and transit benefits, and telecommunications services 
should be declining and can be accommodated within the levels 
provided in this Act.
    The Committee is concerned, however, that previous 
reductions in obligation authority have not been reflected in 
reduced billings to the modal administrations. As such, over 
the past several years, TASC charges have not been reduced to 
correspond to Congressional reductions and each year the modal 
administrations have had to absorb sizable shortfalls in TASC 
funding. The Committee directs the administrator of the TASC to 
develop a mechanism to ensure that the budget approved for the 
TASC in this Act corresponds to the appropriations provided to 
the modes in this Act. In allocating the reductions recommended 
in this Act for the TASC, the administrator of the TASC shall 
not reduce funding provided to the modes for the transportation 
computer center, as these services are to be acquired from 
other sources in fiscal year 1999.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

    The essential air service program was originally created by 
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to 
continue air service to communities that had received federally 
mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program 
currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small 
communities that meet certain criteria. Subsidies, ranging from 
$5 to $320, currently support air service to 82 communities and 
serve about 700,000 passengers annually. This program was 
established to provide a smooth phaseout of federal subsidies 
to airlines that serve small airports.
    The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user fees for 
services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration to 
aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in the United 
States, commonly known as overflight fees.
    Consistent with this legislation, this program became a 
mandatory program in fiscal year 1998.
    General provision.--Over the years, Congress and the 
department have worked to streamline the essential air service 
program and to increase its efficiency by eliminating 
communities that are within an easy drive of a major hub 
airport or where the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. The 
bill includes a limitation (sec. 331), as requested by the 
administration, that continues the existing eligibility 
standards and will help preserve those efficiencies. 
Specifically, this limitation continues appropriations language 
that limits the number of communities that receive essential 
air service funding by excluding points in the 48 contiguous 
United States that are located fewer than seventy highway miles 
from the nearest large or medium hub airport, or that require a 
subsidy in excess of $200 per passenger, unless such point is 
more than 210 miles from the nearest large or medium airport.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

                                                                        
                                                           Limitation on
                                           Appropriation   direct loans 
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.........      $1,900,000   ($15,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.......       1,900,000    (13,775,000)
Recommended in the bill.................       1,900,000    (13,775,000)
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.....  ..............    (-1,225,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999...  ..............  ..............
                                                                        

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

                       Minority Business Outreach

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................        $2,900,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................         2,900,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,900,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides contractual support to assist 
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in 
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects 
that involve Federal spending. It also provides grants and 
contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and not just OST 
purposes. The Committee has provided $2,900,000, the same level 
as provided in fiscal year 1998 and included in the budget 
request.

                         Amtrak Reform Council

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................        $2,450,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................           450,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        -2,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................          +450,000
                                                                        

    The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-
134) established the Amtrak Reform Council. This Act assigned 
the following tasks to the Council: (1) evaluate Amtrak's 
performance and make recommendations to Amtrak for achieving 
further cost containment, productivity improvements, and 
financial reforms; (2) monitor work-rule savings; and (3) 
develop an action plan for a ``restructured and revitalized 
national intercity passenger rail system'' if the Council 
determines, any time after December 1999, that Amtrak is not 
achieving its financial goals or that it would require an 
operating subsidy after December 2002.
    The Committee has provided $450,000 for the Amtrak Reform 
Council in fiscal year 1999. This funding coupled with $80,000 
provided under the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 
1998 shall be sufficient for the Council to begin its review of 
Amtrak's financial condition. The Committee believes that the 
Council will work closely with the Department of 
Transportation's Inspector General (IG) to fulfill its duties. 
The IG has recently awarded a contract for an independent 
assessment of Amtrak's financial needs through the year 2002. 
This work will be completed in November 1999. Thereafter, the 
IG will be reassessing, on a yearly basis, Amtrak's financial 
needs. Therefore, much of the information the Council will need 
to evaluate Amtrak's financial performance and to make its 
recommendations should be available from the IG.

                              COAST GUARD

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 Program

    The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on 
January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter 
Service and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by 
transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse 
Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and 
Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary 
responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the 
high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding 
navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining 
a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of 
the Navy in time of war.
    Including funds for national security activities and 
retired pay accounts, the Committee recommends a total program 
level of $3,887,000,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in 
fiscal year 1999. This is $29,446,000 less than the fiscal year 
1998 program level--essentially a hard freeze.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1998 program 
levels, the fiscal year 1999 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--                              
                        Program                         --------------------------------------     Committee    
                                                            1998 enacted      1999 estimate       recommended   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses \1\ \2\.............................     $2,715,400,000     $2,771,705,000     $2,700,000,000
Acquisition, construction and improvements \3\.........        388,850,000        442,773,000        389,000,000
Environmental compliance and restoration...............         21,000,000         21,000,000         21,000,000
Alteration of bridges..................................         17,000,000  .................         12,000,000
Retired pay \4\........................................        653,196,000        684,000,000        684,000,000
Reserve training.......................................         67,000,000         67,000,000         69,000,000
Research, development, test and evaluation.............         19,000,000         18,300,000         12,000,000
Boat safety \5\........................................         35,000,000  .................  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      3,916,446,000      4,004,778,000     3,887,000,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1998 amount includes $300,000,000 specifically for defense-related activities and scored against
  budget function 050 (defense); fiscal year 1999 estimated amount includes $309,000,000 (and the recommendation
  includes $300,000,000) specifically for national security activities of the Coast Guard and scored against    
  budget function 050 (defense).                                                                                
\2\ Fiscal year 1998 total includes $1,600,000 in supplemental appropriations from Public Law 105-18 related to 
  TWA 800 disaster recovery expenses and excludes reductions of $529,000 for TASC.                              
\3\ Fiscal year 1999 estimated amount includes $35,000,000 in new user fees.                                    
\4\ Fiscal year 1998 total includes $9,200,000 provided in supplemental appropriations from Public Law 105-18.  
\5\ Fiscal year 1999 estimate includes $35,000,000 proposed in mandatory spending.                              

                        Counter-Drug Initiative

    The Committee believes that a much more aggressive effort 
is needed to fight the war on drugs, and that the current 
response of the administration is inadequate. The Coast Guard 
plays a critical role in defending the nation against the 
threat of illegal drugs, by patrolling maritime lanes of supply 
in the air and on the sea, and by interdicting drug smugglers 
in the transit zone. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 
1999 budget request would provide essentially the same level of 
funding as provided in fiscal year 1998--a level which would, 
according to the Coast Guard, result in 14 percent less cocaine 
seized, and 25 percent less cutter hours, than experienced in 
fiscal year 1997. In a Subcommittee hearing this year, the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard described actions taken by the 
service in fiscal year 1997 to intensify their counter-drug 
activities:

          Some of it . . . I took away from fisheries, to 
        demonstrate that we could get a lot of bang for the 
        buck with this investment, and I think our statistics 
        demonstrated that. I think we had a 1,000 percent 
        increase in some of our performance figures, 300 
        percent in others. We have seized more drugs than we 
        ever seized before. I feel we had a dramatic impact on 
        the welfare and safety of the people of Puerto Rico and 
        the Virgin Islands, as an example. I actually honestly 
        believed that this year would be the second year, and I 
        would be funded, and the administration would ask for 
        me to continue those programs, and I wasn't. And so I 
        am disappointed in that . . .

    The Committee wants to see more illegal drugs seized, not 
less, and is willing to rearrange service priorities to make it 
happen. Therefore, the bill provides an increase, above the 
budget request, of $73,800,000 for Coast Guard counter-drug 
activities. This raises operations funding for counter-drug 
activities to $406,091,000 in fiscal year 1999, an increase of 
$33,800,000 (9.1 percent) above the fiscal year 1998 level. The 
bill also includes an additional $40,000,000 in AC&I; for high-
priority counter-drug acquisitions. These items and activities 
are listed below.
    Operating expense increases.--The increase of $33,800,000 
is intended for the following items and activities:

Increase HH-65 patrol hours...........................        $2,100,000
Increase C-130 patrol hours...........................           830,000
Increase WPB patrol hours.............................         7,478,000
Increase international law enforcement training.......         1,100,000
PC-170 O&M............................................;         2,885,000
Reactivate 2 T-AGOS vessels...........................         6,166,000
Maintain 7 WPBs in fleet..............................         4,508,000
Drug detection sensors................................         1,000,000
Activate 3 HU-25 falcon jets..........................         4,607,000
Increase intelligence collection support..............           948,000
Caribbean support tender..............................         2,178,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................        33,800,000
                                                                        

    Acquisition, construction, and improvements (AC&I;) 
increases.--The increase of $40,000,000 is intended for the 
following items and activities:

Reactivate 2 T-AGOS vessels...........................        $9,900,000
HU-25 jet engine overhaul.............................         9,100,000
Sensors, cutter or jet................................         9,000,000
Low signature aircraft................................         2,000,000
Barracuda coastal patrol boats........................        10,000,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................        40,000,000
                                                                        

    Given the tight discretionary caps this year, the Committee 
is unable to provide resources above the overall Coast Guard 
budget request without unacceptably harming the programs of 
other DOT agencies. Furthermore, the Committee believes these 
resources can be accommodated through a reprioritization of 
existing missions and programs, much as they were in fiscal 
year 1997. Therefore, the counter-drug operating activities are 
offset by reductions in two areas: fisheries enforcement 
(-$13.8 million) and polar icebreaking (-$20 million). Several 
lower-priority capital programs have been likewise reduced to 
accommodate the stronger focus on counter-drug activities. This 
reflects the Committee's view that counter-drug operations 
should receive a higher priority relative to other mission 
areas.
    The Commandant testified this year ``in my personal 
opinion, drug law enforcement has a higher national security 
priority than fisheries enforcement''. Therefore, it seems 
inconsistent that the administration's request would allocate 
17 percent of the Coast Guard operating budget to fisheries 
enforcement and 13 percent to drug interdiction. In total, the 
budget requests $115,775,000 more for fisheries law enforcement 
than for drug interdiction. The Committee recommendation 
redirects 4 percent of the fisheries budget, and reduces polar 
icebreaking significantly, to fund increased counter-drug 
activities. In fiscal year 1997, the Coast Guard was only 
reimbursed 12 percent of their costs for the polar icebreaking 
program, even though the program provides benefits largely to 
non-DOT agencies and research institutions. In fiscal year 
1999, the Coast Guard plans to commission a new polar 
icebreaker, which will add $10,500,000 in operating costs--but 
only $4,000,000 is expected to be reimbursed by users. In order 
to finance the increased effort in the war on drugs, the 
Committee recommendation reduces direct Coast Guard funding for 
polar icebreaking from $36,971,000 to $16,971,000, and assumes 
that the service can maintain current service levels to the 
extent that the primary beneficiaries of the program agree to 
pay those costs on a reimbursable basis.

                           Operating Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................    $2,715,400,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................     2,771,705,000
Recommended in the bill \1\...........................     2,700,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................       -15,400,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................      -71,705,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 in funds for national security activities     
  included in this bill and excludes reductions of $529,000 for TASC.   
\2\ Includes $309,000,000 in funds for national security activities     
  included in this bill.                                                

    Including $300,000,000 for national security activities, 
the Committee recommends a total of $2,700,000,000 for 
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 1999, a 
decrease of $15,400,000 (less than one percent) below the 
fiscal year 1998 appropriation and $71,705,000 (2.6 percent) 
below the budget request. The following table compares the 
fiscal year 1998 enacted level, the fiscal year 1999 estimate, 
and the recommended level by program, project and activity:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year--                   
                      Budget activity                      -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              1998 enacted      1999 estimate   1999 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Personnel Resources....................................        $1,702,298        $1,762,471        $1,728,260
    A. Military pay & allowances..........................         1,246,767         1,292,406         1,261,110
    B. Civilian pay & benefits............................           191,311           200,388           200,388
    C. Military health care...............................           119,401           123,836           123,836
    D. Permanent change of station........................            60,215            63,523            62,153
    E. Training and education \1\.........................            67,200            65,012            65,012
    F. Recruiting.........................................             6,313             6,158             5,613
    G. FECA/UCX...........................................            11,091            11,148            11,148
    H. Headquarters staffing..............................  ................  ................            -1,000
II. Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance............           617,467           619,593           618,145
    A. Atlantic area command..............................           114,009           109,563           109,563
    B. Pacific area command...............................           119,605           123,128           123,128
    C. District commands                                                                                        
        1. 1st district (Boston)..........................            37,711            36,831            36,831
        2. 7th district (Miami)...........................            46,400            47,532            47,532
        3. 8th district (New Orleans).....................            29,894            30,044            30,044
        4. 9th district (Cleveland).......................            18,205            18,583            18,583
        5. 13th district (Seattle)........................            13,749            13,887            13,887
        6. 14th district (Honolulu).......................             9,838            10,655            10,655
        7. 17th district (Juneau).........................            20,693            10,805            10,805
    D. Headquarters offices...............................           154,588           157,407           157,407
    E. Headquarters-managed units.........................            45,216            44,563            43,115
    F. Other activities \2\...............................             7,559             7,595             7,595
III. Intermediate and Depot-Level Maintenance.............           395,106           389,641           389,641
    A. Aircraft maintenance...............................           154,261           152,391           152,391
    B. Electronic maintenance.............................            35,362            32,834            32,834
    C. Shore maintenance..................................           104,116           101,479           101,479
    D. Vessel maintenance.................................           101,367           102,937           102,937
IV. Account-wide Adjustments..............................  ................  ................           -36,046
    A. New DOT initiatives................................  ................  ................              -498
    B. Non-pay inflation..................................  ................  ................           -10,000
    C. Non-operational travel.............................  ................  ................            -2,500
    D. Advisory/assistance services.......................  ................  ................            -2,000
    E. Capitalizable projects.............................  ................  ................            -8,000
    F. User fee/reimbursable program......................  ................  ................            -3,500
    G. WLB PCAF...........................................  ................  ................              -548
    H. Defense OPTEMPO....................................  ................  ................            -9,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation.................................     \3\ 2,714,871         2,771,705         2,700,000
      Unobligated balance available.......................             1,048  ................  ................
      Offsetting collections (cash).......................           111,798           113,306           113,306
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total budget authority available....................         2,827,717         2,885,011         2,813,306
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes operating funds for Coast Guard Academy and Training Centers as well as general funds for          
  professional training and education.                                                                          
\2\ Includes ammunition and small arms (AFC 54) and Chief of Staff funds (AFC 40).                              
\3\ Includes reduction of $529,000 to appropriated level.                                                       

                        committee recommendation

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

                                                                  Amount
Eliminate 79 new officer billets........................     -$5,736,000
Do not restore slow hiring reduction of FY 1998.........     -15,000,000
Hold PCS reassignment moves to FY 1997 level............      -1,370,000
Defer college fund recruiting initiative pending 
    authorization.......................................        -545,000
Reduce growth in military pay and allowances............     -10,000,000
Eliminate GSA rent increase at OSC Martinsburg..........      -1,448,000
Eliminate new DOT initiatives...........................        -498,000
Selected reductions in headquarters staffing............      -1,000,000
Non-pay COLA adjustment.................................     -10,000,000
Non-operational travel..................................      -2,500,000
Advisory and assistance services........................      -2,000,000
Capitalizable projects (transfer to AC&I;)...............      -8,000,000
Raise fee rates for existing user fees and 
    reimbursements......................................      -3,500,000
WLB primary crew assembly facility (transfer to AC&I;)...        -548,000
Eliminate seven overseas liaison billets................        -560,000
Reduced OPTEMPO for national defense activities (050 
    reduction)..........................................      -9,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     -71,705,000

                        Counter-Drug Initiative

    The Committee recommends $406,091,000 for operating 
expenses of the Coast Guard dedicated to counter-drug 
operations. This is $39,963,000 (10.9 percent) above the fiscal 
year 1998 estimated level and $33,800,000 (9.1 percent) above 
the budget estimate. As was discussed in an earlier section of 
this report, the Committee believes that an expanded Coast 
Guard role is needed in the drug interdiction area, even if it 
comes at the expense of lower priority mission areas. The 
Committee notes that the Coast Guard expanded its drug 
interdiction work significantly in fiscal year 1997 through the 
reprioritization of activities and missions, and the results 
were highly successful. Not only did the gross amount of seized 
drugs go up, but the Coast Guard's efficiency statistics 
improved significantly also. By contrast, the President's 
budget for fiscal year 1999 would redirect those resources back 
into other activities, which would, according to the Coast 
Guard, result in a drop in counter-drug cutter operating hours 
of 25 percent and an estimated 14 percent drop in the amount of 
cocaine seized. The Committee believes these additional funds 
are critical to sustaining, and even improving upon, the 
successes achieved in fiscal year 1997. In addition, the bill 
increases by $2,000,000 the Coast Guard Reserve appropriation, 
partially in recognition of the important work of the reserves 
in the drug interdiction arena. Specific activities funded with 
this increase are explained below.
    Increase HH-65 and C-130 patrol hours.--These increases 
were originally requested by the Coast Guard, and certified by 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, but not included in 
the President's budget. The Committee believes it important to 
increase surveillance patrol hours. (+$2,930,000).
    Patrol boat-related activities.--The Committee bill adds 
funds to increase the operational hours of patrol boats 
performing drug interdiction missions (+$7,478,000), maintain 
seven patrol boats currently in service which would otherwise 
be decommissioned (+$4,508,000), and take into the service, for 
the specific purpose of enhancing counter-drug operations, a 
PC-170 (``Cyclone'' class) vessel currently under control of 
DOD's Special Operations Command. The Committee understands 
that the Coast Guard has been evaluating this vessel for such 
operations, and believes it has high utility for their drug 
interdiction activities. Hull fourteen is available and the 
bill assumes the Coast Guard will work out an arrangement with 
the DOD for the Coast Guard to operate and maintain this vessel 
specifically for counter-drug work.
    Increase international law enforcement training.--This 
increase was originally requested by the Coast Guard, and 
certified by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, but 
not included in the President's budget. The Committee believes 
it important to increase such training. (+$1,100,000).
    Support vessels.--The Committee bill provides funds for the 
Coast Guard to reactivate two T-AGOS ocean surveillance vessels 
to serve as afloat command and control and support ships for 
other surface vessels in the Caribbean (and possibly Pacific) 
area of operations. This will free up other, large Coast Guard 
vessels (such as 378-foot and 270-foot cutters) for more 
effective counter-drug activities. The bill also provides an 
additional $2,178,000 for the Caribbean support tender included 
in the budget request at a lower funding level. This vessel is 
designed to provide training support and other assistance to 
Caribbean nations which are often used as trans-shipment points 
for illegal drugs. For example, the Coast Guard has recently 
transferred to some of these nations decommissioned patrol 
boats. However, without training assistance, these small island 
nations are incapable of using the assets to their maximum 
effectiveness. The support tender will provide such assistance.
    Activate HU-25 (``Falcon'') jets.--The Committee bill 
provides $4,607,000 for the Coast Guard to recommission three 
HU-25 jets which have been mothballed due to budget 
constraints. Additional funds are included under AC&I; for 
engine overhauls of these aircraft.
    Drug detection sensors.--The bill includes $1,000,000 for 
additional portable drug detection sensors. The Coast Guard 
currently has 50 such sensors and has found them extremely 
valuable in counter-drug operations. The bill would provide for 
the procurement of approximately 10 more of such systems. The 
Coast Guard should explore all available systems currently on 
the market, and procure those which best satisfy their 
requirements.
    Intelligence support.--The bill provides an additional 
$948,000 for the Coast Guard to increase its intelligence 
collection efforts related to counter-drug operations.
    Activities Guyaquil and Esmeraldas, Ecuador.--Of the funds 
provided in this account, $500,000 is specifically to augment 
and build up Coast Guard and port control activities in 
Guyaquil and Esmeraldas, Ecuador.

                          Personnel Resources

    The bill includes $1,728,260,000 for pay and allowances of 
Coast Guard military and civilian personnel, a reduction of 
$34,211,000 from the budget estimate and $25,962,000 (2.1 
percent) above the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. Within the 
amount provided, the bill includes all funds requested for 
special pays for military personnel.
    Eliminate 79 new officer billets.--Given the high officer-
to-enlisted ratio in the Coast Guard relative to the other 
military services, the Committee does not accept the need to 
expand the officer corps, as requested in the budget. The 
Committee recommendation eliminates the additional 79 officer 
billets, resulting in a reduction of $5,736,000.
    Restoration of FTE savings from fiscal year 1998.--The 
Committee recommendation deletes the requested restoration of 
$15,000,000 from staffyear reductions made in fiscal year 1998. 
The Committee is not convinced, after reviewing actual and 
projected recruiting data, that the service will be able to 
meet its recruiting target, given the strong national economy. 
Therefore, these savings are maintained in the fiscal year 1999 
bill.
    College fund recruiting initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation deletes the new college fund recruiting 
initiative pending Congressional authorization and stronger 
program justification. This results in a savings of $545,000.
    Reductions in headquarters staffing.--The recommendation 
assumes reductions in certain headquarters offices, based on a 
review of current staffing levels. These offices include the 
office of the commandant and vice commandant, public affairs, 
Congressional affairs, general counsel, and the office of 
bridge administration. These five offices are budgeted for a 
total of 191 positions in fiscal year 1999. The reduction of 
$1,000,000 would require the elimination of approximately 12 of 
these positions, or six percent. The Coast Guard should review 
the staffing in these offices and decide which low priority 
positions should be eliminated.
    PCS reassignment moves.--The bill holds funding for 
permanent change of station (PCS) reassignment moves to the 
fiscal year 1997 level of $9,761,000, a reduction of $1,370,000 
from the budget estimate. Given downsizing, streamlining, and 
other personnel reductions in the bill, the Committee believes 
the service will be able to manage a slightly lower level of 
accessions and reassignments. This does not affect funding for 
other PCS move categories.
    Elimination of seven overseas billets.--The Committee 
believes the Coast Guard should eliminate seven overseas 
liaison positions, given the high cost of maintaining staff 
overseas and overall budget constraints. These positions are as 
follows:
          Royal Australian Navy liaison (Australia) (1)
          Maritime Liaison Commander, Middle East Forces 
        (Bahrain) (2)
          Royal Canadian Air Force liaison (Canada) (2)
          International Maritime Organization liaison (Curacao) 
        (1)
          Harbor Defense liaison (Korea) (1)
    This results in a reduction to the budget estimate of 
$560,000.
    Additional reduction.--The Committee recommends an 
additional reduction of $10,000,000 to military pay and 
benefits to bring the overall amount provided to 
$1,261,110,000, a 1.2 percent increase over fiscal year 1998. 
The reduction is due to budget constraints. The Committee also 
acknowledges the increase in cost per FTE staffyear in fiscal 
year 1998, and assumes that the Coast Guard will be able to 
manage its personnel budget at a slightly lower cost per FTE 
during fiscal year 1999 than assumed in the President's budget 
request.

               Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance

    The bill includes $618,145,000 for Coast Guard non-
personnel operating funds for field and headquarters facilities 
and units as well as unit-level maintenance. This is $1,448,000 
(0.2 percent) below the administration's request and $678,000 
(0.1 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 1998.
    Ballast water management program.--Of the funds provided in 
this appropriation, $3,000,000 shall be allocated to implement 
the nationwide ballast water management program, as authorized 
in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
332).
    Mackinaw.--The bill includes the $6,291,000 in requested 
funding for continued operation and maintenance of the 
icebreaking cutter Mackinaw during fiscal year 1999. This is 
12.1 percent above the $5,609,000 estimated for fiscal year 
1998.
    GSA rent increase, operations support center.--The bill 
does not include the requested increase of $1,448,000 for 
additional GSA rental costs at the Coast Guard Operational 
Support Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The service has 
not adequately explained whether such large-scale consolidation 
of support activities has been determined to be cost-beneficial 
at this particular location.
    Frying Pan Shoals lighthouse.--The Committee recognizes 
that the Frying Pan Shoals Lighthouse, operated by the U.S. 
Coast Guard off the coast of North Carolina, can be a valuable 
asset to marine science and to the short- and long-term 
monitoring of critical oceanographic, meteorological, and 
biological research in the coastal waters of the southeastern 
United States. The Committee urges that the use of this 
facility be provided to the University of North Carolina at 
Wilmington for these purposes.
    Marine safety detachment.--The Committee is concerned about 
the Coast Guard's planned closure of the marine safety 
detachment in Concord, California and its impact on the 
protection of the local marine environment from significant oil 
and chemical traffic and on timely and efficient response to 
oil and chemical accidents in the sensitive and busy waterways 
of the Carquinez Strait and other Bay and Delta waterways. The 
Committee directs that the Coast Guard shall not obligate any 
funds to begin the closure or termination of this unit until: 
(1) the Coast Guard enters into discussions with Contra Costa 
County officials concerning the impact of the closure; (2) the 
Coast Guard submits a report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations that explains how the Coast Guard will assure 
the timely and efficient response to oil and chemical accidents 
in the area and continue to perform other critical oversight 
functions concerning oil and chemical traffic in these 
waterways; and (3) the Committees have had thirty legislative 
days to review the Coast Guard report.

                        Depot Level Maintenance

    The Committee recommends $389,641,000 for depot level 
maintenance for shore facilities, electronic equipment, 
cutters, boats and aircraft, the same as the budget estimate 
and $5,465,000 (1.4 percent) below the enacted level for fiscal 
year 1998.

                        Account-Wide Adjustments

    The Committee recommends $36,046,000 in account-wide 
adjustments, which are explained more fully below.
    Departmental initiatives.--The bill does not include funds 
for new departmental initiatives including the electronic 
grants pilot project, acquisition training, and GSA common 
space rent, due to lack of justification. This is similar to 
recommendations made in other parts of the bill, and results in 
a savings of $498,000.
    Non-pay inflation adjustment.--The Committee recommendation 
provides the Coast Guard with the same non-salary inflation 
adjustment provided to other agencies within DOT. The 
President's budget requested an increase of 1.7 percent 
compared to 0.9 percent for other agencies. This results in a 
reduction of $10,000,000.
    Non-operational travel.--Notwithstanding Congressional 
reductions in fiscal year 1997 which were designed to contain 
the travel budget, the Coast Guard testified this year that 
``despite these actions, it does not appear that non-
operational travel was reduced''. The Committee reiterates that 
these travel costs should be going down, not up, and recommends 
a reduction of $2,500,000.
    Advisory and assistance services.--The recommended 
reduction of $2,000,000 is due to budget constraints and lack 
of justification. The recommended level is $9,779,000, which 
compares to $11,779,000 in the budget estimate and $4,151,000 
experienced for fiscal year 1997. A similar reduction has been 
made in the FAA's operating account.
    Capitalizable projects.--The Committee recommendation 
reflects a recent report of the Office of Inspector General, 
which concluded that many Coast Guard construction projects 
were improperly using operating expenses (OE) funds instead of 
acquisition, construction, and improvement (AC&I;) funds. The 
recommendation transfers $8,000,000 to the AC&I; appropriation 
to more appropriately reflect the nature of the work being 
performed.
    Fee rates for existing user fees.--While the Committee does 
not support the imposition of new user fees for Coast Guard 
services, Coast Guard documents indicate that the service is 
not charging enough in its existing fees to recover the direct 
cost of providing the service. The Committee believes that when 
a decision is made to charge fees, it is reasonable for the 
agency to recover the full cost of providing the service. The 
recommendation assumes the Coast Guard will raise existing fee 
rates by approximately 15 percent, to cover a larger percentage 
of total cost. This results in a reduction to the budget 
estimate of $3,500,000.
    WLB primary crew assembly facility.--The recommendation 
transfers $548,000 from ``Operating expenses'' to 
``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' to more 
appropriately reflect the nature of the work being performed. 
The Coast Guard advised the Committee that an error had been 
made in preparation of the budget, and that this facility 
should be funded in the AC&I; appropriation.
    Reduced operating tempo for national security activities 
(050 reduction).--The Committee recommendation provides 
$300,000,000 for national security activities of the Coast 
Guard, which are scored under budget function 050 (national 
defense). This is the same amount as enacted for fiscal year 
1998, and a reduction of $9,000,000 from the budget estimate. 
The Coast Guard has not adequately explained what additional 
defense activities would be performed with their requested 
increase, and in any event the Committee's allocation under 
budget function 050 is limited to the level provided for fiscal 
year 1998. The Committee assumes the Coast Guard will make a 
slight adjustment in the operating tempo for defense activities 
to live within this funding level.

                             Bill Language

    Defense-related activities.--The bill specifies that 
$300,000,000 of the total amount provided is for defense-
related activities, the same as enacted for fiscal year 1998, 
but $9,000,000 below the budget estimate.
    Executive order 12839.--The bill specifies that the 
Commandant shall reduce both military and civilian employment 
for the purpose of complying with executive order 12839. This 
provision has been included in the bill for several years 
without change.
    User fees.--The Committee does not approve the proposed 
bill language which would allow the Commandant to promulgate 
virtually any new maritime user fee, circumventing the normal 
process by Congressional direction, and credit those fees to 
the capital account. First, the fee proposal is so weakly 
justified that the Committee has been unable to give the 
proposal serious consideration. For example, when the Committee 
questioned the Commandant this year about the proposal, he 
stated ``we just started our study . . . we are not in it 
deeply enough to know that that is proper to do''. When asked 
how the Coast Guard arrived at the specific request of 
$35,000,000 in new fees, the Commandant said ``I have no idea 
how they did that''.
    The Congressional Budget Office is so skeptical, they are 
unwilling to assume the collection of any such receipts next 
year, despite the proposed language. Clearly, with so little 
information, these fees--and the appropriations to be financed 
with them--are unsustainable.
    The Committee is concerned that, despite the lack of 
justification, the Coast Guard believes it has the authority to 
promulgate these fees under the general authority of the User 
Fee Statute. Therefore, the bill includes a provision which 
precludes the Coast Guard from using funds to plan, finalize, 
or implement any new user fees unless legislation signed into 
law after the date of enactment of this Act specifically 
authorizes them.

                           General Provisions

    Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San 
Francisco.--The bill continues as a general provision (sec. 
312) language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or 
implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic 
safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa 
Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic 
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published 
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the 
originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide 
fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil 
rigs could be built if Lease Sale 119 goes forward. Under this 
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to 
oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could 
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The 
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could 
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the 
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language 
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.
    Blue-ribbon panel on the future of the Coast Guard.--The 
Committee is very concerned about the Coast Guard's ability to 
address all of its missions adequately in future years, given 
budget constraints and the effect of surface transportation 
firewalls. Although the service has performed admirably over 
the past four years in reforming and reorganizing itself into a 
more efficient organization, it is possible that there will 
still be insufficient funding over the next ten years to enable 
the Coast Guard to maintain today's level of service. The Coast 
Guard's operating budget has been flat for the past several 
years, and block obsolescence of major capital assets is 
approaching. Last year, the Commandant advised the Subcommittee 
that the Coast Guard would soon require a capital appropriation 
of $1,000,000,000 per year for ten years. Today, the Coast 
Guard's capital budget is approximately $400,000,000.
    To address these concerns, the Committee bill includes 
$1,000,000 specifically for establishment of a blue-ribbon 
panel to study the future capital needs, roles, and missions of 
the Coast Guard. This panel should be coordinated through the 
auspices of the office of the secretary of transportation, and 
should include the current Commandant of the Coast Guard, 
former commandants, and representatives of the U.S. General 
Accounting Office, the DOT Office of Inspector General and 
appropriate maritime organizations. The study should address 
and make recommendations on the best roles and missions for the 
Coast Guard over the next twenty years, and the capital budget 
requirements to meet those needs, considering likely budget 
constraints over that period. The Committee intends that this 
take the place of the currently-planned Presidential Advisory 
Council, which would study Coast Guard roles and missions, but 
at a much higher cost. The study should be submitted to the 
Congress not later than January 2001.
    Animal fats and vegetable oils.--The Committee bill 
includes a general provision (sec. 340) which requires the 
Secretary of Transportation, not later than March 31, 1999, to 
promulgate a regulation consistent with the Edible Oil 
Regulatory Reform Act (Public Law 104-55), enacted on November 
20, 1995, to specifically address facilities which handle 
animal fats and vegetable oils by amending 33 C.F.R. part 154, 
which relates to response plans for marine transportation-
related facilities. To be consistent, a rule for animal fats 
and vegetable oils should include, at a minimum, separate 
definitions, a separate category from other oils, and provide 
requirements that are specific to and appropriate for animal 
fats and vegetable oils. On March 14, 1997, the animal fats and 
vegetable oils industry submitted to the Coast Guard a proposal 
consistent with these requirements.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................      $388,850,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \1\.................       442,773,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       389,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          +150,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................      -53,773,000 
                                                                        
\1\ Includes $35,000,000 to be derived from new user fees.              

    The bill includes $389,000,000 for the capital acquisition, 
construction, and improvement programs of the Coast Guard for 
vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and 
related administrative expenses, of which $20,000,000 is to be 
derived from the oil spill liability trust fund.
    Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes 
language distributing the total appropriation by budget 
activity and providing separate obligation availabilities 
appropriate for the type of activity being performed. The 
Committee continues to believe that these obligation 
availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term 
unobligated balances.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The following table compares the fiscal year 1998 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 1999 estimate, and the recommended level 
by program, project and activity:





                                Vessels

    The Committee recommends $227,913,000 for vessels, a 
reduction of $15,813,000 below the amount provided for fiscal 
year 1998 and $41,660,000 below the administration's request. 
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained 
below.
    Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement.--The Committee 
recommends $81,790,000 for this program, instead of 
$105,000,000 included in the budget estimate. Funding of 
$41,000,000 was provided for this program in fiscal year 1998. 
The recommendation transfers $548,000 from ``Operating 
expenses'' for the primary crew assembly facility and deletes 
the $1,500,000 for each of the first three vessels of this 
class. It is not clear to the Committee why additional 
acquisition funding is needed, since these vessels are fully 
operational. The additional reduction is due to budget 
constraints. The Committee expects the Coast Guard to provide 
the Committee with updated information on the cost profile for 
the vessels to be acquired under the full production contract 
prior to conference deliberations on this bill.
    Coastal buoy tender (WLM) replacement.--The Committee 
recommends $27,000,000 for the coastal buoy tender program, a 
reduction of $4,000,000 below the budget estimate. The 
reduction is due to budget constraints.
    Buoy boat, stern loading (BUSL).--The Committee recommends 
$7,073,000 for this project, a reduction of $4,700,000 below 
the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget 
constraints.
    Surface search radar.--The Coast Guard budget includes 
$12,900,000 for this project in fiscal year 1999 and projects 
$4,000,000 in the year 2000. The Committee believes it more 
appropriate to phase this acquisition more smoothly over the 
two remaining years of the program. The Committee's recommended 
funding level of $8,450,000 would eliminate the funding 
``spike'' represented by the President's budget estimate. This 
results in a reduction of $4,450,000 from the budget estimate.
    Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement project.--
According to the Coast Guard, this project is approximately six 
years behind its original schedule. Given the schedule slip, 
the apparently low priority of the program within the Coast 
Guard, and the Committee recommendation to reduce operating 
funds for the polar icebreaker class, the Committee recommends 
that this project be ended. This will save approximately 
$25,000,000 in future fiscal years, which can be applied to 
other, higher priority projects. This results in a fiscal year 
1999 savings of $6,100,000.
    Coastal patrol boat.--The Committee recommends $47,600,000 
for the ``Barracuda'' class coastal patrol boat. This compares 
to $63,000,000 enacted in fiscal year 1998 and $37,600,000 in 
the budget estimate. The additional $10,000,000 is part of the 
Committee's counter-drug initiative, as explained in a previous 
section of this report.
    Mackinaw replacement.--The recommendation includes 
$6,000,000 to continue design work for a replacement for the 
icebreaking cutter ``Mackinaw''. Funding of $2,000,000 was 
provided in fiscal year 1998. Although the President's budget 
included no funding to continue this work in fiscal year 1999, 
the Committee believes it is critical to keep this work going, 
to ensure that a replacement vessel is developed as soon as 
practicable. The Committee fully expects the conceptual design 
phase of this project to be completed by the end of fiscal year 
1999, so that design and construction contracts can be awarded 
the following year. Moreover, the Committee expects the Coast 
Guard to issue a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the status of this project, including the 
recommended replacement alternative and fleet mix (with 
supporting data), as well as an update on the design process, 
no later than January 1, 1999.
    Deepwater capability concept exploration.--The Committee 
recommends $20,000,000 for this program, an increase of 300 
percent above the $5,000,000 provided for fiscal year 1998, and 
a reduction of $8,000,000 below the budget estimate. A 
comparison of the Committee's allowance and the budget estimate 
is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Committee                     
                         Activity                            Budget estimate      allowance         Reduction   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project resident office...................................        $1,500,000        $1,000,000         -$500,000
Contract studies..........................................        18,000,000        15,000,000        -3,000,000
Independent studies.......................................         8,500,000         4,000,000        -4,500,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................        28,000,000        20,000,000        -8,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ATS-1 conversion.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 to 
continue conversion of the former U.S. Navy ship ``Edenton'' to 
a Coast Guard fisheries enforcement cutter. This is due to 
overall budget constraints and the Committee decision to 
elevate counter-drug acquisition activities to a higher 
priority than fisheries enforcement. The budget estimate 
included $10,000,000 for this project.
    Reactivation of 2 T-AGOS vessels.--The recommendation 
includes $9,900,000 to reactivate 2 former Navy T-AGOS ocean 
surveillance vessels, as part of the Committee's counter-drug 
initiative. Consistent with Coast Guard concept papers, at 
least one of these vessels could serve as a base ship for 
patrol boats and other relatively small assets performing 
counter-drug activities in the Caribbean area of operations, 
thereby increasing the endurance and effectiveness of those 
assets.
    Unobligated balance transfer.--The Committee recommends a 
general reduction of $9,100,000 which should be addressed by 
transferring unobligated balances from the following program:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year 1997  Fiscal year 1998
               Project                      funds             funds     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar icebreaker RIP................       -$3,800,000       -$5,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Aircraft

    The Committee recommends $39,400,000 for aircraft, an 
increase of $13,600,000 (52.7 percent) above the fiscal year 
1998 enacted level and $2,269,000 above the administration's 
request.
    HC-130 engine conversion.--The Coast Guard budget proposes 
a large increase in this program, from $4,100,000 to 
$9,900,000. The Committee notes that some AC&I; programs must be 
reduced, since the level of the budget submission assumed 
collection of $35,000,000 in new user fees which are unlikely 
to be implemented. The Committee believes this program can 
proceed at the fiscal year 1998 pace without serious impact.
    HH-65 helicopter.--The Committee understands that there are 
power availability, weight considerations, space constraints 
and safety margin issues with the HH-65 helicopters that need 
to be addressed before equipment and capability can be added to 
this already weight critical aircraft. The Committee requests 
the Coast Guard provide a description of the limitations with 
relevant measures of how frequently power limitations restrict 
the HH-65 below original Coast Guard requirements and the 
impact of such limitations. The Committee further requests an 
outline of a plan and its costs to restore needed power margins 
while accommodating past and future weight growth. This report 
is request by March 1, 1999.
    Long range search aircraft capability preservation.--
According to the Coast Guard, this project involves studies to 
sustain the existing capability of the C-130 aircraft, 
including electrical systems and avionics. The product of the 
work is expected to result in the design of modification kits 
costing in the range of $200,000. The Committee believes this 
work could easily and appropriately be conducted under the 
Coast Guard's operating appropriation, and not AC&I.; In 
addition, the project has been poorly justified, and outyear 
costs are not defined. The Committee recommends no AC&I; funds 
for this project, but the Coast Guard may use existing OE funds 
under the aircraft modification budget through reprioritization 
of planned work. This results in a reduction of $1,590,000 from 
the budget request.
    HU-25 engine overhaul.--The recommendation includes 
$9,100,000 to conduct engine overhauls of mothballed HU-25 
(``Falcon'') jet aircraft, as part of the Committee's counter-
drug initiative. According to the Coast Guard, maritime patrol 
surveillance is their greatest need in the counter-drug area. 
The Coast Guard is familiar with these aircraft and have 
existing inventories of spare parts. However, some work is 
required on the engines to bring the aircraft back into 
service.
    Low signature aircraft.--The Coast Guard operational 
community has indicated a need for additional night-capable, 
low-signature (``stealthy'') aircraft capability. Although the 
RU-38A aircraft are now coming into service, upgrades are 
necessary for them to be more effective at fighting the drug 
war. In addition, the Coast Guard has expressed interest in 
high technology, low signature rotorcraft technology which 
could have an impact on counter-drug operations. The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Coast Guard to 
pursue modifications or acquisitions in this area, with the 
specific objective of complementing other counter-drug assets 
by providing covert surveillance capability.
    Unobligated balance transfer.--The Committee recommends a 
general reduction of $1,400,000 which should be addressed by 
transferring $1,400,000 in unobligated balances from the 
terminal collision avoidance system (TCAS) program.

                            Other Equipment

    The Committee recommends $30,314,000 for other equipment, a 
reduction of $3,655,000 below the budget estimate.
    Marine information for safety and law enforcement 
(MISLE).--Due to budget constraints, the recommendation holds 
funding for this project at essentially the fiscal year 1998 
level of $4,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget 
estimate.
    Aviation logistics management information system (ALMIS).--
The Committee denies the requested $1,000,000 for this project 
due to lack of justification.
    Differential GPS phase II.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for this project due to lack of justification and a 
need to fund higher priority counter-drug initiatives, a 
reduction of $2,600,000 from the budget estimate. Although most 
of the Coast Guard's differential GPS program has been 
completed, this appropriation would fill coastal gaps in the 
system, particularly in Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii.
    Drug interdiction sensors.--The bill includes $9,000,000 
for the acquisition of sensors used in counter-drug operations, 
including cutter and aircraft sensors as well as portable drug 
detection sensors used for ship boardings. The Coast Guard is 
accorded the flexibility to determine the best mix of sensors 
to satisfy operational requirements and have the most immediate 
impact on the drug war.
    Unobligated balance transfer.--The Committee recommends a 
general reduction of $7,055,000 which should be addressed by 
transferring unobligated balances from the following programs:

                                                                        
                                                        Fiscal year 1997
                        Project                               funds     
                                                                        
ALMIS.................................................       -$3,100,000
Conversion of software................................        -3,500,000
VTS requirements evaluation...........................          -455,000
                                                                        

           Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation Facilities

    The Committee recommends $42,923,000 for shore facilities 
and aids to navigation facilities, a reduction of $10,727,000 
from the budget estimate.
    Public family quarters.--The Committee recommends 
$2,300,000, a reduction of $16,300,000 below the budget 
estimate. The Committee has long been concerned that the Coast 
Guard sometimes requests funds for housing projects with 
insufficient market analysis or other supporting justification. 
For example, in July 1992, the Committee report on the fiscal 
year 1993 DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill stated:

          ``The Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard is 
        not effectively managing the family housing acquisition 
        program . . . [projects] often end up in the budget 
        with outdated and insupportable planning documents. In 
        particular, the market surveys which serve as a primary 
        justification are often so old that they are 
        meaningless by the time funding is requested . . . 
        Although the Coast Guard's planning and programming 
        manual requires that housing needs be under constant 
        review, it appears that re-evaluation occurs rarely if 
        at all . . . Future support from the Committee will be 
        dependent upon management improvements.''

    Considering this, the Committee was very disappointed to 
receive a report from the Office of Inspector General in April 
1998 which found that 9 of the 14 housing projects reviewed 
(almost two-thirds) were not adequately justified. It appears 
the service has not made the improvements suggested by the 
Committee in 1992. According to the IG report, the Coast Guard 
has $16,300,000 in unobligated appropriations for unjustified 
projects in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; Valdez, Alaska; Oregon 
Inlet, North Carolina; and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina which 
could be put to better use. The Committee recommendation 
reduces the budget request by this amount and directs the Coast 
Guard to apply these unobligated funds to cover fiscal year 
1999 budget requirements. The Committee also directs the Coast 
Guard, once again, to correct these longstanding problems.
    Waterways aids to navigation projects.--The Committee 
recommends $4,073,000 for waterways aids to navigation 
projects, a reduction of $927,000 from the budget estimate. The 
reduction is due to budget constraints.
    Group/Station New Orleans, LA-relocation.--The Committee 
recommends $4,000,000 to continue the relocation of Group/
Station New Orleans to Bucktown Harbor. These funds are 
provided to complete any remaining work to improve the 
condition of the waterway adjoining the relocation site, 
including dredging, bulkhead repairs, and bulkhead replacement, 
and, as a second priority, other aspects of the project. 
Similar funding was provided for this project last year.
    Air Station Miami, FL, renovate fixed wing hangar.--The 
Committee believes that, given budget constraints and the need 
to fund higher priority counter-drug initiatives, this project 
can be phased over two years at approximately the same level 
each year. This will also reduce the concurrency in this 
program, which appears to be unnecessary. This results in a 
reduction of $3,500,000 from the budget request, which is 
without prejudice to the overall program.
    Capitalizable projects.--The Committee recommends a 
transfer of $8,000,000 from ``Operating expenses'' to 
``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' based upon an 
IG report which found the Coast Guard inappropriately budgeting 
in operating expenses projects which should have been funded 
from the AC&I; budget. The IG selected 45 projects totaling 
$25,000,000, and concluded that 32 of the projects (71 percent) 
should have been funded from the AC&I; appropriation. These 
included acquisition of office space, expansion of building 
capacity, and construction of a parking lot. The Committee 
agrees with the IG that these activities are more appropriately 
funded from the capital account, and encourages the Coast Guard 
to make such changes permanent beginning in the year 2000 
budget.
    Training infrastructure, optimize.--The Committee bill 
includes the requested funds for studies, preliminary design 
and engineering for facility renovations related to a possible 
reconfiguration of the Coast Guard's training facilities. The 
Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit its planned report, 
``Training 2000'', once it is completed, to the Committee. The 
Committee expects that the Coast Guard will obligate no funds 
nor take any other actions to consolidate or eliminate any 
training facilities until the Committee has had thirty 
legislative days to review the Coast Guard report.
    Asset sales.--The Committee recommendation assumes a 
slightly higher amount of offsetting collections from asset 
sales in fiscal year 1999 than the budget estimate. Last year, 
the estimate for fiscal year 1999 was $3,800,000. However, the 
level assumed in the President's budget is only $948,300--the 
lowest amount in three years. Last year, the Coast Guard listed 
29 properties which they believed could be excessed. To date, 
only 14 have been excessed, and the budget assumption would 
only raise that level to 17. The Committee believes the Coast 
Guard could move more aggressively in this area, and 
accordingly reduces the request by $2,000,000.

                     Personnel and Related Support

    The bill includes $48,450,000 for AC&I; personnel and 
related support, an increase of $1,450,000 (3.1 percent) above 
the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, and the same as the budget 
estimate. Of the funds provided, $750,000 is for core 
acquisition costs.
    Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Coast Guard is directed 
to continue submission of the quarterly acquisition reports to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Coast 
Guard is to continue including with each such report an up-to-
date listing of unobligated balances by acquisition project and 
by fiscal year, a Congressional direction first implemented in 
fiscal year 1996.

                             Bill Language

    Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision 
first enacted in fiscal year 1996 crediting to this 
appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast 
Guard's surplus real property. This provision was requested in 
the President's budget. The bill allows asset sale revenues to 
be credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections, 
but limits the amount of offsetting collections in fiscal year 
1999 to $3,000,000, resulting in a corresponding savings in 
budget authority.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................       $21,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        21,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        21,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        

    This appropriation assists in bringing Coast Guard 
facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and 
environmental regulations; conducting facilities response 
plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization 
strategies; conducting environmental assessments; and 
conducting necessary program support. These funds permit the 
continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental 
problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks 
containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program 
focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes 
third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed 
to environmental problems.
    The recommended funding level of $21,000,000 is the same as 
the budget request, and the same as the fiscal year 1998 
enacted level.

                         Alteration of Bridges

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................       $17,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................        12,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        -5,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................       +12,000,000
                                                                        

    The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed 
a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. 
The Committee does not agree with the approach of the 
administration that obstructive highway bridges and combination 
rail/highway bridges should be funded out of the Federal 
Highway Administration's discretionary bridge account, and 
notes that this proposal was not included in the TEA21 
conference report. This approach is unfair to some states 
which, under existing highway formulas, have a more difficult 
time competing for discretionary bridge grants and are 
therefore less likely to apply. In addition, the purpose of 
altering these bridges is to improve the safety of marine 
navigation under the bridge, not to improve surface 
transportation on the bridge itself. Since in some cases, there 
are unsafe conditions on the waterway beneath a bridge which 
has an adequate surface or structural condition, Federal-aid 
highways funding is not appropriate to address the purpose of 
the Truman-Hobbs program.
    The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for two bridges which 
have been funded in past years, including fiscal year 1998. 
Both of the bridges for which funds are recommended are 
authorized and have been issued an order to alter by the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Committee directs that, of 
the funds provided, $4,000,000 shall be allocated to the Sidney 
Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, Georgia and $8,000,000 
shall be allocated to the Florida Avenue  railroad/highway  
combination bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana.

                              Retired Pay

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................      $653,196,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................       684,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       684,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................       +30,804,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military 
personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also 
included are payments to members of the former Lighthouse 
Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman's 
family protection plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as 
payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act.
    The Committee has approved the budget estimate of 
$684,000,000 for this appropriation in fiscal year 1999. This 
compares to an appropriation of $653,196,000 for fiscal year 
1998, an increase of 4.7 percent. This is scored as a mandatory 
appropriation in the Congressional budget process.

                            Reserve Training

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................       $67,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        67,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        69,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        +2,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................        +2,000,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides for the training of qualified 
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or 
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in 
the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall 
into the following categories:
    1. Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training 
for three categories of non-prior service trainees.
    2. Continued training.--The training of officer and 
enlisted personnel.
    3. Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The 
day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training 
facilities.
    4. Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve 
forces program.
    The bill includes $69,000,000 for reserve training, an 
increase of $2,000,000 (3 percent) above the fiscal year 1998 
level. The administration requested $67,000,000.
    Reimbursement to ``Operating expenses''.--The 
recommendation continues a provision originally enacted in 
fiscal year 1998 which limits to $20,000,000 the amount of 
``Reserve training'' funds which may be transferred to 
``Operating expenses''. The Coast Guard's budget proposal 
assumes a transfer of $22,100,000. Given the small size of the 
reserve training appropriation, and the declining size of the 
selected reserve, the Committee wants to ensure the reserves 
are not assessed excessive charge-backs to the Coast Guard 
operating budget. The Committee continues to believe that, 
absent this provision, the proposed level of reimbursement 
would be too high, especially given the substantial amount of 
reserve augmentation workhours provided by the reserves in 
direct support of Coast Guard missions.
    The provision also prohibits the Coast Guard from 
instituting any ``direct charges'' which were not in effect 
during fiscal year 1997. The Committee has learned that, in 
order to circumvent the reimbursement cap imposed in fiscal 
year 1998, the service began charging reservists directly for 
items which previously had been deducted from the ``Reserve 
training'' appropriation, rather than absorb those costs from 
their operating account. A new proviso has been added to stop 
this practice.
    Size of the selected reserve.--The Committee is concerned 
about the continued decline of the selected reserve and the 
Coast Guard's ineffectiveness at stemming that decline. The 
reserve end strength has dropped almost 40 percent over the 
past ten years--from 12,000 ten years ago to approximately 
7,300 at the end of January 1998. In fiscal year 1998, the 
appropriated level of funding should have been sufficient for a 
reserve level of 7,800. However, the level at the end of 
January 1998 was only 7,299--a drop of 197 below the level only 
four months before. The fiscal year 1999 budget proposal would 
drop reserve strength even further, from 7,800 to 7,600, and 
require them to absorb the addition of three new port security 
units with 126 billets each. These actions are refuted by the 
Coast Guard's own study, recently prepared for the Office of 
Management and Budget, which concluded that there are bona fide 
requirements for a selected reserve of 12,200. The fiscal year 
1999 budget proposal would fund only 62 percent of the 
requirement.
    The Committee continues to believe that the reserves 
provide vital contributions to Coast Guard and national 
security missions. For example, in fiscal year 1997, the Coast 
Guard reserves contributed 9,624 staff-days to counter-drug 
operations. Although Coast Guard leadership has spoken 
glowingly about the success of the anti-drug initiative known 
as Operation Frontier Shield, they have not often mentioned 
that reservists provided 25 percent of the total surge needed 
for that operation. The Committee does not believe that the 
budget for the reserve should be sacrificed further to fund 
increases for other components of the Coast Guard budget, 
especially as the reserves are asked more and more frequently 
to assist in supplementing the service's regular day-to-day 
activities.
    Recruiting.--The Committee is disappointed that, once again 
this year, Coast Guard data presented to the Committee indicate 
the Reserve is not meeting its recruiting goals. This not only 
reduces the size of the reserve force, but raises costs 
unnecessarily. In fiscal year 1997, the Coast Guard was able to 
meet 95 percent of its active duty recruiting target, but only 
71 percent of the reserve target. For this reason, Congress 
added $1,000,000 last year for a more aggressive reserve 
recruiting campaign. However, by the end of February 1998, the 
Coast Guard had signed up only 136 new recruits--an indication 
that the year-end goal of 1,313 may not be achieved. In 
testimony this year, the Coast Guard stated that ``failure to 
meet reserve recruiting goals is a continuing concern of the 
Coast Guard''. The Committee is likewise concerned, and expects 
the new leadership team at the Coast Guard to come up with 
solutions which more effectively address this problem.
    Reserve personnel allowance list (RPAL).--Personnel 
management in the Coast Guard reserves is accomplished through 
the reserve personnel allowance list (RPAL). Billet 
requirements in the RPAL are specific with regard to rank or 
rating, specialty and training (e.g., boatswain's mate second 
class), which requires the service to recruit to a specific 
RPAL vacancy. In the Navy, by contrast, less than half of the 
billets have requirements so specific that they require an 
exact match to rate, rank, and training. In addition, the Navy, 
Army, and Air Force each have geographic restrictions on 
commuting distance which are less restrictive than the Coast 
Guard. The Committee believes this inflexibility may be one 
reason why the Coast Guard has been unsuccessful at meeting its 
recruiting goals. The Committee strongly encourages the Coast 
Guard to relax these billet and geographic restrictions, and 
allow similar flexibilities to those allowed by the other 
military services.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................       $19,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        18,300,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        12,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        -7,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................        -6,300,000
                                                                        

    The bill includes $12,000,000 for applied scientific 
research and development, test and evaluation projects 
necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for 
the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this 
amount, $3,150,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund. This is $6,300,000 below the budget 
request and $7,000,000 less than the amount provided last year. 
The reduction is due to budget constraints and the Committee's 
view that additional funding must be provided to fight the war 
on drugs. The Committee believes that much of the work in this 
appropriation, especially those activities oriented toward 
management analysis or operational effectiveness analysis, 
could easily and properly be performed using operating funds.

                              Boat Safety

                     (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................       $35,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \1\.................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................  ................
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................       -35,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        
\1\ President's budget requests $50,000,000 in mandatory appropriations 
  in fiscal year 1999.                                                  

    The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the 
Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended, provide for the 
transfer of highway trust fund revenue derived from the motor 
boat fuel tax, excise taxes on sport fishing equipment, and 
import duties on fishing tackle and yachts to the aquatic 
resources trust fund. The Secretary of the Treasury estimates 
the amounts to be so transferred and appropriations are 
authorized from the fund for recreational boating safety 
assistance and other programs by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 
1971 and Public Law 98-369 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984). 
These funds are used primarily to provide grants to states to 
help enforce boating safety laws and to expand boating 
education programs.
    The bill includes no appropriation for the boat safety 
program. The recently-enacted Transportation Efficiency Act for 
the 21st Century (TEA21) made changes to the authorizing 
legislation which essentially make this a mandatory program. 
The Committee believes that sufficient funding will be made 
available through the highway Act that additional discretionary 
funds are unnecessary. The Committee continues to believe that 
boating fatalities and injuries are a serious problem, and that 
the Coast Guard should play a greater leadership role than is 
currently the case. Since this is now essentially a mandatory 
program, the Committee strongly encourages the appropriate 
legislative committees to provide the leadership in this area 
and develop programs which reduce the number of fatalities and 
injuries nationwide.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 Program

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible 
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the 
evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the 
activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations 
in fiscal year 1999. The grants-in-aid for airports program, 
however, will be financed under contract authority with the 
program level established by a limitation on obligations 
contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes 
continuation of the aviation ticket tax and other related 
aviation excise taxes throughout fiscal year 1999 and assumes 
no new user fees.
    The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 
1999 totals $9,477,558,000, including a $1,800,000,000 
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is 
$375,964,000 (4.1 percent) above the fiscal year 1998 enacted 
level and $273,572,000 (3 percent) below the President's 
request. When user fees are included, the total FAA budget is 
$9,524,400,000, an increase of $422,806,000 (4.6 percent) over 
fiscal year 1998. The following table summarizes the fiscal 
year 1998 program levels, the fiscal year 1999 program 
requests, and the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Fiscal Year--                      
                       Program                       -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1998 enacted        1999 estimate     1999 recommended 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations..........................................     $5,301,934,000      $5,634,972,000      $5,579,400,000 
    Direct appropriation............................     (5,301,934,000)     (5,588,130,000)     (5,532,558,000)
    User fees.......................................               (---)        (46,842,000         (46,842,000)
Facilities and equipment............................      1,900,477,000       2,130,000,000       2,000,000,000 
Research, engineering and development...............        199,183,000         290,000,000         145,000,000 
Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP)....................      1,700,000,000       1,700,000,000       1,800,000,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................      9,101,594,000       9,754,972,000       9,524,400,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Operations

               (including airport and airway trust fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................    $5,301,934,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................     5,588,130,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     5,532,558,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................      +230,624,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................       -55,572,000
                                                                        
\1\Excludes reductions of $939,000 for TASC.                            

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

                        committe recommendation

    The Committee recommends $5,532,558,000 for FAA operations, 
an increase of $230,624,000 (4.4 percent) above the level 
provided for fiscal year 1998. This compares to a level of 
$5,588,130,000 in the President's budget request. In addition, 
the FAA is expected to receive a $43,000,000 permanent user fee 
appropriation from overflight fees and $3,842,000 in other user 
fees, bringing the total operating increase to 5 percent during 
fiscal year 1999.
    A breakdown of the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 1999 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Fiscal year--                      
                   Budget activity                   -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1998 enacted        1999 estimate     1999 recommended 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services................................      $4,171,416,000      $4,380,866,000      $4,352,175,000
Aviation regulation and certification...............         614,168,000         636,027,000         635,418,000
Civil aviation security.............................          98,154,000         128,821,000         128,821,000
Administration of airports..........................          48,052,000          49,854,000          49,554,000
Research and acquisition............................          92,340,000          94,202,000          92,340,000
Commercial space transportation.....................           6,182,000           6,275,000           6,275,000
Administration......................................         258,491,000         259,014,000         258,365,000
Staff offices.......................................          71,750,000          76,071,000          77,071,000
Account-wide adjustments............................          -9,137,000                 ---         -24,461,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total budget..................................       5,301,934,000   \1\ 5,631,130,000   \1\ 5,575,558,000
      Overflight user fee collections...............                 ---          43,000,000          43,000,000
      Appropriated in this bill.....................       5,351,934,000       5,588,130,000       5,532,558,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $3,842,000 in other user fee collections.                                                          

                         FAA Funding Situation

    Over the past three years, the Department of Transportation 
and the FAA have suggested that the Congressional budget 
process will be unable to provide funding for the FAA's true 
needs over the 1998-2002 time frame. In response to this and 
other concerns, Congress established the National Civil 
Aviation Review Commission and called for an independent 
assessment of FAA's long-term finances last year.
    The independent assessment of FAA's financial situation 
concluded that:
          (1) With little or no change in FAA's operations, the 
        agency's estimate of their long-term funding 
        requirement is reasonable; and
          (2) Significant opportunities for cost savings and 
        efficiencies exist in the FAA today, and should be 
        taken advantage of to reduce future budgetary 
        requirements.
    After reviewing this report and other information submitted 
by the FAA, the Committee does not believe the federal budget 
process is inherently or structurally incapable of providing 
adequate resources for the FAA. The resources in this bill 
confirm that the Congress can provide significantly increasing 
resources for the FAA, even above the rates of increase of 
aviation activity. In this bill, appropriations for FAA's air 
traffic operations increase by approximately $180 million (4.3 
percent)--far beyond the estimated rate of increase in aviation 
activity. Grants for improvements at our nation's airports are 
increased by 6 percent. Funding for FAA air traffic control 
capital programs are above the fiscal year 1998 level as well, 
by 5.3 percent.
    In recommending these increases in the agency's budget, the 
Committee hopes the FAA will leverage this increase by making 
structural and process changes in the agency to improve 
productivity and reduce waste, as suggested in the independent 
assessment. The independent assessment noted that even a 10 
percent improvement in air traffic productivity would save the 
agency $21,000,000 a year in operating costs, and recommended 
the FAA Administrator mandate that FAA's Productivity Working 
Group establish specific goals and expectations in this area. 
They noted ``air traffic control operations costs continue to 
increase faster than the demand for FAA air traffic control 
services''. The IG testified before the Committee last year 
that ``there are a lot of opportunities for them [the FAA] to 
reduce their operating costs''. Yet currently the FAA's budget 
assumes little air traffic control productivity improvement in 
the 1998-2000 time period.

                               user fees

    The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees 
in fiscal year 1999 that were not Congressionally authorized 
for collection during fiscal year 1998 and includes a provision 
prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to plan or 
promulgate any regulation to institute any new user fee not 
specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of 
this Act. The bill assumes the FAA will collect approximately 
$43,000,000 during fiscal year 1999 from overflight user fees 
and $3,842,000 from other authorized user fees.
    The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity 
are discussed below.

                          air traffic services

    The Committee recommends $4,352,175,000 for air traffic 
services, an increase of $180,759,000 (4.3 percent) above the 
fiscal year 1998 enacted level. The Committee believes these 
increases are needed as air traffic activity continues to 
increase, and as FAA struggles to maintain both old and 
modernized air traffic control systems simultaneously. As the 
following chart indicates, this 4 percent increase is far above 
the anticipated workload indicators for fiscal year 1999. This 
is similar to past years.





             air traffic controller pay and staffing levels

    The FAA recently announced a new, five-year agreement with 
the largest of its labor unions which will affect the agency's 
budget significantly for the next several years. The agreement 
with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association is 
estimated to result in an average 13.5 percent increase in base 
salary for covered employees, which will add up to $940,000,000 
in new budgetary requirements over the fiscal year 1999 to 2003 
time period. If similar increases are afforded to other, non-
bargaining unit members of the air traffic service, the 
additional cost is estimated at over $1 billion. The Committee 
is aware that the agreement also includes productivity 
improvements and caps on staffing which should reduce the 
impact of the salary increases; however, it does not appear at 
this time that such improvements will offset more than 15 
percent of the total cost increase. To honor this agreement, 
FAA estimates that between $70,000,000 and $80,000,000 will be 
required in fiscal year 1999. None of these funds have been 
budgeted by the FAA, however, and no funds are specifically set 
aside in this bill for that purpose. The Committee directs the 
FAA administrator to submit a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations no later than December 31, 1998 
which explains in detail the pay scales established under this 
new agreement, the dollar impact in fiscal year 1999, and the 
programs and activities being reduced or deferred in fiscal 
year 1999 to finance the new agreement.
    Maximum age rule.--Under discretionary powers authorized by 
Congress, the FAA has promulgated a maximum age rule for air 
traffic controllers which specifies that no air traffic 
controller may be initially hired by the FAA over 31 years of 
age. The Committee has been made aware of an instance this year 
where the FAA hired an air traffic controller with full 
knowledge that the controller exceeded that age slightly. After 
the individual relocated, the agency noticed its error and 
advised the individual that he would be compelled to take a 
``voluntary'' change in employment status in order to keep his 
job. At the same time, the agency has been rehiring many former 
controllers who have not worked for the FAA for at least 
fifteen years and who are well over the age limit. The 
Committee is unclear whether the maximum age rule continues to 
serve a valid purpose at the agency, given the FAA's desire to 
have maximum flexibility in personnel practices. In addition, 
since a large percentage of new hires are over the age limit 
anyway, there is the appearance of unfairness between different 
classes of potential air traffic controllers. Therefore, the 
Committee directs FAA to review the maximum age rule, and 
strongly consider waiving the rule for any employees mistakenly 
hired by the agency which meet all hiring criteria except the 
age limitation.
    Air traffic controller training.--The FAA uses a controller 
training contract and training at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma 
(referred to as ``technical training'') to supplement training 
done by local staff at each air traffic facility. The 
controller training contract provides site specific training at 
all en route and five major terminal facilities. The funding 
for technical training supports course development and 
instruction at the FAA Academy using FAA and contract 
employees. The fiscal year 1999 budget request included 
$15,500,000 for the controller training contract and 
$24,938,000 for technical training, for a total of $40,438,000. 
This is $4,000,000 (11 percent) above the estimated level for 
fiscal year 1998. The Committee bill includes the requested 
amount, and the FAA is encouraged to maintain those funds for 
training throughout the year if at all possible.
    Contract weather services, Hickory Regional Airport.--The 
Committee directs the FAA to continue providing contract 
weather observation services at the Hickory Regional Airport in 
North Carolina during fiscal year 1999.
    Contract weather services, Northwest Alabama Regional 
Airport.--The Committee directs the FAA to continue providing 
contract weather observation services at the Northwest Alabama 
Regional Airport in Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
    Adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows:
    NAS handoff.--The recommended bill includes an increase of 
10 percent for overtime related to the implementation of new 
equipment at air traffic control facilities, compared to the 32 
percent increase requested.
    Aeronautical charting.--The bill includes $27,311,190 for 
aeronautical charting, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the 
budget estimate of $32,311,190. The reduction would eliminate 
the proposed increase to subsidize rental costs at the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    Annualization of fiscal year 1998 new hires.--The fiscal 
year 1999 budget estimates that $10,428,000 would be required 
to annualize in fiscal year 1999 the 500 net new hires from 
fiscal year 1998. However, due to shortfalls in fiscal year 
1998, it does not appear likely that FAA will meet this hiring 
target. Therefore, a lower level of annualization funding will 
suffice. The Committee recommendation reduces this amount by 
approximately one half.
    MARC.--The recommendation includes $1,700,000 to continue 
operating support for the Mid-America Aviation Resource 
Consortium (MARC) in Minnesota. This is the same as enacted for 
fiscal year 1998. These funds are to be used in Minnesota to 
support the air traffic controller training program, to 
continue research and curriculum development for the FAA, to 
follow-up on MARC graduates and to develop other materials as 
needed for FAA-related projects. MARC has a successful record 
in placing its graduates directly in the field. The Committee 
supports and encourages this cost-effective manner of training, 
and directs the FAA to continue the current contractual 
relationship with MARC, as prescribed by law.
    Systems maintenance.--FAA budget documents indicate that 
the national airspace system is deteriorating at an increasing 
rate, as new systems compete against old for maintenance 
priorities and the agency holds down or reprograms resources 
for maintenance staffing and spare parts. The Committee 
received evidence from FAA and other sources this year which 
highlight this problem:
    (a) Although FAA agrees that the agency should budget for 
maintenance personnel at least to 80 percent of that called for 
in their staffing standard, the fiscal year 1999 budget would 
accommodate only 71 percent. This compares to approximately 103 
percent of the staffing standard for air traffic controllers. 
The comparable figure five years ago was 82 percent.
    (b) The agency is not meeting its employment goals for the 
maintenance workforce. For example, in fiscal year 1997, the 
FAA expected an employment level of 8,410 for the maintenance 
workforce, but at the end of the year, had only achieved 8,281. 
This is because attrition was higher than expected.
    (c) Maintenance overtime has increased dramatically--over 
102 percent--between fiscal years 1996 and 1999. The FAA now 
budgets for over 420,000 hours of maintenance overtime.
    (d) The request for spare parts in fiscal year 1999 is the 
lowest of any year since 1993, and fiscal year 1998 obligations 
for spare parts are also lower than any year since 1993. This 
comes despite a growing inventory of deployed systems and 
facilities.
    (e) Unscheduled outages and mean time to restore for some 
systems are increasing significantly. For example, unscheduled 
outages for VOR systems during 1996 were at their highest level 
since 1990. In explaining the increases in mean time to restore 
NAS equipment, FAA officials state that this is because the 
equipment is old, replacement parts may not be readily 
available, the workforce is small, and newer technicians may 
not have the expertise to repair the old equipment.
    The Committee is concerned about this situation, and 
consequently recommends an additional $12,584,000 for 
maintenance. The FAA may decide the distribution of these funds 
between spare parts and staffing.
    Mather Airport instrument landing system.--Once again this 
year, the bill includes a general provision (sec. 313) which 
allows airports to transfer, without consideration, instrument 
landing systems and associated lighting equipment to the FAA, 
if the purchase of such systems had been assisted by an FAA 
airport grant. The Committee believes that the GRN-29 
instrument landing system at Sacramento Mather Airport in 
California meets these requirements, and the FAA is directed to 
take over the operation and maintenance of that system in 
accord with section 313 of this Act.
    Leased telecommunications.--The recommended level provides 
an increase of 2.5 percent instead of the 7 percent increase 
requested.
    GPS-related telecommunications costs.--The Committee does 
not believe that operations costs for the wide- and local-area 
augmentation systems (WAAS and LAAS, respectively) utilizing 
the GPS satellite system are yet appropriate for FAA's 
operating budget. The Committee believes these costs should be 
borne by the F&E; budget, given the developmental nature of 
these systems. Therefore, the bill transfers $22,700,000 for 
the WAAS project and $675,000 for the LAAS project to the F&E; 
appropriation.

                 Aviation Regulation And Certification

    The Committee recommends $635,418,000 for aviation 
regulation and certification, $609,000 below the budget request 
and $21,250,000 (3.5 percent) above the fiscal year 1998 
enacted level.
    Flight standards, new staffing.--The Committee 
recommendation does not include $425,000 for the requested six 
new headquarters aviation safety inspector positions. According 
to budget justification documents, these positions appear to be 
related to FAA's modernization program, not for ongoing 
operational responsibilities. The Committee is cautious about 
raising the operating budget to address temporary needs caused 
by the implementation of new technologies, and encourages the 
FAA to finance these activities through the F&E; budget, or 
minimize their requirement through the implementation of labor-
saving automation technology.
    Aviation safety program.--FAA's flight standards service 
conducts a program known as the aviation safety program (ASP), 
which produces and distributes safety educational programs and 
materials for general aviation pilots. Since the large majority 
of aviation accidents in this country are general aviation 
accidents, the Committee believes that a small increase in this 
area could result in a large payoff. The bill includes $700,000 
for the ASP program, an increase of $500,000 above the budget 
estimate.
    Safety-related training activities.--The Committee is aware 
of a training plan being developed by the Aviation Institute at 
the George Washington University/Virginia campus and the 
Institute for Public Policy and the Department of Psychology at 
George Mason University, through the Aviation Policy Program, 
to address important air travel safety issues. The program is 
intended to improve aviation safety through human factors 
research and through research into the legal, economic, policy, 
and technical dimensions of domestic and international 
aviation. The Committee urges the FAA to work with the 
university to determine how this training plan can be 
structured to support and complement the agency's other ongoing 
safety programs.
    Rulemaking.--Given the ``Challenge 2000'' study and 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission recommendations that 
the FAA's rulemaking process should be streamlined, as well as 
the view in Congress that regulations should be held at the 
minimum level necessary, the Committee does not find it 
justified to increase the rulemaking budget by 24.5 percent 
over the past two fiscal years, as the fiscal year 1999 budget 
assumes. The recommendation would freeze these costs at the 
same dollar level as enacted for fiscal year 1998, a reduction 
of $684,000 from the budget estimate.
    Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast system.--The 
Committee understands that the automatic dependent 
surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) system is pending the approval 
of the FAA. The Committee is supportive of aircraft being 
equipped with the best collision avoidance system available. 
However, understanding the concern for the lack of collision 
avoidance systems in cargo aircraft, the Committee directs the 
FAA to approve ADS-B by January 1, 2001, or mandate traffic 
alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS II) in all cargo 
aircraft at that time.

                        Civil Aviation Security

    The Committee recommends $128,821,000 for civil aviation 
security, the same as the budget estimate and an increase of 
$30,667,000 (31.2 percent) above the fiscal year 1998 enacted 
level. The bill includes funds for 15 additional staff years 
for aviation security personnel, as requested. The majority of 
the increase is required to annualize salaries of new personnel 
hired with funding from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
1997.

                       Administration of Airports

    The Committee recommends $49,554,000 for the administration 
of airports program, a reduction of $300,000 from the budget 
estimate and $1,502,000 (3.1 percent) above the fiscal year 
1998 enacted level. The reduction would eliminate funds for a 
new department-wide grants management system. The Committee is 
not convinced that such an initiative is of sufficiently high 
priority, given current budget constraints.

                        Research And Acquisition

    The Committee recommends $92,340,000 for research and 
acquisition, $1,862,000 (2 percent) less than the budget 
request and approximately the same as the fiscal year 1998 
enacted level. This activity finances the planning, management, 
and coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs. A 
separate recommendation is discussed under ``accountwide 
adjustments'' transferring the funding for certain acquisition 
personnel to the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation.

                    Commercial Space Transportation

    The Committee recommends $6,275,000 for the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), the same as the budget 
request and $93,000 (1.5 percent) above the fiscal year 1998 
enacted level.

                             Administration

    The Committee recommends $258,365,000 for administration, a 
reduction of $649,000 from the budget estimate.
    Washington flight program (hangar six).--Data provided by 
the FAA shows that a large percentage of the use of FAA 
aircraft is by other agencies such as NASA, the FBI, and the 
Department of Justice. The aircraft is also used significantly 
by NTSB for non-emergency situations (e.g., meetings) where it 
appears that commercial travel could be used. It appears that 
some of these trips could be performed either on commercial 
aircraft or on a reimbursable basis, with these other agencies 
paying their fair share of operating costs. The recommended 
reduction of $649,000 allows approximately half of the 
requested funds for these operations. The recommended level 
assumes that additional funds will be collected on a 
reimbursable basis. However, the Committee assumes that 
emergency ``go team'' operations of NTSB or the secretary's 
office will be exempt from the reimbursable requirement.

                             Staff Offices

    The Committee recommends $77,071,000 for certain 
headquarters staff offices funded in this budget activity, an 
increase of $1,000,000 above the budget estimate. The increase 
is to fund a new initiative, the Office of Safety Assessment, 
which is explained more fully below.
    Office of Safety Assessment.--The bill includes $1,000,000 
for the FAA to establish a new Office of Safety Assessment. The 
primary responsibility of this office is to coordinate 
activities which will result in more effective and useful 
measurement of aviation safety nationwide. The Committee is 
concerned that, today, aviation safety statistics are produced, 
all too often, in a haphazard way which responds to a 
particular incident or media exposure. This is not the most 
effective way to ensure the public safety in aviation. The 
Committee is heartened that both the FAA and the commercial 
airline industry are moving in the direction of providing a 
more thoughtful, comprehensive approach to safety measurement 
which is critical if safety is to be improved. In this year's 
hearing, the FAA administrator said ``we would, Mr. Chairman, 
embrace that enthusiastically . . . I think formalizing that is 
a very good idea, and I think it would be very helpful to us''.
    The Committee envisions that a task force would be created 
with representatives from, at a minimum, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the 
DOT Office of Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, 
the Air Transport Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association, and the Flight Safety Foundation. The task force 
would be assisted by detailees, as appropriate, and a permanent 
staff of five. The recommendation includes funds for five 
staffyears and administrative support.
    English language proficiency.--The Committee appreciates 
the work of the Office of International Aviation over the past 
year at designing an English language proficiency program which 
more closely meets Congressional intent. The Committee remains 
concerned that not enough is being done around the world to 
promote and standardize proficiency in the English language by 
pilots and air traffic controllers around the world. The 
Committee understands that FAA will allocate approximately 
$350,000 to continue this effort in fiscal year 1999.

                        Accountwide Adjustments

    The Committee recommends accountwide adjustments resulting 
in a net decrease of $24,461,000 below the budget estimate. 
These adjustments are discussed below.
    Advisory and assistance services.--The recommendation 
allows the same level as last year instead of the requested 
increase of 56.2 percent. This results in a savings of 
$179,000.
    TASC.--The Committee recommendation reduces the amount of 
FAA activities to be performed by OST's Transportation 
Administrative Service Center (TASC) due to lack of 
justification. In fiscal year 1998, the FAA budget included 
$28,400,000 for TASC activities. The fiscal year 1999 budget 
includes $30,600,000, and there are indications the TASC will 
submit billings for $37,000,000. Given the rising cost and the 
Committee's uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of these 
services, the bill includes language capping FAA's costs at 
$28,600,000, which is the fiscal year 1997 level. This results 
in a reduction from the budget estimate of $2,000,000.
    Contractual studies.--The recommendation holds contractual 
studies to slightly lower than the fiscal year 1998 level, 
instead of the 8.1 percent increase requested. The 
recommendation provides $9,428,000, compared to the budget 
estimate of $10,428,000 and the fiscal year 1998 enacted level 
of $9,640,000. The reduction is due to budget constraints.
    Acquisition staffing.--The Committee recommends 
transferring funding responsibility for several acquisition-
related offices from the operations appropriation to 
``Facilities and equipment'' (F&E;), which is more closely 
associated with the work being performed. Although executive, 
planning, and general support offices would remain in the 
operations appropriation, those offices which support 
individual programs more directly should be financed out of the 
capital budget, because their product is to assist in 
modernizing the system, not perform day-to-day operations of 
today's system. The bill assumes the following offices and 
staffyears will be transferred, and the $17,440,000 in 
associated costs have been added in F&E; under ``personnel and 
related expenses''.

        Office                                                       FTE

ATS Development:..................................................    17
    En route IPT..................................................    14
    Terminal IPT..................................................     9
    Tower/FSS IPT.................................................     7
    TFM IPT.......................................................     6
    Oceanic IPT...................................................     5
CNS Systems Development:..........................................    18
    Infrastructure IPT............................................    12
    Communications IPT............................................     9
    Surveillance and weather IPT..................................    21
    Aircraft and avionics IPT.....................................    14
Systems Architecture and Investment Analysis Office:..............    20
    5 subordinate offices.........................................    60
Year 2000 Program Office:.........................................     6
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................   218

    Offset for miscellaneous user fees.--The recommendation 
deletes $3,842,000 of the request in anticipation that a 
similar amount in miscellaneous (non-overflight) user fees will 
be collected in fiscal year 1999 to offset the reduction and 
credited to this appropriation. These user fee collections are 
the same as the FAA's estimate, and break down as follows:

                                                                        
                           User fee                          Amount     
                                                                        
Foreign repair station fees...........................        $3,200,000
Civil aviation registry fees..........................           500,000
Security fingerprinting fees..........................           140,000
Air taxi registration fees............................             2,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................         3,842,000
                                                                        

                             Bill Language

    Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee 
bill includes the limitation requested in the President's 
budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned 
auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United 
States. The FAA budget includes no funding to operate such 
stations during fiscal year 1999.
    Second career training program.--Once again this year, the 
Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for 
the second career training program. This prohibition has been 
in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included 
in the President's budget
    Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in 
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday 
premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually 
worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5 
U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work 
during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is 
not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a 
part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * 
premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic 
pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and 
previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v. 
United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that 
employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive 
premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back 
pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually 
worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this 
provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded 
liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating 
budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for 
fiscal years 1995 through 1998, and as requested by the 
administration in the fiscal year 1999 President's budget.

                           general provisions

    O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill continues the 
general provision (sec. 329) enacted beginning in fiscal year 
1995 which prohibits funding to implement or enforce 
regulations that would result in slot allocations for 
international operations to any carrier at O'Hare Airport in 
excess of the number of slots allocated to and scheduled by 
that carrier as of the first day of the 1993-1994 winter 
season, if that international slot is withdrawn from an air 
carrier under existing regulations for slot withdrawals.
    Centennial of Flight Commission.--The bill includes a 
provision (sec. 336) which stipulates that, of the funds 
provided for FAA ``Operations'', $250,000 shall be for support 
of the Centennial of Flight Commission, as reported by the 
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in section 
711 of H.R. 4057, the ``Airport Improvement Program 
Reauthorization Act of 1998''.

                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................    $1,900,477,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................     2,130,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,000,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................       +99,523,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................      -130,000,000
                                                                        

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000,000 
for this program, an increase of $99,523,000 (6.8 percent) 
above the level provided for fiscal year 1998 and $130,000,000 
below the budget estimate. The bill provides that of the total 
amount recommended, $1,749,350,000 is available for obligation 
until September 30, 2001, and $250,650,000 (the amount for 
personnel and related expenses) is available until September 
30, 1999. These obligation availabilities are consistent with 
past appropriations Acts and the same as the budget request.
    The following chart shows the fiscal year 1998 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 1999 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this 
appropriation:





         atc capital needs and the congressional budget process

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

       funding responsibility for navigation and landing systems

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

             Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation

    The Committee recommends $462,722,000 for engineering, 
development, test and evaluation, an increase of $69,892,000 
(16.2 percent) above the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. 
Adjustments from the budget request are explained below.
    Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The 
Committee recommends $45,857,000 for a new activity, ``Advanced 
technology development and prototyping''. Previously these 
activities were budgeted in the Research, Engineering and 
Development (RE&D;) appropriation under activities titled 
``Capacity and air traffic management technology'' and 
``Communications, navigation and surveillance''. The Committee 
believes that, because these activities fit closely with 
follow-on activities funded in F&E;, management could be 
improved if they were funded together in F&E.; These activities 
are funded at the budget request levels, except for the 
``Flight 2000'' project, for which no funds are provided. The 
Committee does not intend for this budget adjustment to change 
the authorizing committee of jurisdiction in the House, which 
has historically been the Committee on Science. For that 
reason, these activities are recommended in a single new 
program, rather than dispersed throughout the F&E; 
appropriation.
    Flight 2000.--Once again this year, the Committee 
recommends no funds for this project, a reduction of 
$90,000,000 from the budget estimate. In last year's report, 
the Committee observed that the FAA was not yet ready to begin 
such an ambitious and expensive undertaking, had not decided on 
the sites for the project, and had not achieved industry 
consensus. Regrettably, the Committee reaches the same 
conclusion this year as well. Although the FAA has made 
significant progress in the planning for this program, it is 
apparent that many of the major decisions which would help 
justify such a large initial investment are not scheduled until 
after this year's appropriations process is complete. Only two 
months ago, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association--a major 
participant in this project--requested that FAA redesign Flight 
2000, saying the program ``has been viewed within FAA as a 
Christmas tree, with program offices clambering to hang their 
ornaments so they can share in anticipated Flight 2000 
funding''. While not opposed per se to the concept of this 
project, the Committee requires more detailed information 
before approving such an expensive undertaking. The Committee 
also notes that the program is not authorized. The Committee 
will reconsider the program for funding again next year, once 
the pertinent justification documents are completed and 
reviewed.
    En route automation.--The budget request of $118,000,000 
included $46,000,000 for full-scale development of conflict 
probe and $72,000,000 for replacement of the host computer 
system. The Committee recommendation for these items provides 
funding under Free Flight phase one, as requested by the FAA. 
Funding for conflict probe has been reduced to $31,500,000 due 
to budget constraints and host replacement is funded at 
$13,200,000. The Committee bill assumes that additional funding 
for host replacement, up to the requested level, will be made 
available for Year 2000 date change programs from a 
supplemental appropriation to be addressed later in the year.
    Oceanic automation.--The Committee recommends no funding to 
continue this project due to escalating cost overruns and 
serious schedule slippage. Two years after FAA awarded a 
contract for development of the advanced oceanic automation 
system, the program appears to be in a state of chaos. Both the 
prime contractor and FAA acknowledge that there are schedule 
slippages and large cost overruns in this program. Given FAA's 
proposal in fiscal year 1998 to reprogram existing funds from 
this program, and the agency's decision this year to terminate 
phase two, it is far from clear whether the program is still 
cost-beneficial, or whether it can be sustained to its 
completion, given the increased cost. The recommendation to 
terminate this program results in a savings of $13,700,000.
    Next generation VHF air/ground communication system.--The 
Committee deletes the $500,000 requested for this item due to 
lack of justification. The budget documents indicate that these 
funds are for activities such as ``system transition planning'' 
and ``acquisition documentation development''. Those documents 
also state that future requirements are ``under review''. Given 
this tremulous justification, the Committee defers funding at 
this time.
    Free flight phase one.--The Committee recommends total 
funding of $168,200,000 for several programs which have been 
collectively described by the FAA as ``free flight phase one''. 
The Committee also recommends transferring those activities 
into a consolidated budget line, so that the program and its 
constituent elements may be more effectively monitored over 
time. The Committee recommendation for each of these projects 
and a comparison to both the original budget estimate and a 
budget amendment submitted (by letter) for these items, is as 
follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Original                   Total      Committee 
        Line item                       Project                  budget     Amendment     request    recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A04                       Air Traffic Management...........      $47,800      $16,500      $64,300      $64,300
                           (Passive FAST)...................     (24,100)     (16,500)     (40,600)     (40,600)
                           (URET ADM).......................      (5,800)          (0)      (5,800)      (5,800)
                           (CDM)............................     (10,600)          (0)     (10,600)     (10,600)
                           (Other)..........................      (7,300)          (0)      (7,300)      (7,300)
1A05                       En Route Automation..............      118,000            0      118,000       44,700
                           (Conflict Probe).................     (46,000)          (0)     (46,000)     (31,500)
                           (Host Replacement)...............     (72,000)          (0)     (72,000)     (13,200)
1A06                       Aeronautical Datalink............       16,500        6,500       23,000       23,000
                           (CPDLC)..........................      (9,200)      (6,500)     (15,700)     (15,700)
                           (Other)..........................      (7,300)          (0)      (7,300)      (7,300)
TBD                        Initial SMA......................            0        6,000        6,000        6,000
TBD                        FFPI Integration.................            0        8,000        8,000        8,000
2A05                       WARP.............................       20,000        2,200       22,200       22,200
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                               Total........................      202,300       39,200      241,500      168,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee supports the purpose of this program, which 
is designed to develop simultaneously a number of technologies 
which would provide safety and capacity benefits for both 
general aviation and commercial airline passengers. This 
program is the recommendation of the NAS Modernization Task 
Force convened by the Administrator last year, and later an 
RTCA Free Flight Select Committee. The Committee believes the 
FAA should be congratulated for the consensus it reached in 
developing free flight phase one. The Committee agrees that 
accelerating a subset of FAA's overall modernization program is 
the best way to speed new technologies to the field.
    Local area augmentation system (LAAS).--The recommendation 
reflects a transfer of $675,000 from the operations 
appropriation to more appropriately reflect the nature of 
telecommunications costs being incurred. These funds are now 
included under ``Next generation navigation and landing 
system'', as explained below.
    Next generation navigation and landing systems.--The 
Committee recommends total funding of $129,875,000 for a new 
budget line titled ``Next generation navigation and landing 
systems'', which includes funding for the wide area 
augmentation system (WAAS). A comparison of the Committee 
recommendation to the budget estimate is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee   
               Project                   FY99 budget       recommended  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAAS research and development.......      $101,500,000       $80,000,000
WAAS procurement (#2D09)............        16,000,000               ---
WAAS telecommunications (transfer                                       
 from ops)..........................        22,700,000        22,700,000
LAAS research and development.......         6,500,000         6,500,000
LAAS telecommunications (transfer                                       
 from ops)..........................           675,000           675,000
Instrument landing system (ILS).....               ---        10,000,000
Tactical landing system (TLS).......               ---         5,000,000
LORAN navigation system.............               ---         5,000,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................       147,375,000       129,875,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Wide area augmentation system.--The Committee 
recommends total funding of $102,700,000 for continued 
development of the GPS wide area augmentation system (WAAS). 
This is 73 percent of the $140,200,000 requested, and compares 
to $152,830,000 provided last year. Since Congressional action 
on the budget last year, the FAA announced that sole means 
navigation using WAAS may not be possible due to technical 
uncertainties regarding solar disturbances, the possibility of 
signal jamming, and issues surrounding continuity of the 
signal. Although the FAA is still researching this issue, the 
IG testified this year that ``in our opinion, some type of 
backup system for WAAS will be needed for the foreseeable 
future . . . because of significant unresolved issues and the 
relatively fluid state of program definition, we plan to 
continue monitoring the WAAS program''. The General Accounting 
Office reported earlier this year that a large portion of the 
WAAS benefits are calculated amounts of very small passenger 
time savings--averaging thirty seconds per passenger. In past 
years, both the Volpe Transportation Systems Center and the GAO 
concluded that the use of such savings in cost-benefit studies 
was highly questionable.
    The apparent softness in program benefits combined with 
newly-announced uncertainty over the total cost to achieve 
these capabilities makes the Committee wary of proceeding at 
the current pace in this program. The technical uncertainties 
make clear that WAAS is still very much a developmental 
program--and one in which future costs could rise significantly 
to address technical issues. The Committee is supportive of 
continued WAAS research, but at a slower pace. The Committee 
recommends $80,000,000 to continue this work, with a special 
focus not on hardware procurement and installation, or on phase 
II and III activity, but on resolving the research issues which 
continue to surround the program. The bill also includes the 
transfer of $22,700,000 from the operations budget for 
telecommunications costs related to WAAS.
    It is clear that, after the agency decides whether or not a 
backup system is required, a new benefit-cost analysis will be 
required to revalidate the WAAS investment, and that such 
analysis should consider the costs and benefits to users of all 
systems affected. For example, the decision on a backup system 
has ramifications not only for the FAA, but also for the Coast 
Guard, which currently operates (and would pay to decommission) 
the Loran navigation system, which is used primarily by 
maritime users. In addition, concerns over the adequacy of WAAS 
as a sole means of navigation stem in part from the findings of 
the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure 
Protection and on jamming issues which have national security 
implications far beyond the FAA. For these reasons, the 
Committee directs that the decision on a WAAS backup system be 
made by the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with 
the FAA and other affected organizations.
    The bill also includes language prohibiting the FAA from 
signing a lease for WAAS satellite services until the FAA 
administrator certifies to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations that the FAA has completed a lease versus buy 
analysis which indicates that such lease will result in the 
lowest overall cost to the agency. For many years, DOT 
appropriations Acts have included a provision which limits the 
agency's ability to obligate funds under general multiyear 
procurement authority in advance of appropriations. This type 
of control is in place to ensure that the agency does not 
commit the government too far in advance of Congressional 
review and appropriations. The Committee is especially 
sensitive on this point with the FAA, which has a history of 
proceeding too quickly into procurement. For fiscal year 1999, 
the FAA has suggested a new twist on this old theme. The agency 
has proposed that, for WAAS satellite communication services, 
the agency would sign a contract for the development, 
installation, and checkout of satellite payloads, the pro rata 
share of launch costs, and routine operating costs, but allow 
all these costs to be rolled into a single annual service 
charge, to be funded from the operating budget. The Committee 
believes this would set a dangerous precedent of using 
operating funds for items which are, upon detailed analysis, 
little more than traditional acquisition activities. In 
addition, FAA's analysis indicates such a lease may be as much 
as $200,000,000 more expensive than other alternatives, partly 
to compensate a prime contractor for the risks in this 
approach. The Committee is highly doubtful that the operating 
budget would be able to sustain such a program in the outyears, 
especially if the agency continues to pay operating and 
maintenance costs for today's systems as well.
    For these reasons, the Committee insists that the 
distinction be kept between the operating and capital budgets, 
and that the agency not commit the government in advance of 
appropriations through leases which include significant 
elements traditionally defined as acquisition or procurement.
    (b) Instrument landing systems (ILS).--The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 for continued procurement of instrument 
landing systems. The Committee believes that, given the 
uncertainties in the WAAS program, the FAA should continue 
procuring ILS systems and install them at those locations with 
the highest cost-benefit. It is important to add such funds 
this year, because the existing contract expires in December 
1998.
    (c) Tactical landing systems.--The recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for procurement of tactical landing systems.
    (d) Loran navigation system.--The recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for continued upgrade of the Loran navigation 
system.

      Procurement of Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

    The bill includes $839,784,800 for the procurement of air 
traffic control facilities and equipment, a reduction of 
$49,943,200 (5.6 percent) below the fiscal year 1998 enacted 
level.
    En route automation.--The recommended bill includes 
$166,700,000 for this program. Reductions are due to budget 
constraints and the need to fund higher priority projects. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommendation for activities in this project follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Committee         Change to   
                       Activity name                           FY99 budget       recommended         request    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSR deployment............................................      $173,600,000      $153,600,000      -$20,000,000
En route SW dev and support...............................         7,000,000         4,000,000        -3,000,000
Flight data input/output..................................         2,100,000         2,100,000               ---
Host/DARC/Pamri sustainment...............................         9,000,000         5,000,000        -4,000,000
HID/CD LAN................................................         4,700,000         2,000,000        -2,700,000
General reduction.........................................        -1,100,000               ---               ---
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................       195,300,000       166,700,000       -28,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ARTCC building improvements.--The recommended bill includes 
$49,800,000 for this program. Reductions are due to budget 
constraints and the need to fund higher priority projects. A 
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommendation for activities in this project follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee   
            Activity name                FY99 budget     recommendation 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTCC improvements..................       $45,000,000       $40,000,000
Honolulu CERAP relocation...........        17,100,000         8,000,000
Security............................         1,500,000         1,500,000
Regionally originated projects......           331,600           300,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................        63,931,500        49,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Voice switching and control system (VSCS).--The Committee 
recommends $7,500,000 for VSCS, a reduction of $7,000,000 to 
the budget estimate. The Committee believes that upgrades to 
this already-commissioned system can proceed at a slower pace 
in order to fund other requirements.
    Air traffic management.--The recommendation provides 
$29,403,300 for this program, a reduction of $15,196,700 below 
the budget estimate. The Committee believes a slower pace is 
appropriate for the TFM infrastructure project, given the need 
to fund higher priority programs. Last year, the Committee 
recommended zero for this project.
    Terminal doppler weather radar (TDWR).--The Committee 
remains concerned that FAA has not installed a TDWR system or 
otherwise provided adequate windshear protection for the New 
York City metropolitan area. The Committee understands that the 
record of decision for the proposed TDWR at the former Brooklyn 
Coast Guard Air Station is expected this autumn, and that the 
system could be commissioned six to eight months after that 
decision. The Committee has watched year after year of delay go 
by in this program, and insists that FAA adhere to this 
schedule.
    Dallas/Fort Worth radar displays.--The Committee is aware 
that, because of the volume of air traffic in the terminal 
airspace around the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) metropolitan area, 
there is a significant problem of ``data tag overlap''. The 
data tags are displays of information provided to controllers. 
When a large number of aircraft are being displayed in a 
confined area, the data tags overlap and cannot be read easily. 
Vital aircraft information becomes obscured and very difficult 
to read by air traffic controllers. The Committee is aware that 
FAA is considering the possibility of including Dallas/Fort 
Worth in the STARS early deployment capability, and received 
funds in fiscal year 1998 for that effort. The Committee 
strongly encourages the FAA to analyze this potential safety 
issue and address the deficiency as soon as possible.
    Terminal automation.--The Committee recommends $121,600,000 
for acquisition of standard terminal automation replacement 
system (STARS) workstations, which is 90 percent of the 
$135,300,000 requested. When combined with funds provided for 
engineering development, the total amount in the bill for the 
STARS program is $196,300,000, or 93.5 percent of the amount 
requested. This makes STARS the largest single item in FAA's 
capital budget for fiscal year 1999. The reduction of 
$13,700,000 represents costs for the last 4 of the 17 STARS 
systems in the 1999 budget, as well as a pro rate share of the 
implementation and maintenance costs associated with those 
systems. The Committee notes that FAA is now estimating a six 
month delay in implementation at virtually all STARS sites due 
to development problems and cost growth. The Committee believes 
that procurement should proceed at a slower pace until the 
development problems are resolved. The Committee remains very 
supportive of this program, especially the early display 
capability, and hopes the agency can meet its current March 
1999 implementation schedule.
    Low cost ASDE technologies.--The Committee continues to 
support FAA's development of low cost airport surface detection 
equipment (ASDE) systems, especially given the heightened 
importance of reducing runway incursions. The Committee 
encourages FAA to make a near-term decision among competing 
technologies in order to field this advanced technology as soon 
as possible, and to include funding in future budget requests 
to develop and implement low cost ASDE systems. The Committee 
is especially pleased with the results of recent testing of 
phased array radar technology at Norfolk International Airport 
in Virginia.
    Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The 
Committee recommends $58,725,000 for this program, a reduction 
of $23,575,000 from the budget estimate. Changes to the budget 
estimate are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year       Committee        Change to   
                           Location                              1999 budget      recommended        request    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port Columbus, OH............................................          $50,000         $750,000        +$700,000
Newark, NJ...................................................       14,275,000              ---      -14,275,000
LaGuardia, NY................................................       10,000,000              ---      -10,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................  ...............  ...............      -23,575,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Port Columbus, OH.--The Committee believes that design work 
for this new tower should be accelerated, and therefore 
provides the full amount needed for that work.
    Newark, NJ.--The President's budget request assumed the 
reprogramming of previously provided funds during fiscal year 
1998. However, those funds were not reprogrammed. Therefore, 
these fiscal year 1999 funds are no longer needed.
    LaGuardia, NY.--FAA estimates that the commissioning for 
this new control tower will not occur for almost four years. 
Given this, and the fact that FAA is still performing site 
studies, the Committee believes that $10,000,000 for 
construction is premature.
    New Castle County Airport, Delaware.--The Committee 
understands that FAA has suggested the sponsor of the New 
Castle County Airport in Delaware should finance not only the 
cost to design and construct a new control tower at that 
airport, but also approximately $2,300,000 for FAA's overhead, 
equipment and administrative costs to oversee the project. In 
addition, the FAA has suggested that the sponsor should 
reimburse the agency approximately $1,000,000 for overhead 
costs related to relocation of the FAA's VHF omni-directional 
range (VOR) at the airport, even though the current lease 
indicates the FAA should bear the costs. While the Committee is 
aware that the FAA has budget difficulties, it is clear that 
these ``soft'' costs are the agency's responsibility. The 
Committee directs the FAA to assume these costs at New Castle 
County Airport, which are estimated at approximately 
$3,300,000. The Committee believes that, when an airport 
sponsor is willing to finance the significant cost of 
constructing a control tower for the FAA, the agency should not 
impose additional overhead costs on that sponsor.
    Terminal voice switch replacement/enhanced terminal voice 
switch.--The Committee recommends $9,000,000 a large increase 
over the $1,640,000 provided for fiscal year 1998 but less than 
the $11,500,000 requested. The reduction is due to budget 
constraints, and is without prejudice to the overall program. 
The Committee is concerned about the continuing delays in the 
TVSR program, which is several years behind the original 
schedule. Given the large increase in funding over fiscal year 
1998, the Committee believes funds are sufficient to continue 
both of the existing production sources during fiscal year 
1999, and the Committee encourages FAA to continue both sources 
in order to maintain competition in this program.
    Chicago tracon.--According to the budget justifications, 
these funds are needed ``to resolve environmental or airspace 
issues that arise as a result of rerouting air traffic * * * 
and to resolve community concerns through final airspace 
simulations and modeling''. The Committee believes that such 
projects can be funded out of the operating account since they 
apparently do not involve justification for construction of a 
new facility. The Committee recommends no funding for this 
work, a reduction of $500,000 from the budget estimate.
    Northern California metroplex.--The Committee recommends 
$21,700,000 for this project, the same amount as last year. The 
budget estimate included $27,600,000.
    NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS).--The 
recommendation holds funding for this program to the fiscal 
year 1998 level due to budget constraints. This results in a 
reduction of $4,000,000 from the budget estimate.
    ASR-9.--The proposed reduction of $3,800,000 would delete 
funds for a system upgrade. The Committee is not certain that 
upgrading this system is a high priority, given development of 
the new digital radar, ASR-11.
    Terminal facilities integration.--The Committee is unclear 
about the specific purpose of this small program, and is 
concerned that it may duplicate integration work budgeted in 
the individual program budgets. The recommendation defers the 
$5,600,000 requested until the program is more fully justified.
    Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends 
$62,200,000 for the ASR-11 program, a reduction of $3,900,000 
from the budget estimate. Since submission of the budget, the 
schedule for the STARS deployment program has slipped 
approximately six months, according to FAA program officials. 
Since this program is paced by the STARS implementation 
schedule, a portion of this work will not be needed until the 
following fiscal year.
    Weather systems processor.--The recommended reduction of 
$2,900,000 would delete funds to upgrade the five limited 
production units. FAA does not plan to award the base contract 
until September 1998. It seems premature to the Committee to 
budget for upgrades to systems which haven't even been procured 
or produced yet. The reduction is without prejudice.
    OASIS.--The Committee recommends $22,500,000, a reduction 
of $3,000,000 from the budget estimate. Funding of $3,900,000 
was provided in fiscal year 1998. The reduction is due to 
budget constraints and is without prejudice. The Committee 
continues to support the need for this program.
    Automated weather observing system (AWOS).--The Committee 
has considered requests this year to fund weather observing 
systems at the FAA, including the automated weather observing 
system (AWOS) and the advanced surface observation system 
(ASOS). Although these are meritorious systems, the Committee 
bill does not include funds above the budget request for either 
system due to budget constraints. However, the Committee notes 
that the Senate-reported bill does include additional funds for 
the ASOS system. While the Committee is declining to fund 
either system above the budget request at this time, it is the 
Committee's strong position that, if additional funding is 
provided in final conference action later this year for either 
of these systems, an equitable distribution of additional funds 
must be provided for both.
    Flight service station modernization.--In the original 
President's budget request, the FAA requested $2,000,000 for 
this program. However, in a budget amendment submitted on June 
4, 1998, the agency recommended reducing the program to 
$1,000,000 to provide additional funds for the free flight 
phase one program. The Committee notes that there are few items 
in the F&E; program which are of direct benefit to the general 
aviation community, and this is one of them. The recommendation 
keeps funding at the original request, an addition of 
$1,000,000 to the amended request.
    VOR/DME/TACAN.--An additional $3,000,000 is recommended 
specifically for the FAA to relocate and elevate the current 
VORTAC facility in Vernon Hills, Illinois. In addition, 
$700,000 is to replace or repair the VOR in Gainesville, 
Florida, which was recently damaged by floods.
    Instrument landing systems, establish.--The Committee 
recommends $16,500,000 for this program and expects that funds 
will be distributed as follows:

                                                                        
                    Location or activity                     Amount     
                                                                        
Installation of previously-procured systems...........        $7,800,000
Fresno International Airport, CA: upgrade category I                    
 ILS to category II...................................         3,500,000
Stanly County Airport, NC: ILS obstruction zone,                        
 aeronautical easement................................         1,000,000
Everett-Stewart Airport, TN-ILS and DME...............           200,000
Zanesville Airport, OH: ILS...........................           300,000
March Airfield, CA: upgrade category I ILS to category                  
 II...................................................         3,700,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................        16,500,000
                                                                        

    Fresno International Airport.--The Committee bill makes 
$3,500,000 available for the FAA to upgrade the Fresno Yosemite 
International Airport's current category I instrument landing 
system to a category II ILS/GPS system. This airport is 
constantly subjected to a phenomenon known as ``Tule fog'' 
during early and late winter months. Tule fog levels are often 
at approximately 150 feet above ground level, which does not 
permit aircraft operations using category I ILS. As a result, 
shippers and airlines are often forced to delay or cancel 
services, which causes them to incur substantial losses. The 
upgrade to a category II system will permit aircraft to land 
with 100 feet of visibility, and would go far towards remedying 
this situation.
    March Airfield.--The bill includes $3,700,000 to upgrade 
the lighting and navigational aids of this airfield to achieve 
a category II landing capability. This includes $1,000,000 for 
mark 20 localizer and glideslope equipment; $850,000 for an 
approach lighting system with sequential flashing lights 
(ALSF); $800,000 for centerline lighting and touchdown zone 
equipment; and $1,050,000 for other associated project costs.
    Navigation and landing aids, improvement.--The small 
reduction of $761,700 is due to budget constraints. The 
Committee recommendation is $2,000,000 for this program.
    Approach lighting system improvement.--The recommended 
increase of $5,000,000 is intended for the additional 
procurement of approach lighting system-flashing (ALSF)-4 
equipment.
    Precision approach path indicators.--The recommended 
increase of $3,000,000 is for FAA to procure additional 
precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lighting systems. 
Funding of $3,500,000 was provided for this purpose in fiscal 
year 1998.
    Radar outages, Kansas City.--The Committee encourages the 
FAA to continue working with federal, state, and local 
officials and air traffic controllers to resolve recent radar 
outage problems at the Kansas City International Airport and 
the Kansas City air route traffic control center. The recent 
visit by the FAA administrator and a GAO audit requested by 
Congress make the Committee hopeful that a solution to these 
problems will be found quickly.

            procurement of non-atc facilities and equipment

    The Committee recommends $183,800,000 for the acquisition 
of non-air traffic control facilities and equipment, an 
increase of $113,151,000 (160.2 percent) above the level 
enacted for fiscal year 1998 and $9,000,000 more than the 
President's budget estimate.
    Explosive detection systems (EDS).--The Committee bill 
includes the $100,000,000 requested for procurement of 
additional explosive detection systems. However, the Committee 
is troubled by a recent report and Congressional testimony of 
the Office of Inspector General, which found that the existing 
machines are being severely underutilized, and that the 
commercial airlines have not budgeted for the continuing 
operation and maintenance of the systems. The Committee would 
point out that, although the Federal Government has long been 
involved in developing and (recently) acquiring these machines, 
the underlying responsibility has always been--and remains 
today--that of the airlines. Ensuring that an aircraft and its 
passengers are safe from explosives is the legal responsibility 
of the commercial air carriers. Although the Federal Government 
can and will assist the airlines in this area, the Committee 
does not accept that by providing such funds for a short period 
of time the government is assuming this new role. By contrast, 
the Committee believes the airlines should want the additional 
security afforded by these new systems, and believes that 
airline passengers welcome those improvements as well.
    Although the bill includes funds to continue this program, 
the Committee believes it is necessary to include provisions in 
the bill which prohibit the obligation of any funds for 
additional bulk explosive detection systems until thirty days 
after the FAA administrator certifies, in writing, that the 
major air carriers responsible for providing airport security 
agree to: (a) begin assuming the operations and maintenance 
costs of such machines beginning in fiscal year 1999; and (b) 
substantially increase the usage of such machines. The 
Committee also requests the Inspector General to review this 
certification and provide an independent view to the Congress.
    Information security.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000 
for this area in fiscal year 1999, an increase of $5,000,000 
above the budget request. The Committee believes this is an 
important area of concern which requires a higher level of 
attention and more budgetary resources.
    DSR training simulator.--The bill includes $4,000,000 for 
the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium to continue 
procurement of a display system replacement (DSR) air traffic 
control simulator compatible with new DSR systems now being 
installed in en route centers nationwide. The same amount was 
provided in fiscal year 1998. This new DSR training simulation 
system at MARC will enable new controllers to be trained to 
operate the DSR system when it becomes fully operational in 
ARTCCs across the nation in the year 2000.

                            mission support

    The recommendation provides $263,043,200 for mission 
support activities. Funding of $288,960,000 was provided in 
fiscal year 1998. Adjustments to the budget estimate are 
explained below.
    Resource tracking program.--This small project was reduced 
in the budget amendment from $1,000,000 to $500,000. Given the 
increasing importance of cost accounting and performance 
measurement to the agency, the Committee believes this small 
reduction should be restored. Funding of $1,000,000 is 
recommended.
    Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).--
The Committee believes the request for CAASD contract is 
inadequate, given the increased demands on the organization 
over the past year. The budget request would result in a 12 
percent reduction in technical staffing. The Committee 
appreciates the work of CAASD in support and oversight of FAA 
programs, and recommends an increase of $7,093,200. This should 
allow CAASD to retain approximately the current level of 
staffing.
    The Committee also directs CAASD not to take on work in the 
URET project, or in other projects, which is programmatic in 
nature. This includes such work as software development or 
documentation; processing of software changes; and assistance 
in ``evolutionary development'' activities for individual 
programs. CAASD discontinued such work several years ago at the 
request of the Committee, and now focuses on higher-level 
analyses which are of higher priority to the agency and which 
utilize more fully their specific expertise and unique 
relationship with the agency.
    The Committee is also very supportive of CAASD's recent 
assistance in the financial planning area, and encourages the 
organization to continue and expand this work, especially in 
long-range planning and conceptualization for the operations 
budget.
    Year 2000 computer issues.--The Committee recommends 
$21,600,000 for this program, a reduction of $14,440,000 from 
the budget estimate. The bill assumes that the balance of 
required funding will be made available from a supplemental 
appropriation to be addressed later in the year. Also, Congress 
recently provided $25,000,000 for this purpose in a fiscal year 
1998 supplemental appropriations Act.

                     personnel and related expenses

    The recommendation provides $250,650,000, an increase of 
$17,440,000 above the budget estimate. The increase, as 
previously explained under FAA ``Operations'', involves a 
transfer of funding for certain acquisition program offices 
from the operating account to this appropriation.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (Airport And Airway Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................      $199,183,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................       290,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       145,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................       -54,183,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................      -145,000,000
                                                                        

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $145,000,000, a reduction of 
$145,000,000 below the President's budget request and 
$54,183,000 below the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. Most of 
the reduction (93.7 percent) is accounted for by a deferral of 
the flight 2000 project (-$90,000,000) and a transfer of 
certain activities to the ``Facilities and equipment'' 
appropriation (-$45,857,000) which has been previously 
explained in an earlier section of this report.
    While still the safest airway system in the world, aviation 
accidents in this country in 1994 and 1996 highlight the need 
for more rapid implementation of advanced safety technologies, 
especially those related to forecasting and detection of 
hazardous weather conditions such as windshear, safety 
monitoring and oversight technologies, and aircraft 
technologies. The high percentage of accidents and incidents 
due to human error, deicing, and other hazardous weather 
problems call for sustained, high priority research programs to 
address these issues. In some cases, these priorities have 
necessitated reductions in other research programs.
    Reprogramming actions.--According to a recent IG report, 
the FAA made several funding changes in its execution of the 
fiscal year 1998 appropriation about which the Committee should 
have been advised. In system development and infrastructure, 
for example, Congress reduced the request by $1,700,000. 
However, the FAA put back $542,000 (32 percent) of this amount 
internally. The agency also increased airport technology 
funding by 25 percent above the approved level. Congress raised 
funding for aircraft safety technology by $10,210,000--and the 
FAA reprogrammed 24 percent of this amount to their own 
priorities. The Committee does not make its recommendations 
lightly, and is therefore quite concerned about the agency 
substituting its priorities for those of the Congress. The 
Committee intends to monitor this very closely during fiscal 
year 1999, and will consider placing all amounts directly in 
the bill in future years if Congressional allocations are not 
more closely followed.
    A table showing the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 1999 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:





                 System Development and Infrastructure

    The recommended level is $12,775,000 for system development 
and infrastructure, a reduction of $1,879,000 (12.8 percent) 
below the fiscal year 1998 enacted level.
    System planning and resource management.--The 
recommendation provides $1,164,000, the same as the fiscal year 
1998 enacted level.
    Technical laboratory facility.--The recommendation 
allocates $6,721,000, a reduction of $1,318,000 below the level 
provided in fiscal year 1998. The reduction is necessary to 
fund higher priority activities in weather and human factors 
research.

                            Weather Research

    The Committee recommendation includes $15,284,000 for 
research to reduce aviation hazards of dangerous weather, the 
same level as enacted for fiscal year 1998 and $3,000,000 (24.4 
percent) above the budget request. A comparison of the 
Committee recommendation to the fiscal year 1998 enacted level 
and the President's budget request is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Commttee    
                          Project                            FY 1998 enacted   FY 1999 budget    recommendation 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National laboratory program...............................        $8,367,000        $9,118,000        $9,118,000
Project Socrates..........................................         3,000,000  ................         3,000,000
Juneau windshear research.................................         3,500,000  ................  ................
Center for Wind, Ice and Fog..............................           500,000             (\1\)             (\1\)
Research operations.......................................         1,466,000         1,007,000         1,043,000
In-house personnel........................................           800,000           848,000           848,000
Program office support....................................           567,000           600,000           600,000
Technical center support..................................           400,000           475,000           475,000
Cost benefit analysis.....................................           200,000           200,000           200,000
Adjustment................................................               ---            36,000               ---
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................        15,300,000        12,284,000        15,284,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Included under the national laboratory program.                                                             

    Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is to continue 
development of the windshear protection technology known as 
Project Socrates. This is the same level provided for fiscal 
year 1998. In addition, the bill includes language stipulating 
that no less than $9,118,000 may be utilized for the National 
Laboratory Program, which is the level assumed in the budget 
request. The Committee continues to strongly support this work, 
which is coordinated by the National Center for Atmospheric 
Research (NCAR) and performed jointly by several universities, 
federal laboratories, and non-profit organizations prominent in 
the field of weather research. The Committee wishes to ensure 
that the appropriation for this work is not reprogrammed to 
other activities. The FAA is encouraged to continue the 
involvement of the Center for Wind, Ice and Fog at Mount 
Washington Observatory in New Hampshire under this program.
    The Committee believes that FAA is not showing the 
necessary leadership or effectively managing its weather 
research and technology development programs, a finding 
supported by a recent GAO report. The Committee has, for many 
years, strongly encouraged FAA to raise the priority of weather 
programs in the budget and to reorganize in a fashion which can 
provide strong leadership. The Committee directs the FAA to 
establish an integrated product team for weather programs and 
place in under the current ``communications, navigation, and 
surveillance'' organization.

                           airport technology

    The Committee recommends $7,215,000, $168,000 below the 
budget estimate and $2,215,000 (44.3 percent) above the 
$5,000,000 provided last year. These activities include runway 
pavement research and other research into civil engineering 
improvements at the nation's airports.

                       aircraft safety technology

    Overall, the Committee recommends $34,886,000, the same as 
the budget estimate.
    Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee understands 
that the FAA received a proposal under Propulsion Systems 
research to address inappropriate crew response to engine 
malfunction. Better engine models would be developed for flight 
simulator upgrades that permit the airlines to enhance their 
line-oriented flight training (LOFT) programs required by the 
FAA under its advanced qualifications program for air transport 
pilots. The Committee encourages the FAA to consider this 
proposal for funding in fiscal year 1998 or 1999.
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.--Of the 
$2,619,000 provided, $800,000 is to continue to address the 
problem of wildlife strikes by aircraft.

                       system security technology

    Overall, the Committee recommendation provides $44,225,000, 
the same as the fiscal year 1998 enacted level.

                  human factors and aviation medicine

    The Committee recommendation provides $26,615,000, an 
increase of $4,386,000 (19.6 percent) above the budget request 
and approximately the same level as last year. The Committee 
remains disappointed that, once again this year, the FAA has 
placed human factors research at or near the bottom of its 
research priorities, choosing instead to propose increases in 
the agency's institutional laboratory capabilities, in-house 
research planning, and other similar activities. Once again 
this year, the Committee has rearranged those priorities in a 
manner which will advance aviation safety rather than 
institutional prerogatives.
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The 
recommendation provides $10,000,000, an increase of $1,703,000 
(20.5 percent) above the budget request and the same level as 
last year. Of the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for an agency-
wide comprehensive survey of air traffic controller personnel, 
to determine the extent of fatigue among the workforce and the 
effect of current shift patterns and rotation practices. FAA 
should also use the additional funding provided to continue and 
expand the important work done at the Civil Aeromedical 
Institute (CAMI) regarding fatigue in the controller workforce.
    Aeromedical research.--The recommendation provides 
$4,065,000, which is $36,000 above the budget request and 
$65,000 (1.6 percent) above the level provided last year. The 
Committee continues to value the work performed in this project 
and conducted mainly at the Civil Aeromedical Institute in 
Oklahoma.

                         environment and energy

    The recommendation provides $3,000,000, an increase of 
$109,000 (3.8 percent) above the level provided last year. This 
program researches ways to mitigate the impact of airport noise 
around the country. The budget proposed $3,391,000, an increase 
of 17.3 percent.

                  innovative and cooperative research

    The recommendation provides $1,000,000, which is a 
reduction of $1,000,000 below the level provided last year. The 
reduction is needed to fund higher priority activities in 
safety-related areas, including hazardous weather and human 
factors research. This program finances the FAA centers of 
excellence, the FAA fellows program, and other university-based 
research of long-term interest to aviation. The budget included 
$2,330,000, an increase of 16.5 percent.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                                                                        
                                      Liquidation of                    
                                         contract        Limitation on  
                                      authorization       obligations   
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...     $1,700,000,000   ($1,700,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.      1,600,000,000    (1,700,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...........      1,600,000,000    (1,800,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
 1998.............................       -100,000,000     (+100,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1999.............................                ---     (+100,000,000)
                                                                        

    The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 
$1,600,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by 
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. 
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred 
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on 
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military 
airport program, reliever airports, and other authorized 
activities. This is the same as the level requested in the 
President's budget.

                       limitation on obligations

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 1999. This is $100,000,000 (5.9 
percent) above the President's budget request and $100,000,000 
above the fiscal year 1998 level.
    A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to 
the fiscal year 1998 levels and the President's budget request 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year--                   
                          Project                          -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              1998 enacted      1999 estimate   1999 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements:                                                   $989,114,003      $995,621,560    $1,016,621,560
    Primary airports......................................       516,217,477       527,949,003       527,949,003
    Cargo airports (2.5%).................................        42,500,000        42,500,000        45,000,000
    Alaska supplemental...................................        10,672,557        10,672,557        10,672,557
    States (18.5%)........................................       314,500,000       314,500,000       333,000,000
    Carryover entitlement.................................       105,223,969       100,000,000       100,000,000
Small Airport Fund:                                              111,250,757       113,767,800       113,767,800
    Non-hub airports......................................        74,167,171        75,845,200        75,845,200
    Non-commercial service airports.......................        37,083,586        37,922,600        37,922,600
Discretionary Set-Asides:                                        255,920,968       290,610,640       369,610,640
    Noise (31% of discretionary)..........................       200,000,000       211,054,936       252,661,603
    Military airport program (4%).........................        26,000,000        51,590,063        71,866,730
    GA/RE/CS..............................................        29,920,968        27,965,640        45,082,307
Other Discretionary:                                             343,714,272       300,000,000       300,000,000
    Capacity/safety/security/noise........................       243,879,359       210,779,025       210,779,025
    Small hubs............................................        18,541,793        18,961,300        18,961,300
    Remaining discretionary...............................        81,293,120        70,259,675        70,259,675
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total limitation....................................  \1\ 1,700,000,00                                    
                                                                           0     1,700,000,000    1,800,000,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes cap on noise and military airport set-asides.                                                      

                          discretionary grants

    Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, 
$669,610,640 is available for discretionary grants to airports. 
Within the obligation level recommended, the Committee directs 
that priority be given to grant applications involving further 
development of the following airports:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                          Airport (project)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................  Isbell Field Municipal Airport
                                           (runway extension);          
                                           Huntsville International     
                                           (security system).           
California..............................  San Bernardino International  
                                           Airport; Gnoss Field (runway 
                                           extension); Stockton         
                                           Metropolitan Airport (runway 
                                           extension); March Airfield   
                                           (refueling system            
                                           conversion); Meadows Field   
                                           Airport (terminal); Yucca    
                                           Valley Airport (site study). 
Florida.................................  Orlando International         
                                           (crossfield taxiways); Miami 
                                           International.               
Georgia.................................  Peachtree Dekalb Airport      
                                           (runway protection zone).    
Illinois................................  Chicago Midway Airport (noise 
                                           abatement).                  
Indiana.................................  Porter County Municipal       
                                           (runway extension); Griffith/
                                           Merrillville Airport (runway 
                                           reconstruction).             
Iowa....................................  Sioux Gateway Airport.        
Kansas..................................  Kingman Airport (runway       
                                           rehabilitation).             
Louisiana...............................  New Orleans International (EIS
                                           and new runway); New Orleans 
                                           International (noise         
                                           abatement); Baton Rouge      
                                           (reconstruct taxiway ``F''). 
Maryland................................  Baltimore-Washington          
                                           International (glycol        
                                           recovery facilities).        
Michigan................................  Flint Bishop International    
                                           (runway rehabilitation);     
                                           Oakland-Pontiac International
                                           (noise abatement); Chippewa  
                                           County Airport (new runway); 
                                           Marquette Airport            
                                           (relocation).                
Mississippi.............................  Belmont-Tishomingo County     
                                           Airport.                     
New Jersey..............................  Newark International.         
New York................................  Greater Buffalo International 
                                           (building demolition);       
                                           Syracuse Hancock             
                                           International Airport.       
North Carolina..........................  Piedmont Triad International  
                                           (new runway).                
Ohio....................................  Rickenbacker International;   
                                           Cleveland Hopkins            
                                           International (runway        
                                           expansion).                  
Rhode Island............................  T.F. Green Airport (noise     
                                           abatement).                  
Texas...................................  Cloverfield Airport; Ellington
                                           Field.                       
Utah....................................  Salt Lake City International. 
Wisconsin...............................  La Crosse Municipal Airport   
                                           (new runway).                
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cloverfield Airport, TX.--The Committee is pleased to note 
that since 1989, the FAA has assisted numerous public and 
private entities in the planning and development of Cloverfield 
Airport, a privately-owned, public use, federal reliever 
airport to the commercial air carrier facility, Houston Hobby 
Airport. The FAA has helped fund Cloverfield's feasibility 
study, airport master plan, site analysis and environmental 
assessment study. The FAA has also recognized the airport's 
importance by choosing it as a site for the doppler weather 
radar system and by making it one of the few general aviation 
facilities with a GPS weather station. Cloverfield is also home 
to the helicopter emergency evacuation service for Hermann 
Hospital Life Flight that serves the entire Houston Medical 
Center region.
    Cloverfield, a 57-year-old facility, is now ready to 
undertake the safety improvements and airfield upgrades that 
have been designated in the FAA-approved layout plan. The 
airport recently submitted a grant application to the FAA's 
Airport Improvement Program for funding to widen, reconstruct, 
and strengthen the existing runway and construct parallel 
taxiway ``A''. The Committee considers these to be worthy 
projects that will provide significant safety benefits to 
Cloverfield Airport and its users, and urges the FAA to move 
forward expeditiously to fund these improvements in fiscal year 
1999. The Committee also encourages the FAA to provide this 
funding directly to Cloverfield Airport.
    Stockton Metropolitan Airport, CA.--The Committee wants to 
express continued support for AIP funding for the Stockton 
Metropolitan Airport, so that the airport can lengthen the 
runway. The Committee supported this project last year, but the 
FAA has not funded the project to date. Currently, the runway 
at Stockton is insufficient to handle wide-body cargo aircraft 
that are necessary to ship fresh produce overseas. The runway 
extension is vital to the export viability of California 
argricultural products. Furthermore, the AIP funding is 
necessary to prevent further deterioration of the runway. The 
application for AIP funding has the support of local officials. 
To assist their efforts, the Committee encourages FAA to fund 
the runway extension at Stockton Airport this year.
    Ellington Field, Houston, TX.--Ellington Field in Houston, 
Texas is currently being considered for readmission into the 
military airport program (MAP). Ellington was a military 
facility for many years, and was in considerable disrepair when 
transferred to the City of Houston in 1984. Ellington Field has 
remained a joint use facility, with continued federal use and 
partial ownership. NASA, the Coast Guard, and the National 
Guard are all active at the airport. In addition, it is a 
general aviation airport, serves as a designated reliever, and 
is drawing considerable interest as an economic development 
site. However, the rehabilitation that was necessary could not 
be completed during Ellington's initial participation in MAP. 
The Committee recognizes that the backlog of work remaining 
from Ellington's military days is a significant problem and an 
impediment to the airport's ability to emerge as a self-
supporting facility and a generator of substantial economic 
growth in the area. The Committee believes that Ellington Field 
presents exactly the kind of transition situation that MAP was 
created to assist, and encourages the FAA to approve the City 
of Houston's application for readmission into the MAP program.
    New Orleans International Airport, LA.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to consider signing a letter of intent for 
major capacity enhancement projects and the related 
environmental impact statement at New Orleans International 
Airport in Louisiana. In addition, the FAA should give priority 
consideration to purchase the property in priority six as part 
of the noise mitigation buyout program at this airport. 
Priority six is outside the 75 LDN area; however, the area has 
been adversely affected sufficient to warrant purhasing non-
compatible property to maintain the integrity of the 
neighborhood.
    Flint Bishop International Airport, MI.--The Committee 
urges the FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for runway rehabilitation and new 
construction at the Flint Bishop International Airport in 
Michigan.
    Oakland-Pontiac International Airport, MI.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give priority consideration to a request 
for discretionary funding for Oakland-Pontiac International 
Airport property acquisition in the west runway protection zone 
to enhance airport safety and to help relocate residents living 
in the noise zone.
    Buffalo Airport Center, NY.--The Committee encourages the 
FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for airside safety-related building 
acquisition and demolition activities at the Buffalo Airport 
Center in New York.
    Huntsville International Airport, AL.--The Committee 
understands that Huntsville International Airport has submitted 
an application to the FAA to fund the design and construction 
of an airport security system and control center. The 
Subcommittee recognizes the need for this airport security 
system and control center and urges the FAA to fund these 
projects.
    Gnoss Field, Marin County, CA.--The Committee urges the FAA 
Administrator to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for the extension of the runway to 4,500 
feet in order to increase the operating safety for all aircraft 
using Gnoss Field.
    T.F. Green Airport, RI.--The Committee urges the FAA 
Administrator to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for noise mitigation projects at T.F. 
Green Airport in Rhode Island.
    Chippewa County Airport, MI.--The Committee urges the FAA 
Administrator to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for the design and construction of a 
crosswind runway at Chippewa County Airport near Kincheloe, 
Michigan. The Committee understands that a feasibility study 
has determined that a new crosswind runway is vital to continue 
safe flight operations at the airport.
    Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Cleveland, OH.--
The Committee urges the FAA Administrator to give priority 
consideration to a request for discretionary funding for site 
and engineering studies for the proposed runway expansion at 
the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
    La Crosse Municipal Airport, WI.--The Committee urges the 
FAA Administrator to give a high priority to awarding 
discretionary funds for reconstruction of the airport runway 
and repair of the approach lighting system towers at La Crosse 
Municipal Airport in La Crosse, Wisconsin.
    Miami International Airport, Miami, FL.--The Committee 
recognizes the need for capacity enhancements at Miami 
International Airport and urges the FAA Administrator to take 
steps to award discretionary funding for the fourth runway, 
including issuing a record of decision by October 1998 and 
entering into a three-year $104.3 million letter of intent with 
the Miami-Dade Aviation Department.
    Peachtree DeKalb Airport, GA.--The Committee urges the FAA 
Administrator to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for noise mitigation projects at 
Peachtree DeKalb Airport, Georgia.
    Midway Airport, Chicago, IL.--The Committee urges the FAA 
Administrator to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for noise abatement projects at Midway 
Airport, Chicago, Illinois.
    Marquette Airport, MI.--The Committee recognizes the 
benefits of relocating the Marquette Airport to the former Air 
Force Base, K.I. Sawyer, and urges the FAA Administrator to 
give priority consideration to awarding discretionary funding 
for this purpose.
    Yucca Valley Airport, CA.--The Committee is concerned with 
actions taken by the FAA regarding the Yucca Valley Airport in 
California. Due to the need for a viable general aviation 
airport in Yucca Valley/Joshua Tree, the Committee expects the 
FAA to conduct an unbiased site selection study for this area 
which includes the current airport in Yucca Valley. This is 
similar to direction provided last year, and the Committee is 
insistent that the FAA follow these directions.

             denver international airport--noise mitigation

    The City and County of Denver, Colorado, as well as many of 
the surrounding counties affected by noise from the Denver 
International Airport (DIA), formed the Denver International 
Airport Study Coordination Group to commission a study on 
aircraft noise and make recommendations for changes in DIA 
operations. This study, titled ``A Study of the Noise Impact of 
aircraft Operation in the Denver, Colorado Area'', has now been 
completed. The study indicates that changes in flight paths at 
DIA, Centennial Airport, and Buckley Air National Guard Base 
could substantially reduce aircraft noise in Front Range areas. 
The Committee instructs FAA to work with the DIA Study 
Coordination Group, the DIA noise abatement office, and other 
affected Colorado communities to identify measures, including 
changes in flight patterns, which would reduce aircraft noise. 
In addition to considering average noise levels (particularly 
in communities with average noise levels over 65 LDN), the FAA 
shall address the specific noise problems related to single 
noise events, low background noise, and the higher altitude of 
Colorado communities.

                       Grants-In-Aid for Aiports

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

    The bill rescinds $5,000,000 in contract authority which is 
not available for obligation under currently-assumed obligation 
limitations. This is not expected to effect ongoing airport 
development programs, and is due to budget constraints.

                   Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund

    Once again this year, the bill continues language 
authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to make 
expenditures and investments for aviation insurance activities 
out of the aviation insurance revolving fund and authorized 
under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code, within the 
limits of funds made available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44307.

                Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

    The bill includes a zero obligation limitation on 
borrowings during fiscal year 1999 under the aircraft purchases 
loan guarantee program. This is the same as the budget 
estimate.

                 Administrative Services Franchise Fund

    When this effort was initiated two years ago, Congress made 
it clear that the program was considered to be on a trial 
basis, and that cost savings must be demonstrated in the near-
term for Congressional support to be maintained. In denying the 
request originally, this Committee's June 1996 report stated 
``should the FAA provide convincing evidence that such an 
entity will save significant administrative costs, the 
Committee will consider such proposal in future years''. House 
conferees agreed to establish the fund later that year, but 
made clear that this was only on a trial basis, and that 
efficiencies and cost savings would be monitored closely. When 
no such savings were identified by mid-1997, the Committee 
recommended restrictions on the program. However, the 
restrictions were dropped in conference in lieu of a report 
detailing cost savings from the program. After eight months, 
the FAA recently submitted a two-page report which concluded 
that the agency ``recognized no measurable cost savings in 
fiscal year 1997 as a result of the franchise fund''. The 
Committee believes the agency has had ample time to prove the 
benefit of this fund, and has been unable to do so. Therefore, 
the bill includes a provision prohibiting the FAA from 
continuing the Administrative Services Franchise Fund during 
fiscal year 1999.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

    The Federal Highway Administration provides financial 
assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and 
highways, enforces federal standards related to interstate 
motor carriers and the highway transport of hazardous 
materials, and provides technical assistance to other agencies 
and organizations involved in road building activities. Title 
23 and other supporting legislation provide authority for the 
various activities of the Federal Highway Administration. 
Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels 
established by annual limitations on obligations provided in 
appropriations Acts.
    As discussed earlier in this report, the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) amended the Budget 
Enforcement Act to provide two additional discretionary 
spending categories, one of which is the highway category. This 
category is comprised of all federal-aid highway funding, motor 
carrier safety funding, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) highway safety grant funding and NHTSA 
highway safety research and development funding. The highway 
category obligations are capped at $25,883,000,000 and outlays 
are capped at $21,885,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. If 
appropriations action forces highway obligations or outlays to 
exceed these levels, the difference is charged to the 
nondefense discretionary spending category. In addition, if 
highway account receipts exceed levels specified in TEA21, 
automatic adjustments will be made to increase or decrease 
obligations and outlays for the highway category accordingly.
    The Committee's recommendation fully comports to and does 
not exceed the levels guaranteed by TEA21. The following table 
summarizes the program levels of the various programs within 
the Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 1998 
enacted, the fiscal year 1999 budget request and the 
Committee's recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Program                             1998 enacted       1999 request    1999  recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways...................................    $21,500,000,000    $21,500,000,000    $25,511,000,000
Exempt federal-aid programs............................      1,597,000,000      1,265,000,000      1,211,614,000
Emergency relief program supplemental..................      (259,000,000)  .................  .................
Motor carrier safety grants............................         84,825,000        100,000,000  .................
Appalachian development highway system.................        300,000,000  .................  .................
State infrastructure banks.............................  .................        150,000,000  .................
Transportation infrastructure credit program...........  .................        100,000,000  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     23,481,825,000     23,115,000,000     26,722,614,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Limitation on General Operating Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Limitation, fiscal year 1998 \1\......................    ($522,266,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................     (521,883,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................     (318,733,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Limitation, fiscal year 1998......................    (-233,533,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................   (-203,150,000) 
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $610,000 for TASC.                           

    This limitation controls spending for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to 
conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and 
most other federal highway programs. In the past, this 
limitation included a number of contract programs, such as 
highway research, development and technology; however, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) created 
a separate limitation for transportation research. Accordingly, 
in fiscal year 1999 costs related to highway research, 
development and technology are included under a separate 
limitation.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $318,733,000. This 
amount is $8,175,000 above comparable amounts provided for 
fiscal year 1998 and $22,530,000 below the level requested in 
the budget. The recommendation assumes a reduction from 1998 
enacted levels of 78 full time equivalent positions for a total 
of 3,087. The Committee recommendation includes $52,530,000 for 
motor carrier safety operations, to be transferred to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to carry out the 
functions of the office of motor carriers. The recommended 
level assumes the following adjustments to the budget request:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Undistributed reduction in GOE administrative expenses       -$6,000,000
Defer funding for national differential global                          
 positioning system...................................        -9,654,000
Delete funding for nationwide personal transportation                   
 survey...............................................        -1,500,000
Delete funding for national rural development program                   
 support..............................................          -500,000
Disapprove transfer to Appalachian Regional Commission        -3,000,000
Transportation needs study in the National Parks and                    
 federal lands........................................        +2,000,000
Undistributed reduction in motor carrier                                
 administrative expenses..............................        -2,853,000
                                                                        

    Undistributed reduction in GOE administrative expenses.--
The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of $6,000,000 
in administrative expenses and provides FHWA the flexibility to 
allocate that reduction among such expenses as ADP, permanent 
change of station, travel, transportation and non-mandatory 
bonuses and incentives.
    The Committee's allowance includes sufficient funds for the 
planned reorganization of the FHWA regional offices and staff, 
which shall be completed expeditiously and in the manner set 
forth in the department's reorganization plan outlined to 
Congress dated February 24, 1998. This includes eliminating 
nine regional offices, creating four technical resource centers 
in their place, and giving maximum delegations of authority to 
the state-level division offices. The FHWA is directed to 
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
detailed implementation plan by September 30, 1998, and to 
provide periodic reports thereafter. In allocating the 
available administrative funds, the Administrator shall ensure 
that expenses related to the reorganization are fully met 
before distributing funds for lower priority activities such as 
travel, bonuses, strategic planning, and training.
    Nationwide differential global positioning system (DGPS).--
The Committee has deleted funds requested for the nationwide 
differential global positioning system (-$9,654,000). Funds 
appropriated for similar activities last year have yet to be 
expended as there have been delays in implementing the 
interagency agreements. Specifically, the Committee has deleted 
funds an alternative civil frequency for the GPS, known as L5. 
In terms of transportation needs, the primary benefit of the 
requested investment would have accrued to the FAA. The 
Committee believes that it is inappropriate to fund this 
activity from the highway trust fund. Furthermore, the 
Committee understands that the Department of Defense has agreed 
to fund costs associated with L5.
    The Committee has also deleted funds for the DGPS system 
because the primary benefit of the investment in the near-term 
would accrue to many other federal agencies. Furthermore, there 
is little, if any evidence of the pressing need for a 
substantial departmental investment in DGPS to support the 
national ITS program or the development of positive train-
control rail systems. The Committee also remains concerned that 
the total costs for construction, operation and maintenance of 
DGPS over the next fifteen years could exceed $90,000,000 and 
that costs to develop and implement the L5 frequency have not 
been reliably determined but could require $100,000,000 to 
$200,000,000.
    The Committee maintains that these expenses should not be 
derived solely from the highway trust fund or other 
departmental accounts. Recognizing potential the importance of 
both DGPS and L5 to a wide array of strategic national 
purposes, the Secretary should seek to obtain funding from 
other federal agencies and sources and possibly other modal 
administrations. The department is directed to submit a report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as part of 
the fiscal year 2000 budget justification identifying the long-
term costs, benefits, and cost-sharing that might be reasonably 
expected for both DGPS and L5. The likely financial role of the 
states, other federal agencies, and the private sector in those 
systems should be clearly specified in terms of expected cash 
and in-kind contributions. The report should also address the 
role that DGPS will play in the national ITS program and in the 
development of positive train control systems. Both near-term 
(next five years) and long-term (next twenty years) needs 
should be considered. The costs/benefits of further investing 
in DGPS for transportation purposes, and an analysis of the 
actual number of highway crashes in which emergency responders 
are substantially delayed because of an inability to obtain 
exact crash locations, should also be addressed in the report.
    Nationwide personal transportation survey.--The Committee 
has not included funding within the limitation on general 
operating expenses for the nationwide personal transportation 
survey (-$1,500,000). Funding for this activity shall be 
available within the contract authority provided under the 
limitation on transportation research.
    National rural development program support.--The Committee 
has deleted funding requested for the department's share of the 
national rural development program (-$500,000). This program is 
a government-wide initiative/partnership, led by the Department 
of Agriculture, and is a network of rural development leaders 
and officials committed to the vitality of rural areas. The 
Committee has deleted funds for this activity for the last 
several years. None of the funds available to the FHWA shall 
support this activity in fiscal year 1999.
    Administrative activities of the Appalachian Regional 
Commission.--The Committee has deleted funding requested to 
transfer $3,000,000 to the Appalachian Regional Commission to 
cover the administrative activities associated with the 
Appalachian development highway system (ADHS). Funds provided 
for the administrative expenses of the Appalachian Regional 
Commission in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, as approved by the House, are sufficient to 
administer the ADHS program in fiscal year 1999.
    Transportation needs in the national parks and related 
public lands.--The Committee has included $2,000,000 to carry 
out section 3039 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century. Within the funds provided, the Secretary is directed 
to undertake a comprehensive study of alternative 
transportation needs in the national parks and related public 
lands managed by federal land management agencies, and to 
implement activities and contracts associated with the 
memorandum of understanding between the departments of the 
Interior and Transportation dated November 25, 1997.
    The Committee is pleased that the department has entered 
into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of 
the Interior. This MOU has the potential to be a model of 
interagency cooperation. The Committee understands that the 
national parks have significant transportation needs, and that 
the Department of Transportation, not the Department of the 
Interior, has the expertise in developing and implementing 
transportation projects. Accordingly, the Federal Highway 
Administration, particularly the Federal Lands division, and 
the Federal Transit Administration are directed to work 
cooperatively with each other and the Department of the 
Interior and the National Park Service in addressing the unique 
transportation requirements of the national parks.
    Further, the Committee directs the Federal Highway 
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration to review 
the transportation alternatives considered by the National Park 
Service in the Grand Canyon and Yosemite national parks to 
determine if all necessary and appropriate transportation 
planning, development, environmental and alternative analyses 
have been conducted to support the alternatives selected by the 
National Park Service. The Committee expects that the 
independent assessment be concluded and the results of the 
assessment transmitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by April 1, 1999.
    Inspector General audit cost reimbursement.--In addition to 
auditing the FHWA financial statement, office of inspector 
general (OIG) resources have traditionally been used for other 
financial audits related to the highway trust fund. For 
example, in the past year the OIG issued major reports on the 
emergency relief program and unexpended obligations on 
completed and inactive projects and Boston's Central Artery 
project. The Committee has found this work extremely useful and 
directs the OIG to continue such efforts. Since these financial 
reviews directly relate to efficient and effective use of the 
highway trust fund, the Committee directs that $750,000 be 
transferred from the FHWA's administrative takedown authorized 
by section 104(a) of title 23 to the office of inspector 
general.
    Motor carrier.--The Committee has provided $52,530,000 for 
motor carrier safety operations, which is a reduction of 
$2,853,000 from the budget request but an increase of three 
percent over the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. The office of 
motor carriers (OMC) has the flexibility to allocate this 
reduction among such expenses as travel, transportation, 
equipment, and other services. Within the total, the Committee 
expects OMC to initiate work on the rest area and shipper 
responsibility studies as authorized under the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century, as well as begin developing a 
separate hazardous materials safety evaluation area for 
SafeStat. No more than $50,000 should be allocated to the truck 
safety forum and no funds should be provided to the evaluation 
of the performance-based MCSAP because the department has the 
flexibility to provide funds for this activity using national 
priority funds from the MCSAP account.
    The Committee has included bill language that transfers the 
funds made available for the operations and activities of the 
office of motor carriers to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. The Committee believes that the office of motor 
carriers serves a vital safety oversight function, the 
activities of which are much more closely aligned with those of 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration than those 
of the Federal Highway Administration. The Committee directs 
that as part of the Federal Highway Administration's 
reorganization that the office of motor carriers be relocated 
within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    The Committee is concerned about OMC's tardiness in issuing 
final rules. It seems highly doubtful that final decisions on a 
major revision to the hours of service regulations or on the 
zero-based review will be issued within congressional 
deadlines. Also, it remains unclear if and when final rules 
will be issued on training requirements for entry-level drivers 
and longer-combination vehicles.
    The Committee is also concerned about the vitality and 
vigor of OMC's compliance program. The number of federally-
conducted compliance reviews has decreased 33 percent from 
fiscal year 1995 to 1997. Likewise, the number of compliance 
orders and consent orders issued to problem carriers has 
significantly declined in recent years. These proven 
enforcement strategies have been used effectively for many 
years. The Committee believes that OMC should re-focus its 
efforts in these areas in light of the increasing number of 
fatal crashes and fatal crash rates involving commercial 
vehicles.
    The Committee remains concerned about the progress of the 
motor carrier regulatory relief and safety demonstration 
project and strongly urges the Secretary to substantially 
revise the project's requirements to ensure that there is 
sufficient carrier participation to ensure a valid pilot test.
    The Committee directs that the presentation of the OMC 
operating budget be improved substantially. The Committee 
expects that the budget justifications for fiscal year 2000 
will include a complete description of the proposed activities, 
associated funding levels, and a break out of comparable 
activities for the prior two fiscal years. In future budget 
justifications, all continuing, new, and terminated activities 
and associated amounts all be clearly specified and related to 
the performance goals and measures of the OMC. The Research and 
Special Programs Administration's budget justification for the 
office of pipeline safety serves as an illustrative example of 
a more informative presentation.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Limitation, fiscal year 1998 \1\......................  ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \1\.................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................    ($409,150,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Limitation, fiscal year 1998......................    (+409,150,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................   (+409,150,000) 
                                                                        
\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 1998 and requested in fiscal year
  1999 were included under the limitation on general operating expenses.

    This limitation controls spending for the transportation 
research and technology contract programs of the Federal 
Highway Administration. This limitation includes a number of 
contract programs including intelligent transportation systems, 
surface transportation research, technology deployment, 
training and education, and university transportation research. 
In the past, funding under this limitation was provided in part 
from the limitation on general operating expenses and from 
contract authority provided in permanent law. The Committee 
recommends a limitation of $409,150,000. This is the same level 
as authorized by TEA21.
    Within the appropriate research areas, FHWA is directed to 
fund each of the research activities or programs specified in 
various sections of TEA21. The Committee expects the FHWA to 
request the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee 
(RTCC) of the National Academy of Sciences to review and 
comment on the FHWA's plans for initial implementation of all 
new research and technology contract programs that were not 
previously funded under the limitation on general operating 
expenses.
    The Committee further directs the department to submit 
annual justifications for the limitation on transportation 
research and the entire transportation research and technology 
contract program at the same level of detail provided in the 
fiscal year 1999 congressional justifications for similar 
programs.
    Within the funds provided for surface transportation 
research, the Committee recommends that $65,000,000 be 
allocated for highway research and development for the 
following activities:

Safety..................................................     $12,235,000
Pavements...............................................      11,300,000
Structures..............................................      15,200,000
Environment.............................................       5,600,000
Real estate services....................................         365,000
Policy..................................................       6,400,000
Planning................................................       4,000,000
Motor carrier...........................................       6,400,000
Advanced research.......................................       2,000,000
Highway operations......................................       1,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      65,000,000

    Within the funds provided for highway research and 
development, the Committee has provided up to $100,000 for the 
San Joaquin Valley air quality study.
    Safety.--The safety research and technology program 
develops engineering practices, analytic tools, equipment, 
roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information 
that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway 
fatalities and injuries. The Committee recommends $12,235,000 
for safety research and development activities. FHWA shall 
implement a comprehensive research and technology program that 
will ensure that safety research and deployment activities 
receive at least the same total amount of funds that contract 
and LGOE monies provided during fiscal year 1997.
    Pavements.--The pavement research and technology program 
identifies engineering practices, analytic tools, equipment, 
roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information 
that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway 
fatalities and injuries. For fiscal year 1999, the Committee 
recommends $11,300,000.
    Structures.--The structures research and technology program 
develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to 
efficiently maintain and renew the aging transportation 
infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance, 
and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery 
after major disasters. For fiscal year 1999, the Committee 
recommends $15,200,000.
    Environment.--The environment research and technology 
develops improved tools for assessing highway impacts on the 
environment; techniques for the avoidance, detection, and 
mitigation of those impacts and for the enhancement of the 
environment; and expertise on environmental concerns within 
FHWA and state and local transportation agencies. for fiscal 
year 1999, the Committee recommends $5,600,000.
    Real estate services.--The real estate research and 
technology program improves the public's access to activities, 
goods and services through developing: improved tools for 
assessing highway impacts on property owners and displaced 
persons; innovative techniques in acquiring real property; and 
right-of-way acquisition expertise within the FHWA and local 
transportation agencies. For fiscal year 1999, the Committee 
recommends $365,000.
    Policy research.--The policy research and technology 
program supports FHWA policy analysis and development, 
strategic planning, and technology development through research 
in data collection, management and dissemination; highway 
financing, investment analysis, and performance measurement; 
and enhancing highway program contributions to economic 
productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. The 
Committee recommends $6,400,000 for policy research, including 
$1,800,000 for the National Personal Transportation Survey 
(NPTS). The Committee is not convinced of the need to update 
the NPTS continuously and FHWA should plan on completing the 
next edition of that study as soon as practicable. Sufficient 
funds to initiate more than one half of the project are 
provided. FHWA should develop a work plan being certain to 
limit the scope and size of the NPTS to essential questions of 
importance to both the states and Federal Government users.
    Planning.--The planning research and technology program 
advances cost effective methods to evaluate transportation 
strategies and investments; develops and disseminates improved 
planning methods; develops more effective planning and data 
collection techniques for intermodal passenger and freight 
planning and programming; improves financial planning tools for 
use in developing transportation plans and programs; evaluates 
the characteristics of the National Highway System; and 
develops improved analytical tools to support metropolitan and 
statewide planning and for information and data sharing with 
state and local governments. The Committee's allowance includes 
$4,000,000 for planning research, including $1,000,000 for 
modifying the TRANSIMS to be useable for ITS purposes. None of 
the funds made available in the surface transportation research 
subaccount shall be used to conduct research related to 
sustainability and its role in transportation planning.
    Motor carrier research.--The motor carrier research and 
technology program seeks to reduce the number and severity of 
commercial driver-caused crashes, fatalities and injuries, and 
hazardous materials incidents by employing the results of long-
term human factors research, data collection and analyses to 
generate effective means of education, outreach and wellness 
promotion for all drivers. The program is designed to: achieve 
increased state participation in motor carrier compliance and 
enforcement activities, while increasing carrier operational 
efficiency; lower the motor carrier industry's regulatory 
compliance costs; and promote the medical fitness of drivers. 
The Committee has provided $6,400,000 for motor carrier 
research.
    Advanced research.--The advanced research program addresses 
longer-term, higher risk research that shows potential benefits 
for improving the durability, efficiency, environmental impact, 
productivity, and safety of highway systems. The Secretary is 
directed to ensure that FHWA is delegated the responsibility to 
manage and coordinate this important program. Because of its 
years of experience in promoting advanced research, its depth 
of technical expertise and contacts with the university 
community, and the close relationship between its mission and 
the stated legislative purposes of the advanced research 
program in TEA21, FHWA is the most appropriate entity to manage 
the advanced research program within the department. FHWA is 
expected to seek appropriate input from other modal 
administrations in project selection. Additional funds for the 
program are to be derived from appropriate accounts.
    Technology assessment and deployment.--The technology 
assessment and deployment program identifies and assesses 
innovative research results, technology, and products and 
promotes the application of those advances that are determined 
to be of potential benefit to the highway community by 
providing increased productivity, safety, and operations. 
Within the funds provided for surface transportation research, 
the Committee recommends $14,000,000 for technology assessment 
and deployment activities. The Committee directs that at least 
$2,600,000 of those funds be used for traffic and motor carrier 
activities, and $4,000,000 for safety and design, as requested 
in the budget. That allocation will ensure sufficient funds for 
the necessary deployment of key safety initiatives.
    For many years, the Committee has supported the development 
and initial deployment of integrated highway safety information 
systems. Partially as a result of FHWA's highway safety 
information system project, eight states have improved their 
analytical capabilities. FHWA is encouraged to assist an 
increased number of states that wish to deploy integrated 
information systems. One way to accomplish that objective would 
be to expedite the technology transfer of reliable data systems 
by developing and demonstrating an integrated safety 
information system (ISIS) model. The ISIS model will 
demonstrate the benefits to safety management of linking data 
on crashes, highway infrastructure inventory, traffic 
information flows, motor carriers, and medical outcomes (EMS, 
emergency medical departments, and hospital discharge). The 
FHWA is expected to work with states to encourage improved, 
linked data systems and to seek proposals from state agencies 
which would like to implement the ISIS model. The Committee 
expects that a substantial portion of the national technology 
deployment program funds will be used to achieve specific high 
payoff safety objectives, including improved safety of driving 
at night and other periods of reduced visibility or activities 
to reduce run-off-the-road crashes. FHWA should be prepared to 
report back to the Committee next year on specific and 
measurable safety and other goals.
    Research and technology support.--Within the funds provided 
for surface transportation research, the Committee recommends 
$7,500,000 for research and technology support. Research and 
technology support funds information sharing on planned 
research activities, research in progress, and research results 
nationwide in order to avoid duplication of efforts, identified 
voids where further work is needed, and disseminates research 
results to advance the state-of-the-art and the state-of-the-
practice in transportation. TEA21 reduces the small business 
innovative research costs of the program. Consequently, the 
Committee recommends a $2,500,000 reduction in support funds 
because of the recent change in law and the need to reduce 
other support costs.
    ITS standards, research, operational tests and 
development.--The Committee recommends that the $95,000,000 
provided in TEA21 for ITS research be allocated in the 
following manner:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Research and development..............................       $38,000,000
Operational tests.....................................        17,000,000
Evaluation............................................         6,000,000
Architecture and standards............................        18,000,000
Mainstreaming.........................................         6,000,000
Program support.......................................        10,000,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................        95,000,000
                                                                        

    Research and development.--The research and development 
program supports the research and development of new ITS 
technologies to improve the safety, mobility, and productivity 
of the surface transportation system. Because similar funds are 
provided under various provisions specified in TEA21, funds for 
the ITS research centers of excellence have been deleted. The 
Committee's allowance specifies that $6,000,000 shall be 
allocated for commercial vehicle research, and includes funds 
to advance and test the expansion of the mailbox project to 
involve a third region of the country, and to conduct research 
leading towards advances in roadside inspection technology. 
Funds for ITS/grade crossing work have been deleted because of 
the availability of prior year funding. Evidence of strong 
industry financial participation in the intermodal freight 
research project will be essential to continue funding in that 
area.
    The Committee directs the director of the joint program 
office to ensure that the primary federal role in the 
intelligent vehicle initiative (IVI) is focused on expediting 
the innovation of integrated crash avoidance technologies for 
passenger vehicles. In view of the substantial human factors 
research, performance specification work, crash avoidance and 
information systems integration, and cost/benefit assessment 
work that remains to be completed, an IVI program focused on 
those critical safety issues is of foremost importance. 
Consequently, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 for research 
and development to advance crash avoidance technologies for 
passenger vehicle operators and related human factors research. 
Such activities as automation of transit vehicles, snow removal 
systems, and other highway maintenance vehicles and research on 
non-safety components of the IVI should receive a much lower 
priority than critical safety objectives. In carrying out 
research into crash avoidance, the Committee encourages the JPO 
to work with George Washington University and Louisiana State 
University.
    The recent NAS review of the automated highway systems 
program underscored the need for periodic, outside review of 
major projects such as the IVI. Within the funds provided, the 
director of the JPO shall ensure that an external review of the 
emerging IVI program is periodically conducted at least once 
every two years and the results of that review are made widely 
available. The Committee further directs the director of the 
JPO to prepare a five-year strategic plan documenting the 
future challenges, scope and direction of the IVI program. The 
plan shall be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations as part of the budget justification for fiscal 
year 2000.
    The Committee notes that TEA21 provides for $1,300,000,000 
for ITS programs and projects over the next six years. The 
department is obligated to ensure that these funds are used 
efficiently and effectively to develop the nation's future 
transportation system. The Inspector General is directed to 
audit the program and expenditure of funds provided for ITS 
activities to ensure that they are used in the most cost-
effective and efficient manner, consistent with federal law and 
regulation.
    Operational tests.--The operational tests program provides 
a bridge between research and development and large-scale 
deployment through the technical testing of ITS technologies 
and by addressing institutional barriers. The Committee's 
allowance includes $10,000,000 requested for operational 
testing of intelligent passenger vehicles. Funding for IVI work 
on commercial vehicles is limited to a maximum of $2,500,000. 
Limited success and actual application of other drowsy driving 
detection or fatigue management initiatives previously 
supported by OMC suggest a cautious approach.
    Evaluations program.--The evaluations program provides a 
rigorous analysis of the costs and benefits of ITS user 
services and the overall impact of the ITS program through the 
evaluation of operational tests, tracking of ITS deployments, 
and the assessment of ITS programs and policies. The Committee 
recommends $6,000,000 for program evaluation studies and 
recognizes the importance of continuing to evaluate the 
benefits and costs of various ITS projects and tracking 
progress on those projects. Funds for policy assessments shall 
be limited $1,500,000 or less.
    Architecture and standards.--The architecture and standards 
program provides for the maintenance, enhancement and 
application of the national ITS architecture and the 
development and testing of ITS standards. The Committee 
recommends $18,000,000 for architecture and standards work. The 
director of the JPO is urged to make maximum use of the 
leverage provided in the reauthorization statute to ensure the 
implementation of the standards necessary for interoperability.
    The Committee encourages the JPO to work with states and 
municipalities to ensure that intelligent transportation 
systems developed and deployed with federal funds are 
interoperable and can be adopted to provide seamless 
transportation services, particularly on interstate highways.
    Mainstreaming.--The mainstreaming program supports training 
and technical guidance for federal, state, and local 
professionals charged with implementing integrated ITS systems. 
The Committee continues to assert that the department is 
spending too much of its scarce ITS resources trying to 
convince planners, the engineering community and others of the 
benefits of ITS. There is substantial literature documenting 
the benefits of building ``smarter'' using ITS; numerous 
training courses and programs are well underway; and the ITS 
concept is beginning to be mainstreamed in the transportation 
community. Consequently, the Committee's allowance deletes 
funds for grass roots involvement (-$535,000), eliminates funds 
for cooperation with transit companies (-$350,000), and reduces 
funds for commercial vehicle operations mainstreaming to a 
maximum of $500,000. The Committee recommendation also reduces 
funding for planning/policy mainstreaming activities to less 
than $1,000,000 and denies funds to establish the role of ITS 
in supporting FHWA/FTA mobility goals. The Committee also 
denies funds for ITS awareness and advocacy (-$2,000,000). 
Publication funds should be included as an integral part of 
related activities. Remaining mainstreaming funds shall be used 
to provide technical assistance on the planning, procurement, 
and implementation of integrated ITS technologies, offer 
guidance on the use of the national architecture, and 
supplement critical training not available from the private 
sector or universities.
    Joint program office.--The Committee wishes to repeat its 
longstanding interest in ensuring that the department continues 
to maintain the joint program office (JPO) as the coordinating 
entity of federal involvement in the national ITS program. The 
Committee directs that the JPO continue to have final budgetary 
authority over the allocation of ITS funds among the various 
modes and projects. It is essential that the JPO ensures that 
cross cutting issues are addressed, human factors research is 
coordinated, evaluation efforts are comprehensive and focused, 
and priorities are analytically determined so that national 
interests are served rather than any specific modal interest. 
The Committee believes that the only way to achieve those 
objectives is to maintain the JPO as an independent entity 
within the department. Given the intermodal nature of ITS, the 
director of the JPO shall continue to report to the Deputy 
Secretary as well as the FHWA Administrator. The Secretary is 
directed to ensure that not less than 17 positions are 
allocated to the JPO during fiscal year 1999.
    National ITS program plan.--The Committee looks forward to 
receiving as soon as possible an update of the national ITS 
program plan, which shall be prepared in a manner consistent 
with the requirements of Section 5205 of TEA21. In developing 
the plan, the director of the JPO shall make effective use of 
the federal advisory committee for intelligent transportation 
systems.
    ITS deployment projects.--It is the intent of the Committee 
that the following projects contribute to the integration and 
interoperability of intelligent transportation systems in 
metropolitan and rural areas as provided under section 5208 of 
the TEA21 and promote deployment of the commercial vehicle 
intelligent transportation system infrastructure as provided 
under section 5209 of the TEA21. These projects shall conform 
to the requirements set forth in these sections, including the 
project selection criteria contained in section 5208(b) and the 
priority areas outlined in section 5209(c), respectively. Funds 
provided in TEA21 for ITS deployment activities are to be made 
available as follows:

        Project                                                   Amount
Amherst/Northampton, Massachusetts......................      $1,000,000
Arlington County, Virginia..............................         750,000
Blacksburg, Virginia....................................       2,000,000
Centre Valley, Pennsylvania.............................       1,000,000
Cleveland, Ohio.........................................       2,000,000
Corpus Christi, Texas...................................       1,000,000
Dade County, Florida....................................       2,000,000
Del Rio, Texas..........................................       1,500,000
Fairfield, California...................................       1,000,000
Fitchburg, Massachusetts................................         500,000
Greater metropolitan capital region, DC.................       8,000,000
Hammond, Louisiana......................................       6,000,000
Houston, Texas..........................................       2,500,000
Huntington Beach, California............................       1,000,000
Huntsville, Alabama.....................................       1,000,000
Inglewood, California...................................       2,250,000
Laredo, Texas...........................................       2,000,000
Las Vegas, Nevada.......................................       2,000,000
Middlesboro, Kentucky...................................       6,000,000
Mission Viejo, California...............................       2,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana..................................       2,000,000
New York City, New York.................................       5,000,000
Pearl River County, Mississippi.........................       1,000,000
Port Angeles, Washington................................         500,000
Riverside County, California............................       2,000,000
San Francisco, California...............................       3,000,000
Scranton, Pennsylvania..................................       2,000,000
Silicon Valley, California..............................       3,000,000
Springfield, Virginia...................................         500,000
State of Idaho..........................................       1,000,000
State of Maryland.......................................       3,000,000
State of Minnesota......................................      12,000,000
State of New York.......................................       5,000,000
State of North Dakota...................................       1,500,000
State of Utah...........................................       5,000,000
State of Washington.....................................         500,000
Temucula, California....................................         250,000
Tucson, Arizona.........................................       1,000,000
Volusia County, Florida.................................       2,000,000
Warren County, Virginia.................................         250,000
Wausau-Stevens Point-Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin........       1,000,000
White Plains, New York..................................       1,000,000

                          Federal-aid Highways

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998....................      $20,800,000,000
Budget estimate fiscal year 1999...................       23,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................       24,000,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998................       +3,200,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999..............       +1,000,000,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $24,000,000,000. This is an increase of $3,200,000,000 over 
the fiscal year 1998 enacted level and is needed to pay the 
outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at 
levels anticipated in TEA21. This appropriation is mandatory 
and has no scoring effect.

                     federal-aid highways programs

    Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a 
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain 
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new 
construction of roads. State highway departments have the 
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA 
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The 
federal government provides financial support for construction 
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary 
with the type of road.
    There are almost four million miles of public roads in the 
United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The Federal 
Government provides grants to states to assist in financing the 
construction and preservation of about 945,000 miles (24 
percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive 
interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes. 
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of 
total U.S. highway traffic.
    The recently-passed Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA21) reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, 
and other surface transportation programs through fiscal year 
2003. The TEA21 builds on programs and other initiatives 
established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the previous major authorizing legislation 
for surface transportation programs.
    Under the TEA21, Federal-aid highways funds are made 
available through the following major programs:
    National highway system.--The ISTEA of 1991 authorized--and 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS). 
This 163,000-mile road system serving major population centers, 
international border crossings, intermodal transportation 
facilities and major travel destinations, is the culmination of 
years of effort by many organizations, both public and private, 
to identify routes of national significance. It includes all 
Interstate routes, other urban and rural principal arterials, 
the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic 
highway connectors, and is estimated to carry up to 75 percent 
of commercial truck traffic and 40 percent of all vehicular 
traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its 
NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If 
the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The 
federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability 
period of 4 years.
    Interstate maintenance.--The 46,000 mile Dwight D. 
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program 
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and 
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges, 
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate 
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity 
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
    All remaining Federal funding to complete the initial 
construction of the Interstate system has been provided through 
previous highway legislation. The TEA21 provides flexibility to 
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of 
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no 
remaining work to complete the Interstate system may transfer 
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their Interstate 
maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on 
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish 
Interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and 
transfer the federal share of the cost to their Interstate 
maintenance program.
    Surface transportation program.--The Surface Transportation 
Program (STP) is a very flexible program that may be used by 
the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that 
are not functionally classified as local or rural minor 
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as 
Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are 
not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public 
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this 
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the 
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee 
funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds. 
Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used 
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety 
construction, 10 percent for transportation enhancement, 50 
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and 
remaining areas of the State, and 30 percent for any area of 
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an 
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts 
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor 
collectors. The federal share for the STP program is 80 percent 
with a 4-year availability period.
    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This 
program is continued by the TEA21 to provide assistance for 
bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for 
high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges. 
Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to 
the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is 
deducted from the national bridge needs used in the program's 
apportionment formula for the following year.
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air 
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range 
of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT, 
after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help 
meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides 
greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and 
expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to 
reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate 
matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state 
has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be 
used as if they were STP funds.
    Federal lands highways.--This program provides 
authorizations through three major categories--Indian 
reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands 
highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways 
category)--as well as a new category for Federally owned public 
roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife 
Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for 
improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.
    Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, after the computation of 
funds for major Federal-aid programs has been completed, 
additional funds are distributed to ensure that each State 
receives an additional amount based on equity considerations. 
This minimum guarantee provision ensures that each State will 
have a return of 90.5 percent on its share of contributions to 
the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the 
minimum guarantee each fiscal year, $2.8 billion nationally is 
available to the States as though they are STP funds (except 
that requirements related to set-asides for transportation 
enhancements, safety, and sub-State allocations do not apply), 
and any remaining amounts are distributed among core highway 
programs.
    Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and 
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned 
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of 
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA21 restates the 
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds 
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential 
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting 
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect 
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds 
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds 
from other highway programs.
    High priority projects.--TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority 
projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects 
totals $9.5 billion over the 6 year period with a specified 
percentage of the project funds made available each year. 
Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA21 
high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid 
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated 
with the projects does not expire.
    Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes 
funds available to construct highways and access roads under 
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
1965. Under TEA21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 1999-2003; is available until expended and 
distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete 
estimate.
    National corridor planning and border infrastructure 
programs.--TEA21 established a new national corridor planning 
and development program that provides funds for the coordinated 
planning, design, and construction of corridors of national 
significance, economic growth, and international or 
interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors 
identified in section 1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors 
using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated 
border infrastructure program is established to improve the 
safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./
Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders.
    Discretionary highway grants.--The General Accounting 
Office, in an audit requested by the Committee, found that 
during fiscal years 1995 through 1997, the administrator of the 
FHWA selected a declining proportion of discretionary highway 
projects that staff evaluated as most cost effective. This was 
particularly evident in the public lands highway program. 
Specifically, the GAO found that the FHWA awarded more projects 
and total funding for projects in Congressional districts with 
Democratic incumbents even though states requested more funds 
for projects in districts with Republican incumbents. In fact, 
in fiscal year 1997, the FHWA awarded nearly all the projects 
and most of the funds to projects in democratic districts. The 
Committee is troubled by GAO's finding and is particularly 
disturbed by the fact that the office of the administrator was 
unable to provide a detailed explanation as to why the FHWA 
awarded a disproportionate amount of projects and funding to 
Democratic districts. The Committee therefore directs the FHWA 
to develop specific merit-based criteria for the awarding of 
discretionary highway funds, including the federal lands 
program.
    Proceeds from the sale or lease of real property.--The 
Committee finds that the language in section 156 of title 23 of 
the United States Code permitting an exception for ``a social, 
environmental, or economic purpose'' can be applied to 
providing parking for the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition 
District provided improvements by the District are in 
accordance with maintenance and operational needs of the 
highway facility affected.

                          Federal-aid Highways

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Limitation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...............        ($21,500,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999..............         (21,500,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........................         (25,511,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Limitation, fiscal year 1998...............         (+4,011,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999..........         (+4,011,000,000)
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $657,000 for TASC.                           

    The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 1999 federal-aid highways obligations to $25,511,000,000, 
an increase of $4,011,000,000 over the 1998 enacted level and 
the budget request. The recommended level is the level assumed 
in TEA21. These funds are guaranteed under the new highway 
funding category.
    Although the following table reflects an estimated 
distribution of obligations by program category, the bill 
includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain 
federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated 
obligations by program within the $25,511,000,000 provided by 
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent 
law:

                                   FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS                                   
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 1998         FY 1999   
                            Programs                              FY 1997 actual     estimated       estimated  
                                                                                    obligations     obligations 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:                                                                                          
    National highway system.....................................      $3,246,947      $3,598,977      $4,167,258
    Interstate maintenance......................................       2,487,662       2,999,387       3,472,715
    Surface transportation program..............................       7,678,456       4,198,567       4,861,801
    Bridge program..............................................       1,972,966       2,574,170       2,979,730
    Congestion mitigation & air quality improvement.............         807,225       1,043,703       1,180,723
    Minimum guarantee...........................................          Exempt       4,264,951       4,515,863
    Federal lands programs......................................         338,036         475,405         632,449
    Transportation research.....................................          81,250         334,935         343,738
    High priority projects......................................          Exempt         923,126       1,271,396
    Other programs..............................................       1,724,202         708,278       1,237,294
    Tax evasion.................................................           5,000           5,000           5,000
    Bureau of transportation statistics.........................          20,507          31,000          31,000
    Appalachian highways 1......................................          10,000  ..............         403,119
    Woodrow Wilson bridge.......................................          30,000          22,501          68,175
    Limitation on general operating expenses....................         518,889         320,000         318,733
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Limitation..........................................      18,921,140      21,500,000      25,511,000
Exempt from limitation:                                                                                         
    Emergency relief:                                                                                           
        Regular program.........................................         114,379         123,056         100,000
        Supplemental............................................         580,232         412,435  ..............
    Minimum guarantee 2.........................................         549,877         774,104         639,041
    Minimum allocation--ISTEA 2.................................  ..............           9,276           3,710
    Federal-aid highways demos (prior authorization)............       1,195,904         610,090         414,862
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Exempt..............................................       2,440,392       1,928,961       1,211,614
                                                                 ===============================================
      Grand total, federal-aid highways.........................      21,361,532      23,428,961      26,722,614
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 In fiscal year 1998, an appropriaiton of $300,000,000 was provided for Appalachian highways.                  
2 FY 1998 and FY 1999 estimated obligations are 60% of total funding including prior year balances.             

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

                                                         ESTIMATED FY 1999 OBLIGATION LIMITATION                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Estimated FY                                                                     
                               States                                  1999 formula    FY 1999 minimum   Appalachia         Total        Change from FY 
                                                                        limitation        guarantee                                           1998      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................................      $356,717,558      $36,249,673   $44,386,075      $437,353,306      +$65,155,925
Alaska.............................................................       176,862,464       75,457,577  ............       252,320,041       +36,054,471
Arizona............................................................       303,242,010       41,689,478  ............       344,931,488       +50,387,631
Arkansas...........................................................       253,048,519       29,531,271  ............       282,579,790       +39,941,480
California.........................................................     1,863,262,921      128,492,399  ............     1,991,755,320      +283,405,961
Colorado...........................................................       246,794,527       12,783,562  ............       259,578,089       +37,782,233
Connecticut........................................................       263,140,366       59,984,184  ............       323,124,550       +45,790,935
Delaware...........................................................        89,175,631       10,204,143  ............        99,379,774       +14,671,844
Dist. of Col.......................................................        87,500,316  ...............  ............        87,500,316       +12,604,317
Florida............................................................       836,403,576      164,045,867  ............     1,000,449,443      +144,013,176
Georgia............................................................       631,182,058      106,041,763    17,738,360       754,962,181      +108,862,001
Hawaii.............................................................       101,013,240       10,150,553  ............       111,163,793       +15,739,476
Idaho..............................................................       135,558,256       23,611,006  ............       159,169,262       +21,832,705
Illinois...........................................................       684,346,858       41,374,700  ............       725,721,558      +102,311,366
Indiana............................................................       443,339,425       62,812,583  ............       506,152,008       +71,922,451
Iowa...............................................................       251,743,987       10,229,839  ............       261,973,826       +37,409,782
Kansas.............................................................       247,975,576        7,191,787  ............       255,167,363       +36,377,429
Kentucky...........................................................       301,686,021       33,262,150    40,717,006       375,665,177       +56,302,900
Louisiana..........................................................       309,567,618       29,387,327  ............       338,954,945       +47,647,164
Maine..............................................................       105,067,775        9,995,936  ............       115,063,711       +16,554,386
Maryland...........................................................       298,563,022       22,232,349     6,940,719       327,736,090       +47,244,813
Massachusetts......................................................       393,447,726       10,135,128  ............       403,582,854       +95,546,926
Michigan...........................................................       601,179,804       73,909,316  ............       675,089,120       +44,901,436
Minnesota..........................................................       299,390,185       20,374,380  ............       319,764,565       +37,788,019
Mississippi........................................................       240,285,680       18,147,691     4,977,512       263,410,883       +71,861,955
Missouri...........................................................       472,680,856       35,242,540  ............       507,923,396       +32,472,136
Montana............................................................       185,761,378       34,956,689  ............       220,718,067       +25,898,549
Nebraska...........................................................       172,373,765        3,434,871  ............       175,808,636       +22,908,306
Nevada.............................................................       136,454,844       21,912,644  ............       158,367,488       +16,622,698
New Hampshire......................................................        97,761,103       11,247,908  ............       109,009,011       +77,979,908
New Jersey.........................................................       528,704.456       25,550,346  ............       554,254,802       +30,523,462
New Mexico.........................................................       189,037,604       24,551,758  ............       213,589,362      +154,675,252
New York...........................................................     1,000,631,061       89,011,429     9,566,292     1,099,208,782       +89,086,984
North Carolina.....................................................       508,903,855       76,141,397    26,133,026       611,178,278       +21,634,743
North Dakota.......................................................       136,379,058       10,668,948  ............       147,048,006      +106,209,804
Ohio...............................................................       669,345,173       49,795,300    20,015,376       739,155,849       +48,475,721
Oregon.............................................................       243,605,252       16,279,527  ............       259,884,779       +36,477,315
Pennsylvania.......................................................       885,942,462       56,749,443   108,530,182     1,051,222,087      +152,748,355
Rhode Island.......................................................       112,218,000       19,004,264  ............       131,222,264       +19,114,099
South Carolina.....................................................       299,227,293       46,689,562     2,174,947       348,091,802       +50,532,521
South Dakota.......................................................       141,306,695       13,733,400  ............       155,040,095       +22,168,368
Tennessee..........................................................       402,458,421       36,818,342    49,762,093       489,038,856       +72,857,127
Texas..............................................................     1,377,362,296      192,615,348  ............     1,569,977,644      +225,934,036
Utah...............................................................       156,165,398       12,107,424  ............       168,272,822       +23,808,584
Vermont............................................................        93,676,350        7,932,136  ............       101,608,486       +14,817,139
Virginia...........................................................       490,201,761       56,048,394    10,459,943       556,710,098       +80,470,677
Washington.........................................................       360,017,192       23,031,097  ............       383,048,289       +53,953,390
West Virginia......................................................       170,488,388        4,857,645    61,717,244       237,063,277       +36,651,007
Wisconsin..........................................................       370,808,051       57,655,199  ............       428,463,250       +61,103,421
Wyoming............................................................       143,559,043       12,010,150  ............       155,569,193       +22,841,062
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SUBTOTAL.......................................................    19,178,089,434    2,000,000,000   403,118,775    21,581,208,209    +2,901,451,946
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Special Limitation--                                                                                                                                    
    High Priority Projects.........................................  ................  ...............  ............     1,271,395,575      +348,270,075
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge..........................................  ................  ...............  ............        68,175,000       +45,675,000
    Allocation Reserve.............................................  ................  ...............  ............     2,590,221,216      +715,602,979
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total limitation...........................................  ................  ...............  ............    25,511,000,000    +4,011,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel, Boston, 
Massachusetts.--The Department of Transportation's Inspector 
General recently completed an audit of the cost and financing 
for the Central Artery/Ted Williams Tunnel project in response 
to a request made by this Committee. The results of the study 
indicate continuing cost escalations. This trend is 
unacceptable.
    The state's current cost estimate is $10,800,000,000. Based 
on actual experience, the IG estimates the project could cost 
$11,200,000,000. The difference is that the state's estimate 
does not reflect actual experience to date and does reflect 
overly optimistic cost-containment goals. Specifically, if the 
current, running composite rate of cost growth (14 percent) in 
change orders continues into the future, rather than the 
construction completion composite rate identified in the 
state's planning goal (10.7 percent), these project costs will 
rise by almost $300,000,000. Similarly, if large contract 
awards ($95,000,000 or higher) were to continue at 11 percent 
over budget as is currently being experienced by the project, 
the remaining large construction bids would come in higher than 
budget by over $100,000,000.
    Management consulting costs are likely to increase beyond 
current estimates. The state's management consulting firm has 
been paid about $1,000,000,000 on its current $1,600,000,000 
contract. In 1995, the estimated total cost of the consultant 
contract was $1,480,000,000. The cost of that contract has 
increased nearly ten percent in the past two years, and will 
further increase in the five years remaining on the contract 
unless the consulting staff is significantly reduced. Early in 
the project, managers forecast that by fiscal year 1997, as 
design gave way to full construction, the number of employees 
on the consulting payroll would drop to less than 600. Although 
the estimated date of project completion has not changed, the 
design phase is nearly complete, and the project has moved into 
construction, the consulting staff remains at over 950 
employees, nearly the same level of employees as in fiscal year 
1993. To avoid additional cost, the state must reduce the 
consulting staff to the originally planned levels.
    The state estimates total funding of $11,700,000,000 will 
be required through the completion of the project scheduled in 
2004. (This level does not include the over $400,000,000 
identified in potential contract cost overruns or additional 
consultant costs.) This $11,700,000,000 funding level differs 
from the state's estimate of project costs of $10,800,000,000 
because an insurance credit is expected in 2017, and it will be 
used to offset about $800,000,000 of project expenditures. 
Nevertheless, the full $11,700,000,000 in expenditures must be 
financed by project completion in fiscal year 2005.
    The state's ability to finance these costs is dependent 
heavily on federal funding levels contained in TEA21. The Act 
provides the commonwealth of Massachusetts with an average of 
$487,000,000 a year over the next six years, instead of the 
$580,000,000 the Commonwealth anticipated in its 1997 finance 
plan. As a result, a shortfall of about $375,000,000 will occur 
between 1998 and 2003, requiring the commonwealth to explore 
additional funding options to meet this shortfall.
    While the state plans to use almost three-quarters of its 
federal highway funds anticipated through fiscal year 2002, and 
half of its federal highway funds anticipated from fiscal years 
2003 through 2005 for the project, the state has made the 
commitment that it will maintain a balanced highway program 
throughout the entire state totaling at least $400,000,000 per 
year. Notwithstanding this commitment, funding programmed in 
the state's transportation improvement program for interstate 
maintenance projects totals only $16,000,000 for fiscal years 
1998 through 2003, or only 3 percent of the $415,000,000 in 
funds available. $84,000,000 is transferred to the STP program. 
Similarly, of the $249,000,000 anticipated for CMAQ programs, 
only $44,000,000 is programmed for statewide projects. The 
Committee cannot accept that a transportation program with 
virtually no interstate maintenance for six years is considered 
balanced.
    The Committee expects that the finance plan will be updated 
immediately to reflect the federal funding now available to the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a result of the enactment of 
TEA21 and to fully identify the additional short-term financing 
and new revenue sources that are required to meet the project's 
cash requirements. The Committee directs the department's 
Inspector General to continue to oversee the costs, funding, 
and schedule of the Central Artery project and to report 
periodically its results to the Committee.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants

                          (highway trust fund)

                                                                        
                                                         (Liquidation of
                                       (Limitation on       contract    
                                        obligations)     authorization) 
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--...     ($84,825,000)       $85,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999--.     (100,000,000)       100,000,000
Recommended in the bill--...........            (\1\)-             (\1\)
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--                                   
 ...................................     (-84,825,000)       -85,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1999--.............................    (-100,000,000)      -100,000,000
                                                                        
\1\ The Committee recommendation provides the appropriation for motor   
  carrier safety grants within the National Highway Traffic Safety      
  Administration.                                                       

    The accompanying bill provides $100,000,000 in liquidating 
cash and limitations on obligations for the motor carrier 
safety grants within the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. In fiscal year 1998 and the budget request, 
funding for the motor carrier safety grants program was 
included within the Federal Highway Administration. The 
Committee believes that the office of motor carriers and the 
motor carrier safety grants program serve a vital safety 
oversight function, the activities of which are much more 
closely aligned with those of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration than those of the Federal Highway 
Administration.

                 Appalachian Development Highway System

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--.....................      $300,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999--...................  ................
Recommended in the bill--.............................  ................
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--.................      -300,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999--...............  ................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends no general fund appropriation for 
the Appalachian development highway system (ADHS). This is the 
same level as requested in the budget and $300,000,000 less 
than provided in fiscal year 1998. TEA21 includes a total of 
$2,250,000,000 for ADHS, of which $450,000,000 is available in 
fiscal year 1999 within the overall federal-aid highway program 
limitation. These funds, together with previous appropriated 
funds, are sufficient to fund the program for fiscal year 1999.
    In fiscal year 1998, a total of nearly $400,000,000 in 
general fund budget authority was provided through a 
combination of appropriations contained in both the fiscal year 
1998 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act and the Department of Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act. In testimony before the 
Committee, the Federal Highway Administration noted that in 
excess $330,000,000 of previous appropriated funds remain 
unobligated and available for expenditure for ADHS activities. 
Moreover, the Committee observes that while there may be 
significant costs to complete segments of the ADHS system, 
there are also funding deficiencies for other federal-aid 
projects equally worthy of additional federal support.

                       State Infrastructure Banks

                          (highway trust fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--.....................  ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999--...................      $150,000,000
Recommended in the bill--.............................  ................
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--.................  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999--...............      -150,000,000
                                                                        

    The Committee has not recommended any funding for the state 
infrastructure bank program in fiscal year 1999. No similar 
appropriation was provided in fiscal year 1998. TEA21 includes 
funding for the transportation infrastructure finance and 
innovation program (TIFIA), which is included in the overall 
federal-aid highway program.

        Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program

                          (highway trust fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--.....................  ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999--...................      $100,000,000
Recommended in the bill--.............................  ................
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--.................  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999--...............      -100,000,000
                                                                        

    The Committee has not recommended any funding for the 
transportation infrastructure credit enhancement program in 
fiscal year 1999. No similar appropriation was provided in 
fiscal year 1998. TEA21 includes funding for the transportation 
infrastructure finance and innovation program (TIFIA), which is 
included in the overall federal-aid highway program.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 Program

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

                         Traffic Safety Trends

    In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest ever number of 
highway fatalities--39,250--despite an increasing amount of 
travel on the roadways. This trend has reversed itself since 
then. However, it appears that fatalities may be leveling off. 
The latest NHTSA data indicates fatalities in 1997 were 42,000, 
which is a very slight increase from the 41,907 fatalities in 
1996. In comparing 1997 to 1996, there was a 1.3-percent 
decrease in the number of police-reported traffic crashes and a 
1.7-percent decrease in reported injuries caused by those 
accidents.
    The fatality rate has remained constant, at 1.7 per 100 
million vehicle miles of travel (VMT), since 1993. In 1997, 
this rate continued even with an estimated increase of 2 
percent VMT from 1996. The following charts show these safety 
trends.





    The percentage of traffic crashes involving alcohol 
decreased in 1997. An estimated 16,500 people (39.3 percent) 
were killed in alcohol-related crashes down from 40.9 percent 
in 1996. This is the first time that the percentage of alcohol-
related crashes has dropped below 40 percent since NHTSA began 
collecting these fatality rates.

                        Operations and Research

                     (Including Highway Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................      $146,962,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................       172,902,000
Recommended in the bill \2\...........................       161,400,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................       +14,438,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................       -11,502,000
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $178,000 for TASC.                           
\2\ Including the National Driver Register.                             

    For fiscal year 1999, TEA21 authorized a total 
appropriation level of $161,400,000. This total consists of 
three separate authorizations. First, the bill includes 
$72,000,000 of contract authority from the highway trust fund 
to finance NHTSA's operations and research activities under 
title 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included within the 
firewall guarantee for highway spending. Second, TEA21 includes 
an authorization, subject to appropriation, of $87,400,000 for 
operations and research activities under section 30102 and 
30104 of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the bill includes an 
authorization from the highway trust fund of $2,000,000 for the 
National Driver Register.
    The Committee recommends new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for a total program level of 
$161,400,000, which is an increase of 10 percent above the 1998 
enacted level. The bill includes language to limit the 
availability of the general fund appropriation for operations 
and research to a three-year period.
    The Committee has worked with NHTSA to revise its 1999 
budget request to comply with the levels authorized under TEA21 
and recommends the following adjustments:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Defer funding 10 new staff positions-.................         -$780,000
Defer funding new consumer information program........          -814,000
Hold NCAP testing to 1998 level.......................        -2,270,000
Delete funding for fuel economy program...............           -60,000
Slight reduction in vehicle safety compliance.........           -40,000
Reduce increase for defects investigation from 38 to                    
 24 percent...........................................          -360,000
Delete funding for the safe communities program.......        -2,800,000
Slight reduction in EMS research......................           -40,000
Hold PNGV to 1998 level...............................        -1,004,000
Reduce increase for biomechanics simulation and                         
 analysis from 20 to 18 percent.......................          -225,000
Reduce increase for crash avoidance research from 109                   
 to 91 percent........................................          -300,000
Fund occupant protection survey under grant                             
 administration.......................................          -300,000
Increase grant administration reimbursement...........        -4,509,000
Fund National Driver Register.........................        +2,000,000
                                                       -----------------
    Net reduction to the budget request...............       -11,502,000
                                                                        

    Reductions necessary to meet the authorized level shall not 
be taken from alcohol, drug enforcement, occupant protection, 
aggressive driving, crash investigation, or air bag programs. 
The Committee expects NHTSA to provide details on how these 
reductions will be allocated within 15 days after the enactment 
of this Act.
    Staff increases.--The Committee has denied the request for 
10 new staff positions in light of the authorization level.
    New car assessment program (NCAP).--The Committee has held 
funding for the NCAP program at the 1998 enacted level of 
$2,786,000. The Committee is concerned about NHTSA's inclusion 
of the 5th percentile dummy in the NCAP program. This dummy has 
not yet been certified under federal motor vehicle safety 
standard 208 and is still considered experimental. Until this 
dummy is certified, it should not be used in safety testing 
programs.
    Consumer information program.--The Committee has denied the 
request for a new consumer information program in light of the 
new authorization level. In the past, educating the public on 
NCAP results has been funded within the NCAP program. NHTSA 
requested that this education effort become a separate program 
in fiscal year 1999. The Committee has provided sufficient 
funding within the NCAP program to continue these educational 
activities.
    Fuel economy.--The Committee has deleted funding for the 
fuel economy contract program. This work can be done 
internally.
    Safe communities.--The Committee has deleted funding for 
the safe communities program. Originally, this program was 
designed as a three-year program and the projects would act as 
focal points for the development of comprehensive traffic 
safety community programs. In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA sought a 
substantial increase to expand the program and to continue its 
operation beyond three years. The Committee does not see the 
merit of continuing to fund this program beyond its original 
three-year period when there are over 400 safe communities 
projects throughout the United States.
    Partnership for a new generation of vehicles (PNGV).--The 
Committee has provided $2,496,000 for the PNGV program, which 
is the same amount as provided in fiscal year 1998. It is 
unclear why funding for this program should be increased when 
NHTSA is scheduled to complete the development of a computer 
program capable of determining the safety attributes of likely 
PNGV candidate vehicles in fiscal year 1998. Additional funding 
has been requested to model a sport utility vehicle and to 
develop an index highlighting car/truck incompatibility, which 
are not relevant to the PNGV program.
    The Committee is concerned that NHTSA's PNGV program is not 
well coordinated with other government agencies programs or 
their partners in industry. NHTSA is therefore directed to 
coordinate modeling efforts with the industry to ensure maximum 
relevancy as the program is further defined and to report its 
partnering activities to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations in the congressional justifications supporting 
the fiscal year 2000 budget.
    National occupant protection survey.--The Committee 
believes that this survey should be moved from the Operations 
and Research contract program to grant administration because 
it is occurring in all fifty states.
    Grant administration.--The Committee has increased the 
grant administration drawdown from $5,434,000 to $9,943,000. 
TEA21 allows NHTSA to draw out five percent of its 
administrative costs from the highway traffic safety grant 
programs. Because of the additional responsibilities NHTSA was 
given in TEA21, the Committee believes that NHTSA will require 
more funds to work with the states on such issues as safety 
belts, drugs, and alcohol than originally anticipated in the 
budget request.
    National driver register.--The national driver register 
(NDR) program assists state motor vehicle administrators in 
communicating effectively and efficiently with other states to 
identify problem drivers (e.g., drivers whose licenses are 
suspended or revoked for certain serious traffic offenses, 
including vehicle operation under impairment by alcohol and 
other drugs). In the past, this program has been funded as a 
takedown from the highway traffic safety grants program. Under 
TEA21, NDR was authorized under NHTSA's operations and research 
program. The bill provides $2,000,000, the same level as 
authorized, but $300,000 less than requested for fiscal year 
1999. The Secretary, in conjunction with the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, shall begin the 
technology assessment authorized under section 2006 of TEA21. 
Up to $250,000 is available for this activity.
    Other reductions.--The Committee has made a number of 
reductions to meet the levels authorized under TEA21. These 
reductions were made to the following programs: vehicle safety 
compliance, defects investigation, EMS research, biomechanics, 
and crash avoidance. In most of these cases, reductions were 
made to proposed 1999 budget increases and will not impact the 
activities already underway.
    Biomechanics.--The Committee has fully funded the crash 
injury research and engineering network component of the 
biomechanics program in fiscal year 1999. This network is 
expanding the number of hospital-based centers participating in 
the crash injury study program from four to seven trauma 
centers. The Committee continues to be supportive of the 
exemplary research that the William Lehman Injury Research 
Center and the New Jersey College of Medicine have done to 
identify and quantify new injury patterns in vehicle crashes. 
The Committee suggests that the Department consider expanding 
its work with these centers to include investigations of 
commercial motor vehicle accidents.
    Aggressive driving.--The Committee is concerned about the 
apparent increase in accidents due to what has been termed 
``road rage''--aggressive drivers who endanger themselves and 
others by taking unnecessary risks on the highway. The 
Committee urges NHTSA to investigate the use of education as a 
means of reducing the incidence of road rage accidents.
    NHTSA, in conjunction with the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, should conduct a 2-year pilot project to 
utilize and demonstrate the effectiveness of enforcement 
devices, such as speed management and imaging devices, in 
reducing aggressive driving. The program could, for example, 
provide for the issuance of citations by mail to the registered 
owners of vehicles that violate traffic safety laws. The 
project should take place within one or more federal 
jurisdictions that have experienced high profile crashes, such 
as the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
    Red light running initiative.--The Committee is concerned 
with the high number of motorists who disregard traffic 
signals. Failure to obey traffic signals is one of the leading 
causes of urban crashes. The Committee recognizes an innovative 
program initiated by the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office in 
Louisiana to combat this problem, which has the potential to 
serve as a national model. NHTSA should evaluate the work being 
done in Jefferson Parish to determine if it could be deployed 
nationwide.
    Bill language.--The Committee has included a provision 
prohibiting any agency funded in this Act from planning, 
finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking which would require 
passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling 
resistance. Also, the bill contains a general provision (sec. 
320) that prohibits funds to be used to prepare, prescribe, or 
promulgate corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for 
automobiles that differ from those previously enacted. The 
limitation does not preclude the Secretary of Transportation, 
in order to meet lead time requirements of the law, from 
preparing, proposing, and issuing a CAFE standard for model 
year 2001 automobiles that is identical to the CAFE standard 
established for such automobiles for model year 2000. -

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................    ($186,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................     (197,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................     (200,000,000)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................     (+14,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................      (+3,000,000)
                                                                        

    TEA21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway 
safety grant program, the occupant protection incentive grant 
program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grant 
program, and the state highway safety data improvement grant 
program. The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the 
liquidation of contract authorization, which is a 7.5 percent 
increase above the 1998 enacted level. This appropriation is 
mandatory and has no scoring effect.

                       Limitation on Obligations

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year                               
                                                        --------------------------------------   Recommended in 
                                                            1998 enacted      1999 estimate         the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety grants..................................       $149,700,000       $166,700,000       $150,000,000
Alcohol incentive grants...............................         34,500,000         39,000,000         35,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants...................  .................         20,000,000         10,000,000
Drugged driving incentive grants.......................  .................          5,000,000  .................
State highway safety data improvements.................  .................  .................          5,000,000
National driver register...............................          2,300,000          2,300,000              (\1\)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................        186,500,000        233,000,000        200,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National driver register is funded under Operations and Research in fiscal year 1999, as authorized.        

    Highway safety grants.--These grants are awarded to states 
for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and 
injuries. The states may use the grants to implement programs 
to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed 
limits; encourage proper use of occupant protection devices; 
reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes 
between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce school bus 
crashes; improve police traffic services; improve emergency 
medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian 
and bicyclist safety; increase safety among older and younger 
drivers; and improve roadway safety. The grants also provide 
additional support for state data collection and reporting of 
traffic deaths and injuries.
    An obligation limitation of $150,000,000 is included in the 
bill, which is the same amount as authorized. The Committee has 
included $300,000 for the occupant protection survey within 
this total. Also, language is included in the bill that limits 
funding available for federal grants administration of NHTSA to 
$9,943,000.
    The bill continues to carry language that prohibits the use 
of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs 
or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or 
private buildings or structures.
    Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.--TEA21 
authorized $219,500,000 over six years to continue NHTSA's 
alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants program. These grants 
will offer two-tiered basic and supplemental grants to reward 
states that pass new laws and start more effective programs to 
attack drunk and impaired driving. States may qualify for basic 
grants in two ways. First, they can implement 5 of the 
following 7 laws and programs: (1) administrative license 
revocation; (2) programs to prevent drivers under age 21 from 
obtaining alcoholic beverages; (3) intensive impaired driving 
law enforcement; (4) graduated licensing law with nighttime 
driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) programs that 
target drivers with high blood alcohol-content (BAC); (6) young 
adult programs to reduce impaired driving by individuals aged 
21-34; (7) an effective system for increasing the rate of 
testing for BAC of drivers in fatal crashes. Second, they can 
demonstrate a reduction in alcohol-involved fatality rates in 
each of the last three years and demonstrate rates lower than 
the national average for each of the last three years. 
Supplemental grants are provided to states that adopt 
additional measures, including videotaping of drunk drivers by 
police; self-sustaining impaired driving programs; laws to 
reduce driving with suspended licenses; use of passive alcohol 
sensors by police; a system for tracking information on drunk 
drivers; and other innovative programs. The Committee has 
provided $35,000,000 for these grants in fiscal year 1999. No 
state may receive grants in more than six fiscal years and the 
federal share declines in the out years.
    In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant 
program, TEA21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six years 
for states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC law 
(section 163). For each fiscal year a state meets this 
criterion, it will receive a grant in the same ratio in which 
they receive section 402 funds. The states may use these funds 
for any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g., 
highway construction, bridge repair, motor carrier safety, 
etc.). This grant program, combined with the alcohol-impaired 
driving incentive grant program will significantly increase the 
resources the department has to encourage states to adopt and 
enforce anti-drunk driving legislation. However, it is unclear 
how the programs will be coordinated and the extent of program 
overlap that may result from such a large increase in federal 
funding. The Committee directs NHTSA and FHWA to report to the 
Committee on how this coordination will work and how these 
programs will differ in the congressional justifications 
supporting, NHTSA's budget request for fiscal year 2000.
    Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has 
funded the new occupant protection incentive grant program at 
$10,000,000, the level guaranteed under TEA21. States may 
qualify for this new grant program by implementing 4 of the 
following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law requiring safety belt 
use by all front seat passengers; (2) a safety belt use law 
providing for primary enforcement; (3) minimum fines or penalty 
points for seat belt and child seat use law violations; (4) 
special traffic enforcement programs for occupant protection; 
(5) a child passenger protection education program; and (6) a 
child passenger protection law which requires minors to be 
properly secured.
    In addition to the new occupant protection incentive grant 
program, TEA21 established a safety incentive grant program 
(section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage. 
The grant program totals $500,000,000 over 6 years. Allocations 
of federal grants require determinations of (1) seat belt use 
rates and improvements and (2) federal medical cost savings 
attributable to increased seat belt use. Both determinations 
are potentially complicated and will require data collection by 
the states. States that meet the section 157 requirements can 
use the funds for any purpose under title 23, including highway 
construction, transit, motor carrier safety, boating safety, 
and intelligent transportation systems. Although these funds 
are authorized as part of the federal-aid highway program, 
NHTSA will likely administer the program. As such, the 
Committee expects to be advised on how NHTSA will allocate 
these funds based on the difficulty in collecting accurate 
data.
    State highway safety data improvements.--The Committee has 
provided $5,000,000 for the state highway safety data 
improvement grants program. To receive first year grants, a 
state has three options. Option (1): establish a multi-
disciplinary highway safety data and traffic records 
coordinating committee; complete a highway safety data and 
traffic records assessment or audit within the last five years; 
and initiate development of a multi-year highway safety data 
and traffic records strategic plan. Option (2): a state must 
certify that it has met the first two criteria in option 1; 
submit a data and traffic records multi-year plan; and certify 
that the coordinating committee continues to operate and 
support the plan. Option (3): the Secretary may award grants of 
up to $25,000 for one year to any state that does not meet the 
criteria for option 1. States that receive first year grants 
then would be eligible for subsequent grants by: submitting or 
updating a data and traffic multi-year plan; certifying that 
the coordinating committee continues to support the multi-year 
plan; and reporting annually on the progress made to implement 
the plan.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants

                          (highway trust fund)

                                                                        
                                                         (Liquidation of
                                     (Limitation on         contract    
                                     obligations)        authorization) 
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year                                              
 1998 \1\.....................          $84,825,000          $85,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year                                            
 1999 \1\.....................         $100,000,000         $100,000,000
Recommended in the bill-......         $100,000,000         $100,000,000
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
 1998.........................          +15,175,000          +15,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal                                             
 year 1999....................  ......................  ................
                                                                        
\1\ Appropriation for motor carrier safety grants within the Federal    
  Highway Administration.                                               

    The motor carrier safety grants program (MCSAP) is intended 
to assist states in developing or implementing national 
programs for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules 
and regulations concerning motor safety. The major objective of 
this program is to reduce the number and severity of accidents 
involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to 
qualified states for the development of programs to enforce the 
federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials 
regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 
1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety 
inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial motor 
vehicle traffic.
    The accompanying bill provides $100,000,000 in liquidating 
cash and limitations on obligations for the motor carrier 
safety grants within the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. In fiscal year 1998 and the budget request, 
funding for the motor carrier safety grants program was 
included within the Federal Highway Administration. The 
Committee believes that the office of motor carriers and the 
motor carrier safety grants program serve a vital safety 
oversight function, the activities of which are much more 
closely aligned with those of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration than those of the Federal Highway 
Administration. Moving motor carriers under NHTSA's umbrella 
would sharpen the department's focus on safety problems. One 
modal administration can better focus on reducing all highway 
accidents instead of having two administrations focus on 
reducing components (passenger vehicles and commercial motor 
vehicles) of the 42,000 annual highway fatalities. Also, 
combining NHTSA and OMC functions should provide some economies 
of scale because there are ongoing research and highway safety 
activities that could benefit from the combined expertise and 
funding.
    The Committee directs that the fiscal year 2000 budget 
justification of NHTSA reflect a complete integration of the 
functions of the Office of Motor Carriers. In addition to this 
budgetary change, the Secretary shall formally transfer OMC's 
delegation, authorities, and responsibilities to NHTSA. -

                       limitation on obligations

    The Committee recommends a $100,000,000 limitation on 
obligations for motor carrier safety grants, the same amount 
guaranteed under TEA21. The Committee recommends the following 
allocation:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Basic motor carrier safety grants.....................       $80,000,000
Performance based incentive grant program.............  ................
Border assistance.....................................         4,500,000
High-priority activities..............................         4,500,000
Training..............................................        1,000,000-
Information systems...................................        10,000,000
                                                                        

    -Safety performance incentive grant program.--The Committee 
has not provided separate funding for the new safety 
performance incentive grant program because OMC has yet to 
issue a rulemaking establishing performance-based criteria for 
the states. Until a final rule is issued that highlights the 
goals and guidelines of the program and identifies how states 
will compete for these incentive grants, the Committee believes 
that it is premature to fund this effort. A final rule is not 
anticipated until the end of fiscal year 1999. Although the 
Committee has not provided funding for this effort in fiscal 
year 1999, such action does not prejudice the grant program 
from receiving funding in future years.
    Border assistance.--The Committee directs that none of the 
funds provided for border assistance should be provided to the 
second tier states--states that border Arizona, California, New 
Mexico, or Texas--until Mexican commercial motor vehicles are 
allowed to freely traverse the four border states. Second tier 
states do not need assistance because Mexican carriers cannot 
proceed beyond the border states and into the second tier 
states.
    Information systems.--The Committee has provided 
$10,000,000 for information systems. Of this total, $3,000,000 
shall be used to help each state improve its information 
systems, computers, and evaluation capabilities; $1,000,000 
shall be for driver safety activities to improve the commercial 
drivers license program or for judicial outreach; and 
$5,000,000 shall be for the expansion of PRISM.
    Truck and bus accidents.--The Committee is concerned about 
the growing number of truck and bus accidents. After years of 
declining crash rates and fatalities rates, both large trucks 
and intercity passenger buses are experiencing an upswing in 
crash and fatality rates. In comparison, accident and fatality 
rates for all vehicles are much lower and are not increasing. 
The Committee directs OMC to monitor this situation closely and 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on 
new and innovative efforts the administration is taking to 
reduce the number of accidents and fatalities and what 
additional steps can be taken if this trend continues 
throughout fiscal year 1998.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 Program

    The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry, as well as managing the high speed ground 
transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance 
programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's 
physical plan are also administered by the FRA.
    The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal 
year 1999 is $729,316,000, which is $22,043,000 less than 
requested and $207,474,000 below the 1998 level. The following 
table summarizes the fiscal year 1998 program levels, the 
fiscal year 1999 program requests and the Committee's 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year                                  
                            Program                                1998 enacted     Fiscal year   Recommended in
                                                                      level        1999 request      the bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the administrator....................................     $20,290,000      $21,573,000     $21,367,000
Railroad safety................................................      57,067,000       61,959,000      60,948,000
Nationwide differential global positioning system..............  ...............       3,000,000  ..............
Railroad research and development..............................      20,758,000       20,757,000      20,477,000
Northeast corridor improvement program.........................     250,000,000              \1\  ..............
Next generation high speed rail................................      20,395,000       12,594,000      15,294,000
Rhode Island rail development..................................      10,000,000       10,000,000       2,000,000
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation..........  \2\ 543,000,000             \3\                
                                                                                     621,476,000     609,230,000
Alaska railroad................................................      15,280,000   ..............  ..............
Emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair...................      (9,800,000)  ..............  ..............
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................................  \4\ 936,790,000     751,359,000     729,316,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Financing for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program is included in capital grants to the National      
  Railroad Passenger Corporation's budget request.                                                              
\2\ Includes railroad retirement payments.                                                                      
\3\ Funding is for capital grants, the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, Pennsylvania Station             
  redevelopment and expenses of the Office of the Secretary. All funds are requested from the Highway Trust     
  Fund.                                                                                                         
\4\ Excludes reductions of $49,000 for TASC.                                                                    

                      Office of the Administrator

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................       $20,290,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        21,573,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        21,367,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        +1,077,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................          -206,000
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $29,000 for TASC.                            

    This account provides funds for executive direction and 
administration, policy support, passenger and freight services, 
salaries and expenses, and contractual support. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $21,367,000 to continue the 
office of the administrator and for passenger and freight 
service assistance functions.
    Recommended adjustments to the budget request are as 
follows:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Delete funding for the electronic grant project.......         -$200,000
Delete funding for acquisition management training....            -6,000
                                                                        

    The Committee has denied funding for the electronic grant 
project and acquisition management training department-wide due 
to budget constraints.
    Train traffic noise in Riverside, California.--It has been 
brought to the Committee's attention that increased rail 
traffic in certain urban areas has given rise to noise and 
safety concerns. The Committee understands that efforts are 
underway to develop technology that may address train whistle 
noise issues and that FRA is currently considering regulations 
on this issue. The Committee urges FRA to work with the City of 
Riverside, California, and the affected railroads to address 
the City's concerns. The Committee also urges the Administrator 
to consider the City of Riverside, California, as a test site 
for any technology developed to reduce whistle noise.
    Coon Rapids, Minnesota whistle ban project.--The city of 
Coon Rapids, Minnesota, has been working to develop safe and 
quiet alternatives to trains blowing their warning whistles at 
grade crossings. The city has assembled a proposal for 
implementation of traffic islands, special signing, and video 
cameras at its grade crossings, in lieu of trains blowing their 
warning whistles. The Committee urges FRA to consider the City 
of Coon Rapids as a model test site for any technology 
developed as alternatives to train whistles.
    General provision.--The Committee has included a general 
provision that makes funding provided in the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act of 1998 (P.L. 
105-174) available through July 10, 1998. Following heavy rains 
during late June and early July of this year, the President 
designated certain counties within the state of New York as 
federal disaster areas. Railroads within these counties 
experienced significant washout and shall be eligible for 
emergency funding provided in that Act.

                            Railroad Safety

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................       $57,067,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        61,959,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        60,948,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        +3,881,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................        -1,011,000
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $17,000 for TASC.                            

    The federal role in the railroad safety program is to 
protect railroad employees and the public by ensuring the safe 
operation of passenger and freight trains. The authority to 
accomplish this role is found in the Federal Railroad Safety 
Act of 1970 (as amended), the Department of Transportation Act, 
and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Greatly 
expanded railroad safety authority was granted to the FRA under 
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1998.
    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$60,948,000 for railroad safety programs in fiscal year 1999. 
The following reductions are made to the budget request:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Hire 24 instead of 32 new inspectors..................         -$420,000
Hold travel to a 10 percent increase..................          -591,000
                                                                        

    Inspectors.--The Committee has provided $1,271,000 for 24 
new safety inspectors. FRA had requested funding for 32 
positions. Of these positions, eight positions would conduct 
administrative and liaison activities. Due to budget 
constraints and a high number of vacancies currently in the 
railroad safety program, the committee has denied funding for 
these eight positions.
    Travel and transportation of things.--The Committee has 
held travel and transportation of things to an increase of 10 
percent instead of the 21 percent increase requested 
(-$591,000). Such a significant increase is not necessary with 
fewer personnel being hired.

           Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................  ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        $3,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................  ................
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................        -3,000,000
                                                                        

    The administration has requested a new appropriation to 
enable the installation of nationwide differential global 
positioning system (DGPS) transmitters throughout the United 
States. This system would enhance an existing Coast Guard 
network. Together, these two networks will be used to support 
positive train control. The Committee has denied funding for 
this project under this heading and has also denied funding for 
a related request within the Federal Highway Administration's 
limitation on general operating expenses.
    In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $2,400,000 to 
the Coast Guard to begin converting the Air Force Ground Wave 
Emergency Network (GWEN) sites into a DGPS network located 
within the interior of the United States and Alaska. To date, 
the Coast Guard has not converted any systems because of delays 
in completing an interagency memorandum of agreement to begin 
this project.
    Beginning in the year 2000, the department plans to collect 
contributions for this network from up to 17 other federal 
agencies and private sources to fund the conversion of GWEN 
sites to a DGPS network. The Department has stated that these 
agencies, particularly the Department of Agriculture, will be 
the primary beneficiaries of this information. Since the 
Department of Transportation is not the principal beneficiary, 
the Committee believes that it should not be the only source of 
funding for this system in fiscal year 1999 or beyond. The 
Committee directs the department to work with other federal 
agencies that plan on utilizing the DGPS network to develop an 
equitable funding scheme for (1) the conversion of the GWEN 
system to DGPS and (2) long-term operations and maintenance 
costs once the new system is established. The results of this 
work should be provided to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by March 1, 1999. This Committee would be 
disinclined to re-evaluate budget requests for this program 
until such information is available.

                   Railroad Research and Development

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................       $20,758,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        20,757,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        20,477,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          -281,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................          -280,000
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $3,000 for TASC.                             

    The railroad research and development appropriation 
finances contract research activities as well as salaries and 
expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and 
administrative functions. The objectives of this program are to 
reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to 
provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and 
enforcement activities.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,477,000 
for fiscal year 1999. The following reductions are made:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Delete funding maglev initiative......................         -$150,000
Delete funding for TTC site facilities................          -130,000
                                                                        

    Maglev initiative.--The Committee has deleted funding for 
the maglev initiative. The Administration has requested 
$150,000 to evaluate maglev technology; however, there are no 
maglev projects currently underway in the United States to 
transport rail passengers for the FRA to evaluate.
    Section 1218 of TEA21 provides funding for maglev 
deployment within the overall federal-aid highway program 
limitation. FRA is expected to manage this program. Funding is 
available to FRA for planning and project oversight once 
initial project submissions have been approved. Since funding 
will be available within the Federal Highway Administration, 
the Committee does not expect to see a request for maglev 
oversight in future FRA budget requests.
    Transportation Technology Center (TTC) site facilities.--
Until recently, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) 
operated and maintained the TTC under a non-competitive 
arrangement with FRA. Recently, AAR has elected to spin off the 
TTC into a separate, for-profit entity. As a commercial entity, 
TTC should not be dependent on federal funds for its upkeep. As 
such, the Committee has deleted funding for TTC site facilities 
(-$130,000).
    Bill language.--The Committee has included the requested 
bill language that allows FRA to sell old aluminum reaction 
rail at TTC. The aluminum is an unused asset that could be sold 
to raise funds for needed capital improvements at the TTC. This 
sale would offset the reductions the Committee made in the 
budget request for TTC upkeep.

                 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--.....................      $250,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999--...................             (\1\)
Recommended in the bill--.............................               ---
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998--.................      -250,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999--...............               ---
                                                                        
\1\ $200,000,000 for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program is      
  included in the proposed capital grant to the National Railroad       
  Passenger Corporation appropriation.                                  

    For fiscal year 1999, the administration and Amtrak have 
requested not less than $200,000,000 for the Northeast Corridor 
Improvement Program (NECIP) to be included within Amtrak's 
capital grant. The Committee has not provided a specific 
earmark for NECIP within the capital grant and has afforded 
Amtrak the flexibility to allocate whatever amount it believes 
is necessary for this project in fiscal year 1999.

       Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program

    TEA21 established a railroad rehabilitation and improvement 
financing loan and loan guarantee program. The aggregate unpaid 
principal amounts of the obligations may not exceed $3.5 
billion at any one time. Not less than $1 billion is reserved 
for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads other than 
class I carriers. The funding may be used (1) to acquire, 
improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or 
facilities, including track, components of track bridges, 
yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or 
(3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad 
facilities. No federal appropriation is required since a non-
federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy 
amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of 
a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established 
investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals 
and necessary determinations and findings. As such, the 
Committee has not provided an appropriation for this program.
    This loan guarantee program provides an opportunity for 
developing significant rail infrastructure improvements 
benefiting the national transportation system. The Committee 
anticipates that the Department will likely receive 
applications incorporating non-federal commitments for this 
risk premium and expects that the Secretary will consider such 
applications carefully, given the potential risk to the federal 
government as the guarantor of the loan guarantee amount.
    It is the Committee's understanding that the department 
strongly opposed establishing a separate credit program for 
private railroads during TEA21 deliberations. The Committee 
also has a number of concerns about this program, including: 
(1) how the Federal Railroad Administration will oversee this 
program; (2) how budgetary oversight will occur for a program 
that requires no federal appropriation for some or all of its 
loan guarantees; (3) how the costs to administer the loan and 
loan guarantees will be paid; (4) whether the loans and loan 
guarantees will be limited to a certain type of rail project or 
project sponsor; and (5) whether the program will be utilized 
to offer financing to railroads that could not obtain a loan 
elsewhere. The department is to address these questions and 
shall notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
of the resolution of these concerns prior to granting the first 
loan.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 ......................       $20,395,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        12,594,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        15,294,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        -5,101,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................        +2,700,000
                                                                        

    The next generation high-speed rail program funds the 
development, demonstration, and implementation of high speed 
rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the 
program authorized in TEA21.
    The Committee recommends $15,294,000 for the next 
generation high-speed rail program. Adjustments in total 
program funding from the budget request are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee  
                              1998 enacted  1999 request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train control systems.......   $3,750,000   ............    $1,500,000  
Non-electric locomotives....    9,300,000    $6,800,000      8,000,000  
    ALPS....................   (2,000,000)  ............  ..............
    Prototype locomotive....   (4,800,000)  ............  ..............
    RTL-3...................   (2,500,000)  ............  ..............
Grade crossings & Innovative                                            
 technologies...............    5,600,000     4,000,000      4,000,000  
    N.C. sealed corridor....   (2,000,000)     (400,000)      (400,000) 
    Mitigating hazards......   (2,500,000)   (2,500,000)    (2,500,000) 
    Lost-cost technologies..   (1,100,000)   (1,100,000)    (1,100,000) 
Track and structures........    1,200,000     1,200,000      1,200,000  
Administration..............      545,000       594,000        594,000  
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................   20,395,000    12,594,000     15,294,000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Train control systems.--The Committee is dismayed that FRA 
has not sought additional funding in fiscal year 1999 for this 
critical safety program. Positive train control has been on the 
National Transportation Safety Board's ``most wanted list'' 
since the inception of the list in 1990. Also, FRA has 
testified that positive train control technology is the 
administration's ``highest priority''.
    Earlier this year, the Association of American Railroads 
committed $20,000,000 (in increments of $5,000,000 annually 
over four years) to develop positive train control technology 
between Springfield and Chicago, Illinois. FRA estimates that 
this project will cost approximately $60,000,000 over a four-
year period. FRA and the Illinois Department of Transportation 
have $15,000,000 available for this project. The Committee has 
provided $1,500,000 to indicate continuing federal support for 
this project.
    Non-electric locomotives.--The Committee has provided 
$8,000,000 for non-electric locomotives, which is an increase 
of $1,200,000 above the budget request. The funds for this 
program focus on the demonstration of a high-speed, lightweight 
fossil fuel locomotive that will be able to facilitate the 
testing of an advanced locomotive propulsion system (ALPS). 
This is the second year that the Committee has provided funds 
for the evaluation of non-electric locomotive technologies that 
utilize modern, recently developed locomotive car bodies and 
meet forthcoming FRA Tier II passenger rail car construction 
standards and other applicable safety regulations. These 
locomotives will be designed to facilitate the testing of a 
flywheel turbine developed under the ALPS program. The 
locomotives should have the potential to operate at 150 miles 
per hour, yet be available for revenue demonstration speeds of 
125 miles per hour within a two-year period. According to FRA, 
to have a full-scale test of a high-speed, non-electric 
locomotive by the year 2000, $8,000,000 is necessary in fiscal 
year 1999 because 65 percent of the manufacturing of this 
locomotive will occur in this year. The Committee expects FRA 
to dedicate a substantial portion of the funding to the 
manufacturing of this locomotive to meet this deadline.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................       $10,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        10,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        -8,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................        -8,000,000
                                                                        

    The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Rhode Island 
Rail Development project, which is $8,000,000 less than 
requested. Since fiscal year 1995, a total of $23,000,000 has 
been appropriated in federal funds to construct a third track 
between Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island. This 
funding is matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the state. 
The third track will prevent mixing freight and high-speed 
passenger rail service and will provide sufficient clearance to 
accommodate double-stack freight cars.
    A record of decision, allowing the project to go forward, 
was signed on May 14, 1998. At that time, the state issued a 
Freight Railroad Improvement Project (FRIP) briefing book, 
which showed that Rhode Island needed a total of $41,000,000 to 
meet its expenditures through fiscal year 1999. As of May 1998, 
the state has spent just over 10 percent of the federal 
funding, or $2,400,000. It has $20,600,000 unobligated. When 
combined with the state's matching contribution, the state has 
a total of $41,200,000 to spend on this project during fiscal 
year 1999. Thus, the Committee does not believe that the state 
requires the full request of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. 
If the state requires more than the $41,000,000 projected, 
additional funding is available from the bond referendum passed 
in November 1996 that approved $50,000,000 for FRIP 
construction costs.
    The Committee remains confident that this is a worthwhile 
project and will continue to consider future appropriations for 
this project once the unobligated balances have been drawn 
down.
    The Committee has deleted bill language that requires the 
Providence and Worcester Railroad to reimburse Amtrak and/or 
the Federal Railroad Administration for damages resulting from 
legal actions relating to vertical clearances between 
Davisville and Central Falls in excess of those required for 
present freight operations. It is the Committee's understanding 
that this issue has been resolved.

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................      $543,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \1\.................       621,476,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       609,230,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................       +66,230,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................       -12,246,000
                                                                        
\1\ The administration requested a total of $621,476,000 for capital    
  grants from the Highway Trust fund.                                   

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

                            Status of Amtrak

    During the past year, significant changes have affected 
Amtrak. Most notably is the passage of the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act that, among other things, enacted section 
977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA) of 1997. The TRA made a 
total of $2.3 billion available to Amtrak in fiscal years 1998 
and 1999 to make capital improvements; to acquire capital 
assets; and to pay for certain maintenance expenses. From this 
total, Amtrak is required to pay $138,000,000 to six states 
that do not have Amtrak service. Other notable changes included 
in the authorization Act are: a repeal of the statutory ban on 
contracting out work that would result in employee layoffs or 
worsening of position; the elimination of statutory and 
contractual arrangements that provided up to six years' 
compensation and benefits for employees who lost their jobs 
because of reduction in services to less than three times per 
week and a reconfigured Board of Directors.
    In addition to these legislative changes, the 
Administration and Amtrak submitted a unique budget request for 
fiscal year 1999. This request sought $621,476,000 in capital 
funds and permission to use the capital appropriations for 
preventive maintenance. In prior years, the Administration and 
Amtrak have requested separate grant requests for operating and 
capital expenses, as well as for the Northeast Corridor 
Improvement Program.
    With the adoption of the new authorization Act, the 
availability of $2.162 billion in tax credits, and the new 
budget proposal, the Committee would expect to be optimistic 
about Amtrak's future. However, the Committee is not convinced 
that Amtrak's fiscal year 1999 proposal provides for the long-
term viability and solvency of the Corporation.
    In February 1998, the General Accounting Office testified 
that Amtrak is still in ``dire financial straits''. Other 
knowledgeable sources have said that the Administration's 1999 
request would simply be shifting costs from operating expenses 
to capital expenses, causing Amtrak to spend down its needed 
capital appropriations on the daily operation of the system 
instead of on long-term investments, ultimately bankrupting the 
Corporation in or around the year 2000. The Secretary of 
Transportation was more optimistic about Amtrak's future when 
he testified before the Subcommittee in March 1998; however, he 
noted that Amtrak would require federal support well after the 
year 2002, in the form of a capital appropriation.
    Since these hearings, Amtrak issued a revised strategic 
business plan. This plan showed that in fiscal year 1998 the 
Corporation's net loss would grow to $845,000,000, or 
$83,000,000 more than in fiscal year 1997. This loss is larger 
than the previous year because of unanticipated labor costs 
($35,000,000) and an inability to enact express service 
($48,000,000).
    Amtrak also has serious cash flow problems. The revised 
strategic business plan shows that Amtrak projects a cash flow 
deficit of $200,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 1998, which 
is $30,000,000 more than its line of credit. To cover this cash 
flow deficit, Amtrak plans to borrow some of the funds provided 
by the TRA in 1998 for equipment maintenance expenses.
    To gain a better understanding of Amtrak's financial 
condition, the Committee contacted the Department of 
Transportation's Inspector General, the General Accounting 
Office, and a diverse group of non-federal railroad experts. 
The Committee asked this group to comment on whether Amtrak 
continues to operate in a fragile state, as many testified, or 
if the recent legislative actions have placed the Corporation 
on a more stable footing. There was a wide divergence of 
opinions, but everyone expressed some degree of concern about 
Amtrak's long-term viability.
    GAO noted that ``Amtrak is unlikely to ever be free of the 
need for federal capital subsidies because of the capital 
intensive nature of railroads . . . Amtrak will depend heavily 
upon federal subsidies for operating assistance through fiscal 
year 2003.''
    Many of the experts questioned Amtrak's ability to increase 
revenues while further reducing costs. Most noted that Amtrak's 
ridership has remained flat since 1977. During this twenty-year 
period, airline traffic has more than doubled and interstate 
highway traffic has almost doubled. The experts also noted that 
revenues have been relatively flat throughout the 1990s despite 
large fare increases in some markets. Currently, less than 
sixty percent of Amtrak's revenue comes from passenger fares. 
Real estate, mail contracts, and express services make up the 
remainder. In the future, Amtrak may not be able to increase 
fares in most markets without experiencing a further decline in 
ridership. The one exception may be between New York and 
Boston, once high-speed rail service is initiated.
    Amtrak has not been able to reduce its labor costs. 
Instead, the Corporation will experience significant labor cost 
increases over the next few years, which will impact its bottom 
line. In the year 2000, Amtrak projects that by extrapolating 
the new Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees agreement 
to all labor unions, wages will increase by $150,000,000 over 
the life of the contract. Even with productivity savings, this 
is a significant cost, which Amtrak can ill-afford.
    On the positive side, recently affirmed express service, 
high-speed rail service between New York and Boston, profits 
from Amtrak's commuter operations, and increased contributions 
by states for intercity passenger rail service should have a 
favorable impact on Amtrak's revenues. One expert noted that 
the Northeast Corridor has excess capacity that could be sold 
to freight operators who may be interested in better serving 
the ports in and around New York City.
    In summary, it appears that the internal changes Amtrak has 
made, and the external changes provided in the authorization 
Act and TRA, do not guarantee Amtrak's viability or even 
disperse the storm clouds which have been looming on Amtrak's 
horizon for many years. The Committee will continue to review 
Amtrak's position carefully on an annual basis and awaits the 
results of the market-based analysis that the Corporation is 
undertaking to ``define a national system that works within 
reasonable economic parameters''.

                       Committee Recommendations

    The administration requested a total of $621,476,000 for 
capital grants from the Highway Trust Fund. Of this total, no 
less than $200,000,000 is to be provided for the Northeast 
Corridor Improvement Program, $11,746,000 is for Pennsylvania 
Station Redevelopment, and $500,000 is for administrative 
expenses related to the Amtrak Reform Council and annual 
financial assessment of Amtrak.
    The Committee recommends a total funding level of 
$609,230,000 for grants to Amtrak to cover capital expenses in 
fiscal year 1999. This amount is $12,246,000 less than 
requested. In addition to these appropriated funds, 
$1,091,810,000 will be paid to Amtrak in fiscal year 1999 by 
the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 977 of the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This represents an all-time high 
federal funding level for Amtrak.
    Northeast corridor improvement program.--The Committee has 
not provided a specific earmark for the Northeast Corridor 
Improvement Program. Amtrak has the flexibility to allocate 
whatever amount it believes is necessary for this project in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Given the Committee's recognition of the importance of 
addressing the dangers associated with pedestrian access to 
railroad tracks, which is particularly pressing with the 
introduction of high-speed rail service along the Northeast 
Corridor, the Committee directs Amtrak to work closely with the 
Northeast Corridor communities, as well as state transit 
officials and owners of the track, to identify danger spots and 
install perimeter fencing wherever it is needed as quickly as 
possible. In particular, Amtrak should focus on increased 
community coordination in urbanized areas where there have been 
problems or where community concerns have been expressed, such 
as Attleboro, Foxboro, Mansfield, and Sharon, Massachusetts.
    Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment.--The Committee has 
denied the request for Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment. A 
total of $40,000,000 was provided by TEA21 for this project. 
With this funding, over $100,000,000 has been provided, 
fulfilling the federal commitment to this project. The 
Committee has included a general provision that restricts any 
federal funding for the James A. Farley/Pennsylvania Station 
redevelopment project in excess of the original $100,000,000 
federal commitment only for fire and life safety improvements 
to the East River and North River tunnels and the subterranean 
complex of Pennsylvania Station.
    Administrative support.--The Committee has denied the 
funding request for the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC) and for an 
independent financial assessment of Amtrak. Funding for these 
two activities was provided in the emergency supplemental 
appropriation for fiscal year 1998. A separate appropriation of 
$450,000 has been provided for the ARC under the Office of the 
Secretary. The Committee believes that it is a conflict of 
interest to use Amtrak's grant to pay for the expenses of a 
Council that may recommend restructuring the Corporation in 
fiscal year 2000 if Amtrak is unable to meet its financial 
goals or would require an operating subsidy after December 
2002.
    Highway trust fund.--The Committee has not funded Amtrak 
from the Highway Trust Fund, as requested by the 
administration. Amtrak only pays about $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 
per year in fuel taxes. Appropriating a capital grant from the 
Highway Trust Fund instead of from the general fund, where the 
Corporation has been funded historically, would take away money 
from those who pay their ``fair share'' into the trust fund. 
The Committee expects to continue to appropriate grants to 
Amtrak from the general fund.
    Capital definition.--The Administration and Amtrak have 
requested permission from Congress to use a more flexible 
definition of the term ``capital''. They have argued that 
Amtrak should be able to spend its federal capital 
appropriations on maintenance of equipment, infrastructure, and 
facilities. In the past, Amtrak's maintenance costs, such as 
repairing track and switches and reconditioning rail car 
components have been generally considered an operating expense. 
Federal capital grants have not paid for these activities. 
Instead, capital grants have been used for the purchase of 
locomotives and passenger cars, the construction of new 
facilities, and rebuilding of tracks.
    Amtrak has indicated that as much as $542,000,000 of the 
requested $621,476,000 may be used to pay for maintenance of 
equipment, infrastructure and facilities. However, in an 
analysis of the proposed bill language, Amtrak and the 
Administration are also requesting that capital funds be used 
to pay for rail trackage rights. Currently, Amtrak spends about 
$100,000,000 for these costs. Thus, if the definition change is 
approved, Amtrak could spend its entire fiscal year 1999 
capital appropriation on what have historically been considered 
operating expenses.
    The Committee has not included bill language expanding the 
definition of items on which Amtrak can spend its capital 
appropriations. TRA allows the use of capital funds for ``the 
acquisition of equipment, rolling stock, and other capital 
improvements, the upgrading of maintenance facilities, and the 
maintenance of existing equipment in intercity passenger rail 
service''. Statutorily, TRA already provides Amtrak with the 
flexibility to utilize its capital funds for at least 
$340,000,000 of its annual operating expenses on overhauls and 
the maintenance of existing equipment. Expanding this 
flexibility to include infrastructure, facilities, and trackage 
rights would decrease the amount of funds available for capital 
improvements and equipment overhauls. Amtrak's revised 
strategic business plan, assuming the definition change, 
anticipates spending $1.8 billion (65 percent) of the 
administration's proposed $2.8 billion in capital 
appropriations for maintenance expenses between fiscal year 
1999 and 2003 to reduce its net losses and cash-flow deficits. 
As a result, Amtrak would spend $800,000,000 less for capital 
improvements over the next 5 years than it had previously 
planned under its glidepath approach.
    Amtrak has argued in the past that it will reach self-
sufficiency only by having ample funding for long-term and 
deferred capital needs. By not adopting the new ``capital'' 
definition beyond what is approved in TRA, the Committee bill 
ensures that about 40 percent of the appropriation will go 
towards long-term capital needs. The Committee believes that 
these capital investments are necessary to increase Amtrak's 
revenues and reduce costs in the long-term. Accordingly, the 
Committee disallows the proposed changes in the definition of 
capital.
    Bill language.--The Committee has modified bill language 
adding the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to those 
that need to review and approve Amtrak's capital plan.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 Program

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as 
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal 
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were 
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation 
Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit 
Administration administers federal financial assistance 
programs for planning, developing and improving comprehensive 
mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
    Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration 
is provided by annual limitations on obligations provided in 
appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are 
required for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
as well as for portions of other accounts.
    The current authorization for the programs funded by the 
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). TEA21 
also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two 
additional discretionary spending categories, the highway 
category and the mass transit category. The mass transit 
category is comprised of transit formula grants, transit 
capital funding, Federal Transit Administration administrative 
expenses, transit planning and research and university 
transportation center funding. The mass transit category 
obligations are capped at $5,365,000,000 and outlays are capped 
at $4,401,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. Any additional 
appropriated funding above the levels specified as guaranteed 
for each transit program in TEA21 (that which could be 
appropriated from general funds authorized under 5338(h)) is 
scored against the non-defense discretionary category.
    The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 1999 is 
$5,365,000,000, including $1,113,200,000 direct appropriations 
and $4,251,000,000 limitations on contract authority. The total 
recommended is $521,262,000 over the 1998 enacted level, 
$589,308,143 over the fiscal year 1999 budget request, and the 
same level as guaranteed in TEA21. The following table 
summarizes the fiscal year 1998 program levels, the fiscal year 
1999 budget requests, and the fiscal year 1999 program levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Recommended in 
                          Program                             1998 enacted      1999 request        the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses \1\...............................       $45,738,000       $48,142,000       $54,000,000
Formula grants............................................     2,500,000,000  ................     2,850,000,000
Formula programs..........................................  ................     3,709,235,000  ................
University transportation research \1\....................         6,000,000  ................         6,000,000
Transit planning and research \1\.........................        92,000,000        91,900,000        98,000,000
Capital investment grants.................................     2,000,000,000       876,114,857     2,257,000,000
Job access and reverse commute grants \2\.................  ................     (100,000,000)        50,000,000
Washington Metro..........................................       200,000,000        50,300,000        50,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................     4,843,738,000     4,775,691,857    5,365,000,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget proposed that these programs be financed from the highway trust fund, and that the   
  university transportation research program be funded within the transit planning and research program and     
  excludes fiscal year 1998 reductions of $124,000 for TASC.                                                    
\2\ The budget request included a set-aside of $100,000,000 for job access and reverse commute grants from      
  formula programs.                                                                                             

                        Administrative Expenses

                                                                        
                                                        Limitation on   
                                   Appropriation     obligations (trust 
                                  (general fund)           fund)        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998                                         
 \1\...........................       $45,738,000  .....................
Budget estimate, fiscal year                                            
 1999 \2\......................  ................        ($48,142,000)  
Recommended in the bill........        10,800,000         (43,200,000)  
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
 1998..........................      -34,938,000-        (+43,200,000)  
    Budget estimate, fiscal                                             
 year 1999.....................       +10,800,000         (-4,942,000)  
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $124,000 for TASC.                           
\2\ The budget requested that the appropriation be derived from the     
  highway trust fund.                                                   

    The bill provides a total appropriation of $54,000,000 for 
FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $8,262,000 
above the 1998 enacted level and $5,858,000 above the request. 
This appropriation is guaranteed under the new transit funding 
category. The recommended appropriation of $54,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $10,800,000 from the general 
fund and $43,200,000 from limitations on obligations from the 
mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
    Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee 
observes that the level for administrative expenses provided 
within the transit category guarantee is significantly above 
both the 1998 enacted levels and the President's budget 
request. These funds are available to fund additional FTE; 
however, while TEA21 imposes additional duties on the FTA, the 
Committee does not believe appreciable increases in FTE are 
needed immediately. In fiscal year 1999, the Committee directs 
the FTE level in fiscal year 1999 not rise in excess of 485 
FTE. The Committee will consider further increases above this 
level as is warranted by the increase in workload imposed by 
TEA21 on an annual basis.
    Project management oversight activities, section 23.--The 
accompanying bill does not contain a provision limiting the 
amounts available for project management oversight (PMO) 
activities, unlike the fiscal year 1998 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Act, which limited PMO 
activities to $15,000,000. As such, the Committee estimates 
that $31,300,000 will be available in fiscal year 1999 for 
project management oversight activities. The Committee has 
include bill language requiring the FTA to transfer to the 
Inspector General $750,000 for reimbursement of audits and 
financial reviews of major transit projects. Over the past 
several years, the IG has provided critical oversight of 
several major transit projects, which the Committee has found 
invaluable. The Committee anticipates that such oversight 
activities will be continued by the Inspector General in fiscal 
year 1999.
    The Committee further directs the FTA to increase its 
financial management oversight activities within the funds 
provided under section 23. The Committee believes it is 
imperative that the FTA understand more fully the financing 
proposals of major transit projects authorized in TEA21 before 
entering into full funding grants agreements and to identify 
critical funding deficiencies or inadequate financing plans 
before such funding shortfalls materialize. The experience to 
date with projects such as the Los Angeles Metrorail and BART 
extension to the San Francisco Airport projects suggests a more 
aggressive approach by the FTA.
    Congressional justifications.--The Committee directs the 
FTA to present the congressional justifications in support of 
the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the national transit 
planning and research program with the same level of detail as 
the budget justifications submitted in support of the 
intelligent transportation systems and highway research 
programs in fiscal year 1999. Similarly, the Committee expects 
that the congressional justifications for administrative 
expenses and project management oversight activities to be at 
the same level of detail as provided with the fiscal year 1999 
congressional justifications.
    Grants management.--In 1992, the General Accounting Office 
designated FTA's management and oversight of billions of 
dollars in federal transit grants as a high-risk federal 
program that was especially vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, 
and mismanagement. FTA has taken several steps over the years 
to address the oversight weaknesses that were responsible for 
its high-risk designation. In February 1995, as a result of 
various initiatives undertaken by the FTA, the GAO removed FTA 
from its high-risk list. In a follow-up report, however, the 
GAO noted that though the FTA has increased its focus on grants 
management oversight, there are still significant opportunities 
for improvement. The Committee directs the agency: (1) to give 
more attention to issuing reports on triennial reviews in a 
timely manner; (2) to require grantees to meet the FTA's time 
frames for correcting noncompliance findings and deficiencies 
identified by oversight reviews; (3) to use more effectively an 
established information system intended to track the resolution 
of findings; and (4) require that the data in the system be 
updated by regional office staff. The Committee expects the FTA 
to report to the House and Senate Committees by December 1, 
1999 the steps taken to comply with these directives and 
milestones by which progress can be assessed.
    The Committee recommendation deletes funding for further 
development of the electronic grants making and management 
system (-$240,000). The Committee believes it is more 
imperative that funds for this activity be available for more 
critical automation activities including Year 2000 conversion 
and the triennial review information system.

                             Formula Grants

                                                                        
                                                          Limitation on 
                                        Appropriation      obligations  
                                       (general fund)     (trust fund)  
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.....      $240,000,000  ($2,260,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999                                       
 \1\................................  ................  ................
Recommended in the bill.............       570,000,000   (2,280,000,000)
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.      +330,000,000       +20,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1999...............................      +570,000,000  (+2,280,000,000)
                                                                        
\1\ The budget request proposed to create a new program, formula        
  programs, which was not incorporated in TEA21.                        

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,850,000,000 
for transit formula grants. This level is $350,000,000 above 
the 1998 enacted level of $2,500,000,000 and is guaranteed 
under the new transit category.
    The recommended program level of $2,850,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $570,000,000 from the general 
fund and $2,280,000,000 from limitations on obligations from 
the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Formula 
grants to states and local agencies funded under this heading 
fall into four categories: urbanized area formula grants 
(U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 
5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of elderly 
individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. sec. 
5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized areas 
(U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds 
are directed to: a new grant program for intercity bus 
operators to finance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 
accessibility costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements 
to its passenger operations.
    Within the total funding level of $2,850,000,000, the new 
statutory distribution of formula grants is allocated among the 
following activities:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307).........................    $2,548,190,791
Clean fuels (sec. 5308)...............................        50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)......................        67,035,601
Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311).......................       177,923,658
Rural transportation accessibility incentive program..         2,000,000
Alaska railroad.......................................         4,849,950
                                                                        

    Section 3007 of the TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized 
formula grants by striking the authorization to utilize these 
funds for operating costs, but includes a specific provision 
allowing the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized 
areas with a population of less than 200,000. Generally, these 
grants may be used to fund capital projects, and to finance 
planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and 
associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All 
urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are 
statutorily required to use one percent of their annual formula 
grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art, 
bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
    Major project preliminary engineering and design (PE&D;) 
activities.--The accompanying bill provides appreciable 
increases in formula funds allocated to transit authorities. 
These funds can be used, among other activities, for 
preliminary engineering and design of new rail extensions or 
busways. The Committee asserts that local project sponsors of 
new rail extensions or busways should use these funds for 
preliminary engineering and design activities rather than seek 
section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Moreover, the Committee 
expects the FTA, when evaluating the local financial commitment 
of a given project, to consider the extent to which the 
project's sponsors have used the appreciable increases in the 
formula grants apportionments for preliminary engineering and 
design activities of proposed new systems.
    Clean fuels program.--TEA21 requires that $50,000,000 be 
set aside from funds made available under the formula grants 
program to fund a new clean fuels program. The clean fuels 
program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the 
major capital investment's bus program and provides grants for 
the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for eligible 
recipients in areas that are not in compliance with air quality 
attainment standards. The Committee has identified designated 
recipients of these funds within the projects listed under the 
bus program component of the capital investment grants account.
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.--
Of the $171,144,864 allocated to Los Angeles, California, the 
Committee expects that $25,000,000 shall be made available for 
the purchase of new buses to comply with the bus consent 
decree.
    San Francisco, California and the Presidio.--Over the past 
several years, the Congress has invested substantial resources 
to incorporate the Presidio into the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area. To that end, and because of the benefits the 
Presidio provides to the local community, the Committee expects 
that the city of San Francisco and the municipal transportation 
authority will ensure that necessary and ample public 
transportation services are available to the park, its visitors 
and workers, and the surrounding community. The federal 
investment in San Francisco's transportation projects is 
intended to serve the entire local community, including 
transportation service to the Presidio.
    The following table displays the state-by-state 
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the 
program categories:





                            Formula Programs

                          (highway trust fund)

                                                                        
                                                         (Liquidation of
                                      (Limitation on        contract    
                                       obligations)      authorization) 
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...  ..................  ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.    $(3,709,235,000)    $1,500,000,000
Recommended in the bill...........  ..................  ................
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year                                          
 1998.............................  ..................  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1999.............................    (-3,709,235,000)    -1,500,000,000
                                                                        

    The budget proposed to consolidate all formula grant 
activities into this account. The fixed guideway modernization 
formula program and the buses and the bus facilities program, 
together with the existing formula grants program, were 
proposed to be merged into this new account structure. In 
addition, the administration proposed to create a new program--
access to jobs and training--which would provide funds for 
grants to states, local agencies, and non-profit organizations 
for transportation services to match the needs of welfare 
recipients to get to jobs and training with the services 
available in the community. This program was proposed as a set-
aside from the formula programs account. The proposal to create 
a new formula program was not incorporated in TEA21.

                   University Transportation Research

                                                                        
                                                          Limitation on 
                                        Appropriation      obligations  
                                       (general fund)     (trust fund)  
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.....        $6,000,000  ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999                                       
 \1\................................  ................  ................
Recommended in the bill.............         1,200,000      ($4,800,000)
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.        -4,800,000      (+4,800,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1999...............................        +1,200,000      (+4,800,000)
                                                                        
\1\ The budget included an appropriation request for this program within
  the amounts requested for transit planning and research.              

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for 
university transportation research. The recommendation is the 
same level as provided in fiscal year 1998. This appropriation 
is guaranteed under the new transit funding category.
    The recommended program level of $6,000,000 is comprised of 
an appropriation of $1,200,000 from the general fund and 
$4,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund.

                     Transit Planning and Research

                                                                        
                                                          Limitation on 
                                        Appropriation      obligations  
                                       (general fund)     (trust fund)  
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.....       $92,000,000  ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999                                       
 \1\................................        91,900,000  ................
Recommended in the bill.............        19,800,000     ($78,200,000)
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.       -72,200,000     (+78,200,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1999...............................       -72,100,000     (+78,200,000)
                                                                        
\1\ The budget requested that appropriations be derived from the highway
  trust fund.                                                           

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $98,000,000 for 
transit planning and research. The recommendation is $6,000,000 
more than provided in fiscal year 1998 and $6,100,000 more than 
the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the 
new transit funding category.
    The recommended program level of $98,000,000 is comprised 
of an appropriation of $19,800,000 from the general fund and 
$78,200,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund.
    The bill contains language specifying that $43,841,600 
shall be available for metropolitan planning; $9,158,400 shall 
be available for state planning and research; $27,500,000 shall 
be available for national planning and research; $8,250,000 
shall be available for transit cooperative research; $4,000,000 
shall be available for the National Transit Institute; and 
$5,250,000 shall be available for rural transportation 
assistance.
    The Committee has deleted funding within the national 
program for further development of the electronic grant 
management and making system (-$200,000).
    TEA21 earmarks the following projects within the funds 
provided for the national program in fiscal year 1999:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
North Orange-South Seminole County, Florida fixed                       
 guideway technology..................................          $750,000
Galveston, Texas fixed guideway activities............           750,000
Washoe County, Nevada transit technology..............         1,250,000
MBTA, Massachusetts advanced electric transit buses                     
 and related infrastructure...........................         1,500,000
Palm Springs, California fuel cell buses..............         1,000,000
Gloucester, Massachusetts intermodal technology center         1,500,000
SEPTA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania advanced propulsion                   
 control system.......................................         2,000,000
Project ACTION........................................         3,000,000
                                                                        

    Support in fiscal year 1999 is provided for a number of 
important initiatives including:

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Advanced transportation and alternative fueled vehicle                  
 technology consortium (CALSTART).....................        $3,000,000
Rural transportation assistance program...............           750,000
Safety programs.......................................         4,750,000
JOBLINKS..............................................         1,000,000
Fleet operations, including bus rapid transit.........         2,000,000
Zinc-air battery development..........................         2,000,000
Northern tier community transportation, Massachusetts.           500,000
Hennepin County Community works transportation,                         
 Minnesota............................................         1,000,000
Seattle, Washington livable city......................           200,000
                                                                        

    Fuel cell bus program.--The Committee directs that none of 
the funds available under this heading shall be available to 
supplement funding provided under section 3015(b) of TEA21 for 
the fuel cell bus and bus facilities program. Further, funding 
provided for the fuel cell bus program in this Act shall be 
available only for research and development and directly 
related support facilities and equipment in accordance with FTA 
policy and regulation.
    Advanced transportation and alternative fueled vehicle 
technology program (CALSTART).--Of the amount provided for this 
activity, not less than $500,000 shall be available to the 
Santa Barbara electric transportation insitute to continue its 
initiatives regarding evaluation of fast charging technologies 
and data acquisition systems.

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................  ($2,210,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................   (2,446,200,000)
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................    (+236,200,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  (+2,446,200,000)
                                                                        

    For fiscal year 1999, the Committee has provided 
$2,446,200,000 for liquidation of contract authorization. The 
increase over last year is necessary to pay outstanding 
obligations of the various transit programs at the levels 
assumed in TEA21. This appropriation is mandatory and has no 
scoring effect.

                       Capital Investment Grants

                                                                        
                                                          Limitation on 
                                        Appropriation      obligations  
                                       (general fund)     (trust fund)  
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.....  ................  ($2,000,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999...  ................     (876,114,857)
Recommended in the bill.............      $451,400,000   (1,805,600,000)
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.      +451,400,000    (-194,400,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1999...............................      +451,400,000    (+929,485,143)
                                                                        

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,257,000,000 to 
be available for capital investment grants, formerly referred 
to as discretionary grants. The recommendation is $257,000,000 
more than provided in fiscal year 1998 and $1,330,885,143 more 
than the budget request, which requested funds under this 
program heading only for new starts. This appropriation is 
guaranteed under the new transit category.
    The recommended program level of $2,257,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $451,400,000 from the general 
fund and $1,805,600,000 from limitations on obligations from 
the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
    Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be 
distributed as follows:

                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Recommended in 
                                                              1998 enacted      1999 request        the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed guideway modernization..............................      $800,000,000             (\1\)      $902,800,000
New starts................................................       800,000,000      $876,114,857       902,800,000
Bus and bus facilities....................................       400,000,000             (\1\)       451,400,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................     2,000,000,000       876,114,857     2,257,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Administration proposed to merge the bus and bus facilities and fixed guideway modernization programs   
  into a new formula grants program and create a new major capital investment program. The 1998 budget request  
  is shown here for comparability purposes.                                                                     

    Three-year availability of section 5309 funds.--The 
Committee has included bill language that permits the 
administrator to reallocate discretionary new start and buses 
and bus facilities funds from projects which remain unobligated 
after three years. Funds made available in the fiscal year 1996 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act and previous Acts are available for 
reallocation in fiscal year 1999 as availability for these 
discretionary projects is limited to three years. The Committee 
directs the FTA to reprogram funds from recoveries and previous 
appropriations that remain available after three years and are 
available for reallocation to only those section 3 new starts 
that have full funding grant agreements in place on the date of 
enactment of this Act, and with respect to bus and bus 
facilities, only to those bus and bus facilities projects 
identified in the fiscal year 1999 accompanying reports of the 
fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTA shall notify the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations 15 days prior to any such 
reallocation.
    The Committee, however, directs the FTA not to reallocate 
funds provided in fiscal year 1995 or 1996 for the Whitehall 
ferry terminal, or funds provided in fiscal year 1996 for the 
Memphis, Tennessee medical extension project, the Burlington, 
Vermont commuter rail project, the Burlington-Gloucester 
commuter rail project or the New Orleans Canal Street corridor 
project. The FTA informs the Committee that these funds are 
likely to be awarded in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998 
or soon thereafter.

                        BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

    The accompanying bill provides $451,400,000 for bus 
purchases and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and 
intermodal facilities. Bus systems are expected to play a vital 
role in the mass transportation systems of virtually all 
cities. FTA estimates that 95 percent of the areas that provide 
mass transit service do so through bus transit only and over 60 
percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus.
    TEA21 requires that funding of $100,000,000 be made 
available for a new clean fuels grant program. This funding is 
derived from $50,000,000 from the formula grants account and 
$50,000,000 from funds allocated for buses under this account. 
Designated recipients of the clean fuels grant program--funding 
for which is derived in part from the formula grants program--
are identified in the lists below (to the extent funding is 
allocated for the purchase of eligible alternative-fuel 
vehicles, related facilities and other eligible activities).
    TEA21 requires that the funds provided for buses and bus 
facilities be allocated as follows:

        Project                                                   Amount

Fuel cell bus and bus facilities program (section 
    3015(b))............................................      $4,850,000
State of Alabama:.......................................
    Birmingham-Jefferson County, buses..................       1,250,000
    Pritchard bus transfer facility.....................         500,000
    Tuscaloosa Intermodal Center........................       1,000,000
State of Arkansas:
    Arkansas Highway and Transit Department buses.......         200,000
    Fayetteville, University of Arkansas Transit System 
      buses.............................................         500,000
    Hot Springs Transportation Depot and Plaza..........         560,000
    Little Rock Central Arkansas Transit buses..........         300,000
State of California:
    Culver City, CityBus buses..........................       1,250,000
    Davis, Unitrans transit maintenance facility........         625,000
    Healdsburg Intermodal Facility......................       1,000,000
    Humboldt, Intermodal Facility.......................       1,000,000
    Islais Creek bus maintenance facility...............       1,250,000
    Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority automatic 
      vehicle locator system............................       1,000,000
    Los Angeles Union Station Gateway Intermodal Transit 
      Center............................................       1,250,000
    Mendocino Transit Authority Ukiah transit center....         500,000
    Modesto bus maintenance facility....................         625,000
    Monterey Salinas transit buses......................         625,000
    Morongo Basin Transit Authority bus facility........         650,000
    Perris bus maintenance facility.....................       1,250,000
    Sacramento CNG buses................................       1,250,000
    Santa Clarita facilities and buses..................       1,250,000
    Santa Cruz metropolitan transit district bus 
      facilities........................................         625,000
    San Fernando Valley smart shuttle buses.............         300,000
    Santa Rosa/Cotati Intermodal Transportation 
      Facilities........................................         750,000
    Windsor Intermodal Facility.........................         750,000
    Woodland Hills Warner Center Transportation Hub.....         325,000
State of Colorado:
    Boulder/Denver, RTD buses...........................         625,000
    Denver Stapleton Intermodal Center..................       1,250,000
State of Connecticut:
    Hartford Transportation Access Project..............         800,000
    New Haven bus facility..............................       2,250,000
    Norwich buses.......................................       2,250,000
    Waterbury bus facility..............................       2,250,000
District of Columbia:
    Washington, D.C. Intermodal Transportation Center...       2,500,000
State of Florida
    Broward County buses................................       1,000,000
    Daytona Beach intermodal center.....................       2,500,000
    Lakeland Area Mass Transit District's Citrus 
      Connection transit vehicles.......................       1,250,000
    Miami Beach Electric Shuttle Service................         750,000
    Miami Dade buses and bus facilities.................       2,250,000
    Orlando intermodal facility.........................       2,500,000
State of Georgia:
    MARTA buses.........................................       9,000,000
State of Hawaii:
    Honolulu buses and bus facility.....................       2,250,000
State of Iowa:
    Fort Dodge Intermodal Facility (Phase II)...........         885,000
    Iowa/Illinois Transit Consortium bus safety and 
      security..........................................       1,000,000
State of Illinois:
    Illinois Statewide buses and bus facilities and 
      related equipment.................................       6,800,000
State of Indiana:
    Gary Transit Consortium buses.......................       1,250,000
    Indianapolis buses..................................       5,000,000
    South Bend Urban Intermodal Transportation Facility.       1,250,000
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
    New Bedford/Fall River Mobile Access to health care.         250,000
    Springfield Union Station...........................       1,250,000
    Worcester Union Station.............................       2,500,000
State of Maryland:
    Maryland buses and bus facilities...................       7,000,000
State of Michigan:
    Lansing CATA buses and bus technology improvements..         600,000
    Michigan statewide bus & bus facilities.............      10,000,000
State of Minnesota:
    Duluth Transit Authority community circulation 
      vehicles..........................................       1,000,000
    Duluth Transit Authority intelligent transportation 
      systems...........................................         500,000
    Duluth Transit Authority Transit Hub................         500,000
    Northstar Corridor Intermodal Facilities and buses..       6,000,000
State of Missouri:
    St. Louis Bi-state Intermodal Center................       1,250,000
State of North Carolina:
    Greensboro multimodal transportation center.........       3,340,000
    Greensboro Transit Authority buses..................       1,500,000
    Greensboro Transit Authority small buses and vans...         321,000
State of New Jersey:
    New Jersey Transit jitney shuttle buses.............       1,750,000
    Newark, NJ Morris & Essex Station access and buses..       1,250,000
    South Amboy regional intermodal transportation 
      center............................................       1,250,000
State of New Mexico:
    Albuquerque, NM buses...............................       1,250,000
State of Nevada:
    Reno transit facility (Washoe County)...............       2,250,000
State of New York:
    Babylon Station intermodal hub......................       1,250,000
    Brookhaven Town elderly and disabled buses and vans.         225,000
    Brooklyn-Staten Island Mobility Enhancement buses...         800,000
    Buffalo Auditorium Intermodal Center................       2,000,000
    Buffalo Crossroads Intermodal Station...............       1,000,000
    Dutchess County Loop System buses...................         521,000
    East Hampton elderly and disabled buses and vans....         100,000
    Ithaca TCAT bus technology improvements.............       1,250,000
    Long Island CNG transit vehicles and facilities.....       1,250,000
    Mineola/Hicksville LIRR Intermodal Centers..........       1,250,000
    New York West 72nd St. Intermodal Station...........       1,750,000
    Rensselaer Amtrak station project...................       1,000,000
    Riverhead elderly and disabled buses and vans.......         125,000
    Rome Intermodal Center..............................         400,000
    Shelter Island elderly and disabled buses and vans..         100,000
    Smithtown elderly and disabled buses and vans.......         125,000
    Southhampton elderly and disabled buses and vans....         125,000
    Southhold elderly and disabled buses and vans.......         100,000
    Suffolk County elderly and disabled buses and vans..         100,000
    Utica Union Station.................................       2,100,000
    Utica and Rome bus facilities and buses.............         500,000
    Westchester County Bee-Line transit system fareboxes         979,000
    Westchester County (Bee-line bus system) buses......       1,000,000
    Westchester County DOT articulated buses............       1,250,000
State of Ohio:
    Dayton Multimodal Transportation Center.............         625,000
    Triskett bus garage.................................         625,000
State of Oklahoma:
    Oklahoma statewide bus facilities and buses.........       5,000,000
State of Oregon:
    Land transit district buses and equipment...........       4,400,000
    Portland Tri-Met buses..............................       1,750,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
    Altoona bus testing facility (section 3009).........       3,000,000
    Altoona Metro Transit Authority buses and transit 
      system improvements...............................         842,000
    Altoona Metro Transit Authority Logan Valley Mall 
      Suburban Transfer Center..........................          80,000
    Altoona Metro Transit Authority Transit Center 
      improvements......................................         424,000
    Altoona Pedestrian Crossover........................         800,000
    Armstrong Mid-County transit authority buses and bus 
      facilities........................................         150,000
    Bradford County, Endless Mountain Transportation 
      Authority buses...................................       1,000,000
    Cambria County buses and bus facilities.............         575,000
    Centre Area Transportation Authority buses..........       1,250,000
    Chambersburg Transit Authority buses................         300,000
    Chambersburg Transit Authority Intermodal Center....       1,000,000
    Chester County Paoli Transportation Center..........       1,000,000
    Crawford Area Transportation buses..................         500,000
    Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority buses...........       1,000,000
    Fayette County buses and facilities.................       1,270,000
    Lackawanna County Transit System buses..............         600,000
    Mercer County buses.................................         750,000
    Monroe County Transportation Authority buses........       1,000,000
    Philadelphia Frankford Transportation Center........       5,000,000
    Philadelphia Intermodal 30th Street Station.........       1,250,000
    Philadelphia Regional Transportation System for 
      Elderly and Disabled..............................         750,000
    Reading intermodal transportation center............       1,750,000
    Red Rose Transit Bus Terminal.......................       1,000,000
    Robinson Towne Center Intermodal Facility...........       1,500,000
    Somerset County transportation buses and bus 
      facilities........................................         175,000
    Towamencin Township Intermodal Bus Transportation 
      Center............................................       1,500,000
    Washington County Intermodal Facilities.............         630,000
    Westmoreland County Intermodal Facility.............         200,000
    Wilkes-Barre intermodal facility....................       1,250,000
    Williamsport Bus Facility...........................       1,200,000
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico:
    San Juan Intermodal access..........................         600,000
State of Rhode Island:
    Providence buses and bus maintenance facility.......       2,250,000
State of South Carolina:
    South Carolina statewide Virtual Transit Enterprise.       1,220,000
State of South Dakota:
    South Dakota statewide bus facilities and buses.....       1,500,000
State of Texas:
    Austin buses........................................       1,250,000
    Texas rural and small cities buses and bus 
      facilities........................................       4,000,000
State of Utah:
    Ogden Intermodal Center.............................         800,000
    Utah Transit Authority Intermodal Facilities........       1,500,000
    Utah Transit Authority/Park City Transit buses......       6,500,000
Commonwealth of Virginia:
    Alexandria bus maintenance facility.................       1,000,000
    Alexandria King Street Station access...............       1,100,000
    Greater Richmond Transit Company maintenance 
      facility..........................................       1,250,000
    Harrisonburg buses..................................         200,000
    Lynchburg buses.....................................         200,000
    Roanoke buses.......................................         200,000
State of Washington:
    Everett Station.....................................       1,950,000
    Grant County buses and vans.........................         600,000
    Mount Vernon Multimodal Center......................       1,750,000
    Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal..........       1,250,000
State of Wisconsin:
    Milwaukee County buses..............................       4,000,000
    Wisconsin statewide buses and bus facilities........       8,000,000
State of West Virginia:
    Huntington Intermodal Facility......................       8,000,000
    Statewide Intermodal Facility and buses.............       5,000,000

    In addition, federal support is provided for the following 
projects:
        Project                                                   Amount
State of Alabama:
    Huntsville, transit facility........................      $1,000,000
    Lee-Russell Council buses...........................         725,000
    Phenix City Express and Lee County buses............         725,000
    Mobile, GM&O; building...............................      10,000,000
State of Arizona:
    Tucson intermodal facility..........................       1,000,000
    Tucson alternatively fueled vehicles................       4,000,000
    Phoenix bus and bus facilities......................       8,000,000
State of California:
    Central Contra Costa County transit vans............         199,885
    Davis/Sacramento area hydrogen bus technology 
      program...........................................         950,000
    Folsom multimodal facility..........................       1,000,000
    Huntington Beach buses..............................         200,000
    I-5 corridor transit, transportation centers........       5,000,000
    Lake Tahoe intermodal transit center................         500,000
    Los Angeles County, Foothill transit maintenance 
      facility..........................................       1,625,000
    Los Angeles County metropolitan transportation 
      authority buses...................................       6,000,000
    Modesto, bus facility...............................       1,000,000
    Municipal transit operators coalition...............       5,000,000
    North San Diego County transit district buses.......       3,500,000
    Riverside transit agency bus facility...............       1,000,000
    San Bernardino buses................................       1,334,115
    San Diego City College multimodal center (12th 
      Avenue/College Station)...........................       2,000,000
    San Joaquin (Stockton) bus facilities...............       2,000,000
    Santa Clara Valley buses and bus facilities.........       1,000,000
    Santa Clarita transit maintenance facility..........       1,500,000
    Santa Cruz, transit facility........................       2,000,000
    Santa Rosa, Colati, and Rohnert Park facilities.....       1,000,000
    Yolo County, bus facility...........................       2,400,000
State of Colorado:
    Boulder/RTD, special transit of Boulder bus 
      equipment.........................................         171,000
    Colorado buses and bus facilities...................       2,000,000
State of Delaware:
    Delaware statewide buses............................       2,000,000
State of Florida:
    Clearwater multimodal facility......................       5,000,000
    Jacksonville buses and bus facilities...............       1,000,000
    Gainesville buses and equipment.....................       2,000,000
    Lynx buses and bus facilities.......................       1,000,000
    Miami, bus security and surveillance................       1,000,000
    Miami Beach multimodal transit center...............       1,000,000
    Tampa HARTline buses................................       2,500,000
State of Georgia:
    Chatham Area transit bus transfer center and buses..       5,000,000
State of Illinois:
    Rock Island, buses..................................       2,500,000
State of Indiana:
    City of East Chicago buses..........................         200,000
State of Iowa:
    Iowa statewide buses and bus facilities.............       2,500,000
State of Kentucky:
    Southern and eastern Kentucky buses and bus 
      facilities........................................       5,000,000
    Louisville metropolitan scholars program buses......       4,000,000
    Owensboro buses.....................................         200,000
State of Louisiana:
    Statewide...........................................      19,000,000
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
    Essex and Middlesex buses...........................       3,128,000
    Pittsfield intermodal center........................       9,200,000
    Westfield intermodal center.........................       4,000,000
State of Minnesota:
    Twin Cities area metro transit buses and bus 
      facilities........................................      19,000,000
State of Missouri:
    Southwest Missouri State University park and ride 
      facility..........................................       1,000,000
State of North Carolina:
    North Carolina statewide buses and bus facilities...      10,000,000
    Special Olympics buses, bus facilities, and related 
      equipment.........................................       1,900,000
State of New Mexico:
    Sante Fe park and ride facilities...................       3,000,000
State of Nevada:
    Clark County Regional Transportation commission.....       2,750,000
State of New York:
    NFTA HUBLINK program................................       1,000,000
    Syracuse buses......................................       4,000,000
    Ulster County bus facilities and equipment..........       1,000,000
State of Ohio:
    Ohio statewide buses and bus facilities.............      19,000,000
    Toledo Mud Hens transit center study................         200,000
State of Oregon:
    Salem area mass transit system buses................       1,000,000
    SMART, Wilsonville, buses and shelters..............         400,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
    Beaver County bus facility..........................       1,000,000
    Schuylkill County buses.............................         220,000
State of South Carolina:
    Pee Dee buses and facilities........................       1,000,000
State of South Dakota:
    Statewide bus and bus facilities....................       1,000,000
State of Tennessee:
    Tennessee statewide buses and bus facilities........       3,000,000
State of Texas:
    Corpus Christi buses and facilities.................       1,000,000
    DART buses..........................................       1,500,000
    Fort Worth bus and paratransit vehicle project......       2,500,000
    Galveston buses and bus facilities..................       1,000,000
Commonwealth of Virginia:
    Statewide buses and bus facilities..................      18,000,000
State of Washington:
    Central Puget Sound bus program.....................      16,000,000
    Clark County (C-Tran) bus facilities................       1,000,000
    Ben Franklin transit operating facility.............       1,000,000
    Bremerton transportation center.....................       1,000,000
    Port Angeles center.................................       1,000,000
    Snohomish County buses..............................       2,000,000
    Tacoma Dome buses and bus facilities................       3,500,000
    Thurston County intercity buses.....................       1,000,000
State of Wisconsin:
    Statewide bus and bus facilities....................       7,000,000

    Crossroads station, Buffalo, New York.--The Committee 
directs that funds provided in the fiscal year 1996 Department 
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
Crossroads Station in Buffalo, New York not be reallocated.
    Galveston, Texas.--The Committee directs that $2,000,000 
provided in the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for alternatively 
fueled vehicles for Galveston, Texas shall also be made 
available for an alternative fueling station, downtown 
multimodal transportation terminal and eligible costs of 
contracting out to private sector transportation providers.
    Honolulu, Hawaii.--The Committee directs that $3,970,000 
provided in the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the Kaukini medical 
center parking facility be reprogrammed for Honolulu buses and 
bus facilities.
    Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.--Funds provided in the 
fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Act for Lackawanna County paratransit vans shall be 
available for an intermodal bus facility in Lackawanna County, 
Pennsylvania.
    Nashville, Tennessee.--Funds provided in the fiscal year 
1996 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for electric buses in Nashville, Tennessee 
shall be available to the state of Tennessee for alternate 
fueled buses and bus facilities.
    Saint Bernard Parish, Louisiana.--The Committee directs 
that funds provided in the fiscal year 1997 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for an 
intermodal facility in Saint Bernard Parish, Louisiana be 
available for buses and bus facilities.
    State of Colorado.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
to the state of Colorado for buses and bus-related facilities. 
Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 shall be made available 
to Colorado Springs.
    State of Tennessee.--Of the funds allocated to the state of 
Tennessee, $1,000,000 shall be for the city of Chattanooga for 
alternatively fueled buses.
    State of Wisconsin.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$7,000,000 for the state of Wisconsin to be distributed as 
follows: $3,050,000 for Appleton, Green Bay, Shawano, Menominee 
Tribe, and Oneida Tribe; $1,600,000 for La Crosse, Onalaska, 
Prairie Du Chien, Rice Lake, Viroqua and Ho Chunk Nation; and 
$350,000 for Ashland, Chippewa Falls, Eau Claire, Ladysmith, 
Marshfield, Rhinelander, Rusk County, Stevens Point, Wausau and 
Wisconsin Rapids; $1,000,000 for Milwaukee intermodal facility 
rehabilitation; and $1,000,000 for the Waukesha transit center.

                      fixed guideway modernization

    The accompanying bill provides $902,800,000 from the 
capital investment grants program to modernize existing rail 
transit systems. These funds are to be distributed, consistent 
with the provisions of TEA21, as follows:

        SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Change from FY
            State                FY 1998       FY 1999         1998     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.....................      $887,899    $1,240,236       +$352,337
California..................    72,836,728    83,594,745     +10,758,017
Colorado....................       869,435     1,132,463        +263,028
Connecticut.................    32,975,909    34,548,995      +1,573,086
Delaware....................       420,810       661,223        +240,413
District of Columbia........    22,127,637    28,912,935      +6,785,298
Florida.....................     7,057,834    11,206,655      +4,148,821
Georgia.....................     9,555,673    15,834,034      +6,278,361
Hawaii......................       337,024       498,050        +161,026
Illinois....................   100,666,023   108,868,175      +8,202,152
Indiana.....................     6,756,902     7,307,446        +550,544
Louisiana...................     2,181,084     2,648,872        +467,788
Maryland....................    16,936,445    21,397,326      +4,460,881
Massachusetts...............    54,563,411    59,250,813      +4,687,402
Michigan....................       190,384       361,728        +171,344
Minnesota...................     2,025,018     2,694,403        +669,385
Missouri....................     1,395,477     1,695,212        +299,735
New Jersey..................    75,300,227    81,197,462      +5,897,236
New York....................   272,525,983   300,062,837     +27,536,854
Ohio........................    13,446,302    14,775,328      +1,329,026
Oregon......................     1,462,315     2,483,658      +1,021,343
Pennsylvania................    88,526,900    94,063,790      +5,536,889
Puerto Rico.................       812,274     1,468,302        +656,028
Rhode Island................     1,173,919     1,833,110        +659,191
Tennessee...................        36,803        47,600         +10,797
Texas.......................     3,182,516     4,607,963      +1,425,447
Virginia....................       464,097       504,285         +40,188
Washington..................     8,374,586    12,613,895      +4,239,309
Wisconsin...................       322,940       517,458        +194,518
                             -------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............   797,412,555   896,029,000     +98,616,445
Oversight...................     2,587,445     6,771,000      +4,183,555
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total Authority.......   800,000,000   902,800,000    +102,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               New Starts

    The accompanying bill provides $902,800,000 of new 
authority for new starts. These funds are available for 
preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project 
management, oversight, and construction of new systems and 
extensions. TEA21 requires that no more than eight percent of 
the funding provided for new starts be available for 
preliminary engineering and design activities. The funds are to 
be distributed as follows:

        Project                                                   Amount

Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects.........................     $10,400,000
Atlanta North Springs project...........................      52,110,000
Austin Capital metro project............................       1,000,000
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project............       3,000,000
Charlotte, North Carolina North-South corridor 
    transitway project..................................       2,000,000
Chicago Metra commuter rail extensions and upgrades.....       4,000,000
Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood line project.......       2,000,000
Clark County, Nevada fixed guideway project.............       4,000,000
Cleveland Berea Red Line extension to the Hopkins 
    International Airport...............................       1,000,000
Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement project...........       2,000,000
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project......................      10,698,000
DART North Central light rail extension project.........       8,000,000
Dayton, Ohio light rail study...........................       1,000,000
Denver Southwest Corridor project.......................      40,000,000
Dulles corridor project.................................      17,000,000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-County commuter rail 
    project.............................................       4,000,000
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania capital area transit/corridor 
    one project.........................................         500,000
Houston advanced transit program........................       2,000,000
Houston Regional Bus project............................      59,670,000
Johnson City, Kansas I-35 commuter rail project.........       1,000,000
Knoxville, Tennessee electric transit project...........       1,500,000
Los Angeles MOS-3 project...............................      46,000,000
MARC commuter rail project..............................      17,041,000
Maryland Route 5 corridor project.......................       1,500,000
Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center rail extension project       2,200,000
Miami Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor project.....       3,000,000
Miami Metro-Dade North 27th Avenue corridor project.....       1,000,000
Mission Valley East light rail transit project..........       2,000,000
Nashville, Tennessee regional commuter rail project.....         500,000
New Jersey urban core Hudson-Bergen LRT project.........      70,000,000
New Orleans Canal Street corridor project...............      43,000,000
New Orleans Desire Streetcar project....................       2,000,000
Norfolk-Virginia Beach regional rail project............       2,000,000
Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail project......       2,000,000
Oceanside-Escondido light rail project..................       5,500,000
Orange County, California transitway project............       4,000,000
Orlando Lynx light rail project.........................      17,500,000
Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuykill Valley Metro 
    project.............................................       2,000,000
Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro project...........       1,000,000
Phoenix metropolitan area transit project...............       8,000,000
Pittsburgh Allegheny County busway and light rail 
    projects............................................       3,000,000
Portland-Westside/Hillsboro and South-North light rail 
    projects............................................      25,718,000
Puget Sound RTA Link light rail project.................       1,000,000
Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project...........      19,500,000
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle Transit project.....       8,000,000
Sacramento south corridor LRT project...................      23,480,000
Salt Lake City South LRT project........................      70,000,000
Salt Lake City/Airport to University (West-East) light 
    rail project........................................       3,000,000
San Bernardino Metrolink extension project..............       2,000,000
San Diego Mid-Coast corridor project....................       3,000,000
San Francisco BART extension to the airport project.....      74,000,000
San Jacinto-Branch Line (Riverside County) project......         500,000
San Jose Tasman LRT project.............................      35,000,000
San Juan Tren Urbano....................................      60,000,000
South Boston Piers MOS-2 project........................      53,983,000
South Dekalb-Lindbergh corridor LRT project.............       1,000,000
Spokane, Washington light rail project..................       1,000,000
St Louis-St. Clair LRT extension project................      35,000,000
Tampa Bay regional rail project.........................         500,000
Twin Cities transitways project.........................      22,000,000
Virginia Rail Express Fredericksburg to Washington 
    commuter rail project...............................       2,000,000
West Trenton, New Jersey rail project...................       1,000,000
Whitehall ferry terminal project........................       1,000,000

                          Project Descriptions

    Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects.--The Committee recommends 
$10,400,000 for Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects. Section 3009 
of TEA21 authorizes $10,400,000 of new starts funds to be made 
available each year for capital ferry projects in Alaska and 
Hawaii. Eligible purposes include new fixed guideway systems 
such as ferryboats, extensions to existing systems, ferry 
terminal facilities, and approaches to ferry terminal 
facilities.
    Atlanta North Springs project.--The Committee recommends 
$52,110,000 for the Atlanta North Springs project. This 1.9-
mile, two-station extension from the Dunwoody Station to North 
Springs is part of the larger 9-mile, five-station North Line 
extension to the MARTA heavy rail rapid transit system. The 
segment from Buckhead to Dunwoody opened in June 1996. The 
North Line extension will serve the rapidly growing area north 
of Atlanta, and will connect this area with the rest of the 
region by providing better transit service for both commuters 
and inner-city residents. The local share commitment for the 
federally funded portion of this extension is 20 percent. The 
cost-effectiveness index is $5 per new passenger trip. FTA has 
determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build 
and operate this project. An FFGA for the Dunwoody to North 
Springs segment was issued in December 1994 which fulfilled the 
requirements of section 3035(tt) of ISTEA. The FFGA provides 
for $305,010,400 in section 5309 funds. The current cost 
estimate for the project totals $487,700,000. The sum of 
$208,146,866 has been made available in appropriated funds 
through fiscal year 1998. This includes $28,370,000 in prior-
year deobligated funds.
    Austin Capital Metro.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 
for Austin Capitol Metro for preliminary engineering for the 
proposed light rail project in north Austin, Texas, to serve 
the central business district, the State capitol, and the 
rapidly growing population and employment centers of the city. 
Capital Metro and the Texas Department of Transportation have 
recently completed a major investment study in March 1997 which 
identifies a 30-mile LRT as the locally preferred alternative. 
The initial cost estimate totals $182,300,000.
    Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project.--The 
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, the local 
metropolitan planning organization (MPO), is conducting a major 
investment study (MIS) to examine the feasibility of 
establishing commuter rail service to link the areas within the 
Northeast Corridor of the Canton-Akron-Cleveland (CAC) areas. 
In anticipation of future transportation needs in the CAC 
corridor, Akron Metro Regional Transit Authority has acquired 
several parcels of abandoned rail right of way in the region. 
The study will consider the existing and proposed land use 
patterns and impacts, preliminary ridership estimates, 
preliminary cost estimates, assessment of economic and 
environmental implications, and analysis of several commuter 
rail alternatives. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has 
appropriated $2.8 million for this effort. For fiscal year 
1999, the Committee recommends $3,000,000.
    Charlotte, North Carolina, north-south corridor transitway 
project.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the 
Charlotte, North Carolina, north-south corridor transitway 
project. The city of Charlotte, in cooperation with the North 
Carolina Department of transportation, is conducting an MIS to 
explore the feasibility of constructing a buy-only rapid 
transit system with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County area. The 
South Corridor Transitway extends 13.5 miles from the Uptown 
Charlotte Transportation Center to Interstate 485 near 
Pineville, NC. The total estimated cost for the transitway is 
$250,000,000. The corridor is included in the Mecklenburg-Union 
Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2015 long-range plan. 
Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has appropriated $1,000,000 
for this effort.
    Chicago Metra extensions and upgrades.--The Committee 
recommends $4,000,000 for three Chicago Metra extensions and 
upgrades: (1) double tracking the north-central corridor line, 
which was inaugurated in August 1998 and has already exceeded 
ridership projections. The line runs along Wisconsin Central 
Railroad line from Antioch and Franklin Park to downtown 
Chicago; (2) extending the southwest corridor, which runs on 
Norfolk Southern Railroad line from Orland Park to Chicago's 
Southwest Side; and extending the system's service westward 
into Kane County, a rapidly growing suburban area with high 
employment growth, Metra is the country's second largest 
commuter rail serving a population base of over 7,500,000.
    Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Ravenswood line.--The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000 for capacity expansion of the 
Chicago Ravenswood light rail system. The Ravenswood line 
carries approximately 105,000 people daily. The area is 
experiencing rapid growth in ridership, and increased capacity 
is required to handle this growth. The funds provided will 
allow CTA to complete the major investment study and related 
environmental reviews for the capacity expansion project. CTA 
plans to lengthen existing platforms in order to accommodate 
trainsets of eight cars in length.
    Clark County, Nevada, fixed guideway.--The Committee 
recommends $4,000,000 for preliminary engineering and design 
for a proposed fixed guideway system in the Las Vegas, NV, 
resort corridor. There are two major components to the proposed 
fixed guideway system: a 18.4-mile core system running south 
from Cashman Field to the Stratosphere Tower, then branching 
out along Sahara Avenue and paralleling Las Vegas Boulevard 
south behind the valley's resorts. In addition, an extension to 
McCarran International Airport is planned. The regional 
transportation commission has requested FTA approval to enter 
preliminary engineering for phase I of the Las Vegas corridor. 
The initial cost estimate for this project is between 
$2,100,000,000 and $2,300,000,000. The local financial 
commitment for this project is 55 percent. Through fiscal year 
1998, Congress has made available $4,983,828 in appropriated 
funds for this project.
    Cleveland Berea Red Line extension to the Hopkins 
International Airport.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for 
a major investment study to determine transportation options to 
provide a direct link between downtown Cleveland, Hopkins 
International Airport, the International Exposition Center, and 
Baldwin Wallace College. The proposed Berea Rapid Transit 
extension, approximately 3 miles from the Greater Cleveland 
Regional Transit Authority's airport station, is directly 
aligned with the local transit operator's red line rapid rail 
system. The MIS is also considering adequate walkup access and 
park-and-ride facilities to encourage greater use of the red 
line light rail transit system.
    Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement project.--The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000 for design and construction 
costs of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's 
5.6-mile downtown corridor, incorporating executive bus lanes 
and related capital improvements on Euclid Avenue from Public 
Square in downtown Cleveland east to University Circle. The 
proposed project is known as the Euclid corridor improvement 
project [ECIP]. In addition, five stations along the existing 
red line will be relocated in order to spur economic 
development and improve access between the stations, 
surrounding neighborhoods, and employment centers. In November 
1995, the GCRTA Board of Trustees selected the ECIP as the 
locally preferred alternative. The total capital cost estimate 
for the ECIP is $332,500,000. Through fiscal year 1998, 
Congress has appropriated $8,740,000.
    Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project.--The Committee 
recommends $10,698,000 for the Fort Worth Railtran commuter 
rail and intermodal transportation center project, which will 
provide a much needed commuter rail link between Fort Worth and 
Dallas. Service between Dallas and Arlington has already been 
initiated. These funds will allow Fort Worth's connection to 
this service beginning in 2000, and complete the Federal share 
of funding for the Railtran commuter rail project. Federal 
funds are matched with 70 percent local and State 
participation.
    DART north-central light rail extension project.--The 
Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Dallas-DART north-
central light rail extension project. This project is a 12.3-
mile, eight-station, $513,000,000 LRT extension to Plano. The 
southern 7.3 miles from Park Lane to Richardson Transit Center, 
would be double tracked. The northern 5 miles will be double 
tracked as well. Dallas area rapid transit has completed a 
major investment study and the preferred alternative was 
selected in September 1994. The project is now in final design. 
The local share commitment to this project is 35 percent. 
Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available 
$27,332,867 in appropriated funds for this project.
    Dayton, Ohio light rail study.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an appropriation of $1,000,000 for a 
light rail feasibility study in Dayton, Ohio. No previous 
appropriations have been provided.
    Denver southwest corridor project.--The Committee 
recommends $40,000,000 for the Denver southwest corridor light 
rail transit (LRT) project. The total FFGA amount for the 8.7-
mile LRT extension is $120,000,000. The extension will connect 
with the existing Denver central corridor light rail line from 
the I-25/Broadway interchange, and run over an exclusive, 
grade-separated right-of-way paralleling Santa Fe Drive, to 
Mineral Avenue in Littleton. This project is currently in the 
final design. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made 
available $24,415,144 in appropriated funds for this project. 
An additional $1,341,506 was made available from reprogrammed 
funds.
    Dulles corridor, Virginia.--The Virginia Department of Rail 
and Public Transportation has completed a major investment 
study (MIS) which evaluated several transportation options in 
the Dulles Corridor. The corridor extends from the West Falls 
Church Metrorail station to the Dulles International Airport 
and continues into Loudon County. There is a significant level 
of existing local and express bus service in the corridor. The 
MIS for the Dulles Corridor was completed in June 1997. The 
Committee has provided $17,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-County commuter rail 
project.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the Tri-
County commuter rail project. The Tri-County Commuter Rail 
Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 71-mile commuter rail system 
connecting Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Tri-Rail's 
short-range program includes the addition of a second track and 
rehabilitation of the signal system. These improvements will 
reduce conflicts with Amtrak and CSX freight trains. The 
project is in the final design state. The local share 
commitment to this project is 39 percent. The estimated total 
capital cost of the project is $573,100,000. To date, Congress 
has appropriated $51,281,075 in section 5309 funds for Tri-Rail 
improvements.
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, capital area transit/corridor 
one.--The Committee recommends $500,000 for final design and 
preliminary engineering costs associated with the development 
of a regional light rail system in the Harrisburg, PA, 
metropolitan area in a corridor which would ultimately link 
Lancaster to Carlisle via Harrisburg. The total cost is 
estimated at $56,000,000 and would consist of an initial 12-
mile segment from Harrisburg Transportation Center to the 
Navy's Mechanicsburg, PA, installation.
    Houston advanced transit program.--The Metropolitan Transit 
Authority of Harris County (Houston METRO) will initiate major 
investment studies (MIS) on various elements of the advanced 
transit program (ATP), previously the advanced regional bus 
plan. This program has been incorporated in the region's 
metropolitan transportation plan. The first study is the west 
loop major investment study METRO is scheduled to begin this 
MIS of the west loop corridor during fiscal year 1998. The 
Interstate IH-610 Corridor examined in the MIS will be from the 
Interstate (IH-10) Interchange on the north (with connections 
to the Katy High Occupancy Vehicle Lane and Northwest Transit 
Center) to the vicinity of Westpark Drive to the south. it is 
anticipated that this MIS will take from six to nine months to 
complete. METRO will be working closely with the Texas 
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to ensure that any 
recommendation from the west loop MIS will be compatible with 
their transportation systems management (TSM) improvements in 
the west loop. METRO is scheduled to begin an MIS of the 
Westpark Corridor in latter part of fiscal year 1998. The 
corridor examined in this MIS will be from the Hillcroft 
Transit Center to the vicinity of Shepherd. Other elements of 
the Houston advanced transit program include the proposed 
expansion of the Northwest Station Park and Ride facilities and 
a major investment analysis of alternative transportation 
infrastructure in the city of Houston. Through fiscal year 
1998, Congress has appropriated $1,000,000 for the advanced 
transit program. For fiscal year 1999, the Committee recommends 
$2,000,000.
    Houston regional bus project.--The Committee recommends 
$59,670,000 for the Houston regional bus project. The estimated 
total for the project is $625,000,000. The plan, developed by 
Houston METRO, consists of a package of major improvements to 
the region's existing bus system. It includes major service 
expansions in most of the region, new and extended HOV (high-
occupancy vehicle) facilities and ramps, several transit 
centers and park-and-ride lots, and supporting facilities. The 
individual elements of the plan are in various stages of 
development, from preliminary engineering to construction. An 
FFGA was issued for this project on December 30, 1994, which 
fulfilled the requirements of section 3035(uu) of ISTEA. A 
total of $378,257,998 has been made available from appropriated 
funds for this project through fiscal year 1998.
    Johnson County, Kansas, I-35 commuter rail project.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for planning and design of a 
commuter rail project along the railroad tracks that parallel 
Interstate 35, extending from Johnson County into downtown 
Kansas City. I-35 cannot be widened and proactive Kansas local 
governments, along with the support of business groups, have 
identified commuter rail as the preferred option to avoid 
traffic gridlock. No previous appropriations have been provided 
to this project.
    Knoxville, Tennessee electric transit project.--The 
Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Knoxville, Tennessee 
electric transit project. This project is expected to provide a 
dedicated electric trolley route around the periphery of the 
downtown area with stops at entertainment venues and parking 
areas. No previous appropriations have been provided for this 
project.
    Laurel rail line project, Lackawanna County, 
Pennsylvania.--The Committee has included bill language making 
available $500,000 for the Laurel Rail Line project in 
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania from funds previously 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998 for the Pennsylvania 
Strawberry Hill/Diamond Branch rail project.
    Los Angeles, MOS-3 project.--The 23-mile, $5,700,000,000 
Metro Red Line rail project is planned as ``minimum operable 
segments'' (MOSs) for funding purposes. ISTEA defined MOS-3 to 
include three Metro Rail extensions including the North 
Hollywood extension, the East Side extension, and the Mid-City 
extension. TEA21 subsequently broadened the range of options in 
the corridors. A full funding grant agreement has been signed, 
committing $1,416,490,000 in funding. To date, Congress has 
appropriated $571,727,000, including $61,500,000 in fiscal year 
1998.
    The Committee recommendation provides a total of 
$70,000,000 for fiscal year 1999. This amount includes: (1) 
$38,000,000 in new appropriations provided in this Act for 
construction of North Hollywood; (2) $24,000,000 that had been 
allocated for the East Side in the fiscal year 1998 Department 
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to be 
available for North Hollywood construction in fiscal year 1999; 
and (3) $8,000,000 in new appropriations for continued 
development of transportation alternatives in the East Side and 
Mid-City corridor.
    In fiscal year 1998, the Committee directed that the funds 
appropriated in that year shall be available only after (1) the 
LACMTA produces a financially constrained rail recovery plan 
which complies with the consent decree for enhanced bus 
service; (2) the FTA conducts a final review and accepts the 
plans and certifies to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations that the fiscal management of the project meets 
or exceeds accepted US government standards; (3) the General 
Accounting Office and the department's Inspector General 
conduct an independent analysis of the plans and provide such 
analysis to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; 
(4) the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have 
concluded their review of the analysis within sixty days of the 
transmittal of the analysis to the Committees; and (5) after 
the FTA has re-negotiated parts 1A and 1B of the MOS-3 full 
funding grant agreement.
    The LACMTA submitted its financially constrained recovery 
plan to the FTA on May 15, 1998, and the FTA, the GAO and the 
IG have provided informally their comments and observations on 
the recovery plan to the Committee. While the plan does not 
meet fully the requirements set forward in the conference 
agreement accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the 
Committee acknowledges that the LACMTA has made significant 
progress over the last several months and has promulgated a 
recovery plan that indicates that the transit authority can 
complete construction of the North Hollywood segment on 
schedule and near budget with funds that can be reasonably 
anticipated to be available to the LACMTA. The Committee notes 
that the recovery plan does not address heavy rail construction 
planned for the East Side and Mid-City corridors as included in 
the full funding grant agreement, and that, by allocating funds 
to North Hollywood construction, operating deficits have not 
been addressed.
    With these preliminary findings, the Committee directs that 
the FTA release the $37,500,000 provided in the fiscal year 
1998 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for continuing construction of the North 
Hollywood segment. For fiscal year 1999, the Committee provides 
new appropriations of $38,000,000 for the North Hollywood 
segment, together with the $24,000,000 provided in the fiscal 
year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. In total, $62,000,000 shall be available 
for North Hollywood construction in fiscal year 1999. This 
level is consistent with the levels assumed for fiscal year 
1999 in the full funding grant agreement for North Hollywood.
    The Committee has provided $8,000,000 for further design, 
review and development of transportation alternatives in the 
East Side and Mid-City corridors. These funds shall not be 
available for construction of heavy rail subway envisioned in 
parts 1B and 1C of the full funding grant agreement.
    The Committee is pleased with the new leadership at the 
LACMTA and is encouraged by the actions taken by the Board over 
the last several months. It is clear that the LACMTA is trying 
to address severe financial difficulties that have impacted its 
rail and bus programs, which are heavily supported by federal 
funds. While the LACMTA is making steady progress, it still 
faces serious potential capital and operating shortfalls that 
may impact its ability to meet the consent decree and maintain 
the current level of service at existing fares. To obtain 
information that will aid the Committee as it considers future 
federal support for Los Angeles transportation programs, the 
Committee directs the LACMTA to provide the FTA, the 
department's Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, 
and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a finance 
plan by February 1, 1999, and each year thereafter. The plan 
shall identify (1) the status, cost, and funding sources for 
completing the North Hollywood extension of the Red Line subway 
project; (2) the status, cost, and funding sources of current 
and planned activities (e.g., bus purchases) designed to comply 
with the bus consent decree; (3) the cost and funding sources 
for operating activities; and (4) the cost, schedule, and 
funding sources for projects planned to address the 
transportation needs of those areas where planned rail 
extensions have been suspended (e.g., Pasadena, East Side and 
Mid-City). The Committee expects that the plan will also 
identify all potential short- and long-term rail, bus, and 
highway program funding shortfalls, as well as potential 
strategies and sources of funding for addressing these 
shortfalls.
    The Committee further expects that of the non-federal 
funding available to the LACMTA, capital obligations necessary 
to complete the construction of North Hollywood and to comply 
with the bus consent decree shall be met first before any other 
financial obligations for capital investments. The Committee 
further expects that the business action plans identified in 
1998 and 1999 to balance the LACMTA's budget in those years 
shall be implemented and not be supplanted by funding provided 
by this Act.
    Maryland commuter rail [MARC].--The Committee recommends 
$17,041,000 for the MARC commuter rail project. Planned system 
extensions would provide service to Washington, DC, from 
Frederick, MD. The extension of MARC service to Frederick 
consists of a 13.5-mile line which will operate on existing CSX 
transportation rail right-of-way. The MARC program also 
includes new equipment and station improvements. The local 
share commitment to this project is 20 percent. FTA has 
determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build 
and operate the Frederick project, the new equipment, and make 
station improvements. An FFGA was issued for the Frederick 
extension and capital improvement projects in June 1995 for 
$105,251,373. To date, Congress has made available $87,633,965 
in appropriated funds for this project as well as an additional 
$33,250,000 not included in the FFGA.
    Maryland Route 5 corridor project.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for preliminary engineering 
and design for the Maryland Route 5 corridor project. 
Maryland's Route 5 is one of the major routes from Washington, 
D.C. to Waldorf, Maryland and other southern points. No 
previous appropriations have been provided for this project.
    Memphis, TN, medical center rail project.--The Committee 
recommends $2,200,000 for the Memphis Medical Center rail 
extension project. The Memphis Area Transit Authority [MATA] 
currently operates the 2.2-mile Main Street trolley, a vintage 
rail trolley line in downtown Memphis. The Main Street trolley 
extension via the Riverfront loop was opened for service in 
October 1997. This line serves existing and proposed 
developments along the Mississippi River and connects with the 
Main Street trolley, Central Station, and North End terminal. 
The funds provided for the rail connection to the medical 
center will complete the downtown rail circulation system. 
Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available 
$5,745,788 in appropriated funds for the Memphis regional rail 
plan.
    Miami Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor.--The Committee 
recommends $3,000,000 for the proposed heavy rail line linking 
the suburban area southwest of Florida International University 
to Miami International Airport [MIA], downtown Miami, and the 
Port of Miami seaport. The locally preferred alternative 
includes an 11.2-mile minimum operable segment of heavy rail 
running from the Palmetto Expressway to the Port of Miami, with 
a spur from MIA to the Miami Intermodal Center. Capital cost 
estimates for the project total $1,580,000,000. Preliminary 
engineering and the final environmental impact statement are 
currently being completed, and the funds provided in this bill 
will allow the Florida Department of Transportation to begin 
construction activities.
    Miami Metro-Dade North 27th Avenue corridor project.--The 
Metro-Dade Transit Agency (MDTA) is considering rail, busway 
and bus operations for improving transportation in the 9.5 mile 
N.W. 27th Avenue corridor. One alternative is an elevated heavy 
rail line which would operate in full integration with stage 1 
metrorail, connect with major regional educational and sports 
facilities, and terminate at the Dade/Broward county line. The 
preliminary capital cost of the rail alternative is $453-$463 
million. This includes final design, right-of-way and rolling 
stock acquisition. To date, Congress has appropriated 
$8,940,000 for this project. For fiscal year 1999, the 
Committee recommends $1,000,000.
    Mission Valley East light rail transit project.--The 
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is planning to 
build a 5.9 mile Mission Valley East light rail transit (LRT) 
extension from east of Interstate 15 to the City of La Mesa, 
California, where it would connect to the existing East LRT 
line, now referred to as the Orange Line, near Baltimore Drive. 
The line would serve four new stations at Grantville, San Diego 
State University, Alvardo Medical Center, and 70th Street, and 
would include elevated, at-grade, and tunnel portions. The 
project will provide two park-and-ride lots and a new access 
road between Warning Road and Grantville Station. The total 
project capital costs equal $332,000,000. The project is 
expected to serve approximately 10,800 daily riders in the 
corridor by 2015, and 2.5 million new systemwide annual transit 
trips. It is anticipated that the project's final environmental 
impact statement can be certified and the design and 
engineering phase initiated in fiscal year 1998. Through fiscal 
year 1998, Congress has appropriated $1,000,000 for this 
project. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$2,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
    Nashville, Tennessee regional commuter rail.--The Committee 
recommends $500,000 for feasibility studies, a major investment 
study, and preliminary engineering on a commuter rail service 
connecting the downtown Nashville area with other areas in the 
Southeast region of the United States. The proposed commuter 
rail system would incorporate approximately five existing rail 
lines, and would be phased in over a 20-year period, with a 
mutual terminus in downtown Nashville. No previous 
appropriations have been provided for this project.
    New Jersey urban core Hudson-Bergen project.--The Committee 
recommends $70,000,000 for the New Jersey urban core project-
Hudson-Bergen light rail line. The urban core project consists 
of a number of rail improvements designed to improve mobility 
in northern New Jersey, and consists of the following segments: 
Secaucus transfer; Kearney connection; Northeast corridor 
signal system: improvements to New York Penn Station; Hudson-
Bergen LRT; and Newark-Newark International Airport-Elizabeth 
transit link, which also includes a rail connection between the 
Penn and Broad Street Stations in Newark. The local financial 
commitment is accounted for through the ISTEA toll revenue 
credit provision. ISTEA earmarked $634,400,000 for the entire 
urban core program of projects. The Hudson-Bergen project is a 
20.1-mile, 33-station at-grade LRT line from the Vince Lombardi 
park-and-ride lot through Hoboken and Jersey City to Route 440 
in southwest Jersey City and 34th Street in Bayonne. The 9.6-
mile initial operating segment is now under construction.
    New Orleans Canal Street corridor project.--The Regional 
Transit Authority is developing a 4.7-mile streetcar project in 
downtown New Orleans. The Canal Streetcar Spine would extend 
along the median of Canal Street from the Canal Ferry at the 
Mississippi River in the central business district, through the 
Mid-City neighborhood, to two outer termini at the Cemeteries 
and City Park/Beauregard Circle. The capital cost is estimated 
to be $136.4 million. The record of decision for the project 
was issued by FTA on August 28, 1997. In September 1997, the 
FTA approved the initiation of final design. Through fiscal 
year 1998, Congress has appropriated $32,360,000 for the 
project. The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation 
of $43,000,000 for the project in fiscal year 1999.
    New Orleans Desire Streetcar project.--The Regional Transit 
Authority will begin a major investment study to consider 
transportation alternatives in a half mile area of downtown New 
Orleans from North Rampart Street/St. Claude Avenue on the 
north and the Mississippi River on the south. The corridor 
contains densely developed residential areas, the F. Edward 
Hebert Defense Complex which is home to the U.S. Navy Support 
Activity Center, the French Quarter (Vieux Carre), and two 
other historic neighborhoods (Faubourg Marigny and Bywater). 
The alternatives that are being studied include a streetcar 
(build) alternative, a transportation management alternative, 
and a no build alternative in terms of providing improved 
transit service to the corridor. Through fiscal year 1998, 
Congress has appropriated $2,000,000 for the project. The 
Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 
$2,000,000 for the project.
    Norfolk-Virginia Beach regional rail project.--The 
Tidewater Transportation District Commission (TTDC) is planning 
an 18.25-mile light rail transit (LRT) line from the oceanfront 
area in Virginia Beach to downtown Norfolk. The proposed LRT 
alignment generally follows the Norfolk-Southern right-of-way. 
TTDC estimates that the LRT will cost $376,500,000 to 
construct, and will carry 33,000 to 39,000 daily riders in the 
year 2010. The Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor has been and 
continues to be an area of significant growth in the Hampton 
Roads region. TTDC has completed a major investment study to 
evaluate transit/transportation improvements in the 30-mile 
corridor extending from Virginia Beach to downtown Norfolk and 
the Norfolk Naval Base. TTDC selected the light rail transit 
alternative for the 18.25 mile segment from Virginia Beach to 
downtown Norfolk as the locally preferred alternative. Through 
fiscal year 1998, Congress has appropriated $1,990,000 for this 
project. For fiscal year 1999, the Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for the project.
    Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail extension.--The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Northern Indiana South 
Shore commuter rail extension project. The Northern Indiana 
Commuter Transportation District [NICTD] operates the South 
Shore Line passenger service between South Bend, IN, and the 
Randolph Street Station in Chicago, IL. In order to meet the 
growing demand for commuter rail service in northern Indiana, 
appropriated funds to be matched with local funds, will be used 
for the purchase of additional passenger train cars. This 
effort is currently in the system planning study phase. Through 
fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available $4,483,573 in 
appropriated funds. The Committee has provided funding to the 
South Shore commuter rail line to assist with the acquisition 
of an eight-car train set.
    North Shore corridor.--The Committee understands that the 
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) believes that 
a comprehensive analysis of transportation alternatives for the 
North Shore area is warranted. This major investment study 
would evaluate in accordance with FTA procedures and 
requirements a variety of mass transit improvements for the 
North Shore including improved commuter rail service in the 
corridor and the extension of the Blue Line of MBTA's rapid 
transit service to Beverly, Massachusetts. Due to budget 
constraints, the Committee has not included discretionary funds 
for this purpose, but believes that such a study may be 
beneficial and that the MBTA may utilize its federal transit 
formula funds to conduct such a study.
    Oceanside-Escondido light rail project.--The North County 
Transit District (NCTD) is the lead agency planning the 
conversion of an existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a 
light rail transit system running from the coastal city of 
Oceanside, through the cities of Vista, San Marcos, and 
unincorporated portions of San Diego County, to the City of 
Escondido. A proposed alignment will serve the California State 
University San Marcos, including an additional 1.7 miles of new 
rail right-of-way. The proposed rail system would serve fifteen 
stations, four of these stations would be located at existing 
transit stations. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has 
appropriated $2,990,000 for the project. For fiscal year 1999, 
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,500,000.
    Orange County, California transitway project.--The Orange 
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the California 
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are currently 
completing a 108-mile system of HOV lanes and developing an 
intermodal transportation network in Orange County. Previous 
federal appropriations provided $23,325,000 for construction of 
one element of Orange County's HOV lane system--the I-405/SR-55 
transitway. OCTA will complete construction of the $164,000,000 
I-405/SR-55 transitway project and add express buses and park-
and-ride lots with local funds. OCTA is seeking continued 
federal appropriations for the bus and rail transit elements of 
the Central Orange County Transitway project for which the 
Committee has included $4,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
    Orlando Lynx light rail project--The Committee recommends 
$17,500,000 for the Orlando, Florida, Lynx light rail project. 
The locally preferred alternative, selected in September 1995, 
includes highway improvements along a 75-mile corridor and a 
light rail transit (LRT) component along a 52-mile corridor at 
a capital cost of $2,700,000,000. A 25-mile minimum operating 
segment of the LRT is completing a preliminary engineering and 
draft impact statement (PE/DIS). The proposed 26.8-mile, 27-
station LRT project is estimated to have a capital cost total 
of $878,800,000. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made 
available $33,683,196 in appropriated funds for this project.
    Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley Metro.--The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000 for line engineering and 
initial construction on the 62-mile commuter rail service to be 
instituted between Philadelphia and Reading, Pennsylvania. The 
system plans to incorporate 28 stops. A feasibility study for 
the Schuylkill Valley Metro has been completed, and local 
funding of $5,000,000 has been approved to commence a major 
investment study this summer.
    Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for the Cross County Metro corridor, 
which will extend approximately 48 miles from Glenloch, Chester 
County, Pennsylvania, to Morrisville, Bucks County, along 
Conrail's existing Trenton cutoff freight rail-line. The 
project has received $2,400,000 in prior-year funding for 
preliminary engineering and design, and the feasibility study 
has been completed. A draft environmental impact statement is 
scheduled for completion in June 1998. The funds provided in 
this act are for further engineering and design work, and 
necessary right-of-way improvements.
    Phoenix metropolitan area transit project.--The Committee 
recommends $8,000,000 for the Phoenix metropolitan area transit 
project. In February 1997, the Maricopa Association of 
Governments Regional Council adopted an 18-mile fixed guideway 
corridor into the region's 1997 long range transportation plan. 
This corridor links the high employment cores along Central 
Avenue in Phoenix, and the downtowns of Phoenix, Tempe and 
Mesa. This corridor also serves Sky Harbor International 
Airport, Arizona State University, three major sports 
facilities, Tempe's Rio Salado development and residential 
concentrations surrounding each end of the corridor. The 
Regional Public Transit Authority in October 1996 initiated two 
major investment studies to study transportation alternatives 
in the corridor. The first study, the Central Phoenix/East 
Valley MIS, addressed alternative investment strategies within 
the entire corridor. The second study, the Downtown Tempe MIS, 
focused on a sub-area within the corridor, linking downtown 
Tempe with Arizona State University, the Rio Salado 
development, and surrounding commercial and residential 
concentrations. After considerable analysis, it was concluded 
that the preliminary technology and alignment for both studies 
were mutually compatible. As a result, recommendations from the 
Downtown Tempe MIS and Central Phoenix/East Valley MIS were 
combined for the final phase of analysis. Alternatives under 
consideration include a light rail transit alignment linking 
Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa; bus service improvements; and 
commuter rail along the existing Union Pacific Railroad. The 
locally preferred alternative (LPA) for the Tempe sub-area was 
approved by the Tempe City Council in December 1997, and 
includes a three to four mile light rail transit alignment. The 
LPA for the remainder of the Central Phoenix/East Valley 
corridor was to be completed in February 1998. Through fiscal 
year 1998, Congress has provided $4,000,000 for the project.
    Pittsburgh-Allegheny County busway and light rail 
projects.--The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$3,000,000 for projects under consideration by the Port 
Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The Port of 
Allegheny County has begun environmental assessments and 
preliminary engineering on a new 2.3-mile extension of the 6.8-
mile Martin Luther King, Jr. east busway, which was completed 
in 1983 and carries 30,000 riders daily. The extension will 
serve the communities of Edgewood, Swissvale, and Rankin, 
including park-and-ride lots, which the current busway lacks. 
The Port Authority is also reconstructing the Overbrook, 
Library, and Drake trolley lines in Allegheny County to upgrade 
the line to light rail standards, in an effort to complete the 
last twelve miles of a 25-mile rail system serving Pittsburgh's 
southern suburbs. The Committee's recommendation permits the 
Port Authority of Allegheny County to allocate the 
appropriation to the various projects as it determines to be 
appropriate.
    Portland Westside/Hillsboro LRT and South-North light rail 
projects.--The Committee recommends $25,718,000 for the 
Portland Westside LRT project. Within the funds provided, not 
more than $1,000,000 may be available for the South/North light 
rail project. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District 
of Oregon (Tri-Met) is building a light rail transit extension 
from downtown Portland, west through Beaverton, to a terminus 
in downtown Hillsboro. The total estimated cost of the project 
is $963,522,674. In downtown Portland, the 17.7-mile extension 
will connect to the existing Banfield LRT line (MAX) that 
operates between Portland and Gresham. In August 1997, 12 
vehicles went into service on the existing line. Construction 
is nearing completion along the entire alignment. Tri-Met 
initiated revenue service to the project's first stations in 
August 1997 with full service over the entire line scheduled 
for September 1998. The local share commitment to this project 
is 27 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $12 per new 
passenger trip. In September 1992, FTA and Tri-Met entered into 
a full funding grant agreement (FFGA) for the 12-mile segment 
from downtown Portland to 185th Avenue. The section 5309 new 
start share for this segment was $515,990,000. The FFGA was 
amended in 1994 to add the 6.2-mile Hillsboro extension, 
bringing the total section 5309 share to $590,060,336. An 
additional $40,000,000 was added to the project in fiscal year 
1996. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available 
$593,471,931 in appropriated new start funds.
    Puget Sound RTA Link light rail.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for preliminary engineering, environmental analyses, 
siting, and design of stations and maintenance facilities, and 
development of station area plans for the light rail component 
of the Puget Sound regional transit system plan. The link light 
rail will complement the sounder commuter rail system in the 
Tacoma to Everett Puget Sound corridor. The light rail will run 
from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to Northgate, 
utilizing an already-built downtown Seattle transit tunnel. A 
major investment study for the light rail project has already 
been performed. Total costs of the link light rail project are 
estimated to be $539,000,000.
    Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project.--The 
Committee recommends $19,500,000 for the Seattle-Tacoma-Sound 
Move light rail and commuter rail project. The three-county 
Central Pudget Sound Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Board has 
adopted a 10-year regional plan. The estimated capital cost of 
the project is $3,068,000 and will cover proposed 
transportation improvements, substantial commuter rail service 
in the region principally between Seattle and Tacoma, as well 
as LRT, and expanded bus service. A major investment study was 
completed in March 1997. FTA approved the initiation of 
preliminary engineering for the Central LRT project in August 
1997. The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is 
scheduled to be completed in fall 1998. The local share 
commitment on the total project is 76 percent. FTA has rated 
both the financial plan and the operating plan as medium-high. 
Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made available 
$20,920,851 in appropriated funds for this project.
    Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle Transit.--The Committee 
recommends $8,000,000 for the Research Triangle Park transit 
plan in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. The phase 1 regional 
rail project is the proposed initial segment of a three-phased 
project that will link the three counties--Wake, Durham,and 
Orange--in the Triangle region of North Carolina in a 35-mile 
regional commuter rail system. In phase 1, the Triangle Transit 
Authority (TTA) intends to initiate regional rail service from 
Durham to downtown Raleigh to north Raleigh. TTA proposes to 
use diesel multiple unit rail vehicles to serve the 16 
anticipated (phase 1) stations. The proposed project will use 
the existing North Carolina Railroad and CSX rail corridors to 
connect Duke University, downtown Durham, Research Triangle 
Park, RDU Airport, Morrisville, Cary, North Carolina State 
University, downtown, and north Raleigh. The capital cost 
estimate for phase 1 totals $250,000,000. The cost estimate 
includes: final design, acquisition of right-of-way and rail 
vehicles, station construction, park-and-ride lots, and 
construction of storage and maintenance facilities. TTA is 
currently in the preliminary engineering/environmental 
documentation phase. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has 
made available $13,947,234 in appropriated funds for the 
project.
    Sacramento south corridor LRT extension.--The Committee 
recommends $23,480,000 for the Sacramento south corridor 
project, the full amount for fiscal year 1999 under the 
project's FFGA. The Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) 
is developing an 11.3-mile light rail project on the Union 
Pacific Railroad right-of-way. RT has elected to phase the 
project. Phase 1, known as the interim operable segment (IOS), 
consists of a 6.3-mile, $220,000,000 LRT extension in the south 
Sacramento corridor. Phase 2 is also expected to cost 
$220,000,000. The local share commitment to this project is 50 
percent. The administration signed an FFGA with Sacramento in 
June 1997 to provide a commitment of $111,200,000 in new start 
funds for the 6.3-mile extension. Construction is expected to 
begin in late 1998. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made 
available $28,168,442 in appropriated funds for this project.
    Salt Lake City south LRT.--The Committee recommends 
$70,000,000 for the Salt Lake City south LRT project. Utah 
Transit Authority (UTA) is constructing a 15-mile light rail 
transit (LRT) line from downtown Salt Lake City to suburban 
areas to the south. The LRT line will operate at-grade on city 
streets in the downtown and utilize a railroad right-of-way 
already owned by UTA to the south of downtown. Construction is 
well underway and the project is expected to be completed by 
December 2000. FTA has negotiated an FFGA with UTA committing 
$237,393,530 in new start funds to the project. Total cost of 
the project is $312,500,000. Through fiscal year 1998, a total 
of $129,986,471 has been made available by Congress in 
appropriated funds for this project.
    Salt Lake City/airport to university (west-east) light 
rail.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for developing a 
final environmental impact statement and beginning preliminary 
engineering on the proposed 10-mile light rail corridor 
extending from the Salt Lake International Airport east through 
downtown Salt Lake City and terminating at the University of 
Utah. The project will also connect with the north-south LRT 
line in the downtown area. Light rail vehicles will operate at-
grade on tracks laid in existing city streets and on property 
owned by the airport and by the university. Total capital costs 
are estimated to be $374,000,000, with annual operating costs 
projected at $7,500,000.
    San Bernardino, California Metrolink project.--The 
Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the San Bernardino 
Metrolink project. This project is to extend the Metrolink 
track one mile from the San Bernardino train station to a point 
opposite the San Bernardino stadium. This new end point will 
connect with the transfer station for Omnitrans, which will 
allow commuters to reach a much larger area through an extended 
bus system.
    In addition to the $2,000,000 provided in this Act for the 
San Bernardino Metrolink project, the Committee directs the FTA 
to make available for this project the $1,000,000 provided in 
the fiscal year 1998 for the procurement of natural gas 
engines.
    San Diego Mid-Coast corridor project.--The Metropolitan 
Transit Development Board (MTDB), the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans), and the San Diego Association of 
Governments (SANDAG) are proposing commuter rail improvements, 
a light rail line, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in 
the Mid-Coast Corridor. The corridor extends approximately 12 
miles along I-5, from near I-8 near Old Town, north to the 
vicinity of the University of California, San Diego, University 
Towne Centre shopping mall, and Carmel Valley. The commuter 
rail improvements to the Coaster stations consist of the 
construction of a new station and additional parking to an 
existing station on the Coaster commuter line. The project is 
estimated to cost $7,400,000. The 10.4 mile Mid-Coast LRT 
project would extend from Old Town to North University City, 
and would include nine stations. The line would connect with 
the Mission Valley and South LRT lines, now referred to as the 
Blue Line, as the Coaster line at the Old Town Transit Center. 
The Balboa segment is a 3.4 mile initial LRT phase proposed 
from Old Town to Balboa Avenue at a cost of $90,800,000. Total 
costs for the Mid Coast Balboa segment LRT and the Coaster 
stations equal $98,400,000. The 10.4-mile full build LRT line 
and supporting bus services are estimated to cost $374,900,000. 
Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has appropriated $7,060,000 
for this project. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 
1999 appropriations is $3,000,000.
    San Francisco BART extension to the airport project.--Local 
officials in the San Francisco area have proposed a four-
station, 6.4-mile extension of the Bay Area Transit (BART) 
system from Colma to an intermodal station serving the San 
Francisco International Airport. The route will serve the 
cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, connect with the 
airport, and continue to Millbrae. The majority of the route is 
to follow a combination of existing and abandoned railroad 
rights-of-way. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has provided 
$113,730,000. For fiscal year 1999, the Committee recommends 
$74,000,000.
    San Jacinto, California branch line.--The Riverside County 
Transportation Commission (RCTC) has purchased a 20-mile rail 
line which connects the city of Riverside to Perris. The RCTC 
plans to upgrade this line to accommodate passenger service and 
connect it to Metrolink, the current commuter rail service, in 
Riverside. The project consists of right-of-way, grade crossing 
improvements, station construction and the acquisition of 
rolling stock. The total cost of the project is $43,000,000, of 
which $31,000,000 is needed for construction and $12,000,000 to 
purchase rolling stock. For fiscal year 1999, the Committee has 
provided $500,000 for this commuter rail project.
    San Jose Tasman LRT project.--The Committee recommends 
$35,000,000 for the Tasman LRT project. Phase I west extension 
consists of 7.6 miles of surface LRT from the northern terminus 
of the Guadalupe LRT in Santa Clara, west through Sunnyvale, to 
the CalTrain commuter rail station in Mountain View. The 
project will include 11 stations and will be double tracked 
except for partial single tracking between Mountain View and 
Lockheed stations. The West Extension is estimated to cost 
$325,000,000, and received an FFGA in July 1996. To date, 
appropriations for the project have totaled $124,080,000.
    San Juan Tren Urbano.--The Committee recommends $60,000,000 
for continuing construction on the 10.7-mile 14-station rapid 
rail-line between Bayamon Centro and the Sagrado Corazon area 
of Santurce in the San Juan metropolitan area. The system 
consists of a double-track line operating over at-grade and 
elevated rights-of-way, with a short below-grade segment. The 
FTA issued a full funding grant agreement in March 1996 to 
provide a total of $307,410,000 to complete the project. To 
date, a total of $33,380,000 has been provided in Federal new 
starts appropriated funds.
    South Boston Piers MOS-2 project.--The Committee recommends 
$53,983,000 for the South Boston Piers Transitway project. This 
project consists of a 1-mile bus tunnel connecting South 
Station to the Fan Pier and to the World Trade Center. The 
tunnel will be used by electric trolleybuses and its 
construction is timed to coincide with the central artery/
tunnel highway project now underway. The project is under 
construction. The local share commitment to this project is 20 
percent. An FFGA was issued in November 1994, in the amount of 
$330,726,320. Through fiscal year 1998, Congress has made 
available $188,300,861 in appropriated funds.
    South DeKalb-Lindbergh Corridor LRT.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for preliminary planning and a draft 
environmental impact statement design for a proposed 14.5-mile 
light rail system in the south DeKalb County to Lindbergh, GA, 
Emory University transportation corridor. The Metropolitan 
Atlanta Regional Transportation Authority (MARTA) is currently 
examining route alternatives for this corridor.
    Spokane, Washington light rail project.--The Spokane 
Regional Transportation Council has conducted a major 
investment study (MIS) to examine the impacts of high capacity 
transportation on a proposed 160-mile corridor between the 
central business district of Spokane, Washington and Liberty 
Lake. The proposed corridor would connect major residential and 
employment centers within the Spokane Valley. Spokane has been 
identified as a ``serious'' nonattainment area for carbon 
dioxide. Trips along the corridor nearly double based on the 
population and employment forecasts between the years 1990 and 
2020. The MIS considered three alternatives including: high 
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, express busways, and light rail. 
Based on the results of a draft MIS, light rail was selected as 
the preferred alternative with strong local support for light 
rail. The MIS was included in the region's long range in 
November 1994. It is anticipated that the project sponsor will 
request to initiate preliminary engineering and the 
environmental impact statement process in 1998. The total 
estimated cost for the corridor, including local, state, and 
federal funding, ranges between $200,000,000 and $300,000,000. 
For fiscal year 1999, the Committee recommends $1,000,000.
    St. Louis-St. Clair county LRT extension project.--The 
Committee recommends $35,000,000 for the St. Clair County 
corridor LRT. The initial operating segment (IOS) is a 17.4-
mile extension between downtown East St. Louis, IL, and the 
Belleville Community College in St. Clair County, IL. The 
selected full project alternative is a 26-mile LRT extension 
with a total cost of $426,700,000. The FFGA new starts amount, 
toward the IOS is $243,930,961. The total estimated cost of the 
IOS is $339,200,000. Through fiscal year 1998, $69,610,663 has 
been made available from Congress in appropriated funds for 
this project.
    Tampa Bay regional rail project.--The Hillsborough County 
metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation with the 
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Agency, is conducting a 
major investment study (MIS) to examine transportation 
improvements in a proposed 60-mile corridor extending from the 
city of Lakeland in Polk County west to the city of Oldsmar in 
Pinellas County. Early consideration of land use and 
transportation connections and a broad participatory public 
involvement process has been implemented into the MIS. 
Alternatives under consideration include potential combinations 
of roadway, bus, busway, high occupancy vehicle lanes and fixed 
guideway transportation improvements. Through fiscal year 1998, 
Congress has provided $1,000,000 for this project. For fiscal 
year 1999, the Committee recommends $500,000.
    Twin Cities Transitways project.--The Committee provides 
$22,000,000 for the Twin Cities Transitways project, which 
centers on the development and construction of the Hiawatha 
Corridor light rail transit line. The Twin Cities of 
Minneapolis-St. Paul is the 15th largest metropolitan area in 
the nation, with a population of 2.6 million. In recent years, 
traffic congestion, pollution and related problems have 
increased dramatically, with significant adverse impacts on 
residents. The Twin Cities region has concluded that a network 
of transitways is indispensable to manage growth wisely and 
encourage land use and behavioral choices that enhance the Twin 
Cities' quality of life. The Committee commends local, regional 
and state efforts to study and develop new fixed guideways in 
the Hiawatha, Riverview, Northstar and Red Rock Corridors that 
best serve the transportation needs of the Twin Cities 
metropolitan area.
    Virginia railway express (VRE) Fredericksburg to Washington 
commuter rail project.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
for the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Fredericksburg to 
Washington commuter rail project.
    West Trenton, New Jersey rail project.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the West Trenton, New 
Jersey rail project. The project intends to restore commuter 
service on the West Trenton rail corridor, connecting the towns 
of Manville, Belle Mead, Hillsborough, Montgomery, Hopewell, 
Pennington, and West Trenton, in sommerset and Mercer Counties, 
in New Jersey. Previous appropriations of $500,000 have been 
provided for this project.
    Whitehall ferry terminal, New York.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for construction of a new Staten Island 
ferry/Whitehall ferry terminal facility and connecting 
intermodal areas in Manhattan. The Whitehall ferry terminal 
suffered significant structural damage in a fire in 1991, and 
needs to be replaced. The new terminal will be ADA accessible 
and will enhance the safety and security for the 65,000 
passengers using the facility daily. The project will directly 
connect with the New York subway system, bus services, and 
highway users. The total cost of the project is expected to 
exceed $100,000,000. To date, the project has received 
$15,000,000 in federal funds.

                       Major Capital Investments

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                (Liquidation of contract authorization)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998......................              (---)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999....................   ($1,900,000,000)
Recommended in the bill..............................              (---)
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998..................              (---)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999................   (-1,900,000,000)
                                                                        

    The Committee recommendation disapproves the budget request 
which proposed to provide liquidating cash for the proposed 
major capital investments program. Funding for this program is 
currently provided under the section 5309 capital investment 
grants program, and liquidating cash to pay those obligations 
is provided under current law. The new program structure 
requested by the Administration was not incorporated in TEA21.

                       Mass Transit Capital Fund

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................    $2,350,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \1\.................               ---
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,805,600,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................      -544,400,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................    +1,805,600,000
                                                                        
\1\ The budget proposes to fund the liquidating cash appropriation under
  a new account entitled mass capital investments.                      

    This liquidating cash appropriation covers obligations 
incurred under contract authority provided for activities 
previously discussed under the capital investment grants 
program. The Committee recommends $1,805,600,000 in liquidating 
cash for mass transit capital programs.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

                                                                        
                                                          Limitation on 
                                        Appropriation      obligations  
                                       (general fund)     (trust fund)  
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.....               ---               ---
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999                                       
 \1\................................               ---               ---
Recommended in the bill.............       $10,000,000     ($40,000,000)
Bill compared to:                                                       
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.       +10,000,000     (+40,000,000)
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1999...............................       +10,000,000     (+40,000,000)
                                                                        
\1\ The budget included a request to set-aside $100,000,000 for access  
  to job activities from the formula grants program.                    

    The fiscal year 1999 budget request and the 
Administration's reauthorization proposal for the surface 
transportation programs, NEXTEA, proposed to establish a new 
access to jobs and training program. The program was to be 
funded at $100,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 as a set-aside from 
the formula program. The proposal intended to provide enhanced 
transportation services for low-income individuals, including 
former welfare recipients, traveling to jobs or training 
centers.
    Section 3037 of TEA21 establishes such a program, the jobs 
access and reverse commute grants program. For fiscal year 
1999, the program is funded at a total level of $50,000,000, 
with no more than $10,000,000 derived from the general fund and 
$40,000,000 derived from the mass transit account of the 
highway trust fund. These funds are guaranteed under the 
transit funding category.
    The program is to make competitive grants to qualifying 
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental 
authorities, agencies, and non-profit organizations in 
urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants 
may not be used for planning or coordination activities. No 
more than $10,000,000 may be provided for reverse commuter 
grants.

             Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................      $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \1\.................        50,300,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        50,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................      -150,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................          -300,000
                                                                        
\1\ The budget proposed that the appropriation be derived from the      
  highway trust fund.                                                   

    The bill provides $50,000,000 to complete the construction 
of the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system. This level is a 
decrease of $150,000,000 below the 1998 enacted level and 
$300,000 below the budget request. This appropriation is 
guaranteed under the transit funding category.
    This appropriation concludes the federal share of the costs 
to construct the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system. A total of 
$11,000,000,000 of local and federal funds will have been 
invested in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority's rail system. The federal government's portion will 
be $8,000,000,000. This figure includes funding from the 1990 
reauthorization, interest and principal on $997,000,000 in 
federally-guaranteed bonds through fiscal year 1994, as well as 
interest expense and the cost of refinancing these bonds in 
fiscal year 1994.
    The following table summarizes funding made available to 
date for the construction and completion of the 103-mile 
Washington Metrorail system:





             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

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

                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................       $11,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................        11,496,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          +296,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................       +11,496,000
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $7,000 for TASC.                             

    On March 4, 1996, the Vice President announced plans to 
restructure nine federal agencies as performance-based 
organizations (PBOs). The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation (Seaway) was one of the nine agencies chosen for 
the conversion to a PBO. Others include the Department of 
Commerce seafood inspection; Patent and Trademark Office; 
National Technical Information Service; Defense Commissary 
Agency; Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance 
services; Government National Mortgage Association, the U.S. 
Mint; and Federal retirement benefit services.
    Legislation and a financial plan for the Seaway's PBO was 
submitted to Congress in July 1996; however, it was not acted 
upon. The PBO legislation was resubmitted to Congress in May 
1997.
    As a PBO, the Seaway's primary funding mechanism would 
change under its proposed legislation from yearly congressional 
appropriations to mandatory formula-based payments. Due to the 
PBO proposal, the Seaway is not making an appropriation request 
in fiscal year 1999, but instead is seeking a mandatory payment 
of $12,646,000 from the Harbor Maintenance Fund.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $11,496,000 instead 
of mandatory funding as requested. Establishing the Seaway as a 
PBO has not been authorized and it is not within this 
Committee's jurisdiction to do so. Neither the Committee nor 
the department is aware of any current or pending congressional 
action on PBO authorizing legislation. Until authorization is 
enacted, the Committee will continue funding the Seaway 
according to current law. The Committee recommendation in no 
way presumes that the Seaway's status will change to a PBO.
    The Committee remains concerned about certain provisions 
contained within the proposed PBO legislation. First, the 
proposed mandatory funding mechanism would guarantee a certain 
level of funding irrespective of overall policy goals, such as 
deficit reduction, which may undermine Congressional and 
Presidential goals to maintain a balanced budget. Second, 
Congress would no longer have a direct role in setting the 
Seaway's annual funding levels or determining how those funds 
should be used.
    The Committee has reduced funding from the proposed 
mandatory payment level of $12,646,000 for two reasons. First, 
payment for the Seaway is based on a five-year average of 
international metric tonnage moved through the Seaway, adjusted 
by a factor of 1.076 and adjusted for inflation. In 1997, 
actual Seaway tonnage decreased, thus the Corporation 
recalculated its needs to reflect actual tonnage for the 1997-
navigation season, lowering its financial need. The Committee 
has taken this recalculated need into consideration. Second, in 
March 1998, the Secretary revoked the authority delegating the 
Seaway to carry out the functions of the Great Lakes Pilotage 
Act of 1960, and transferred these functions and four staff 
back to the Coast Guard, where most pilotage functions were 
prior to late 1995. As a result, the annual costs of the 
pilotage functions were not included in the appropriation for 
the Seaway.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

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

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 Program

    The Committee recommends $77,627,000 in new budget 
authority and limitations on obligations to continue the 
operations, research and development, and grants-in-aid 
administered by the Research and Special Programs 
Administration. The following table summarizes fiscal year 1998 
program levels, the fiscal year 1999 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 1998  Fiscal year 1999   Recommended in 
                          Program                              enacted \1\        estimate          the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special programs.............................       $29,450,000       $29,655,000       $34,379,000
Pipeline safety \2\.......................................        31,300,000        35,463,000        33,448,000
Emergency preparedness grants (including limitations on                                                         
 obligations).............................................           200,000           200,000         9,800,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................        60,950,000        65,318,000        77,627,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1,000,000 provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1998 and excludes reductions
  of $92,000 for TASC.                                                                                          
\2\ Does not reflect funding derived from the reserve fund because it is not directly appropriated.             

                     Research and Special Programs

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................       $29,450,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        29,655,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        34,379,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        +4,929,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................        +4,724,000
                                                                        
\1\ Includes $1,000,000 provided under the Emergency Supplemental       
  Appropriation Act of 1998 and excludes reductions of $48,000 for TASC.

    RSPA's research and special programs administers a 
comprehensive nationwide safety program to (1) protect the 
nation from the risks inherent in the transportation of 
hazardous materials by water, air, highway and railroad; (2) 
oversee the execution of the Secretary of Transportation's 
statutory responsibilities for providing transportation 
services during national emergencies; and (3) coordinate the 
department's research and development policy planning, 
university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy, 
legal, financial, management and administrative support to 
RSPA's programs is also provided under this appropriation. The 
total recommended program level for research and special 
programs is $34,379,000, which is $4,724,000 more than 
requested. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are 
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 1998   Fiscal year 1999    Recommended in 
                                                            enacted \1\          estimate           the bill    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety.............................       $15,342,000        $15,863,000        $15,863,000 
    (Positions)........................................              (129)              (129)              (129)
Research and technology................................         3,446,000          3,851,000          3,700,000 
    (Positions)........................................               (13)               (13)               (13)
Emergency transportation...............................         2,443,000            997,000            997,000 
    (Positions)........................................                (7)                (7)                (7)
Program support........................................         8,219,000          8,944,000          8,819,000 
    (Positions)........................................               (48)               (48)               (48)
Advanced vehicle technology consortia..................  .................  .................         5,000,000 
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Special Programs.............        29,450,000         29,655,000         34,379,000 
    (Positions)........................................              (197)              (197)              (197)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Include $1,000,000 provided under the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1998.                     

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:

Hold research and technology to 10 percent increase-....       -$151,000
Delete funding for new electronic grant project-........        -100,000
Delete funding for acquisition management training......         -25,000
Fund advanced vehicle technology consortia-.............      +5,000,000

    Research and technology.--The Committee has held research 
and technology to a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 1998 
instead of 17 percent as requested.
    Electronic grant project.--The Committee has denied funding 
for the electronic grant project due to budget constraints.
    Acquisition management training.--The Committee has not 
provided any funding for acquisition management training 
throughout the department due to budget constraints.
    Advanced vehicle technology consortia.--The Committee has 
provided $5,000,000 so that RSPA can participate in a joint 
DOT/DOE initiative that would support a public/private 
partnership to design, develop, and deploy alternative fuels 
and propulsion systems focusing on medium and heavy vehicles. 
The budget request included an appropriation of $10,000,000 
within the FHWA's limitation on general operating expenses.
    The Committee recognizes the work of the Northeast 
Alternative Vehicle Consortium to reduce vehicle emissions in 
the northeast, and encourages the consortium to compete for 
funding made available under this program.
    Hazmat Training.--The Committee believes that the 
transportation of hazardous material presents serious safety 
and health risks to those workers who are not properly trained 
in such activities as hazardous materials classification, the 
use of placarding and labeling, general handling procedures, 
loading and unloading methods, and personal protection 
techniques in the event of release or damage during 
transportation of hazardous materials. The Committee recognizes 
the need for highly qualified instructors who can train front 
line employees to reduce the risk factors associated with the 
transportation of hazardous material, and encourages RSPA to 
consider awarding grants for this purpose authorized under 
section 5107(e) of title 49, U.S.C.

                            Pipeline Safety

                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)

                    (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)

                                                                        
                                                           (Oil spill   
                                      (Pipeline safety   liability trust
                                            fund)             fund)     
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\ -                                   
 ...................................       $28,000,000        $3,300,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999-..        32,163,000         3,300,000
Recommended in the bill-............        28,973,000         4,475,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998-          +973,000        +1,175,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year                                        
 1999-..............................        -3,190,000        +1,175,000
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $44,000 for TASC.                            

    The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national 
regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to 
life and property in the transportation of natural gas, 
petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The 
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the 
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection 
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and 
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The 
office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and 
administers grants-in-aid for state pipeline programs.
    The bill includes $33,448,000 to continue pipeline safety 
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid 
in fiscal year 1999. The bill specifies that, of the total 
appropriation, $4,475,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund and $28,973,000 is from the pipeline 
safety fund. In addition, the Committee has included language 
that permits the office of pipeline safety (OPS) to use 
$1,300,000 from its reserve fund for one-call notification 
grants, emergency notification, and public education.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation by budget activity and funding source:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Oil spill                                  
                 Budget activity                     Pipeline        liability     Reserve fund        Total    
                                                    safety fund     trust fund          \1\                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel, compensation, and benefits...........      $7,620,000        $587,000  ..............      $8,207,000
Administrative expenses.........................       3,613,000          45,000  ..............       3,658,000
Contracts:                                                                                                      
    Information and analysis....................         900,000         400,000  ..............       1,300,000
    Risk assessment and technical studies.......         800,000         400,000  ..............       1,200,000
    Compliance..................................         200,000         100,000  ..............         300,000
    Training and information dissemination......         821,000         100,000  ..............         921,000
    Emergency notification......................  ..............  ..............        $100,000         100,000
    Damage prevention/public education..........  ..............  ..............         200,000         200,000
Oil Pollution Act...............................  ..............       2,443,000  ..............       2,443,000
Research and development........................       1,919,000  ..............  ..............       1,919,000
Grants:                                                                                                         
    State grants................................      12,600,000         400,000  ..............      13,000,000
    Risk management.............................         500,000  ..............  ..............         500,000
    One-call....................................  ..............  ..............       1,000,000       1,000,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................      28,973,000       4,475,000       1,300,000      34,748,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding derived from the reserve fund is not directly appropriated.                                         

    Authorized level.--For the past two years, the department 
has submitted a budget request that, in total, is below the 
authorized level but exceeds the authorized level for fees. As 
a result, the Committee has had to reallocate the request to 
fit within the authorized components. The Committee expects the 
department to submit future budget requests that fall within 
the authorized level, both in their components (pipeline safety 
fund, oil spill liability trust fund, and reserve fund) and in 
total.
    Oil spill liability trust fund.--The budget request sought 
$3,300,000 from the oil spill liability trust fund; however, 
the Committee has increased this amount to $4,475,000 because 
there are a number of program activities that could be more 
suitably funded from this source instead of funded by new user 
fees. These changes are reflected in the table above.
    Information and analysis.--The Committee has taken a slight 
reduction from the budget request for information and analysis 
(-$65,000). This funding was to be used to apply the concepts 
and lessons learned from the pilot risk management 
demonstration project. However, this demonstration project 
began slower than anticipated and not all of the companies have 
been selected. As a result, two years of data will not be 
available for RSPA to analyze by the end of fiscal year 1999.
    Compliance program.--The Committee has held the compliance 
program to the fiscal year 1998 enacted level (-$150,000). At 
this level, the Committee believes that there is sufficient 
engineering support staff available to oversee regular 
inspections and monitor remediation activities.
    State grants.--The Committee has provided $13,000,000 for 
state grants, an increase of $1,000,000 (8 percent) above the 
fiscal year 1998 enacted level. Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee could not appropriate the 12.5 increase requested 
(-$500,000).

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (Emergency Preparedness Fund)

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................          $200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................           200,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           200,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        

    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a 
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 
public sector emergency response training and planning and 
provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions 
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a 
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
    The bill includes $200,000, the same amount requested for 
fiscal year 1999, for activities related to emergency response 
training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by 
section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA.

                       limitation on obligations

    Bill language is included that limits the obligation of 
emergency preparedness training grants. RSPA intends to 
increase the annual funding under the Hazmat Registration 
Program from $7,372,000 to approximately $14,300,000 in 1999. 
However, the agency has not yet issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking identifying ways to increase collections to this 
level. The Committee is concerned about doubling the program's 
collections in one fiscal year, and as such, has limited the 
amount RSPA can collect for the emergency preparedness grants 
program to $9,600,000.
    In 1995, RSPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
recommending a graduated fee structure that would increase the 
total fees collected to $19,200,000. This is the level 
authorized by the 1990 Hazardous Materials Transportation 
Uniform Safety Act. However, there was considerable industry 
opposition to the graduated fee structure, and after 
considering these comments, RSPA decided not to increase these 
fees without further consultation.
    Since then, the Inspector General (IG) has audited RSPA's 
hazardous materials registration program, and found that, among 
other things, the administration has not identified all 
shippers and carriers that are potentially subject to its 
regulations and does not follow up to ensure that covered 
entities register as required. Based on these two findings, the 
IG projected that by better identifying hazmat entities and by 
following up with those who do not respond, RSPA could generate 
additional registration and processing fees of between $960,000 
and $2,200,000 annually. The Committee believes that after RSPA 
acts upon the IG's recommendations, RSPA should be able to 
collect additional fees. Only after this is completed should 
the administration begin its negotiated rulemaking to establish 
a graduated registration fee. The Committee does not believe 
that this action could responsibly occur prior to fiscal year 
2000.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................       $42,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................        42,491,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        43,495,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        +1,495,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................        +1,004,000
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes reductions of $59,000 for TASC.                            

    The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to 
provide an objective and independent organization that would be 
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, 
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2) 
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation 
and the Congress full and currently informed of problems and 
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and 
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the 
Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of 
Transportation and to the Congress.
    The Committee recommendation provides $43,495,000 for 
activities of the Office of Inspector General, an increase of 
$1,004,000 above the administration's request and $1,495,000 
(3.5 percent) above the level for comparable activities during 
fiscal year 1998.
    Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector 
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to 
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to 
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review 
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................       $13,853,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................        16,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        16,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................        +2,144,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        
\1\ Excludes $2,000,000 in user fees and reductions of $3,000 for TASC. 
\2\ Represents $16,000,000 in user fees, which offset the appropriation 
  as collected throughout the fiscal year.                              

    The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 
1996 by P.L. 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) 
Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend 
toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, 
the Act abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that 
had previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core 
rail and certain other provisions to the Board and certain 
other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway 
Administration. The Board is specifically responsible for 
regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-
licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The 
new law empowers the Board through its exemption authority to 
promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis 
and continues intact the important rail reforms of the Staggers 
Rail Act of 1980, which have helped substantially improve rail 
service and the profitability of the railroad industry.
    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$16,000,000, the same amount as requested by the Board. 
Included in this total is an estimated $2,600,000 in user fees, 
which will offset the appropriated funding.
    User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request 
to fund the entire operation of the Surface Transportation 
Board, or $16,000,000, from the collection of user fees. 
Current statutory authority, under the Independent Offices 
Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), grants the Board the 
authority to collect user fees; however, not to the level 
provided in the budget estimate. Legislative change to the 
Board's authorizing statute to mandate an industry assessment 
program of $16,000,000 would require Congress to enact such 
authority prior to October 1, 1998. Even assuming that Congress 
approves legislation that would authorize the Board to recover 
the full costs of administering its programs, the Board would 
have to undertake necessary rulemakings to determine the 
appropriate level of these assessments. These rulemakings could 
not be completed in a timely manner to ensure adequate funding 
for the Board in fiscal year 1999.
    Instead of fully funding the Board through user fees, the 
Committee believes that $2,600,000 is a reasonable sum, based 
on current collections and carryover balances of $625,000 from 
fiscal year 1997. Language is included in the bill allowing the 
fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting 
collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a 
dollar for dollar basis as the fees are received and credited. 
The Board has told the Committee that it would prefer language 
that would allow the user fees to be credited to the 
appropriation as offsetting collections because the tracking of 
the collection would be simplified.
    The Committee has retained the bill language that provides 
that any fees received in excess shall remain available until 
expended but shall not be available for obligation until 
October 1, 1999. The carryover provision allows the Board to 
capture and utilize the fees from prior year filings during 
periods of shortfall. This language is necessary as long as 
there is a dollar cap associated with offsetting collections.
    During fiscal year 1999, the Committee suggests that the 
Board revisit its user fee collection schedule to see if these 
fees should be altered to better reflect the Board's costs of 
providing these services. The Board did this type of analysis 
in 1996 when it increased its fees from $1,900,000 to 
$3,000,000 per year. Any analysis that the Board undertakes 
should reflect a gradual increase in fees, not to recoup all 
the operating costs of the Board in fiscal year 2000.
    Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.--The Committee is 
aware that the Board has continuing jurisdiction over the Union 
Pacific/Southern Pacific merger in connection with the STB 
Finance Docket No. 32760. If it becomes necessary for the Board 
to issue a rule regarding the environmental mitigation study 
for Wichita, Kansas, the Board shall base its final 
environmental mitigation conditions for Wichita on verifiable 
and appropriate assumptions. If there is any material change in 
the bases of the assumptions on which the final mitigation for 
Wichita is imposed, the Committee expects the Board to exercise 
that jurisdiction by reexamining the final environmental 
mitigation measures. Also, if the Union Pacific Corporation, 
its divisions, or subsidiaries materially changes or is unable 
to achieve the assumptions the Board based its final mitigation 
measures on, then the Board should reopen Finance Docket 32760, 
if requested, and prescribe additional mitigation properly 
reflecting these changes, if shown to be appropriate.

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................        $3,640,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................         3,847,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,847,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................          +207,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends $3,847,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
an increase of $207,000 over the 1998 enacted level, and the 
same as the budget request.
    The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance 
with the standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers 
Act; ensuring that public conveyances, including rolling stock, 
are readily accessible to and usable by physically handicapped 
persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to 
the elimination of architectural, transportation, communication 
and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being 
taken to eliminate these barriers; developing minimum 
guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards; and 
providing technical assistance to all programs affected by 
Title V of the Rehabilitation Act.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 \1\...................       $53,771,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 \2\.................        47,200,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        53,300,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1997...................          -471,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1998.................        +6,100,000
                                                                        
\1\ Includes $5,400,000 contained in the Emergency Supplemental         
  Appropriations Act of 1998.                                           
\2\ The President's budget request also included an appropriation of    
  $6,000,000 in user fees.                                              

    Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving 
transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting 
special studies, developing recommendations to prevent 
accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation 
safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of 
adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and 
licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of 
Transportation.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $53,300,000 for 
salaries and expenses, which is $6,100,000 more than requested 
in the President's budget, and does not assume the collection 
of $6,000,000 in user fees.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1998 program 
level, the President's fiscal year 1999 request, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year 1998 enacted    Fiscal year 1999 estimate       Recommended in bill    
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Program                                 Staff    Budget authority    Staff    Budget authority    Staff                    
                                                                     years           \1\          years           \2\          years    Budget authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction.............................................         91       $11,703,000         91       $12,150,000         91       $12,150,000
Aviation safety..................................................        139        15,943,000        139        19,065,000        139        19,065,000
Surface transportation...........................................         96        11,465,000         96        12,155,000         96        12,255,000
Research and engineering.........................................         66         7,902,000         66         8,420,000         66         8,420,000
Administrative law judges........................................         10         1,358,000         10         1,410,000         10         1,410,000
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total......................................................        402        48,371,000        402        53,200,000        402        53,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include $5,400,000 supplemental emergency appropriations. That funding was appropriated for rental payments of the Calverton facility in   
  New York.                                                                                                                                             
\2\ Includes $6,000,000 in user fees.                                                                                                                   

    The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes 
to deviate in any way from the staff year allocations or by 
more than five percent from the funding allocations listed 
above.
    Truck and bus accidents.--The Committee is concerned about 
the growing number of truck and bus accidents. After years of 
declining vehicle crash rates and fatalities rates, both large 
trucks and intercity passenger buses are experiencing an 
upswing in crash and fatality rates. The Committee directs the 
Safety Board to monitor the bus situation carefully and include 
it as part of the Board's special investigation of bus 
crashworthiness and survivability. In addition, the Committee 
directs the Board to closely monitor commercial motor vehicle 
accident and fatality rates to determine whether or not these 
accident rates are growing as a result of increased speeds on 
the nation's highways. The Committee has provided $100,000 
above the budget request to do this additional work.
    User fees.--The Committee has denied the request to collect 
$6,000,000 in user fees. This request was based on the 
assumption that legislation authorizing a commercial aviation 
accident investigation fee would be enacted, and available for 
expenditure. The Committee does not have the jurisdiction to 
authorize the collection of this fee and is opposed to such a 
fee because it makes certain transportation sectors (i.e. the 
aviation industry) responsible for paying accident 
investigation costs while other sectors (i.e. rail, highway, 
marine, etc.) would not be responsible for these costs. In 
addition, such fees do not appear to meet existing definitions 
of user fees, and might, upon further analysis, be defined as 
new taxes.

                             Emergency Fund

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, fiscal year 1998.......................        $1,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.....................         1,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,000,000
Bill compared with:                                                     
    Appropriation, fiscal year 1998...................  ................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999.................  ................
                                                                        

    The bill includes an appropriation of $1,000,000 for the 
emergency fund. Under Public Law 97-257, Supplemental 
Appropriation Act, 1982, Congress provided a $1,000,000 
emergency fund to be used for accident investigation expenses 
when investigations would otherwise have been hampered by lack 
of funding. By adopting this request, the Committee is doubling 
the size of the emergency fund to $2,000,000. At this level, 
sufficient funds should be available for unanticipated or 
unusually expensive accident investigations. The Committee 
directs that this fund should continue to be used only for 
accident investigation expenses when investigations would 
otherwise have been hampered by a lack of funding. New 
activities, such as providing assistance to families of victims 
of transportation disasters, are not eligible. The Committee 
has provided ample funding for family assistance activities 
under the Safety Board's salaries and expenses account.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     (including transfers of funds)

    The Committee concurs with the general provisions that 
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
as proposed in the budget with the following changes:
    The Committee does not approve the requested deletion of 
the following sections, all of which were contained in the 
fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers are different):
    Section 314 prohibits the use of funds to award multi-year 
contracts for production end items that include certain 
specified provisions.
    Section 317 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 350 
staff years under the federally funded research and development 
contract between the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.
    Section 318 reduces funding for activities of the 
Transportation administrative service center of the Department 
of Transportation and limits obligation authority of the center 
to $89,124,000. The fiscal year 1998 bill limited obligation 
authority of the center to $118,800,000.
    Section 320 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, 
or promulgate any regulation pursuant to title V of the Motor 
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate 
average fuel economy standards for automobiles as defined in 
such title, in any model year that differs from standards 
promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
section.
    Section 323 prohibits the use of funds for any type of 
training which (a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, 
and abilities bearing directly on the performance of official 
duties; (b) could be highly stressful or emotional to the 
students; (c) does not provide prior notification of content 
and methods to be used during the training; (d) contains any 
religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a person's 
values or lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness training, 
except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS 
and workplace rights.
    Section 324 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for 
activities designed to influence Congress on legislation or 
appropriations except through proper, official channels.
    Section 325 limits necessary expenses of advisory 
committees to $1,000,000 of the funds provided in this Act to 
the Department of Transportation.
    Section 327 requires compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 329 prohibits funds to implement or enforce 
regulations that would result in slot allocations of 
international operations to any carrier at O'Hare International 
Airport in excess of the number of slots allocated to and 
scheduled by that carrier as of October 31, 1993, if that slot 
is withdrawn from an air carrier under existing regulations.
    The Committee included the following general provisions as 
requested with modifications:
    Section 305 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and 
expenses of more than 88 political and Presidential appointees 
in the Department of Transportation and includes a provision 
that prohibits political and Presidential personnel to be 
assigned on temporary detail outside the Department of 
Transportation.
    Section 315 allows funds for discretionary grants of the 
Federal Transit Administration for specific projects, except 
for fixed guideway modernization projects, not obligated by 
September 30, 2001, to be used for other projects under 49 
U.S.C. 5309.
    Section 322 provides that funds received from the sale of 
data products of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics may be 
credited to the Federal-aid highways account for reimbursing 
the Bureau for such expenses and that such funds shall be 
subject to the obligation limitation for federal-aid highways 
and highway safety construction.
    Section 331 credits to appropriations of the Department of 
Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
and other funds received by the Department from travel 
management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of 
building space, and miscellaneous sources. Funds shall remain 
available until December 31, 1999.
    The Committee included the following new provisions:
    Section 321 conveys Coast Guard lights at Tchefuncte River 
and Pass Manchac in Louisiana to non-federal parties.
    Section 333 rescinds unobligated balances of funds made 
available in previous appropriations Acts for the National 
Civil Aviation Review Commission and for the Urban Mass 
Transportation Administration's ``urban discretionary grants.''
    Section 334 conveys land from the former Coast Guard 
reserve training facility in Jacksonville, Florida, to non-
federal parties.
    Section 335 establishes a blue-ribbon panel to study the 
future capital requirements, roles, and missions of the Coast 
Guard.
    Section 336 provides $250,000 for activities and operations 
of a Centennial of Flight Commission.
    Section 337 authorizes the Secretary to waive repayment of 
any federal-aid highway funds expended on high occupancy lanes 
or auxiliary lanes on I-287 in the State of New Jersey.
    Section 338 allows previously appropriated funds for a 
railroad-highway crossing project in Augusta, Georgia, for 
other projects in Augusta, Georgia.
    Section 339 restricts funding provided in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for Pennsylvania 
Station in excess of the $100,000,000 federal commitment to 
fire and life safety repairs in the North River and East River 
tunnels of Pennsylvania Station.
    Section 340 prohibits the Coast Guard from enforcing 
regulations regarding animal fats and vegetable oils.
    Section 341 makes funding available for emergency railroad 
rehabilitation and repair available from September 1996 to July 
10, 1998.
    Section 342 relates to evaluating environmental impacts of 
the toll road in Orange and San Diego counties, California.
    Section 343 provides for the conveyance of a decommissioned 
Coast Guard vessel to the University of South Alabama that is 
determined to be appropriate by the Commandant and the 
University.
    Section 344 amends item 1132 in section 1602 of Public Law 
105-178 relating to Mississippi.
    Sections 345 and 346 make technical corrections to Public 
Law 105-178 on transit and highway guarantee funding levels.
    The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the 
budget:
    (1) pertaining to exemptions to the Federal-aid highways 
limitation on obligations; (2) allowing additional transfer 
authority not to exceed 5 percent between discretionary 
appropriations; (3) authorizing the collection of fees 
resulting from the siting of mobile service antennas; (4) 
allowing the Secretary of Transportation to exempt any class of 
vehicle deemed appropriate under 49 CFR part 580.6; and (5) 
authorizing new railroad safety fees.

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 2(1)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states:

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

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

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

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

                              Rescissions

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

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-aid for                      
 airports (airport and airway trust fund) (rescission                   
 of contract authorization)...........................       -$5,000,000
Title III, General Provisions:                                          
    Section 334, National Civil Aviation Review                         
 Commission...........................................          -752,000
    Section 334, UMTA Urban discretionary grants......        -3,918,000
                                                                        

                           Transfers of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of 
Representatives, the following statement is submitted 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee recommends the following transfers:
    Under Coast Guard, Reserve training: Provided, That no more 
than $20,000,000 of funds made available under this heading may 
be transferred to Coast Guard ``Operating expenses'' or 
otherwise made available to reimburse the Coast Guard for 
financial support of the Coast Guard Reserve.
    Under Federal Highway Administration, Limitation on general 
operating expenses: Provided, That $52,530,000 shall be 
transferred to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration to carry out the functions and operations of the 
office of motor carriers.
    Under Federal Transit Administration, Administrative 
expenses: Provided further, That of the funds in this Act 
available for the execution of contracts under section 5327(c) 
of title 49, United States Code, $750,000 shall be transferred 
to the Department of Transportation Inspector General for costs 
associated with the audit and review of new fixed guideway 
systems.
    Under the general provisions:
    Sec. 316. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
funds appropriated before October 1, 1998, under chapter 53 of 
title 49 U.S.C., that remain available for expenditure may be 
transferred to and administered under the most recent 
appropriation heading for any such section.
    Sec. 338. Funds made available in previous appropriations 
Acts for a railroad-highway crossing project in Augusta, 
Georgia shall be available for other street, rail and related 
improvements in the vicinity of the grade crossing of the CSX 
railroad and 15th Street in Augusta, Georgia.

                 Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII

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

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Subtitle A--Authorizations and Programs

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1102. OBLIGATION CEILING.

    (a) General Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law but subject to subsections (g) and (h), the 
obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
construction programs shall not exceed--
          (1) $21,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          (2) [$25,431,000,000] $25,511,000,000 for fiscal year 
        1999;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle F--High Priority Projects

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the 
amount listed for each high priority project in the following 
table shall be available. (from amounts made available by 
section 1101(a)(13) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century) for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out 
each such project:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                (Dollars
  No.              State               Project description         in   
                                                               millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....  Georgia...................  I-75 advanced                    1.7
                                     transportation                     
                                     management system in               
                                     Cobb County.                       
         *        *        *        *        *        *        *        
1132..  Mississippi...............  Construct I-20                 0.75.
                                     interchange at [Pirate             
                                     Cove] Pirates' Cove and            
                                     4-lane connector to                
                                     Mississippi Highway 468.           
         *        *        *        *        *        *        *        
------------------------------------------------------------------------



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE VIII--TRANSPORTATION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING GUARANTEE AND BUDGET 
                                OFFSETS

      Subtitle A--Transportation Discretionary Spending Guarantee

SEC. 8101. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CATEGORIES.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Offsetting Adjustment in Discretionary Spending 
Limits.--
          (1) Adjustment of nondefense category for fy1999.--
        The discretionary spending limit set forth in section 
        251(c)(3)(B) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
        Deficit Control Act of 1985, as adjusted in conformance 
        with section 251(b) of that Act, is reduced by 
        $859,000,000 in new budget authority and 
        [$25,173,000,000] $25,144,000,000 in outlays.
          (2) Adjustment of discretionary category for 
        fy2000.--The discretionary spending limit set forth in 
        section 251(c)(4)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
        Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as adjusted in 
        conformance with section 251(b) of that Act, is reduced 
        by $859,000,000 in new budget authority and 
        [$26,045,000,000] $26,009,000,000 in outlays.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Technical Amendments.--Section 250(c)(4)(C) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as 
amended by subsection (c) of this section) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``Century and'' and inserting 
        ``Century or'';
          (2) by striking ``as amended by this section,'' and 
        inserting ``as amended by the Transportation Equity Act 
        for the 21st Century,''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new flush 
        sentence:
        ``Such term also refers to the Washington Metropolitan 
        Transit Authority account (69-1128-0-1-401) only for 
        fiscal year 1999 only for appropriations provided 
        pursuant to authorizations contained in section 14 of 
        Public Law 96-184 and Public Law 101-551.''.

SEC. 8102. CONFORMING THE PAYGO SCORECARD WITH THIS ACT.

    Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget shall not make any estimates under 
section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 of changes in direct spending outlays and 
receipts for any fiscal year resulting from this title or from 
section 1102 of this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SECTION 250 OF THE BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 
                                  1985

SEC. 250. TABLE OF CONTENTS; STATEMENT OF BUDGET ENFORCEMENT THROUGH 
                    SEQUESTRATION; DEFINITIONS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Definitions.--
    As used in this part:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (C) The term ``mass transit category'' refers to the 
        following budget accounts or portions thereof that are 
        subject to the obligation limitations on contract 
        authority provided in the Transportation Equity Act for 
        the 21st Century [and] or for which appropriations are 
        provided pursuant to authorizations contained in that 
        Act (except that appropriations provided pursuant to 
        section 5338(h) of title 49, United States Code, [as 
        amended by this section,] as amended by the 
        Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, shall 
        not be included in this category):
                  (i) 69-8191-0-7-401 (Mass Transit Capital 
                Fund).
                  (ii) 69-8350-0-7-401 (Trust Fund Share of 
                Expenses).
                  (iii) 69-1129-0-1-401 (Formula Grants).
                  (iv) 69-1120-0-1-401 (Administrative 
                Expenses).
                  (v) 69-1136-0-1-401 (University 
                Transportation Centers).
                  (vi) 69-1137-0-1-401 (Transit Planning and 
                Research).
        Such term also refers to the Washington Metropolitan 
        Transit Authority account (69-1128-0-1-401) only for 
        fiscal year 1999 only for appropriations provided 
        pursuant to authorizations contained in section 14 of 
        Public Law 96-184 and Public Law 101-551.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        Changes in Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effects of provisions in the accompanying bill 
which might be construed, under some circumstances, as directly 
or indirectly changing the application of existing law.
    The bill provides that appropriations shall remain 
available for more than one year for a number of programs for 
which the basic authorizing legislation does not explicitly 
authorize such extended availability.
    The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, 
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of 
Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board. 
Similar provisions have appeared in many previous 
appropriations Acts.
    The bill provides for transfer of funds that might be 
construed as changing the application of existing law. Similar 
provisions have appeared in previous appropriations Acts. These 
items are discussed under the appropriate heading in the 
report.
    The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase 
of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar 
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
    Language is included in several instances permitting 
certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Salaries and Expenses,'' which would allow crediting the 
account with up to $1,000,000 in user fees.
    Language is included that limits operating costs and 
capital outlays of the Transportation Administrative Service 
Center of the Department of Transportation and limits special 
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those 
assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to 
and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' which specifies that the number of aircraft on hand 
at any one time cannot exceed two hundred and twelve.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' which specifies that none of the funds appropriated 
shall be available for pay or administrative expenses in 
connection with shipping commissioners.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation 
to the amount of fees collected from yacht owners.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both 
military and civilian employment levels to comply with 
Executive Order No. 12839.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement 
any regulation that would promulgate new maritime user fees not 
specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds received 
from the sale of the HU-25 aircraft to this account to purchase 
new aircraft.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds from the 
disposal of surplus property by sale or lease and allows not 
more than $3,000,000 to be credited as offsetting collections 
to this appropriation.
    Language is included under Coast Guard, ``Reserve 
training'' that limits funds available for transfer to 
``Operating expenses'' to no more than $20,000,000 to reimburse 
the Coast Guard for financial support of the Coast Guard 
Reserve.
    Language is included under Coast Guard, ``Reserve 
training'' that prohibits funds by the Coast Guard to assess 
direct charges on the Coast Guard Reserves for items or 
activities which were not so charged during fiscal year 1997.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Research, 
development, test, and evaluation'' that credits funds received 
from state and local governments and other entities for 
expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and 
evaluation.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' 
permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant agreement 
with a nonprofit standard-setting organization to develop 
aviation safety standards.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds 
for new applicants of the second career training program.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations'' that 
prohibits the use of funds for premium pay unless an employee 
actually performed work during the time corresponding to the 
premium pay.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations'' that 
prohibits funds from being used to operate a manned auxiliary 
flight service station in the contiguous United States.
    Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations'' that 
limits FAA's contribution to the Transportation Administrative 
Service Center.
    Language is included under FAA, ``Operations'' that 
prohibits multiyear leases greater than three years in length 
or greater than $100,000,000 unless specifically authorized and 
contingent liabilities fully funded.
    Language is included under FAA, ``Operations'' that 
requires that only overflight fees be used to support salaries 
or expenses of personnel who carry out the essential air 
service program.
    Language is included under FAA, ``Operations'' that 
prohibits funds for FAA to sign a lease for satellite services 
related to the global positioning system wide area augmentation 
system until the FAA administrator certifies in writing that 
such lease will result in the lowest overall cost to the 
agency.
    Language is included under FAA, ``Facilities and 
equipment'' that allows certain funds received for expenses 
incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 
navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
    Language is included under FAA, ``Facilities and 
equipment'' that prohibits funds for additional bulk explosive 
detection systems until the FAA administrator certifies in 
writing that major air carriers responsible for providing 
security agree to specific stipulations.
    Language is included under FAA, ``Facilities and 
equipment'' that reimburses the sponsor of Louisville 
Standiford Field in Kentucky for costs related to an instrument 
landing system.
    Language is included under FAA, ``Research, engineering, 
and development,'' that allows certain funds received for 
expenses incurred in research, engineering and development to 
be credited to the account.
    Language is included prohibiting funds for aircraft 
purchase loan guarantees.
    Language is included repealing the administrative service 
franchise fund.
    The bill includes a limitation on general operating 
expenses and transportation research of the Federal Highway 
Administration.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Operations and research'' prohibiting the 
planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling 
passenger car tires for low rolling resistance.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting 
obligations for certain safety grant programs.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Office of the administrator'' authorizing the Secretary to 
receive payments from the Union Station Redevelopment 
Corporation, credit them to the appropriation charged with the 
first deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of 
trust.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Railroad safety'' that allows reimbursement of states' 
employees travel and per diem costs when directly supporting 
federal railroad safety programs.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Railroad Research and Development'' that allows FRA to sell 
old aluminum reaction rail at the Transportation Technology 
Center in Pueblo, Colorado, and credits such sale to this 
appropriation.
    Language is included authorizing the Secretary to issue 
fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under 
sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
Regulatory Reform Act.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Rhode Island rail development'' that specifies that the 
federal contribution shall be matched on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation'' that withholds funds to Amtrak until the deposit 
of funds provided under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the 
approval of an Amtrak capital funding plan by the Secretary of 
Transportation, Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Administrative expenses'' that transfers funds to the 
Inspector General for audit and review of new fixed guideway 
systems.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Discretionary grants,'' specifying the distribution of funds 
for new fixed guideway systems in this Act.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' which would 
allow up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 
5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
offsetting receipts.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' that credits 
certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and 
other activities.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that allows up to 
$1,300,000 for one-call notification systems to be funded from 
amounts previously collected and held in a reserve account.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants,'' specifying 
the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate 
funds provided under this head.
    Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, 
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $2,600,000 
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation Board; and providing that fees collected in 
excess of $2,600,000 shall not be available until October 1, 
1999.
    Language is included under ``Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, ``Salaries and 
expenses,'' that provides that funds received for publications 
and training may be credited to the appropriation.
    Language is included in rescinding contract authority and 
other unobligated balances of funds previously provided.
    The bill contains a number of general provisions that place 
limitations or funding prohibitions on the use of funds in the 
bill and which might, under some circumstances, be construed as 
changing the application of existing law.
    The bill contains a number of general provisions that allow 
for the redistribution of previously appropriated funds.
    Section 313 allows airports to transfer to the Federal 
Aviation Administration instrument landing systems which 
conform to FAA specifications and the purchase of such 
equipment was assisted by a federal airport aid program.
    Section 318 reduced funding for activities of the 
transportation administrative service center of the Department 
of Transportation and limits obligation authority of the center 
to $89,124,000.
    Section 320 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, 
or promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle 
Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average 
fuel economy standards for automobiles.
    Section 321 includes language that conveys the Pass Manchac 
Light in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana to the State of Louisiana 
and the Tchefuncte River Rear Light in Madisonville, Louisiana, 
to the Town of Madisonville.
    Section 322 allows funds received by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products be 
credited to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of 
reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses.
    Section 323 prohibits funds for any type of training which: 
(a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities 
bearing directly on the performance of official duties; (b) 
could be highly stressful or emotional to the students; (c) 
does not provide prior notification of content and methods to 
be used during the training; (d) contains any religious 
concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a person's values or 
lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness training, except for 
raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and 
workplace rights.
    Section 330 limits the number of communities that receive 
essential air service funding.
    Section 331 credits to appropriations of the Department of 
Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
and other funds received by the Department from travel 
management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of 
building space, and miscellaneous sources.
    Section 332 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
allow issuers to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to 
the Department of Transportation.
    Section 334 includes language that conveys land from the 
former Coast Guard reserve training facility in Jacksonville, 
Florida, to non-federal parties.
    Section 335 provides funds for a blue-ribbon panel to study 
the future capital requirements, roles, and missions of the 
U.S. Coast Guard.
    Section 336 provides funds for activities and operations of 
the Centennial of Flight Commission.
    Section 337 authorizes the Secretary to waive repayment of 
any federal-aid highway funds expended on high occupancy lanes 
or auxiliary lanes on I-287 in the State of New Jersey.
    Section 338 allows previously appropriated funds for a 
railroad-highway crossing project in Augusta, Georgia, for 
other projects in Augusta, Georgia.
    Section 339 limits funds made available for Pennsylvania 
Station above the federal commitment of $100,000,000 to fire 
and life safety repairs in the North River and East River 
tunnels.
    Section 340 prohibits the Coast Guard from enforcing 
regulations regarding animal fats and vegetable oils.
    Section 341 makes funding available in Public Law 105-174 
for emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair available from 
September 1996 to July 10, 1998.
    Section 342 relates to evaluating environmental impacts of 
the toll road in Orange and San Diego counties, California.
    Section 343 provides for the conveyance of a decommissioned 
Coast Guard vessel to the University of South Alabama that is 
determined to be appropriate by the Commandant and the 
University.
    Section 344 amends item 1132 in section 1602 of Public Law 
105-178 relating to Mississippi.
    Sections 345 and 346 make technical corrections to Public 
Law 105-178 on transit and highway guarantee funding levels.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the 
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
          United States Coast Guard
          Federal Aviation Administration
          Federal Railroad Administration
          Research and Special Programs Administration
          Surface Transportation Board

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

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

                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         302(b) allocation                   This bill          
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget                          Budget                    
                                                     authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...................................         $11,939         $39,933         $11,939         $39,933
Mandatory.......................................             682             678             682             678
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................          12,621          40,611          12,621          40,611
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill provides new spending authority as defined under 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, as 
follows:
    Under Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad 
rehabilitation and improvement financing funds, authority is 
provided to issue notes necessary to pay obligations under 
section 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
Regulatory Reform Act. This provision has been included at the 
request of the administration because the government's 
financial obligations under this program are difficult to 
determine in advance and may require immediate expenditures of 
funds. The Committee has received no indication to date that 
this authority will be used in fiscal year 1998. Similar 
provisions have been included in many previous appropriations 
Acts.

                       Five-Year Outlay Projects

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

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Budget authority......................................   $13,733,000,000
Outlays:                                                                
    1999..............................................    16,313,000,000
    2000..............................................    15,002,000,000
    2001..............................................     6,351,000,000
    2002..............................................     4,181,000,000
    2003 and beyond...................................     3,842,000,000
                                                                        

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

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

Budget authority......................................   $1,098,,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 outlays..............................     7,157,000,000





                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. FRANK R. WOLF

    For fiscal year 1999, the Committee has provided 
$3,922,000,000 for Coast Guard operations and acquisition 
activities including $406,000,000 to support America's ``War on 
Drugs.'' As a result of the high priority the Committee places 
on the eradication of illegal drug use by Americans, and its 
youth in particular, the Committee has included over $73 
million more for this effort than was requested by the 
administration. It is because I hold such strong views on this 
topic that I have included these ``Additional Views'' in the 
Committee's report urging the Coast Guard to use force to 
prevent drugs from reaching our shores and to increase efforts 
to apprehend known drug traffickers. With the additional 
funding provided in this bill the Coast Guard must be allowed 
to be more aggressive in its pursuit of drug traffickers. If 
America is going to be called upon to provide more for drug 
interdiction, Americans should know that their money is being 
put to its best and most effective use.
    Every year I visit schools in my congressional district 
taking the opportunity to spend time with teachers, 
administrators and students. What I am hearing from them about 
illegal drug use is alarming. I have hosted workshops and 
conferences on the drug problem and invited parents and 
community leaders. What I see is a frustration that while we 
talk a great deal about the elimination of drugs, not enough is 
being done. I agree. The ``War on Drugs'' is truly a battle for 
the heart and soul of our nation and simply throwing money at 
it will not win it.
    There is a great deal of debate on how best to curb illegal 
drug use in America. Some propose greater educational and 
rehabilitative programs to curb demand. Other stress 
interdiction and the need to work with source countries to 
eliminate supply.
    In my opinion, education and treatment must be the 
foundation upon efforts to eliminate illegal drug use are 
built. By educating our youth about the perils of drug use and 
by extending a helping hand to those afflicted by this scourge, 
America can prevail in the ``War on Drugs.'' Initiatives such 
as the ``Drug Free Communities Act'' and the ``Drug Free 
Workplaces Act'' which support community-based educational 
efforts can play an important role in this effort. So too must 
America's families. We must provide parents with every tool 
necessary to assist in this effort including the ability to 
speak frankly with clinicians and physicians about their 
children's drug use, a right many parents today do not enjoy.
    In the mid to late 1980's, President and Mrs. Reagan 
provided national leadership in America's effort to rid itself 
of illegal drugs, and through the ``Just Say No'' campaign 
significantly reduced illegal drug use in our nation. But no 
battle is won forever. In a recent National Parents' Resource 
Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) survey, 25 percent of 
senior high school students responded that they have used drugs 
at least once a month. Each generation must remain vigilant in 
its efforts. We must stress the importance of education and 
rehabilitation as keys to eliminating the use of illegal drugs 
in America.
    At the same time, congressional leadership has stressed the 
role of interdiction in the ``War in Drugs'' and funding for 
the Coast Guard in this bill provides more for this effort. It 
is in this regard that I suggest that if America is going to 
spend more of its taxpayers' money on interdiction, it must be 
more aggressive in combating illegal drug suppliers. We must 
rethink our ``shoot-down'' policy as well as the policy on 
apprehension of drug traffickers. By doing so, we send a strong 
message to all engaged in the drug trade that America is 
serious about winning this war.
    This is not a new idea. In 1990, former Rep. Lawrence 
Coughlin of Pennsylvania, who served as the ranking minority 
member of the Transportation subcommittee, introduced the 
``Airborne Drug Trafficking Deterrence Act'' because the Coast 
Guard lacked the tools to adequately engage drug traffickers 
using aircraft to transport their poison to America.
    In 1998, the situation remains much the same. Today, the 
Coast Guard has the ability to fire warning shots, and 
disabling fire, at boats suspected of transporting illegal 
drugs. It is a resource that is available today, but in my 
opinion is not used enough. However, the Coast Guard has 
virtually no power to deal with drugs being transported via 
aircraft. Only in those narrow situation where an aircraft 
poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to 
any person may the Coast Guard act. In addition, none of the 
Coast Guard's aircraft are currently equipped with firepower.
    As Rep. Coughlin said, the Coast Guard has ``enormous 
capability to detect, monitor and follow drug smugglers but 
little ability to take any action which might deter them . . . 
they follow drug smugglers with expensive radars and chase 
planes. They watch them deliver their drugs, and they escort 
them away from the drop site. They are well trained, attentive 
to procedure, professional--and, unfortunately, they are 
helpless, because they can take no action against such an 
aircraft.''
    Coast Guard aircraft should be outfitted with the necessary 
firepower or the resources of our armed forces should be made 
available at their disposal to carry out this important 
mission.
    Is not the delivery of drugs to America a threat of death 
or serious bodily injury? In 1988, then Assistant Attorney 
General William Weld stated that an argument for firing upon 
aircraft known to be transporting illegal drugs could be made 
``if sufficient nexus can be established between air 
transportation of drugs and the physical harm that might result 
when the drugs reach their intended.'' In my opinion, the 
required nexus exists--illegal drugs of the sort being 
transported via aircraft do pose a threat of death and serious 
bodily injury to Americans.
    A more aggressive shoot-down policy would also have the 
effect of deterring drug smuggling via aircraft. A smuggler who 
knows that his plane, and his life, could be lost in the 
delivery of drugs may think again before making the run. In 
1990, former Coast Guard Commandant Paul Yost agreed, and in a 
letter to Congress wrote, ``In my view, the use of force 
against airborne drug traffickers, under certain conditions, is 
not only justified but necessary given the world we live in.''
    In addition, the United States must be more aggressive in 
its effort to apprehend known drug traffickers, regardless of 
their location. Earlier this year, the Customs Service, Justice 
Department and Federal Reserve Bank culminated a bold three-
year investigation of drug-money laundering with charges 
against bankers with 12 of Mexico's largest 19 banks. 
``Operation Casablanca'' resulted in the seizure of two tons of 
cocaine, four tons of marijuana, and most importantly, the 
arrest of more than 100 individuals engaged in the drug trade.
    While ``Operation Casablanca'' is a positive step in 
America's ``War on Drugs,'' we cannot claim victory. In 
addition to seizing laundered proceeds from the drug trade, the 
United States should consider developing a program to seize 
individuals who perpetuate the sale of narcotics in America. If 
foreign governments are not willing to apprehend known drug 
traffickers in their countries, then the United States should. 
With the funds provided by this Committee and others in 
Congress to defeat drug use, intelligence gathered on the drug 
trade should be put to the most productive use, including the 
seizure of individuals.
    The ``War on Drugs'' demands bold and innovative steps. It 
requires a balance of strategies to eliminate supply and 
demand. Education and rehabilitation can work as they have in 
the past and these important efforts must continue. But if we 
are going to place a priority on interdiction as the 
congressional leadership has, there is more we can do. Firing 
upon known drug traffickers, and apprehending them wherever 
they may be, would be a good start.

                                                     Frank R. Wolf.

                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID OBEY

                  Why Is The Federal Budget Balanced?

    Fiscal Year 1998 will mark the first balanced budget in 29 
years. On July 15, 1998 the Congressional Budget Office revised 
its surplus estimate once again predicting that the 1998 
surplus will be $63 billion, and if the current policies remain 
unchanged, the surplus is expected to rise to $80 billion in 
1999. The OMB's Mid-Session Review issued on May 26, 1998 
predicts a 1998 surplus of $39 billion. This is a remarkable 
turnabout given that as recently as FY 1992, the federal 
deficit was $290 billion. This surplus is the culmination of 
six years in a row of successively improved fiscal balances, 
the longest such period of improvement in history; will cause 
the debt burden to shrink for the fourth year in a row (i.e., 
debt held by the public as a share of GDP; and will cause 
mandatory net interest payments to start shrinking as a share 
of the budget and as a share of the economy--leaving more room 
in the budget for productive activities.
    Soon after May surplus projections were released, the 
Majority Party issued a flurry of press releases making the 
claim that so-called ``Balanced Budget'' legislation and other 
bills enacted by Congress last year are responsible for this 
turnabout. Such claims are simply not credible. Just as it took 
years of fiscal imprudence in the 1980's and early 1990's to 
build up a $290 billion deficit by 1992, it took years of 
adhering to disciplined and responsible fiscal and monetary 
policies since 1992 to dig out of this deficit position.

            what caused the 1998 surplus?--cbo's explanation

    So what are the precise reasons for this dramatic 
turnaround since President Bush left office with a $290 billion 
deficit? The CBO has issued data that answers this question 
objectively and decisively.
    According to the CBO data, the remarkable fiscal turnabout 
has been due to three primary factors: An improved economy with 
six years of sustained growth; legislation passed by the 103rd 
Democratic Congress in 1993 and 1994; and a slower rise in the 
cost of medical care (e.g., Medicare/Medicaid) than projected.
    Conspicuously absent from CBO's analysis of reasons for the 
1998 surplus is the fiscal effect of laws enacted by Republican 
congresses between 1995 and the present date. The reason for 
this is that the CBO actually totes up legislation enacted in 
the period that Republican have been in control of Congress as 
raising the deficit by more than it cut in 1998. The sum total 
of laws passed by the 104th and 105th Republican congresses 
will cost the Treasury roughly $11,000,000,000 more in FY 1998 
than they saved.
    In January 1993 when President Clinton took office, CBO 
made the alarming prediction that the federal deficit for the 
next five years would go through the roof--to $357 billion by 
fiscal 1998. This was despite the fact that the economy was 
expected to improve over that five-year timeframe. Since then, 
we have been able to wipe out this $357 billion deficit and 
build a surplus of $43 billion--a net change of $400 billion.
    The CBO attributes this astounding turnaround to the 
following major reasons:

Major Reasons for the FY 1998 Surplus

        CBO Estimate                                            Billions
Projected FY 1998 Deficit (Jan. 1993 CBO forecast)................  $357
Major Factors for Fiscal Change Since 1992:
    Improved economy (revenues higher/entitlement costs lower than 
      1993 forecast)............................................\1\ -210
    Democratic Congress (budgetary effect of legislation passed in 
      1993 and 1994)..............................................  -141
Health care costs (lower cost increases for Medicare/other health 
    care programs than 1993 forecast).............................   -60
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
          Total Deficit Reduction.................................  -411
Republican Congresses (budgetary effect of legislation passed 
    1995-present).................................................   +11
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
          Total Fiscal Change.....................................  -400

\1\ Minimum.

    Despite claims to the contrary, CBO data show that the 
combined fiscal effect of the laws enacted by the 104th and 
105th Republican Congresses is to add $11,000,000,000 more to 
the deficit than it cut in Fiscal Year 1998.
    Clearly the CBO numbers confirm that the major credit for 
creating the 1998 surplus must go to actions of the 103rd 
Democratic Congress, which not only produced real net savings 
of $141 billion, but created the conditions necessary to adopt 
pro-growth monetary policies that have been very successful. 
The centerpiece of this effort, the deficit reduction bill 
passed in 1993, was described as follows by Federal Reserve 
Chairman Greenspan: ``There's no question that the impact of 
bringing the deficit down [through the 1993 budget bill] set in 
place a series of events--a virtuous cycle, if I may put it 
that way--which has led us to where we are.'' (In testimony 
before the House Budget Committee, March 4, 1998.)
    The facts show that the 1998 budget is balanced despite 
Republican legislative efforts, not because of them.

                                                        David Obey.