Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?


107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-722
======================================================================
 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  2003

                                _______
                                

October 7, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5559]

    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, 2003.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action......................
                                                                      2
Program, project, and activity.............................
                                                                      3
Title I--Department of Transportation:
        Office of the Secretary............................     2
                                                                      5
        Transportation Security Administration.............     5
                                                                     16
        Coast Guard........................................     7
                                                                     30
        Federal Aviation Administration....................    12
                                                                     42
        Federal Highway Administration.....................    17
                                                                     77
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration........    19
                                                                    103
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.....    21
                                                                    108
        Federal Railroad Administration....................    23
                                                                    117
        Federal Transit Administration.....................    26
                                                                    129
        Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation......    35
                                                                    178
        Research and Special Programs Administration.......    36
                                                                    180
        Office of Inspector General........................    37
                                                                    185
        Surface Transportation Board.......................    38
                                                                    187
Title II--Related Agencies:
        Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
            Compliance Board...............................    39
                                                                    188
        National Transportation Safety Board...............    39
                                                                    189
Title III--General Provisions..............................    40
                                                                    190
House Report Requirements:
        Appropriations not authorized by law...............
                                                                    208
        Changes in existing law............................
                                                                    202
        Comparison with budget resolution..................
                                                                    208
        Constitutional authority...........................
                                                                    192
        Financial assistance to state and local governments
                                                                    209
        Five-year projections of outlays...................
                                                                    209
        Ramseyer...........................................
                                                                    194
        Rescissions........................................
                                                                    209
        Transfers of funds.................................
                                                                    193
Tabular summary of the bill................................
                                                                    212

             Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill

    The accompanying bill would provide $21,746,930,000 in new 
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies, $379,750,000 
less than the $22,126,680,000 requested in the budget. Selected 
major recommendations in the accompanying bill are:
          (1) An appropriation of $13,599,225,000 for the 
        Federal Aviation Administration, consistent with 
        provisions of AIR-21;
          (2) A limitation of $3,400,000,000 for grants-in-aid 
        for airports, as required by provisions of AIR-21;
          (3) An appropriation of $4,305,456,000 for operating 
        expenses of the Coast Guard;
          (4) An appropriation of $762,476,000 for grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), 
        to cover capital and operating expenses;
          (5) An appropriation of $5,146,000,000 for capital 
        and operating costs of the Transportation Security 
        Administration;
          (6) A total of $181,031,000 for the office of the 
        secretary, including $25,000,000 for acquisition of a 
        new DOT headquarters building;
          (7) Highway program obligation limitations of 
        $27,653,143,000, consistent with provisions of TEA-21 
        and other existing legislation;
          (8) Transit program obligations of $7,226,000,000, 
        consistent with provisions of TEA-21; and
          (9) A total of $367,411,000 for the Federal Motor 
        Carrier Safety Administration, including $190,000,000 
        for the national motor carrier safety program.

                   The Effect of Guaranteed Spending

    Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget 
Committees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide 
two new additional spending categories or ``firewalls'', the 
highway category and the mass transit category. In March 2000, 
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 
21st Century (AIR-21) provided a similar treatment for certain 
aviation programs. Although using different procedures, each of 
these Acts produced the same results: they significantly raised 
spending, and they effectively prohibited the Appropriations 
Committee from reducing those spending levels in the annual 
appropriations process. As the Committee noted during 
deliberations on these bills, the Acts essentially created 
mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This 
undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other equally 
important programs, including non-guaranteed transportation 
programs such as FAA Operations, the Coast Guard, the 
Transportation Security Administration and Amtrak. As a result 
of these Acts, the majority of budgetary resources addressed by 
this bill are either ``guaranteed'' by federal legislation and/
or protected by unprecedented points of order passed into law 
at the initiative of the authorization committees.
    The Committee will continue to do all it can in this 
environment to produce a balanced bill which provides 
adequately for all modes of transportation. However, clearly 
the use of spending guarantees to ``wall-off'' parts of the 
discretionary budget for particular constituencies cause both 
transportation and non-transportation programs all across the 
government to be under more severe budget pressure, in order to 
keep the overall budget in balance. The effect of the 
guarantees will especially leave its mark on non-covered 
transportation programs and activities, since they must compete 
within this bill for leftover funding. The Committee continues 
to be concerned that bills such as TEA-21 and AIR-21 skew 
transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a 
banquet of increases to highway, transit, and airport spending 
while leaving safety- and security-related operations in the 
FAA, Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, and 
FRA to scramble for the remaining crumbs.

                            Tabular Summary

    A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 
2002 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 
2003 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 2003. These hearings are contained in eight 
published volumes. 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 2003 have been 
developed after careful consideration of all the information 
available to the Committee.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2003, 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.

Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health Benefits

    The President's Budget included a legislative proposal 
under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government 
Reform to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal 
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement 
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and 
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget 
also requested an additional dollar amount in each affected 
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
    Without passing judgment on the merits of this legislative 
proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the 
President's request shown in the ``Comparative Statement of New 
Budget Authority'' and other tables in this report to exclude 
the accrual funding proposal. The disposition by Congress of 
the legislative proposal is unclear at this time. Should the 
proposal be passed by Congress and enacted, the Committee will 
make appropriate adjustments to the President's request to 
include accrual amounts.
    The Committee further notes that administration proposals 
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of 
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate 
schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests. 
Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally 
modifying the President's appropriation request for 
discretionary funding is then transmitted to the Congress.
    The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has 
always worked effectively for both Congress and past 
administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding 
proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original 
discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts 
are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and 
approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to 
numerous misunderstandings inside Congress of what was the 
``true'' President's budget request. The Committee believes 
that in the future, OMB should follow long-established 
procedures with respect to discretionary spending proposals 
that require legislative action.

  Cross-Charging of Costs for the Federal Employees' Compensation Act 
                                Program

    Currently, one of the statutory missions of the Department 
of Labor (DOL) is to oversee and administer the Federal 
Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), which provides workers' 
compensation benefits to eligible federal employees. DOL 
currently pays benefits from the Special Benefits fund and 
administrative costs from the agency's discretionary budget. 
Benefits are billed back to agencies, while administrative 
costs are not. The President's budget for fiscal year 2003 
would allow DOL to add an administrative surcharge to the 
amount billed to agencies for FECA benefits, on the assumption 
that it would give agencies a greater incentive to monitor and 
reduce FECA benefit costs, and that it better reflects the cost 
of government programs on an agency-by-agency basis.
    The Committee rejects this proposal and has eliminated, in 
each account, amounts totaling $5,642,100 for these 
administrative surcharges. Such charges will not lead to 
greater government efficiency. On the contrary, DOL employees 
will have little incentive to become more efficient if they can 
simply bill other agencies for their inefficiencies. Agencies 
currently view FECA benefit charges as a mandatory expense, and 
they will view the administrative surcharge as mandatory as 
well. With this change, DOL would avoid budgetary competition 
within its own budget function, and transfer that pressure to 
other parts of the government. The Committee believes that if 
all agencies were to begin cross-charging others for the costs 
of performing its own statutory duties, a balkanization of the 
budget process would result. For example, the FAA could easily 
charge other agencies each time a government aircraft flies 
though airspace controlled by the agency. While this might ease 
the burden on FAA's discretionary budget, it would provide the 
wrong incentives for good management and efficiency in the 
federal system as a whole, and undermine oversight of spending 
at the FAA. This cross-charging practice has not been 
authorized by the Congress, and the Committee encourages the 
legislative committees to review any such proposal with the 
utmost scrutiny.

                                TITLE I


                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY


                         Salaries and Expenses



Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.......................       $67,778,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\..................        92,460,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        82,474,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................       +14,696,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................        -9,986,000

 \1\ Excludes $3,640,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

    The bill provides a total of $82,474,000 for the salaries 
and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of 
the Secretary. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 
2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests and 
the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year 2002    Fiscal year 2003
                       Program                              enacted           request \3\         Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the Secretary \1\...............          $1,929,000  ..................  ..................
Immediate office of the Deputy Secretary \1\........             619,000  ..................  ..................
Executive Secretariat\1\............................           1,204,000  ..................  ..................
Immediate office of the Secretary and Deputy          ..................          $4,410,000          $4,355,000
 Secretary..........................................
Office of General Counsel...........................          13,355,000          15,657,000          14,950,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy \2\....           3,058,000  ..................  ..................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and             7,421,000  ..................  ..................
 International Affairs \2\..........................
Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation      ..................          12,452,000          12,024,000
 Policy.............................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and               7,728,000           8,375,000           7,415,000
 Programs...........................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental             2,282,000           2,453,000           2,453,000
 Affairs............................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration          19,250,000          29,285,000          27,686,000
Office of Public Affairs............................           1,723,000           1,926,000           1,926,000
Board of Contract Appeals...........................             507,000             611,000             611,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses........           1,240,000           1,304,000           1,304,000
Office of Intelligence and Security.................           1,321,000  ..................  ..................
Office of the Chief Information Officer.............           6,141,000          15,987,000           9,750,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................          67,778,000          92,460,000         82,474,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2003, the budget proposed merging the Office of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and
  Executive Secretariat into one office titled ``Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary''.
\2\ In fiscal year 2003, the budget proposed merging the Assistant Secretary for Aviation with the Assistant
  Secretary for Policy and the Office of Intermodalism into one office titled ``Under Secretary for
  Transportation Policy.''
\3\ Excludes $3,640,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

    The Committee has approved the consolidation of the Offices 
of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the Executive 
Secretariat into a new immediate office of the Secretary and 
Deputy Secretary. In approving this merger, the Secretary and 
Deputy Secretary should be cautious not to transfer funds 
previously allocated to the Executive Secretariat for their own 
needs without consultation with the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations. Also, the proposed merger of the offices of 
the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, 
Assistant Secretary for Policy and the Office of Intermodalism 
into a new office of the Under Secretary for Transportation 
Policy has been approved.
    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
budget request:

Reduce increase for travel in the immediate office of 
    Secretary and Deputy Secretary......................        -$55,000
Reduce personnel, compensation, and benefits increases..      -2,571,000
Reduce travel increase for Under Secretary for 
    Transportation Policy...............................         -50,000
Reduce increase in contract expenses for Under Secretary 
    for Transportation Policy...........................         -48,000
Deny two new staff positions in the Chief Information 
    Office..............................................        -112,000
Reduce request for information technology...............      -2,350,000
Reduce funding requested for enterprise architecture....      -1,380,000
Reduce increase requested for capital planning..........      -1,770,000
Reduce funding requested for e-government...............        -625,000
Deny increase requested for ``accessibility for all 
    America''...........................................        -553,000
Deny FECA administrative costs..........................         -22,000
Deny funding for video teleconferencing system (SVTS)...        -450,000

    Travel increases.--The Committee has reduced two requested 
increases for travel, one within the immediate Office of the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary (-$55,000) and one within the 
office for the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy 
(-$50,000). Both of these offices have received significant 
increases for travel funds in the past and will still receive a 
substantial increase in travel funding in fiscal year 2003. 
These slight reductions should have no negative impact on their 
operations.
    Personnel, compensation, and benefits.--The Committee has 
decreased funding requested for personnel, compensation, and 
benefits by $2,571,000. Funding reductions were made to four 
offices: Administration (-$1,127,000), Budget (-$960,000), 
General Counsel (-$154,000), and Policy (-$330,000). These 
reductions were made to requested increases in personnel, 
compensation, and benefits because of high levels of vacancies 
in each of these offices. For example, as of the end of July 
the Assistant Secretary for Budget was 25 percent below 
authorized staffing levels and the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration was 17.5 percent below authorized staffing 
levels.
    Contract expenses.--A slight reduction was made to the 
Under Secretary for Transportation Policy's contract expenses 
because the requested increase was inadequately justified 
(-$48,000).
    New staff positions.--The Committee has denied two of the 
four new staff positions requested by the Chief Information 
Office, to reflect other reductions made to programs within 
this office.
    Information technology.--In total, the Committee has 
reduced funding requested for a variety of information 
technology programs including information technology security, 
enterprise architecture, capital planning, and e-government 
(-$6,125,000). The budget request did not provide sufficient 
justification for the requested increase of $10,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2003 for information technology activities.
    FECA administrative costs.--Consistent with actions taken 
across all DOT modal administrations funded in this bill, the 
Committee has denied funding for FECA administrative costs.
    Video teleconferencing.--The Committee has deferred 
consideration of requests for secure video teleconferencing 
equipment until the issues surrounding creation of the new 
Department of Homeland Security are resolved.
    Office of Intelligence and Security.--The budget request 
did not include any funding for the Office of Intelligence and 
Security because it had been transferred to the Transportation 
Security Administration. However, if TSA is transferred to the 
new Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of 
Transportation should make arrangements to have one staff 
detailed to him from this new agency so that he remains 
informed on intelligence and security issues pertaining to 
transportation.
    Congressional budget justifications.--The Committee again 
directs the department to submit all of the department's fiscal 
year Congressional budget justifications on the first Monday in 
February, concurrent with official submission of the 
President's budget to Congress. Also, the department is 
directed to submit its fiscal year 2004 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 2003.
    Report distribution.--The Committee is extremely 
disconcerted with the unprecedented actions the department took 
with the report on FHWA's streamlining efforts due January 2, 
2002. The report was delivered on the evening before FHWA was 
to testify. Without prior notice or approval, the Department 
violated the standard practice in place for many years, and not 
only attached the report to testimony delivered to the House 
Appropriations Committee for public dissemination, but also 
widely distributed the report to other Congressional Committees 
and to the press. Although the report was requested 
specifically by the House Committee on Appropriations, members 
of the Committee had no opportunity to read the report before 
mass distribution to the public. The Committee strongly 
recommends the department confer with the Committee and adopt 
written procedures for report distribution similar to the 
standards in place and followed before February 28, 2002. In 
addition, the Committee directs the department to refrain from 
attaching miscellaneous documents, including reports, to 
Congressional testimony without prior consultation.
    Bill language.--Language prohibiting funding for the 
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs position has been 
retained from last year. Also, the bill continues language that 
permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office 
of the Secretary for salaries and expenses. Similar language 
has been carried in past years.

                           General Provisions

    Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The 
Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 304), 
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 2003 is 107 
personnel, which is the five more than approved in fiscal year 
2002. While the Department had requested 116 positions, 
currently there are 18 political vacancies. With such a high 
level of vacancies, the Committee cannot support such a large 
increase. Also, language is retained prohibiting any political 
or Presidential appointee from being detailed outside the 
Department of Transportation or any other agency funded in this 
bill.
    Funds received by the departments.--The Committee has 
denied bill language pertaining to the use of rebates, refunds, 
incentive payments, fees and other funds received by the 
department. Significant violations have occurred in the use of 
these funds. Specifically, the Inspector General recently found 
that the DOT spent about $37,000,000 obtained from the U.S. 
Treasury ``miscellaneous receipts'' accounts between fiscal 
years 1998 and 2001 to finance four projects involving office 
space renovation, purchasing new systems furniture, and 
developing new DOT financial systems, rather than using funds 
appropriated to DOT for such purposes. By law, DOT collections 
were required to be returned to the Treasury. DOT did not have 
the authority to retain and spend this money. Yet, the former 
Deputy Chief Financial Officer authorized accounting staff to 
move money from selected Treasury accounts each year 
immediately before Treasury would have transferred the money 
into the General Fund. In addition to not having the authority 
to spend Treasury's money, DOT also obligated $21,000,000 of 
the $37,000,000 to authorize and create new obligations after 
the funds had legally expired for obligation. None of the 
Treasury money was credited to DOT appropriations nor was it 
allocated to elements of the department as required by 
legislation, and none of the expenses were charged against 
amounts appropriated to DOT. The Inspector General referred 
these violations to the DOT General Counsel, who concluded that 
the amount withdrawn from Treasury's miscellaneous receipts 
accounts must now be repaid. Unless unobligated balances 
sufficient to repay the $37,000,000 are now available in 
expired appropriations accounts and those accounts could 
properly have been charged for the costs at the time they were 
incurred, the reports required by the Anti-deficiency Act must 
be transmitted to the President and the Congress. The Committee 
understands that the department is working to resolve these 
problems by December 2002. Because of these significant 
violations of federal law, the Committee will not continue the 
general provision until evidence is received that these serious 
problems have all been corrected, officials have been held 
accountable, and monitoring systems are in place to prevent 
recidivism.

                         Office of Civil Rights


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.......................        $8,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\..................         8,700,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         8,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................          -200,000
\1\ Excludes $470,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

    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 recommendation provides a total 
of $8,500,000 for the office of civil rights, which is the same 
level as enacted in the fiscal year 2002.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development



Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.......................       $11,993,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\..................        10,700,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        11,157,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................          -836,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................          +457,000
\1\ Excludes $135,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

    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. It also 
finances the staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The 
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with 
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit 
research organizations, and private firms.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,157,000 
for transportation planning, research and development, which is 
$457,000 more than the budget request. The following 
adjustments were made to the request:

Staffing reductions.....................................     -$1,043,000
Texas Transportation Institute..........................      +1,500,000

    Staffing reductions.--The Committee reduced the requested 
increases in personnel, compensation, and benefits because of 
an extremely high level of vacancies in this office 
(-$1,043,000). As of July, 2002, staffing in the transportation 
planning, research, and development office was 37.5 percent 
below authorized staffing levels.
    Texas Transportation Institute.--The Committee has provided 
$1,500,000 to work on a regional mobility and safety study for 
the greater Houston area in Texas.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center



Limitation, fiscal year 2002........................  \1\ ($126,123,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\................       (131,779,000)
Recommended in the bill.............................       (131,766,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2002....................        (+5,643,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................           (-13,000)
\1\ Includes funding in the 2002 supplemental. Does not reflect
  reduction of $5,000,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107-87
  or reduction of $4,300,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107-
  117.
\2\ Proposed without limitation. Includes Department of Transportation
  only.

    The transportation administrative service center (TASC) 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 where the 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 2003.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $131,766,000 on 
funding through the transportation administrative service 
center. A slight reduction (-$13,000) has been made to account 
for the denial of FECA accruals in this limitation.
    The Committee believes that a limitation is necessary in 
this account because, in the past, TASC has attempted to pass 
on assessments to modal administrations without justification 
or has charged modal administrations for activities that have 
not been approved by Congress.
    Modal usage of TASC.--Consistent with last year's practice, 
the Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 2004 
Congressional justifications for each of the modal 
administrations, to account for increases or decreases in TASC 
billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the 
modes rather than anticipated by the TASC.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program


                                                       Limitation on
                                     Appropriation     guaranteed loans

Apropriation, fiscal year 2002.            $900,000         $18,367,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003             900,000          18,367,000
Recommended in the bill.........             900,000          18,367,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year    ..................  ..................
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................

    The minority business resource center of the office of 
small and disadvantaged business utilization provides 
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding 
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The 
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime 
interest rates for transportation-related projects.
    Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were 
funded by the office of small and disadvantaged business 
utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made 
by the 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. In fiscal year 
2001, the short-term lending program was converted from a 
direct loan program to a guaranteed loan program.
    The recommendation fully funds the budget request of 
$500,000 to cover the subsidy costs for the loans, not to 
exceed $18,367,000, and $400,000 for administrative expenses to 
carry out the guaranteed loan program.

                       Minority Business Outreach



Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.......................        $3,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003......................         3,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................  ................

    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. The Committee 
has provided $3,000,000, the same level as provided in fiscal 
year 2002 and the same level as requested in the budget.

                       New Headquarters Building




Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.......................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003......................       $25,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        25,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................       +25,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................  ................
    In 1997, Congress authorized the General Services 
Administration to acquire space to consolidate the housing 
needs of the Department of Transportation. This new 
appropriation finances the fiscal year 2003 costs for the new 
headquarters building, which will consolidate all of DOT's 
headquarters operating administration functions (except FAA, 
TSA, and the Coast Guard), from various locations into a state-
of-the-art efficient building in the District of Columbia. The 
DOT's current headquarters facility is more than 30 years old 
and many of its building systems are well beyond their useful 
life. For example, the building has an unsecured perimeter, no 
blast protection, an inefficient interior layout, and was 
diagnosed in the past as a ``sick building''. Prior to deciding 
to move to a new facility, DOT considered rehabilitating the 
current site; however, the contractor withdrew this option from 
evaluation.
    The budget requested $25,000,000 for tenant build out 
requirements for the new building, assuming the DOT would lease 
the facility. Additional funding would be required to complete 
tenant finishes. The Administration assumed that DOT would 
begin occupying the new building by late 2005 or early 2006. 
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for a new DOT headquarters 
building.

                        Payments to Air Carriers


                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)



Appropriation, fiscal year 2002\1\....................   \2\ $63,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003\3\...................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................        50,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................       -13,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................       +50,000,000

\1\ The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996
  permanently appropriated $50,000,000 of overflight fees for the
  Essential Air Service program. To the extent fees fall below the
  $50,000,000, current law requires the difference to be covered by
  Federal Aviation Administration funds.
\2\ In addition to the $50,000,000 permanently appropriated to this
  program, Congress provided $13,000,000 in P.L. 107-87 and $50,000,000
  in the Emergency Supplemental Act of 2002.
\3\ The budget assumes $113,000,000 for the essential air service
  program: the collection of $30,000,000 in overflight fees and the
  balance of $83,000,000 to be paid from the FAA Airport Improvement
  Program.

    The payments to air carriers, or essential air service 
(EAS) 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 $14 to $496 per 
passenger, currently support air service to 81 communities and 
serve about 700,000 passengers annually.
    The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user 
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to aircraft that neither take off from, 
nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight 
fees. In addition, the Act permanently appropriated these fees 
for authorized expenses of the FAA and stipulated that the 
first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to 
finance the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees, 
the law requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds 
available to the agency.
    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. Federal law now 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.
    For fiscal year 2003, the budget requested several changes 
in the EAS program. First, the budget request assumed the 
collection of $30,000,000 in overflight fees instead of the 
$50,000,000 assumed in law. Second, the budget requested that 
the remainder of the program ($83,000,000) be funded from the 
Airport Improvement Program. Third, the budget included a 
general provision that capped the per passenger subsidy at 
$275, with the exception of service to communities in Alaska. 
Fourth, the budget requested language permitting the Secretary 
to take whatever actions are necessary to keep the fiscal year 
2003 program within the proposed funding level of $113,000,000.
    The Committee recommends a total program level for EAS in 
fiscal year 2003 of $100,000,000. This funding consists of an 
appropriation of $50,000,000 and $50,000,000 from overflight 
user fees or other funds available to the Federal Aviation 
Administration. If overflight fees are less than $50,000,000, 
FAA is expected to use funds available under the facilities and 
equipment account to make up this shortfall. The Committee does 
not support funding the EAS program from airport improvement 
program grants, as requested. With the increased security costs 
all airports are incurring following the terrorist acts of 
September 11, 2001, it is unfair to ask that this program also 
fund any shortfalls in the essential air service program. 
Similarly, the Committee has rejected both requests for bill 
language changes. Any significant changes to the core program 
should be considered as part of the broader aviation 
reauthorization that will occur next year. The Committee notes 
that, while the EAS funding is below the requested level, there 
is $13,000,000 to $16,000,000 in funds appropriated during 
fiscal year 2002 that will carry over into fiscal year 2003. 
When these funds are taken into consideration, the program will 
have the same funding level as assumed in the budget request.
    The General Accounting Office recently released a report on 
options to enhance the long-term viability of the essential air 
service program. In summary, the report found that over the 
past several years, the EAS program has grown exponentially. 
The annual program costs have tripled, from $37,000,000 in 1995 
to $113,000,000 in 2002 and the average subsidy per continental 
U.S. community served has increased from $424,000 to $838,000 
over the same time period. Yet, passenger traffic at EAS-
subsidized communities decreased by 20 percent since 1995. 
Also, the median daily passengers enplaned per community has 
declined to an estimated 10 per day, just over 3 passengers per 
flight, as more low cost carriers operate in adjacent 
communities and passengers choose other modes of transportation 
because of the high prices to fly in and out of EAS airports. 
GAO identified four options to enhance the long-term viability 
of the EAS program. These options include targeting subsidized 
service to more remote communities; better matching capacity 
with community use; consolidating service to multiple 
communities into regional airports; and changing carrier 
subsidies into local grants. Because of the serious 
affordability challenges facing this program, the Committee 
believes these options and their impacts require a serious 
review. Accordingly the Committee strongly encourages the 
department to review each option and develop a plan to 
restructure the EAS program as part of aviation reauthorization 
next year.
    The following table reflects the points currently receiving 
services and the annual subsidy rates in the continental United 
States and Hawaii:

                                      EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF JULY 1, 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average daily
                                                   enplanements                                        Total
                                                   at EAS point   Annual subsidy    Subsidy per     passengers
               States/communities                  (year ending   rates (July 1,     passenger     (year ending
                                                   September 30,       2002)                       September 30,
                                                       2001)                                           2001)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
    Muscle Shoals...............................            22.5      $1,073,257          $76.05          14,113
ARIZONA
    Kingman.....................................             5.1         541,502          170.87           3,169
    Page........................................           (\1\)       1,251,977  ..............  ..............
    Prescott....................................            14.0         541,502           61.80           8,762
    Show Low....................................           (\1\)         410,080  ..............  ..............
 ARKANSAS
    El Dorado/Camden............................             4.1       1,018,681          392.25           2,597
    Harrison....................................             8.6       1,121,411          207.28           5,410
    Hot Springs.................................             8.4       1,121,411          213.97           5,241
    Jonesboro...................................             7.7       1,018,681          210.82           4,832
CALIFORNIA
    Crescent City...............................            43.5         333,717           12.27          27,205
    Merced......................................            13.3       1,031,224          123.81           8,329
COLORADO
    Alamosa.....................................            14.7         925,045          100.29           9,224
    Cortez......................................            28.8         403,311           22.35          18,044
    Pueblo......................................             8.8         527,185           95.83           5,501
HAWAII
    Hana........................................            12.2         746,752           97.96           7,623
    Kamuela.....................................             6.0         594,751          157.76           3,770
    Kalaupapa...................................             5.2         386,624          118.27           3,269
ILLINOIS
    Decator.....................................            36.0         487,050           21.60          22,546
    Marion/Herrin...............................            36.1         794,031           35.11          22,618
IOWA
    Burlington..................................            39.2         929,082           37.85          24,547
    Fort Dodge..................................  ..............           (\2\)  ..............  ..............
    Mason City..................................  ..............           (\2\)  ..............  ..............
KANSAS
    Dodge City..................................            13.5       1,159,886          137.39           8,442
    Garden City.................................            32.2       1,159,886           57.59          20,141
    Great Bend..................................             3.9         298,799          121.66           2,456
    Hays........................................            24.8       1,330,824           85.62          15,543
    Liberal/Guymon..............................            10.5         824,776          125.73           6,560
    Salena......................................  ..............           (\2\)  ..............  ..............
    Topeka......................................             6.2         621,872          161.07           3,861
KENTUCKY
    Owensboro...................................            21.5         888,863           66.03          13,461
MAINE
    Augusta/Waterville..........................            13.7       1,205,855          140.26           8,597
    Bar Harbor..................................            40.8       1,205,855           47.21          25,545
    Presque Isle................................            59.6       1,480,512           39.71          37,284
    Rockland....................................            23.4       1,205.855           82.48          14,620
MICHIGAN
    Iron/Ashland................................             6.5         544,269          134.49           4,047
    Iron Mountain/Kingsford.....................            28.6       1,614,863           90.05          17,933
    Manistee....................................             4.4         542,168          197.15           2,750
MINNESOTA
    Thief River Falls...........................  ..............           (\2\)  ..............  ..............
MISSISSIPPI
    Laurel/Hattiesburg..........................            39.1       1,056,991           43.17          24,485
MISSOURI
    Cape Girardeau..............................            22.3         430,925           30.87          13,958
    Fort Leonard Wood...........................            27.1         573,725           33.79          16,979
    Kirksville..................................             6.3         732,363          186.59           3,925
MONTANA
    Glasgow.....................................             7.0         707,462          160.60           4,405
    Glendive....................................             3.1         707,462          367.13           1,927
    Havre.......................................             3.7         707,462          308.13           2.296
    Lewistown...................................             2.8         707,462          398.35           1,776
    Miles City..................................             3.9         707,462          291.38           2,428
    Sidney......................................             8.6         707,462          131.89           5,364
    Wolf Point..................................             5.8         707,462          193.35           2,650
NEBRASKA
    Alliance....................................             2.8         971,920          556.97           1,745
    Chadron.....................................             5.1         971,920          303.06           3,207
    Kearney.....................................            25.0         839,487           53.71          15,629
    McCook......................................             7.6       1,325,289          279.48           5,472
    Norfolk.....................................             4.8         751,373          248.39           3,025
    North Platte................................            24.1         751,373           49.91          15,056
NEVADA
    Ely.........................................           (\1\)         976,533  ..............  ..............
NEW MEXICO
    Alamogordo/Holloman.........................             6.2         849,235          219.16           3,875
    Carlsbad....................................  ..............           (\2\)  ..............  ..............
    Clovis......................................             8.8       1,118,197          202.28           5,528
    Gallup......................................             3.2         691,080          347.10           1,991
    Hobbs.......................................  ..............           (\2\)  ..............  ..............
    Silver City/Hurley/Deming...................             8.3         935,667          179.69           5,207
NEW YORK
    Massena.....................................             9.0         635,144          112.51           5,645
    Ogdensburg..................................             7.6         635,144          132.76           4,784
    Saranac Lake................................             9.1         631,353          111.06           5,685
    Utica.......................................             3.7       1,133,415          495.59           2,287
    Watertown...................................            10.7         635,144           94.52           6,720
NORTH DAKOTA
    Devils Lake.................................             8.5         793,867          149.17           5,322
    Dickinson...................................            12.6         590,153           74.86           7,883
    Jamestown...................................             9.4         793,867          134.30           5,911
OKLAHOMA
    Enid........................................            12.1       1,193,915          157.38           7,586
    Ponca City..................................            11.7       1,193,915          162.39           7,352
PENNSYLVANIA
    Altoona.....................................            48.1         995,533           33.03          30,141
    Johnstown...................................            59.1         849,798           22.97          37,002
    Oil City/Franklin...........................            15.2         510,261           53.49           9,540
PUERTO RICO
    Ponce.......................................            19.8         337,551           27.28          12,372
SOUTH DAKOTA
    Brookings...................................             3.4         849,386          397.09           2,139
    Huron.......................................             5.8         394,585          109.58           3,601
    Watertown...................................  ..............           (\2\)  ..............  ..............
    Pierre......................................            27.9         318,861           18.27          17,452
TENNESSEE
    Jackson.....................................            25.3       1,151,993           72.68          15,850
TEXAS
    Brownwood...................................             6.8       1,113,305          260.85           4,268
UTAH
    Cadar City..................................            30,0         836,102           44.48          18,798
    Moab........................................           (\1\)         971,444  ..............  ..............
    Vernal......................................           (\1\)       1,102,967  ..............  ..............
VERMONT
    Rutland.....................................             9.8       1,205,855          195.82           6,158
VIRGINIA
    Staunton....................................  ..............           (\2\)  ..............  ..............
WASHINGTON
    Ephrata/Moses Lake..........................            32.7         479,859           23.48          20,439
WEST VIRGINIA
    Beckley.....................................             9.0       1,033,847          183.34           5,639
    Princeton/Bluefield.........................             7.5       1,033,847          218.99           4,721
WISCONSIN
    Oshkosh.....................................             8.7         460,392           84.86           5,425
WYOMING
    Laramie.....................................            33.8         297,633           14.07          21,149
    Rock Springs................................            31.3         465,023           23.72          19,605
    Worland.....................................             9.5         353,345           59.73           5,916
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A full year's data are not available due to a service hiatus.
\2\ Hold-in rates under negotiation.

                 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION




Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................      $5,842,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................       5,346,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............................       5,146,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................        -696,500,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................        -200,000,000

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was 
established on November 19, 2001 pursuant to the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act. The Act makes the agency 
responsible for carrying out transportation security activities 
in all modes of transportation, including aviation, rail, 
highway, pipeline, and maritime. This Act mandated an extensive 
TSA role in civil aviation security, transferring 
responsibilities from the Federal Aviation Administration and 
expanding them to include the direct federal responsibility for 
passenger, baggage, and cargo screening at the nation's 
commercial service airports. The Act mandated that TSA take 
over all passenger screening activities not later than November 
19, 2002; provide screening for all checked baggage by 
explosive detection systems not later than December 31, 2002; 
and deploy armed law enforcement officers at airport screening 
checkpoints. The Act authorized user fees to be paid by 
passengers and airlines to help defray the agency's costs.

                          TSA'S START-UP YEAR

    By anyone's estimation, TSA has had an extraordinarily 
difficult first year. Admittedly, this was partly caused by 
overly-ambitious milestones enacted by Congress for the federal 
takeover of screening activities. However, these deadlines 
cannot account for even a fraction of the missteps and mistakes 
made by the agency this year. The Committee has been extremely 
frustrated with an agency seemingly unable to make crisp 
decisions; unable to present firm budget estimates in a timely 
fashion; unable to work cooperatively with the nation's 
airports; and unable to take advantage of the multitude of 
security-improving and labor-saving technologies available. 
Thus far this year, the Committee has held three hearings to 
review TSA's performance, and in the third hearing the 
Committee established initial performance goals it expects the 
agency to meet. The Committee will insist on effective 
management and will continue to hold TSA executives accountable 
for meeting their performance goals. In addition, the Committee 
will demand that TSA foster a much more cooperative attitude 
with Congress, airports, and the aviation industry than was 
shown earlier this year. The Committee is pleased that this 
attitude adjustment appears to be underway at this time.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends total funding of $5,146,000,000 in 
four appropriations. The Administration initially requested 
$4,800,000,000, but a budget amendment submitted on September 
3, 2002 raised the total request to $5,346,000,000. Because 
this budget amendment was submitted to the Congress without 
proposed offsets, and after passage of the House Budget 
Resolution which contained no such funding, the Committee has 
had to reduce other programs to address the Administration's 
request.

                          BUDGET PRESENTATION

    The Committee does not believe it prudent, or consistent 
with other accounts in the bill, to provide a single lump-sum 
appropriation to TSA, as requested. Traditionally across the 
government, budgetary requests are divided into appropriations 
which account for important differences in the activities being 
financed, such as operating expenses, capital expenses, 
research and development, and grants to state and local 
entities. In this way, comparisons can be made across agencies, 
and a proper balance can be found between budgetary flexibility 
and oversight. For this reason, the Committee recommends that 
total TSA funding be provided in four separate appropriations, 
for aviation security; maritime and land security; research and 
development; and support programs. In addition, the Committee 
recommends a revised distribution of programs, projects, and 
activities (PPAs) which provides greater flexibility to the 
agency within individual appropriations.

                              TSA STAFFING

    The Committee's investigation this year convinces the 
Committee that this fledgling agency is planning and budgeting 
for a vastly larger federal workforce than is necessary to 
protect the American public, and well beyond that contemplated 
when the agency was created ten months ago. Although the 
Committee stated in both hearings and in action on the fiscal 
year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill that the agency must 
constrain itself to no more than 45,000 full-time permanent 
federal positions, the budget justifications delivered in late 
June 2002 requests funds for 67,185 positions next year. In the 
fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill, Congress 
capped the agency's full-time staffing at 45,000. The Committee 
is adamant that the proposed staffing level is grossly 
excessive, and maintains the cap of 45,000 for fiscal year 
2003.
    TSA's budget for fiscal year 2003 assumes the following 
positions for the passenger screening workforce alone which the 
Committee finds to be unnecessary or highly questionable. In 
fact, at the Committee's June 2002 hearing, the Undersecretary 
for Transportation Security was not even aware that many of 
these positions were in the budget, and declared that they 
would be eliminated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number assumed
                    Type of position                      in FY03 budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoe and bin runners....................................           3,407
Ticket checkers (currently performed by airline staff)..           1,430
Hand wanders............................................           4,241
Queue coordinators......................................           1,405
Customer service representatives........................           1,405
Exit lane monitors......................................           3,248
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................          15,136
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These unnecessary and questionable positions total 15,136--
almost one-half the projected passenger screening workforce of 
32,900.
    Secondly, the budget assumes TSA will require a baggage 
screening workforce of 21,500. This number is driven by the 
agency's decision to deploy a large number of explosive trace 
detection (ETD) systems, which are far more staff-intensive 
than CT-scan systems. TSA has made this erroneous decision in 
part to meet the unrealistic deadlines established by Congress, 
and in part because the agency naively believes it will be able 
to reduce its workforce by thousands in later years, when they 
decide to replace the ETD systems with the more efficient CT-
scan machines. The Committee finds it pennywise and pound-
foolish to hire workers to operate relatively inefficient 
systems in the near-term, only to potentially offer buyouts in 
future years to entice them to leave federal service. The 
Committee's recommendation, discussed later in this report, 
provides alternate funding for TSA to pursue a more efficient 
and realistic course, with significant short-term and long-term 
salary savings.
    Thirdly, the budget assumes large numbers of federal law 
enforcement officers (LEOs) pursuant to section 110 of Public 
Law 107-71. The Committee believes TSA can do more through 
state and local reimbursement, reducing the federal staffing 
requirement as well as overall budgetary requirements.
    Fourthly, TSA's staffing figures assume approximately 3,000 
management, administrative, and support personnel: 2,121 at the 
nation's airports and 880 at headquarters. Although some 
reductions in the estimates for airport-based staff have been 
made by TSA, the Committee believes further reductions are 
possible, particularly in support positions such as legal, 
human resources, and training. The Committee remains 
unconvinced that these type of personnel need to be assigned to 
the nation's airports in such large numbers. In addition, TSA's 
original plan, assumed in the budget request, for over 300 
federal security directors has already been revised to 157 by 
the agency. Concerning headquarters staffing, given the 
proposed consolidation of TSA into the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Committee believes the agency should defer a 
portion of planned hiring for headquarters staff until the new 
department is established. It is almost certain that 
consolidation will allow TSA to utilize the expertise and 
staffing already resident in other agencies for some of these 
services, including management analysis, financial management, 
policy and planning, and human resource management.
    Fifthly, TSA's planned federal workforce goes far beyond 
the requirements of the Aviation and Transportation Security 
Act, which required only that screeners be federal employees. 
For example, the agency plans to hire federal exit lane 
monitors, shoe and bin runners, queue coordinators, and 
customer service representatives that should not be considered 
part of the screener workforce for the purposes of interpreting 
federalization. The need for this level of federalization 
should be reviewed, and would certainly result in greater use 
of private sector employees, which would be exempt from the 
federal workforce cap. The Committee directs TSA to conduct 
this review, in consultation with the OST Office of General 
Counsel and the Office of Inspector General, and report its 
findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
no later than January 31, 2003.
    For all of these reasons, the Committee is convinced the 
agency will be able to meet its security responsibilities with 
no more than 45,000 full-time permanent positions in the coming 
year. The Committee also notes that in June 2002 the agency 
announced that 20 percent of the projected screener workforce 
of 54,400 would be hired as part-time or seasonal positions. 
These 10,880 positions would not be subject to the staffing 
cap, allowing the agency to achieve total staffing of 55,800, a 
reduction of approximately 11,385 from the budget estimate. 
Conversion of additional positions to private industry or part-
time federal status would allow an even higher staffing level.

                     RETIREMENT AND HEALTH BENEFITS

    The recommendation makes reductions across all TSA 
appropriations to remove funds for accrual costs relating to 
the estimated future retirement and health benefit liabilities 
of current TSA workers. TSA did not reveal such estimates in 
its original budget request even though it was included in this 
government-wide proposal. Upon questioning, the agency informed 
the Committee that such costs are estimated at $247,630,000 in 
fiscal year 2003. Because the Committee is recommending a lower 
staffing level at the agency, the Committee has reduced these 
budgeted costs by $211,350,000.

                           Aviation Security

    The Committee recommends $4,355,726,000 for aviation 
security activities. After accounting for a proposed transfer 
of support activities to a separate appropriation, the 
reduction from the budget estimate is largely due to approval 
of a lower staffing level for screening activities. Funds are 
available until expended, and partially offset by offsetting 
collections, estimated at $2,650,000,000 from security user 
fees and $176,691,000 in reimbursements from the Federal 
Aviation Administration for acquisition of explosive detection 
systems. Funds are available until expended, as authorized. The 
recommendation does not include proposals in the President's 
budget to allow the use of security fees for non-aviation 
activities. The Committee believes fees paid by aviation 
travelers and airlines should be invested in programs directly 
benefiting those paying the fees, not cross-subsidizing other 
modes of transportation. A comparison of the budget estimate to 
the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY03 budget        Committee
                                          estimate         recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger screening.................    $2,479,800,000    $1,786,347,000
Baggage screening...................     1,446,200,000     1,574,209,000
Cargo screening.....................  ................        25,000,000
CSRS/FEHBP costs....................  ................      -168,226,000
Airport support/enforcement presence     1,128,000,000     1,138,396,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................     5,054,000,000     4,355,726,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PASSENGER SCREENING

    The Committee recommends $1,786,347,000 for passenger 
screening activities. A comparison of the Committee 
recommendation to the budget estimate, by budget activity, is 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY03 budget        Committee
                                          estimate         recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger screeners.................    $2,149,200,000    $1,731,227,000
Cross training......................        52,100,000        42,100,000
Credentialing.......................        35,000,000        35,000,000
CAPPS II............................        35,000,000        35,000,000
Checkpoint equipment................        30,000,000        30,000,000
Electronic surveillance.............        13,500,000        13,500,000
Checkpoint equipment maintenance....        15,000,000        10,000,000
Support staff.......................             (\1\)      -260,480,000
Third party screener contracts......        80,000,000        80,000,000
Planning and deployment.............        70,000,000        70,000,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................     2,479,800,000     1,786,347,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding of $260,480,000 was distributed among the individual budget
  lines in the budget request.

    Passenger screeners.--The Committee's proposed reduction 
reflects savings in budgeted staffing and salary costs, as 
explained below:
    Staffing reduction.--As discussed previously, the Committee 
believes that thousands of the budgeted positions in the 
passenger screening workforce are unneeded or could be easily 
eliminated through the use of technology. For example, the 
Committee has been urging TSA for months to quickly replace the 
obsolete magnetometers at most U.S. airports with new, state-
of-the-art ones already in use in Canada and several European 
countries. The significant improvements in these machines, 
including a much lower false alarm rate, will reduce the need 
for much of the hand wanding that is in TSA's current operating 
procedures. Furthermore, it will reduce the number of shoe and 
bin runners, because the current machines are more able to 
discriminate between threat objects and non-harmful metal in 
shoes. The Committee recommendation provides one-half the 
number of shoe and bin runners proposed; 70 percent of the hand 
wanders; and none of the ticket checkers, customers service 
representatives, and queue coordinators. This will reduce the 
planned workforce by approximately 7,200 positions, from 32,900 
to 25,700.
    Salary savings.--The recommendation reflects savings in the 
workforce hired to date. TSA's budget assumed that one-half of 
the screeners hired would have prior screening experience, and 
would therefore be paid at a higher rate than those individuals 
without screening experience. The Committee understands that 
the agency has not come close to meeting this prior experience 
hiring goal. The recommendation assumes that 25 percent of the 
workforce will have prior screening experience. In addition, 
the Committee notes that TSA budgeted $42,000 for the 
compensation' benefits, and supplies of each screener. While 
this appears reasonable for some members of this workforce, the 
Committee believes the 3,248 exit lane monitor positions and 
3,407 shoe and bin runner positions (half of which are 
provided) need not be federal employees, and need not be 
compensated at the same level as an x-ray operator. These 
individuals are not screening passengers. The Committee directs 
TSA to strongly consider the use of contract employees, at 
lower salary and benefits levels, for these workforces, and to 
explore the use of technologies such as self-closing doors, 
which would obviate the need for the exit lane monitor 
positions altogether. The Committee's recommendation allows 
$30,000 per position. In total, these recommendations allow a 
reduction of $38,718,000 in budgeted funds for screener 
salaries.
    Part-time and seasonal employees.--At the Committee's 
urging, TSA announced in June 2002 that 20 percent of the 
screening workforce would be part-time or seasonal employees. 
The Committee applauds that decision. However, TSA's budget 
does not appear to have taken this decision into consideration. 
The agency's ratio of full-time equivalent (FTE) staffyears to 
full-time positions (FTP) for the screening workforce in fiscal 
year 2003 is 90.1 percent. If the entire staff worked full-time 
and were on board for the entire fiscal year, the ratio would 
be 100 percent. Generally, when new positions are added to the 
budget, they are budgeted at 50 percent of a staffyear in the 
initial year, reflecting the normal time to recruit and hire 
personnel. The Committee's recommendation assumes a reduction 
of $20,000,000 reflecting the lower salary and benefits costs 
for a part-time and seasonal workforce compared to the original 
budget submission.
    Attrition rate assumption.--The Committee finds TSA's 
assumption of a 25 percent attrition rate for the screener 
workforce to be excessive. While it is accurate that previous 
attrition rates among the contractor screening workforces were 
as high as 400 percent in some airports, the pay and working 
conditions of the planned federal workforce represent vast 
improvements over that situation. Pay is being doubled, 
benefits are more attractive, professional training is being 
developed, and new technology is being installed. The Committee 
acknowledges that TSA is likely to experience greater attrition 
in this workforce than many agencies, however, and assumes a 
more reasonable attrition rate of 15 percent for fiscal year 
2003.
    Cross-training.--TSA's budget requested funds to cross-
train the entire screening workforce during fiscal year 2003. 
In other words, passenger screeners would be trained to serve 
as baggage screeners, and vice versa. The Committee 
recommendation reflects the assumption that a smaller workforce 
will be hired.
    Credentialing.--The Committee recommends $35,000,000, the 
same as the budget estimate. TSA announced an effort to develop 
an industry-wide transportation worker identification card 
(TWIC) earlier this year. Congress expressed its concern over 
TSA's plans in the recently-enacted fiscal year 2002 
supplemental appropriations bill, and deferred further TWIC 
activities until these problems could be resolved. The 
Committee believes the scope of the TWIC effort is so grandiose 
as to be infeasible and unworkable. Deciding the requirements, 
costs, and financing for card technology to allow every 
transportation worker in every industry in the United States to 
access only the appropriate facilities and job sites would take 
years of industry involvement, and it is unlikely that 
consensus across all the affected industries could be reached. 
However, the Committee acknowledges that there is a need in the 
aviation industry to test and implement access card 
technologies that could enable aviation industry workers, and 
potentially trusted travelers, to reach their aircraft or job 
sites in an expedited fashion. The Committee provides 
$35,000,000, and includes bill language specifying that funds 
shall support pilot projects on the East and West Coasts. This 
is consistent with the agency's current plan, which is to 
conduct pilot projects in the Los Angeles/Long Beach area in 
California and in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--Wilmington, 
Delaware areas on the East Coast. The Committee expects TSA to 
initiate these projects expeditiously, and the bill includes 
language directing TSA to include various card, reader, and 
database technologies sufficient to make a determination of the 
program's costs and requirements. The Committee believes it is 
essential to include multiple biometrics on these cards, to 
verify the true identity of the individual carrying them. The 
Committee understands that the card technology with greatest 
capacity for including biometric information is the optical 
lasercard, such as that used by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service for permanent resident cards (``green 
cards'') and by the Department of State for border crossing 
cards. These cards have the added benefit of being virtually 
counterfeit-proof. The Committee does not want TSA to develop 
new technologies if existing ones, already developed by other 
federal agencies, are good enough. Therefore, the Committee 
strongly encourages TSA to include, as part of these projects, 
optical lasercard technology similar to that used today by the 
INS. The Committee notes that, given the proposed consolidation 
of INS and TSA into the same Department of Homeland Security, 
TSA's implementation of this technology could provide long-term 
life cycle cost savings and integration with INS's existing 
infrastructure.
    Checkpoint equipment maintenance.--The budget estimate 
includes $15,000,000 for maintenance of checkpoint equipment. 
The Committee believes this requirement is overstated due to 
TSA's plan to replace the current obsolete magnetometers at 
security checkpoints. Replacement of these systems is scheduled 
to begin in September 2002 and complete by December 2002. New 
systems are expected to be much more reliable, and under 
warranty during their initial start-up period. The Committee 
expects TSA to ensure that the magnetometer replacement 
schedule does not experience further delays, given its 
importance in improving security as well as reducing 
unnecessary staff. Immediate replacement of the magnetometers 
will reduce the funding requirement by $5,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2003.
    Support staff.--As previously described, these funds have 
been consolidated into a new appropriation.
    Contract screening locations.--The Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act allows pilot projects at five 
airports to demonstrate the viability of using private sector 
screening firms under contract, rather than using federal 
employees. The Committee has recently learned that TSA intends 
to require the five airports in this pilot program to follow 
virtually identical operating procedures to TSA's own federal 
workforce. The Committee believes TSA should review this 
policy, and provide the contract screener pilot locations as 
much operational flexibility as possible, while meeting the 
same overall security requirements. Only in this way will the 
contractors be able to demonstrate the advantages and 
disadvantages of the contract screening approach.
    Inspection teams.--The Committee believes strongly that TSA 
needs to establish, as a top priority, inspection teams to 
perform undercover testing of federal screening and security 
activities at airports. These inspections were formerly 
accomplished by two different branches of the FAA, but after 
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Office of 
Inspector General was asked to take over this function on an 
interim basis. The Committee believes it is time for TSA to 
take over this function as a routine part of its mission. These 
tests should be rigorous, unannounced, and difficult. Teams 
should receive special training, such as that provided at the 
European Aviation Security Training Institute, and the agency 
should develop a formal process for recording and following up 
on identified deficiencies. Although the budget does not 
identify funds specifically for these teams, the Committee 
intends to work with TSA to ensure such teams are constituted 
over the next fiscal year, and receive the training and 
organizational support they require.

                           BAGGAGE SCREENING

    The Committee recommends $1,574,209,000 for baggage 
screening, an increase of $128,009,000 above the budget 
estimate. The recommendation largely reflects the Committee's 
decision to accelerate investment in labor-saving CT-scan 
machines, and assumes a waiver of up to one year in the time to 
install explosive detection systems. The Administration's 
proposal involves the procurement of approximately 4,700 
explosive trace detection (ETD) systems and only 1,100 CT-scan 
systems. The Committee understands that this decision was made 
in order to meet the December 31, 2002 deadline for 
installation of EDS systems in all commercial service airports. 
However, at this point it has become clear that many large 
airports have no hope of meeting this deadline, and doing so 
would create chaos in the lobbies of major airports and 
legitimate security concerns due to the creation of long, 
stagnant lines. This plan would also create significant 
government liabilities from the manual opening and searching of 
a large volume of checked baggage, tremendous customer 
inconvenience, privacy concerns, and billions in unnecessary 
expense. TSA officials have recently acknowledged that 30-40 
airports will not meet the deadline. The Committee believes a 
significant number of airports will not meet the deadline, and 
will need additional funding, provided in this bill, for the 
more efficient CT-scan systems, the large majority of which can 
be installed in-line with airport baggage handling systems.
    The provisions and funding in this bill, combined with the 
already-passed waiver provisions, allow a more sensible 
approach to the ramp-up in airport security, considering the 
lessons learned since passage of the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act last November. While the Committee 
strongly endorses the goals of that Act to improve security, it 
is obvious by now that, expecting a new agency to procure, 
install, and staff enough equipment to screen 100 percent of 
checked baggage at 429 commercial service airports--compared to 
screening of less than 10 percent one year ago--was impossible 
to accomplish, without huge waste of federal funds, in thirteen 
months. The Committee recommendation abandons this folly, and 
allows TSA to pursue an effective course resulting in the same 
level of security, on a much faster timetable, at far less cost 
to the Federal Government and less invasion of privacy to the 
traveling public which is paying for the service.
    A comparison of the Committee recommendation to the budget 
estimate, by budget activity, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY03 budget        Committee
                                          estimate         recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baggage screeners...................    $1,310,100,000    $1,110,100,000
Detection equipment maintenance.....        75,000,000        75,000,000
Cross-training......................         9,700,000         8,500,000
Checked baggage data system.........         1,400,000         1,400,000
Support staff.......................               \1\      -170,791,000
EDS systems--procurement............        50,000,000       275,000,000
EDS/ETD systems--airport              ................       275,000,000
 modifications......................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................     1,446,200,000    1,574,209,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding of $170,791,000 was distributed among the individual budget
  lines in the budget request.

    Baggage screeners.--The recommendation assumes savings of 
$200,000,000 due to staffing size and salary adjustments. The 
Committee has included additional funds for the procurement of 
CT-scan or other high-throughput systems that can be installed 
in-line at airports. These systems require one-fifth to one-
third of the staffing required for trace detection machines 
because of the automated nature of the operation. This 
additional funding, will result in a need for far less staffing 
than the 21,500 included in the budget estimate. The 
recommendation assumes savings of approximately 15 percent.
    Cross-training.--As described in a previous section of this 
report, the recommendation reduces cross-training, from 
$9,700,000 to $8,500,000.
    Support staff.--As described in a previous section of this 
report, the recommendation consolidates support staff costs 
into a separate appropriation.
    EDS systems procurement.--The Committee recommends 
$451,691,000 for procurement of additional explosive detection 
systems (EDS). The Administration included $50,000,000 for 
additional systems in fiscal year 2003. These funds, which 
include $176,691,000 to be transferred from FAA, ``Facilities 
and equipment'', shall be used to procure additional CT-scan 
systems, or other systems with high throughput rates, with a 
focus on installing these systems in-line at airports. In 
addition, the bill includes a provision, already passed the 
House of Representatives as part of H.R. 5005, which specifies 
that EDS systems required pursuant to Public Law 107-71 must be 
acquired by the Department of Transportation. The Committee 
does not believe that individual airports or the FAA's 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' program should be responsible 
for these new federal requirements.
    Pilot project, Denver International Airport, CO.--The 
Committee understands that Denver International Airport has 
requested that TSA approve their proposal to utilize a high 
throughput system currently in use in Europe. The Committee 
believes TSA should strongly consider this request, consistent 
with current detection requirements, in order to expedite the 
evaluation of this technology.
    Certification process.--Over a period of many years, the 
FAA developed a lengthy process for certification of EDS 
systems. This process has not been replicated anywhere else in 
the world, and does not apply to other technologies such as 
trace detection systems. Prior to September 11th, 2001, this 
process ensured the delivery of highly sophisticated machines, 
able to meet stressing bomb detection requirements, at very few 
airports. By contrast, European airports proliferated bomb 
detection systems with different requirements at a far higher 
percentage of airports. In order to meet the certification 
process, the current CT-scan systems are limited in throughput 
rate, which may have been satisfactory when the nation was 
screening a very low percentage of overall bags. However, the 
current requirement to screen all bags puts enormous pressure 
not only on the manufacturing base for certified machines, but 
also on available resources. Because of the lack of a 
manufacturing base for certified systems, and the inability of 
other systems to meet the certification process during fiscal 
year 2002, earlier this year TSA decided to forego the use of 
CT-scan systems in most airports, and instead substitute the 
use of trace detection machines, which are not subject to any 
certification standard. The outcome is an unfair competition 
between the two types of technologies, which provides perverse 
incentives for the agency to favor the technology that has 
higher life cycle costs and is the most intrusive to 
passengers. The Committee directs TSA to review the current 
process for evaluating and certifying EDS systems, and find 
ways to expedite the certification of new systems on the 
horizon which could provide vast improvements in throughput 
over the current generation of systems.
    EDS/ETD systems, airport modifications.--The recommendation 
includes $275,000,000 for airport modifications necessary to 
accommodate EDS and ETD systems. An additional $738,000,000 was 
appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 2002, bringing the 
total available to $1,013,000,000. Additional funds are needed 
given the Committee recommendation to install a higher 
percentage of CT-scan systems and the assumption that airports 
will be allowed waivers of the current deadline. These funds 
will increase the number of airports which are able to place 
their bomb detection systems in-line. TSA's funding level 
assumed large numbers of trace detection systems as an interim 
measure, and very few in-line CT-scan systems.

                            CARGO SCREENING

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 to continue 
improvements in the cargo screening process. The budget 
estimate included no funds for this purpose. TSA continues to 
note the deficiencies in the current screening process, and the 
Committee believes that additional funding is crucial at this 
time.

                AIRPORT SUPPORT AND ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE

    The Committee recommends $1,138,396,000 for airport support 
and enforcement presence. This budget activity finances the 
costs of federal security directors and their support staff at 
airports as well as checkpoint law enforcement officers 
required by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. A 
comparison of the Committee recommendation to the budget 
estimate is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY03 budget        Committee
                                          estimate         recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport support.....................      $380,500,000      $359,664,000
Law enforcement.....................       491,500,000       416,500,000
Reimbursable agreements.............       226,000,000       250,000,000
Support staff.......................               \1\       -49,727,000
Cockpit door reimbursement..........       100,000,000       150,000,000
Commercial pilot firearms training..                          20,000,000
CSRS/FEHBP costs....................                         -18,041,000
K-9 units...........................        10,000,000        10,000,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................    $1,228,000,000    $1,138,396,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding of $49,727,000 was distributed among the individual budget
  lines in the budget request.

    Airport support.--The reduction of $20,836,000 reflects 
TSA's decision, made since submission of the budget request, to 
hire only 157 federal security directors at the nation's 
airports, instead of 314 who were expected to be onboard at the 
end of fiscal year 2002 in the original plan.
    Law enforcement.--TSA's budget assumed the hire of 3,000 
federal law enforcement officers (LEOs). The Committee believes 
that savings are possible through greater use of state and 
local law enforcement officers. Consequently, funds have been 
reduced in this budget line, but raised under ``reimbursable 
agreements'', which finances state and local LEO reimbursement. 
In addition, the bill includes provisions amending current law 
which make it clear that TSA has the flexibility to hire either 
federal or non-federal officers to fill checkpoint LEO 
responsibilities. The Administration requested this change as 
part of proposed technical amendments to the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act, which were submitted to the 
Congress on July 30, 2002.
    Former FAA civil aviation security personnel.--The 
Committee notes that TSA has replaced many of FAA's previous 
responsibilities with new positions with little or no review of 
whether that workforce should be reduced over time. For 
example, the agency has taken onto its payroll former FAA 
employees serving as airport-based federal security managers, 
but has hired, in most cases, new individuals to serve as TSA 
federal security directors and deputy directors. The Committee 
believes the positions held by former FAA personnel in field 
offices requires immediate review by TSA to determine whether 
there is a firm requirement for this entire workforce. The 
Committee directs TSA to provide a detailed report on the 
number, types, and responsibilities of these positions, and the 
requirement for their retention, to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations no later than February 15, 2003. 
The Committee recommendation assumes that significant 
reductions will be possible in this workforce through 
attrition.
    Criminal investigators.--The recommendation includes a 
reduction in the number of criminal investigators. The budget 
justifications explain that these personnel will be 
``investigating crimes and suspicious activity, preventing 
crimes, and serving as a deterrent'' to illegal activity at 
airports. The Committee does not agree that the TSA should have 
substantial sums of investigative personnel assigned 
permanently to airports investigating activity the agency deems 
suspicious, and believes this goes far beyond the mandate 
established for TSA by the Aviation and Transportation Security 
Act. The number of these positions should be minimized, and 
they should be based out of headquarters or out of regional 
service centers, where they can be assigned to cases as they 
arise, and not trolling through airports looking for suspicious 
activity.
    Reimbursable agreements.--The recommendation provides an 
additional $24,000,000 reflecting greater usage of state and 
local resources rather than full-time federal personnel.
    Support staff.--As discussed previously, these costs have 
been consolidated into a separate budget line.
    Cockpit door reimbursement.--The Committee provides 
$150,000,000 for TSA to reimburse airlines for the costs of 
complying with departmental mandates to retrofit all commercial 
aircraft with phase II hardened cockpit doors no later than 
April 9, 2003. The Committee strongly supports this effort, but 
believes that the extraordinary nature and short timeframe of 
this mandate justify federal investment. In addition, some 
airlines may not be able to make all the necessary 
modifications during scheduled maintenance periods. If this 
occurs, airlines may have to take aircraft out of revenue 
service to meet the deadline, which would be especially 
difficult given the industry's difficult financial situation. 
An emergency appropriation of $100,000,000 was provided to 
support this effort in fiscal year 2002. The Committee also 
notes that $7,000,000 of the fiscal year 2002 funds were 
reprogrammed and used for aircraft video surveillance and 
related technologies. The Committee believes this use of 
funding should have gone through the reprogramming process, as 
it constituted a new activity not previously justified or 
contemplated by the appropriation, and reminds the department 
of the need to follow established procedures.
    Cargo Aircraft Cockpit Doors.--In the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act, P.L. 107-71 (``ATSA''), Congress 
required reinforced flight deck doors for passenger aircraft 
only, not for all-cargo aircraft. This recognized a clear 
distinction in security needs between passenger and all-cargo 
operations, in particular the fact that all-cargo carriers are 
not in the business of transporting strangers, and thus can 
confidently identify and screen all persons having access to 
their aircraft. That capability is being employed through a 
variety of new procedures and requirements, including the 
Security Program for Aircraft 12,500 Pounds or More, Docket No. 
TSA-2002-11604, scheduled for implementation by December 1, 
2002, and through new rules governing jumpseat access. However, 
in implementing the Congressional mandate, the Federal Aviation 
Administration extended it to cover all-cargo aircraft as well, 
and did so effective immediately, without notice and 
opportunity for comment.
    Congress has provided funds to reimburse the airlines for 
the costs of installing cockpit door improvements. It makes 
sense to focus available resources first, as Congress did in 
the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, on the highest 
security priority--flight deck doors on passenger carriers. The 
Committee has included a provision that requires the Under 
Secretary for Transportation Security to review whether it is 
necessary to apply the cockpit door strengthening requirements 
to all-cargo carriers before requiring such modifications.
    Commercial pilot firearms training.--The Committee 
recommends $20,000,000, as requested, to defray costs of a 
House-passed bill which requires the agency to provide use of 
force and firearms training to any commercial airline pilot 
requesting such training.

                       Maritime and Land Security

    The Committee recommends $206,864,000 for maritime and land 
transportation security, an increase of $159,064,000 above the 
budget estimate. A comparison of the budget estimate to the 
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY03 budget        Committee
                                          estimate         recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port security grants................  ................      $150,000,000
Staff...............................       $23,000,000        23,000,000
Information technology..............         4,800,000         4,800,000
Nuclear detection and monitoring      ................         4,000,000
 systems............................
Support staff.......................  ................        -1,239,000
CSRS/FEHBP cost.....................  ................          -697,000
Trucking safety grants..............        20,000,000        27,000,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................        47,800,000       206,864,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Port security grants.--The Committee recommends 
$150,000,000, an increase of $150,000,000 above the amount in 
the budget estimate. There are 361 public ports in the United 
States. Shipments through these ports account for over 95 
percent of the nation's overseas trade. The Committee believes 
it is imperative for the Federal Government to assist local 
port authorities in their most pressing security needs. The 
Committee expects the Undersecretary to consult with local port 
authorities regarding potential grants affecting their port 
before grants are awarded, to ensure adequate coordination with 
local communities.
    Staff.--The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for TSA to 
continue to build staff expertise in the area of maritime and 
land transportation security. This is expected to finance the 
hire of 225 positions, the same as the budget estimate.
    Information technology.--The Committee recommends 
$4,800,000 for information technology projects, including a 
container tracking project known as Operation Safe Commerce and 
a container threat assessment project. This is the same as the 
budget estimate.
    Nuclear detection and monitoring systems.--The Committee 
recommends $4,000,000 for continued evaluation and acquisition 
of nuclear detection and monitoring systems. Funding of 
$4,000,000 was provided in fiscal year 2002.
    Trucking safety grants.--The Committee recommends 
$27,000,000 for continued improvements in trucking safety. The 
recommended level includes $20,000,000, as requested, for 
activities in the budget amendment submitted in September 2002. 
In addition, the recommended level includes $5,000,000 for a 
hazardous materials safety permit program and $2,000,000 for a 
truck security pilot program.
    Hazardous materials safety permit program.--The Committee 
recommends $5,000,000 to implement the permit program required 
by law for those motor carriers transporting the most dangerous 
hazardous materials. Given that this permit program is 
especially critical now in light of truck security concerns, 
TSA should ensure that it is implemented within one year from 
the date of enactment of this Act. The Committee would not 
oppose the conduct of this program by FMCSA on a reimbursable 
basis.
    Truck security pilot program.--The Committee understands 
that technology exists from a number of manufacturers that 
allows trucks to be remotely tracked and controlled. The TSA 
and the FMCSA may decide to mandate the use of such systems in 
the permit program discussed above. So that TSA and FMCSA may 
completely understand the performance characteristics of such 
systems, the Committee has included $2,000,000 for a pilot 
program.
    Support staff.--As previously discussed, funding for 
support staff has been consolidated in a new budget line.

                        Research and Development

    The Committee recommends $129,519,000 for research and 
development, a reduction of $681,000 below the budget estimate. 
The reductions involve the consolidation of support costs 
(-$385,000) and a removal of retirement and health benefit 
accrual costs (-$296,000).
    A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee 
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FY03 budget        Committee
                                          estimate         recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory space/research facility..        $5,000,000        $5,000,000
Next generation EDS.................       100,000,000       100,000,000
Applied R&D.........................;        20,000,000        20,000,000
Staffing............................         5,200,000         5,200,000
Support staff.......................  ................          -385,000
CSRS/FEHBP costs....................  ................          -296,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................       130,200,000       129,519,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Walk-through portals.--The Committee remains supportive of 
non-invasive explosive trace detection walk-through portals. 
These portals can be used in airports to guard against 
explosives carried by individuals. This equipment should be 
evaluated as soon as possible to test enhanced checkpoint 
security. The Committee encourages TSA to use up to $2,000,000 
in research and development funding to purchase and deploy this 
equipment for evaluation in airports.

                            Support Services

    The Committee recommends $453,891,000 for activities in 
support of TSA missions. In the budget request, these costs 
were largely distributed, on a pro rata share, to the 
individual programs, projects, and activities. In order to more 
properly account for the direct cost of various TSA activities, 
and to foster greater Congressional oversight, the Committee 
consolidates these funds in a single appropriation. Additional 
discussion and guidance is provided in a classified annex to 
this report.

                              COAST GUARD


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 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 the 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 $6,060,978,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in 
fiscal year 2003. This is $566,319,000 (10.3 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2002 program level.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program 
levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                        Program                         --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2002 enacted      2003 estimate       recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses.....................................     $3,780,150,000     $4,153,456,000     $4,305,456,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements............        964,354,000        725,000,000        725,000,000
Environmental compliance and restoration...............         16,927,000         17,000,000         17,000,000
Alteration of bridges..................................         15,466,000  .................         17,000,000
Retired pay............................................        876,346,000        889,000,000        889,000,000
Reserve training.......................................         83,194,000         86,522,000         86,522,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation............         20,222,000         22,000,000         21,000,000
Navigation service user fees...........................  .................       -165,000,000  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      5,767,659,000      5,892,978,000      6,060,978,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Operating Expenses




Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.................      $3,780,150,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\................       4,153,456,000
Recommended in the bill \3\.........................       4,305,456,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................        +525,306,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................        +152,000,000

\1\ Includes $440,000,000 for national security activities scored in
  budget function 050 and $409,150,000 in supplemental emergency
  appropriations.
\2\ Includes $340,000,000 for national security activities scored in
  budget function 050 and offsetting collections of $165,000,000 from
  proposed new user fees.
\3\ Includes $1,300,000,000 for national security activities scored in
  budget function 050.

    This appropriation provides funding for the operation and 
maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units 
strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of 
the United States and in selected areas overseas. This is the 
primary appropriation financing operational activities of the 
Coast Guard.
    Including $1,300,000,000 for national security activities, 
the Committee recommends a total of $4,305,456,000 for 
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2003, an 
increase of $525,306,000 (13.9 percent) above the fiscal year 
2002 appropriation and $152,000,000 above budget request.
    Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed 
below:
    Homeland security liaison billets.--The Committee 
recommends no funding for homeland security liaison billets, a 
reduction of $4,094,000 below the budget estimate. The budget 
requested funds for 43 new positions, to be detailed to other 
agencies to coordinate homeland security efforts and provide 
assistance in homeland security activities. If necessary, the 
Committee believes these positions should be funded via 
reimbursable agreement with the agencies receiving the support, 
not through new appropriations to the Coast Guard. Further, 
since this budget request was submitted, the administration has 
proposed the establishment of a Department of Homeland 
Security. Future appropriations to this new department should 
obviate the need for a large number of temporary detailees from 
other federal agencies.
    Polar icebreaking reimbursement.--The Committee is 
disappointed that the fiscal year 2003 budget reverses a recent 
trend toward greater reimbursement of the Coast Guard's 
expenses for polar icebreaking. The following data shows the 
amount of reimbursements received by the Coast Guard for these 
services for the past five years and the percentage of total 
program costs reimbursed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        % of total cost
            Fiscal year               Reimbursements       reimbursed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999...............................        $2,711,000                12
2000...............................         2,145,000                 8
2001...............................         4,966,000                13
2002...............................         9,664,000                25
2003 estimate......................         6,515,000                17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee believes the Coast Guard should seek to 
achieve the same level of reimbursements for polar icebreaking 
services as estimated for fiscal year 2002. The Committee 
recommendation assumes the Coast Guard will achieve that goal, 
allowing a reduction of $3,149,000 in direct appropriations 
with no effect on the overall program.
    Response boat--small.--The recommendation includes an 
additional $10,000,000 for the Coast Guard to accelerate 
replacement of the existing non-standard boat inventory. The 
Coast Guard is planning this replacement under a project known 
as response boat--small. However, the Coast Guard is planning a 
seven year replacement cycle, despite the fact that 30 percent 
of these boats are beyond their design life already. In 
addition, the boats are being utilized significantly more hours 
each month, often with deferred maintenance, to satisfy new 
homeland security requirements. These assets are critical for 
two of the service's highest priority missions: homeland 
security and search and rescue.
    Small boat station/command center readiness.--The bill 
includes an additional $10,000,000 to continue the high 
priority initiatives begun in fiscal year 2002 to address 
longstanding readiness deficiencies at the Coast Guard small 
boat stations and command centers.
    Maritime search and rescue.--The recommendation transfers 
the following items to ``Acquisition, construction, and 
improvements'', to more appropriately reflect the nature of the 
work being performed. These are flight data recorders/cockpit 
data recorders ($2,700,000) and self-contained breathing 
apparatus ($1,115,000).
    Vessel traffic system, Corpus Christi, TX.--The 
recommendation transfers this item to ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'', to more appropriately reflect 
the nature of the work being performed.
    High interest vessel control follow-on/personnel support 
costs.--The Committee recommendation reduces by one-half the 
requested increase in funds for personnel support costs. Based 
upon the budget justifications and information submitted for 
the hearing record, these costs appear unrelated to the high 
interest vessel control program. This results in a reduction of 
$3,776,000 below the budget estimate.
    Maritime safety and security teams.--The budget requested 
funds to establish two new maritime safety and security teams 
(MSSTs) in fiscal year 2003, increasing the total number of 
teams from four to six. According to the Coast Guard, the 
service has located resources to stand up five MSSTs in fiscal 
year 2002, reducing the startup costs needed in fiscal year 
2003. The recommendation recognizes this program change, and 
provides the necessary resources to start up the sixth MSST in 
the coming fiscal year. This results in a reduction below the 
budget estimate of $6,340,000. In addition, the recommendation 
deletes the $3,731,000 requested for additional staffing of 
coastal and oceangoing buoy tenders. The Coast Guard has not 
adequately explained how this staffing is related to homeland 
security missions or the maritime safety and security teams.
    Security readiness and planning.--The Committee has deleted 
the requested increases for additional attorneys ($1,767,000) 
and contract administrators ($395,000). The Coast Guard has not 
adequately explained how this staffing is related to homeland 
security missions or security readiness and planning. If the 
Coast Guard has additional legal or contracting requirements 
arising from homeland security activities, the service should 
seek to reassign existing staff from support activities which 
are now of lower priority.
    Incident command system.--The Committee is not convinced 
that the Coast Guard needs 14 new full-time public affairs 
specialists to handle the workload arising from last year's 
terrorist attacks. The service already has 96 public affairs 
specialists, including 32 at headquarters and 64 at various 
field units. Larger field units where homeland security 
activities are centered have already allocated significant 
public affairs resources. For example, seven billets each are 
assigned to Coast Guard offices in Miami, Florida and 
Portsmouth, Virginia. Particularly given the expected 
transition of the Coast Guard to the proposed Department of 
Homeland Security, the service should defer such hiring until 
the consolidation determines whether additional support staff 
are truly necessary. This results in a reduction of $1,400,000 
below the budget estimate.
    Ammunition funding.--The Committee is concerned over the 
rising costs of the Coast Guard's ammunition budget. For the 
past four fiscal years (1999-2002), the Coast Guard's budget 
for ammunition averaged $826,051 per year. This reflects the 12 
percent increase experienced in fiscal year 2002 after the 
September 2001 terrorist attacks, which brought 2002 
expenditures to an estimated $1,034,888. By contrast, the 
fiscal year 2003 budget requests $10,122,888 for ammunition--
ten times the amount experienced in past years. Coast Guard 
officials explain that this cost increase is largely due to the 
desire to purchase environmental-friendly ammunition, which is 
far more expensive than regular ammunition. Information 
provided to the Committee indicates that this so-called ``green 
ammo'' is, in many cases, twice as expensive as traditional 
types of ammunition. The Committee has been unable to determine 
the necessity of this requirement. Although the Committee 
recommends the full amount of the Coast Guard's request, the 
Committee encourages the Coast Guard and the department to 
review the requirement for the procurement of ``green ammo''.
    Homeland security budget presentation.--The Committee has 
found several instances in the Coast Guard's budget where items 
of questionable contribution to homeland security activities 
were included within the homeland security request. These 
include public affairs specialists, attorneys, and additional 
staffing for oceangoing and coastal buoy tenders. Although the 
Committee intends to provide full funding for necessary 
homeland security requirements, the Committee cautions the 
Coast Guard to ensure that, in development of future budgets, 
items unrelated to homeland security are not presented in the 
budget under homeland security categories.
    Great Lakes pilotage.--The Committee understands that the 
Coast Guard has before it a proposal to streamline and 
modernize the pilotage system on the Great Lakes. The Committee 
urges the Coast Guard to ensure that this proposal receives all 
due consideration. This should include a full review by the 
Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee. The Coast Guard should 
also ensure that all elements of the Great Lakes maritime 
industry have an opportunity to comment on the proposal and 
participate in its development.
    Pier safety study.--On May 18, 2000, a 140 foot section of 
pier 34 on the Delaware River in Philadelphia collapsed, 
killing three people and injuring several others. The Committee 
understands that there are currently no federal safety 
standards for piers. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to 
undertake a study of pier safety, including recommendations for 
improving pier safety. Such study shall be submitted to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than six 
months after enactment of this Act.
    Fuel tank safety.--The Committee understands that the 
Department of Defense has tested the success of alumimum mesh 
technology in preventing explosions in fuel tanks and storage 
containers, regardless of ignition source. Given the need to 
increase security at our ports and elsewhere, the Coast Guard 
is directed to review whether such technology would be 
beneficial in protecting public safety at Coast Guard 
facilities, and report on the results of such review to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by July 1, 2003.
    Dual use technologies.--The Coast Guard has critical 
responsibilities in both counter-drug and counter-terror 
operations. The Committee is aware that technology exists which 
is able to simultaneously detect minute quantities of narcotics 
as well as explosives on individuals, baggage, vehicles, cargo, 
and documents. These dual-use devices can reduce Coast Guard 
manpower and maintenance costs and provide synergies between 
these two missions. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to 
evaluate and utilize these dual-use technology systems.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Defense-related activities.--The bill specifies that 
$1,300,000,000 of the total amount provided is for national 
security-related activities. This level is $860,000,000 above 
the level enacted for fiscal year 2002 and $960,000,000 above 
the budget estimate.

                           GENERAL PROVISION

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

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements




Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.................        $702,354,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................         725,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............................         725,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................         +22,646,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................  ..................

\1\ Includes $328,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations.

    This capital appropriation finances the acquisition of new 
capital assets, construction of new facilities, and physical 
improvements to existing facilities and assets. The 
appropriation covers Coast Guard-owned and operated vessels, 
aircraft, shore facilities, and other equipment such as 
computer systems, as well as the personnel needed to manage 
acquisition activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The recommended bill includes $725,000,000 for this 
appropriation, including $500,000,000 for the Integrated 
Deepwater Systems (``deepwater'') program. The bill fully funds 
the high priority National Distress System Modernization 
Project.
    Consistent with past practice, the bill 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.
    The following table compares the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 2003 estimate, and the recommended level 
by program, project and activity:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2002  Fiscal year 2003        House
                       Program name                              enacted          estimate         recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels...................................................      $127,740,000       $13,600,000       $11,715,000
    Survey and design--cutters and boats..................           500,000           400,000           400,000
    Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement................        68,000,000         4,000,000         4,000,000
    Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program         4,490,000         2,200,000         2,200,000
    41 foot utility boat replacement......................        12,000,000         4,000,000         4,000,000
    85-Foot fast patrol craft.............................         4,650,000  ................  ................
    Alex Haley conversion project.........................  ................         3,000,000  ................
    Boarding and escort patrol boats (CPBs)...............        24,000,000  ................  ................
    87-foot CPB small boat replacement....................          2,100,00  ................  ................
    Shipboard contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)........  ................  ................         1,115,000
Aircraft..................................................       209,500,000  ................         2,700,000
    Aviation parts and support............................         9,000,000  ................  ................
    C-130J system provisioning and training support                  500,000  ................  ................
     analyses.............................................
    FDRs/CVRs.............................................  ................  ................         2,700,000
Other Equipment...........................................       107,022,000       117,700,000       114,200,000
    Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS).............        28,929,000         5,000,000         8,600,000
    Marine information for safety and law enforcement              7,450,000  ................  ................
     (MISLE)..............................................
    National distress system modernization................        42,000,000        90,000,000        90,000,000
    Defense message system implementation.................         6,300,000         2,100,000  ................
    Commercial satellite communications...................         1,500,000  ................  ................
    Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)....         2,200,000         2,200,000         2,200,000
    Search and Rescue Capabilities Enhancement Project....         1,320,000  ................  ................
    Thirteenth district microwave modernization project...           800,000         3,000,000         3,000,000
    Hawaii Rainbow communications system modernization....         3,100,000         3,000,000         3,000,000
    High frequency recapitalization and modernization.....         2,000,000         2,000,000         2,000,000
    Command center readiness/infrastructure                          727,000  ................  ................
     recapitalization.....................................
    P-250 pump replacement................................         2,046,000  ................  ................
    Configuration management--phase II....................         3,000,000  ................  ................
    Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement.         1,000,000  ................  ................
    Maritime electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for          4,000,000  ................  ................
     cutters/boats........................................
    Ice detecting radar--Cordova, AK......................           650,000  ................  ................
    Prince William Sound WAN replacement, AK..............  ................         1,000,000         1,000,000
    Maritime domain awareness information management......  ................         9,400,000         4,400,000
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation...................       135,271,000        28,700,000        31,385,000
    Survey and design--shore projects.....................         4,000,000         2,500,000         5,500,000
    Minor AC&I; shore construction projects................         4,000,000         4,900,000         4,900,000
    Housing...............................................        13,500,000         7,000,000         7,000,000
    Waterways ATON projects...............................         5,500,000         4,900,000         4,900,000
    Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI...........         3,100,000  ................  ................
    Consolidate warehouse--Coast Guard Yard, MD...........        12,600,000  ................  ................
    Construct new Station--Brunswick, GA..................         3,600,000  ................  ................
    Replace utilities, ISC building number 8--Boston, MA..         1,600,000  ................  ................
    Construct engineering building, ISC Honolulu--                 7,200,000  ................  ................
     Honolulu, HI.........................................
    Consolidate Kodiak aviation support--Kodiak, AK.......         5,700,000         4,000,000         4,000,000
    Reconstruction North Wall, Escanaba Municipal Dock, MI           300,000  ................  ................
    Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36--Phase I..................        10,000,000  ................  ................
    Coast Guard Marine Safety & Rescue Station--Chicago,           2,000,000  ................  ................
     IL...................................................
    Construct new station--Manistee, MI...................  ................         5,400,000         5,085,000
    Homeland security shore infrastructure support........         8,171,000  ................  ................
    Station Oak Island, NC fire damage repair/rebuild.....         4,000,000  ................  ................
Personnel and Related Support.............................        64,631,000        75,846,000        65,000,000
    Direct personnel costs................................        63,931,000        64,500,000        64,500,000
    Core acquisition costs................................           700,000           500,000           500,000
Integrated Deepwater Systems..............................       320,190,000       500,000,000       500,000,000
    Aircraft..............................................        35,700,000       138,200,000       138,200,000
    Surface ships.........................................        36,700,000       215,700,000       215,700,000
    C4ISR.................................................       106,500,000  ................  ................
    Logistics.............................................        71,200,000        71,600,000        16,600,000
    Shore facilities......................................  ................  ................         7,200,000
    System engineering and integration....................  ................  ................        47,800,000
    Other contracts.......................................        39,800,000        43,500,000        43,500,000
    Government program management.........................        30,290,000        31,000,000        31,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation.................................       702,354,000       725,000,000       725,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                VESSELS

    The Committee recommends $11,715,000 for vessels, 
$1,885,000 below the budget estimate. Specific adjustments to 
the budget estimate are as shown below.
    Alex Haley conversion project.--The recommendation deletes 
the $3,000,000 requested for this project in order to fund 
higher budget priorities.
    41-foot utility boat replacement.--The bill includes 
$4,000,000 to continue acquisition of a replacement for the 
current 41-foot utility boat under a program now known as 
``response boat--medium''. The Committee directs the Coast 
Guard to acquire these boats following a full and open 
competition among private shipyards, and not to engage in 
production of this asset in government facilities such as the 
Coast Guard Yard.
    Shipboard contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).--The bill 
includes $1,115,000 in this appropriation, a transfer from 
``Operating expenses''. This is the same as the budget 
estimate.

                                AIRCRAFT

    The Committee recommends $2,700,000 for aircraft, which is 
the same amount above the budget estimate. The recommendation 
includes $2,700,000 in this appropriation for flight data 
recorders and cockpit voice recorders, a transfer from 
``Operating expenses''. This is the same as the budget 
estimate.

                            OTHER EQUIPMENT

    The Committee recommends $114,200,000 for other equipment, 
a reduction of $3,500,000 below the budget estimate and 
$7,178,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2002. 
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained 
below:
    Ports and waterways safety system.--The bill includes 
$8,600,000, an increase of $3,600,000 above the budget 
estimate. The increase reflects a transfer of funds for VTS 
Corpus Christi, Texas from ``Operating expenses''. The 
recommended funding, including the transfer, is the same as the 
budget estimate for these items.
    Defense message system implementation.--The recommendation 
deletes the $2,100,000 requested for this program, as these 
requirements were financed in the recently-enacted supplemental 
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002.
    Maritime domain awareness information management.--The 
Committee recommends $4,400,000 for this project, a reduction 
of $5,000,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation 
defers computer upgrade of the Maritime Information System for 
Law Enforcement (MISLE). A recent audit of the U.S. General 
Accounting Office has raised serious concerns over cost 
overruns in this program. Based upon these issues, the 
Committee believes further upgrades should be deferred.

                SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

    The Committee recommends $31,385,000 for shore facilities 
and aids to navigation, an increase of $2,685,000 above the 
budget estimate. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate 
are detailed below.
    Survey and design, shore projects.--The recommendation 
includes $5,500,000, an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget 
estimate. Over the past five fiscal years, appropriations for 
this program have averaged $5,397,000. The Committee believes 
the proposed reduction to $2,500,000 is too severe, and would 
compromise the Coast Guard's ability to address critical 
housing and shore facility needs. Maintaining an adequate shore 
facility budget is especially critical as the service 
accommodates a growing workforce for expanded homeland security 
missions. The recommended level restores funding to the average 
experienced over the past five years.
    Station Manistee, MI.--The recommendation includes 
$5,085,000, a reduction of $315,000 due to budget constraints.
    Short-range aids to navigation.--The bill includes 
$4,900,000 for short-range waterways aids to navigation 
projects, which are critical to ensure safe and economical 
passage through our nation's waterways. These funds are 
expected to be distributed as follows:

        Location                                                  Amount
Delaware River, DE......................................        $950,000
Chesapeake Bay, MD......................................         850,000
Houston-Galveston, TX...................................       1,400,000
Cape Fear River, NC.....................................         765,000
Pascagoula, MS..........................................         100,000
Columbia River, WA......................................          21,000
Agat, Guam..............................................          33,000
Humboldt Bay, CA........................................         126,000
Lake St. Clair, MI......................................         655,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       4,900,000

                      INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEMS

    The Committee recommends $500,000,000 for continued 
implementation of the integrated deepwater systems 
(``deepwater'') program in fiscal year 2003. This is the same 
as the budget estimate, and an increase of $179,810,000 (56.1 
percent) above the amount provided for fiscal year 2002. Funds 
are to be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Activity                   Quantity           Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft...........................  ................      $138,200,000
    Maritime patrol aircraft (CASA                  3      (123,200,000)
     HC-235).......................
    VTOL unmanned aerial vehicle...  ................       (15,000,000)
Surface Ships......................  ................       215,700,000
    National security cutter.......  ................      (137,800,000)
    270 foot cutter upgrade........                 2          (700,000)
    210 foot cutter upgrade........                 4        (1,400,000)
    378 foot cutter upgrade........                 3        (1,400,000)
    110 foot patrol boat upgrade...                11       (74,400,000)
Logistics..........................  ................        16,600,000
Shore Facilities...................                 8         7,200,000
System Engineering & Integration...  ................        47,800,000
Other Contracts....................  ................        43,500,000
Program Management.................  ................        31,000,000
                                    ------------------------------------
      Total........................  ................       500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deepwater prime contract was signed in June 2002. 
Because this program is just beginning its implementation 
phase, it is imperative for the Coast Guard to establish firm 
requirement, cost, and schedule baselines as well as routine 
performance monitoring and measurement systems. The Committee 
is aware that the Coast Guard intends to monitor the status of 
deepwater through the presentation of quarterly ``quad 
charts'', which will provide an assessment in four key areas: 
trends by key indicators; cost; schedule; and significant 
issues or upcoming events. The Committee directs the Coast 
Guard to provide this information to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations as it is released. In addition, 
the Committee directs the Coast Guard to provide a quarterly 
summary of the cost and schedule status of major contracts and 
subcontracts, including a summary of task and delivery order 
changes, engineering change proposals submitted, and requests 
for equitable adjustment by the contractors. The Committee 
strongly encourages the Coast Guard to fully utilize the 
services of the Defense Contract Audit Agency in conducting 
contract audit and evaluation services in support of the 
program management team.
    Reprogramming guidelines.--Because of the size and scope of 
this program, the Committee believes the existing AC&I; 
reprogramming guidelines require clarification to ensure 
adequate Congressional oversight and control. With certain 
exceptions, the current guidelines allow funding shifts of 15 
percent or less among projects without Congressional 
notification or approval. Applied to the current deepwater 
budget, this could be construed to allow the movement of over 
$32,000,000 to new activities without any Congressional 
oversight. The Committee therefore directs the Coast Guard to 
proceed only through the Congressional notification 
reprogramming process with any budget changes exceeding 10 
percent of the base amount appropriated for programs, projects, 
and activities (PPAs), as defined by line items shown in the 
distribution of funds table shown in this section. Any changes 
in the number or type of deliverable assets (e.g., fixed-wing 
or rotary-wing aircraft, ships, or boats) not contemplated in 
the budget justifications are subject to reprogramming 
approval.
    Requirement and asset changes.--The Committee is aware that 
the Coast Guard has tasked the prime contractor to study 
changes in deepwater requirements and assets. The Committee is 
disturbed to hear that the service is contemplating major asset 
changes only a few months after contract signing. The 
Committee's recommendation of funding is based upon the 
justification of assets presented to the Committee at this 
point in time. Should the Coast Guard decide to pursue other 
assets, the Committee directs the service to do so only through 
the formal reprogramming process and only after adequate 
justification to the Appropriations Committees.
    Affordability.--Last year, the appropriations conferees 
agreed to provide funding for the first year of the prime 
contract only after the Director, Office of Management and 
Budget and the Secretary of Transportation jointly certified 
that the program was fully funded in Presidential budget 
assumptions for the first five years of the contract. Although 
that certification was made, the Committee is concerned that 
the program may still be underfunded. The Committee's analysis 
indicates that this program is underfunded by at least 
$210,000,000 over the next five years. The Committee encourages 
the department to work with the Office of Management and Budget 
to clarify and address this shortfall in development of outyear 
budgets for the deepwater program. The longer this program 
proceeds with a gap between contract funding and projected 
budgets, the more difficult it will be for the program to meet 
its cost and schedule targets.
    Compliance with the Buy American Act.--The Committee has 
included a provision (sec. 345) clarifying that the Integrated 
Deepwater Systems procurement program is subject to the terms 
and conditions of the Buy American Act. The Committee directs 
the Coast Guard to ensure that in complying with such Act, U.S. 
manufacturers of the major components of Deepwater ships 
(including diesel engines, radars, and propulsors) are given 
every opportunity to fully compete in such procurement.

                     PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $65,000,000, which includes all 
requested funding except removal of accrual costs, which are 
explained in an earlier section of this report, and a reduction 
of $200,000 in core acquisition costs. Total funding for this 
budget activity is approximately the same as enacted for fiscal 
year 2002.
    Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Committee continues to 
receive quarterly acquisition reports from the Coast Guard, 
which describe the cost, schedule, and contractual status of 
major acquisition projects. The Committee believes these 
reports have not provided timely notice of major contractual or 
technical issues, such as those which led to termination of the 
marine information system for law enforcement (MISLE) contract 
in 1999, and those leading to cost growth in the C-130J 
acquisition and Alex Haley conversion projects. The Committee 
directs the Coast Guard to work with the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, in consultation with the Office 
of Inspector General, to develop an improved format for these 
reports during fiscal year 2003.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Capital investment plan.--The bill maintains the 
requirement for the Coast Guard to submit a five-year capital 
investment plan with initial submission of the President's 
budget request. This Congressional requirement was first 
established in fiscal year 2002.
    Disposal of real property.--The bill maintains the 
provision enacted in fiscal year 2002 crediting to this 
appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast 
Guard's surplus real property, and providing that such receipts 
are available for obligation in fiscal year 2003 only for the 
national distress and response system (ND&RS;) modernization 
project.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration



Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................         $16,927,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................          17,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............................          17,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................             +73,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................  ..................
    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 $17,000,000 is the same as 
the budget estimate and $73,000 (less than one percent) above 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

                         Alteration of Bridges




Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................         $15,466,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................  ..................
Recommended in the bill.............................          17,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................          +1,534,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................         +17,000,000
    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 TEA-21 
conference report. 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 $17,000,000 for five bridges. The 
Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $3,500,000 shall 
be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, 
Georgia; $8,000,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile 
Bridge over the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $1,000,000 
shall be allocated to the Galveston Causeway Bridge in Texas; 
$2,000,000 shall be allocated to the Chelsea Street Bridge in 
Boston, Massachusetts; and $2,500,000 shall be allocated to the 
Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New 
Orleans, Louisiana.
    Millennium port.--The Committee supports the Millennium 
Port Commission's progress on the working plan recently 
completed, and encourages the commission to continue working 
with the Port of New Orleans, Lafourche Parish, Plaquemines 
Parish, and all other South Louisiana port entities to 
expeditiously develop the millennium port in Louisiana.

                              Retired Pay




Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................        $876,346,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................         889,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............................         889,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................         +12,654,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................  ..................
    This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military 
personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve, 
including career status bonuses for active duty personnel. 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 bill provides $889,000,000, the same as the budget 
estimate and $12,654,000 (1.4 percent) above the fiscal year 
2002 enacted level. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation 
in the Congressional budget process.

                            Reserve Training




Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................         $83,194,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................          86,522,000
Recommended in the bill.............................          86,522,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................          +3,328,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................  ..................
    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:
    Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for 
three categories of non-prior service trainees.
    Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted 
personnel.
    Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-
to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training 
facilities.
    Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve 
forces program.
    The bill includes $86,522,000 for reserve training, which 
is the same as the budget estimate and $3,328,000 (4 percent) 
above the fiscal year 2002 level. This is expected to support a 
Selected Reserve level of 9,000, which is 800 (9.8 percent) 
above the level estimated for fiscal year 2002.
    Given the level of support provided by reservists not only 
in homeland security and national security missions, but also 
in support of routine duties, the Committee continues to 
strongly support the Coast Guard Reserve. The reserves have 
proven to be a force multiplier within the Coast Guard, 
augmenting the efficient delivery of Coast Guard service to the 
public.
    Reservist contribution to homeland security.--The Committee 
notes the strong contribution of the Coast Guard Reserves to 
our nation's preparedness immediately following last year's 
terrorist attacks. Within 48 hours of the attacks, 1,571 
reservists were called up, and within thirty days, almost 2,800 
were in uniform. Among other duties, these personnel have been 
performing harbor patrols; conducting port security operations 
around terrorist detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; 
serving as sea marshals; and serving as special agents 
performing law enforcement missions and collecting 
intelligence. In contrast to civilians and active duty 
personnel, reservists leave their full-time jobs, often on a 
moment's notice and sometimes at reduced pay, to serve their 
country for an undefined period of time. The Committee 
recognizes and appreciates the special sacrifices made by the 
reserve force and their families over the past year.
    Reimbursement to ``Operating expenses''.--The 
recommendation discontinues the provision, carried for several 
years, limiting the amount of ``Reserve training'' funds which 
may be transferred to ``Operating expenses''. The Committee 
notes that the active duty and reserve elements of the Coast 
Guard have reached a new agreement on the level of appropriate 
``Reserve training'' support for the Coast Guard's active duty 
operating budget. For this reason, the Committee bill 
eliminates the restrictions. However, the Committee still seeks 
to ensure that the reserves are not assessed excessive charge-
backs to the Coast Guard operating budget, and will monitor the 
situation over the coming year.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation




Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................         $20,222,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................          22,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............................          21,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................            +778,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................  ..................
    The bill includes $21,000,000 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, $3,500,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund, as requested in the budget estimate. This 
is $778,000 (3.8 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal 
year 2002.
    Wood Composites.--The Coast Guard maintains a large 
inventory of wood pier and other waterfront structures that 
have significant needs for repair and replacement. The Coast 
Guard and the Federal Highway Administration are participating 
in a pilot project with the University of Maine to test whether 
wood composites will reduce maintenance costs and extend the 
useful life of waterfront structures. Within the funds 
provided, $1,000,000 is to support the continued development, 
demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood composites at 
Coast Guard facilities, including Coast Guard stations in 
Jonesport and Southwest Harbor, Maine.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible 
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the 
evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal 
Government's regulatory role in civil aviation began with the 
creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the Department of 
Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act 
instructed the Secretary of Commerce to foster air commerce; 
designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and 
maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and 
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness 
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and 
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics 
Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new, 
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. After 
further administrative reorganizations, Congress streamlined 
regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate 
agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics 
Board. When the Department of Transportation began its 
operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was 
renamed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and became 
one of several modal administrations within the department. The 
Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of 
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist at 
the end of 1984. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the 
transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from 
the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001 
with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the 
new Transportation Security Administration.

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program

    The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 
2003 totals $13,599,225,000, including a $3,400,000,000 
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is 
$87,445,000 (less than one percent) above the fiscal year 2002 
enacted level and $17,000,000 (less than one percent) above the 
President's request. This bill complies with the guaranteed 
funding levels of Public Law 106-181.
    Most of the activities of the FAA will be funded with 
direct appropriations in fiscal year 2003. 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 2003 and 
assumes no new user fees.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program 
levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                        Program                         --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2002 enacted      2003 estimate     2003 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................     $7,119,000,000     $7,077,203,000     $7,060,203,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      3,007,500,000      2,981,022,000      2,981,022,000
Research, engineering and development..................        245,000,000        124,000,000        138,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) \1\...................      3,173,280,000      3,400,000,000      3,400,000,000
Small community air service \2\........................  .................  .................         20,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     13,511,780,000     13,582,225,000    13,599,225,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligations from contract authority.
\2\ $20,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2002 under ``Grants-in-aid for airports''.

                               Operations


                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)



Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.................      $7,119,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................       7,077,203,000
Recommended in the bill.............................       7,060,203,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................         -58,797,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................         -17,000,000

\1\ Includes $200,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations for
  civil aviation security activities and $42,000,000 in other
  supplemental emergency appropriations.

    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, 
international, medical, engineering and development programs as 
well as policy oversight and overall management functions.
    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) headquarters, administration and other staff 
offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of 
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $7,060,203,000 for FAA operations, 
a decrease of $58,797,000 below the level provided for fiscal 
year 2002 and $17,000,000 (less than one percent) below the 
President's budget request. When funds for civil aviation 
security activities are excluded from the calculation, the bill 
provides an increase of $282,200,000 (4.1 percent) over fiscal 
year 2002. Civil aviation security activities were funded under 
FAA in fiscal year 2002 but were transferred to the 
Transportation Security Administration in the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act.
    A breakdown of the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2003 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2002   Fiscal year 2003      Committee
                                                            enacted \1\        estimate \2\       recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services...................................     $5,446,872,000     $5,697,537,000     $5,741,309,000
Aviation regulation and certification..................        767,649,000        833,967,000        826,020,000
Civil aviation security................................        149,605,000  .................            -60,000
Research and acquisitions..............................        195,559,000        207,600,000        207,600,000
Commercial space transportation........................         12,416,000         12,325,000         12,325,000
Regions and center operations..........................         85,735,000         82,192,000         83,392,000
Human resources........................................         69,282,000         80,260,000         65,808,000
Financial services.....................................         50,178,000         48,782,000         46,782,000
Staff offices..........................................        108,704,000         84,890,000         81,840,000
Information services...................................  .................         29,650,000         29,650,000
Accountwide adjustments................................  .................  .................        -34,463,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................      6,886,000,000      7,077,203,000      7,060,203,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes TASC reductions of $2,820,000 and supplemental appropriations totaling $243,000,000.
\2\ Excludes CSRS/FEHBP accruals.

                               USER FEES

    The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees 
in fiscal year 2003 that were not Congressionally authorized 
for collection during fiscal year 2002. The FAA estimates that 
$30,000,000 in overflight user fees will be collected during 
fiscal year 2003. However, these funds will not be available to 
augment the FAA's budget, since under current law, these 
receipts must be transferred to the Office of the Secretary for 
the Essential Air Service and Rural Airports program. As 
required by statute, should the FAA experience a shortfall in 
overflight fee collections, the agency is required to transfer 
its own budgetary resources to maintain a $50,000,000 level for 
the EAS program during fiscal year 2003. Any shortfall should 
be funded from the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation.

                     TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

    The bill derives $3,585,068,000 of the total appropriation 
from the airport and airway trust fund, consistent with current 
law and the budget estimate. The balance of the appropriation 
will be drawn from the general fund of the Treasury. Under 
these provisions, only 50.8 percent of the FAA's operating 
costs will be borne by air travelers and industries using those 
services. The remaining 49.2 percent will be borne by the 
general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly utilize 
FAA services.
    State of the airport and airway trust fund.--The Committee 
is greatly concerned over the deteriorating financial status of 
the airport and airway trust fund, and the implications this 
has for future FAA budgets. One year ago, FAA projected 
revenues to the trust fund of approximately $85 billion over 
the fiscal year 2002--2007 time period. After the terrorist 
attacks of last year and the loss of significant high-end 
business fares, the current projection of revenues over that 
time period is $67.9 billion. This represents a loss of $17.1 
billion, or twenty percent, to the trust fund. FAA estimates 
that a no-growth budget over this time period would cost 
approximately $87 billion, which is now substantially above the 
revenue estimates. While the general fund could be tapped to 
address the shortfall, as the Inspector General testified this 
year, ``these additional requirements come at a time when the 
general fund is already supporting vastly expanded fiscal needs 
throughout the Federal Government and underscore the urgency 
for FAA to begin operating more cost-effectively''. The 
Committee notes that DOT has the highest salary costs of any 
cabinet-level department, and these costs are largely driven by 
FAA. For example, average staff year costs at the agency in 
fiscal year 2003 are estimated at $117,630. In addition, the 
Congress and FAA have relatively little budget flexibility 
under current law, which requires the appropriations committees 
to set aside certain funding levels for FAA's capital and grant 
programs. Because of this, funding increases for FAA's 
operating budget must necessarily come at the expense of other 
critical transportation programs such as the Coast Guard and 
Transportation Security Administration, at a time when revenues 
designed to support those activities are lower than previously 
estimated.
    When trust fund revenues were higher than appropriations 
for capital programs, a consensus emerged within the Congress 
to guarantee the spending of trust fund revenues, and programs 
were significantly expanded. Now the reverse has occurred--
trust fund revenues are down--and the agency must look inward 
to address new budget realities. While the Committee will be 
flexible in evaluating the need for greater general fund 
contributions to FAA's operating budget, the Committee has long 
held that the large majority of those costs should be borne by 
the traveling public which utilize FAA's services directly. 
Over the next year, FAA is strongly encouraged to review its 
operating cost structure and aggressively seek productivity and 
efficiency gains wherever possible. In addition, the Committee 
encourages the legislative committees of the Congress to be 
mindful of the deteriorated status of the trust fund, and 
provide greater flexibility to the agency and the 
appropriations committees in allocating future funds to the 
FAA.

                  FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT

    The Committee is concerned that FAA's workers' compensation 
caseload and costs, authorized under the Federal Employees' 
Compensation Act, continue to rise. FAA's cost for workers 
compensation is estimated at $86,365,000 in fiscal year 2003, 
to address 3,706 cases. The average payment for FAA employees 
is estimated at $45,767, which is 67 percent above the 
government-wide average. Because of these high costs, the 
Committee encourages the department and FAA to review the 
workers compensation program to determine whether better 
management could reduce the number of cases and overall costs.
    The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity 
are discussed below.

                          AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

    The recommendation includes $5,741,309,000 for air traffic 
services, an increase of $294,437,000 (5.4 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2002 enacted level and $43,772,000 above the budget 
estimate. Adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed 
below.
    Spring/summer 2003.--The Committee recommends half the 
proposed increase of $6,512,000 for initiatives aimed at 
reducing air travel delays in the spring and summer of 2003. 
After massive delays in the year 2000, FAA began special 
activities, including training and weather prediction, to 
mitigate these problems. In fiscal year 2002, this activity was 
funded at $27,212,000. The Committee believes that, given the 
slowdown in air travel, a lesser rate of increase is justified 
next year.
    Operational evolution plan.--The recommendation deletes 
$11,116,000 of proposed activities under this heading, 
including $6,107,000 requested to reduce the backlog of 
building maintenance needs and meet facility requirements of 
the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. These 
requirements have little to do with FAA's operational evolution 
plan, and if truly needed, should be accomplished through a 
similar program funded under ``Facilities and equipment'', for 
which adequate funds are provided in this bill. The bill also 
deletes funds for satellite navigation
(-$3,191,000), air traffic control procedural modeling 
(-$1,500,000), and GPS direction finding (-$318,000) due to 
lack of justification.
    National airspace redesign.--The bill includes $40,343,000 
for national airspace redesign, an increase of $19,843,000 
(96.8 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2002 
and $5,357,000 below the budget estimate. Of the funds 
provided, $8,500,000 is solely for airspace redesign activities 
in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area.
    The Committee directs FAA to submit quarterly reports on 
the New Jersey/New York airspace redesign effort, including 
funds expended to date; progress to date; and the schedule for 
completing and implementing the project. The report should 
include details on all planned components and elements of the 
redesign project, including details on any ocean routing 
modeling that has been conducted. The following table compares 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level to the budget estimate and 
the Committee recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                      Activity                          FY 2002 enacted     Budget estimate       recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA headquarters....................................          $2,109,316          $9,525,798           6,000,000
Alaska region.......................................              76,178             595,200             595,200
Central region......................................             531,858           3,212,346           3,212,346
Eastern region......................................          12,500,000           8,500,000           8,500,000
Great Lakes region..................................           1,421,858           5,930,423           5,930,423
New England region..................................             131,358           1,594,619           1,594,619
Northwest mountain region...........................             442,858           1,616,650           1,616,650
Southern region.....................................           1,332,858           5,069,034           5,069,034
Southwest region....................................             531,858             866,500             866,500
Western Pacific region..............................           1,421,858           8,846,501           7,015,299
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................          20,500,000          45,757,071          40,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National park air tour management plans.-- Public Law 106-
181 requires an air tour operator to submit a management plan 
``whenever a person applies for authority to operate a 
commercial air tour operation over the park''. In fiscal year 
2002, Congress provided $8,200,000 for FAA to begin the review 
and approval of air tour management plans for the 54 parks 
where such services are currently provided. The same amount is 
included in the fiscal year 2003 President's budget. However, 
in hearings this year, the FAA indicated that no applications 
had been submitted due to OMB's continuing review of the 
proposed regulation, and provisions of the law requiring 
submission of applications within 90 days of issuance of the 
final rule. Given these delays, it is unlikely that FAA will be 
able to meet its schedule to have all management plans approved 
by the end of fiscal year 2003. Due to these delays, the 
Committee provides one-half the requested amount for this 
activity.
    Training.--The Committee is concerned over the excessive 
rate of increase proposed for air traffic training. The 
President's budget requested $60,405,000 for this training in 
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $15,531,000 (34.6 percent) 
over the fiscal year 2002 level. This is three times the rate 
of increase experienced for flight standards training, and 
represents growth of almost 40 percent in the cost per staff 
year in only two years. The Committee believes these training 
costs are overstated, and notes that FAA has reprogrammed 
training funds several times over the past few years when funds 
were desired for other activities. Furthermore, the President's 
budget proposes an unexplained reduction of $85,500,000 and 300 
staff years in air traffic, which make these training increases 
highly questionable. The Committee recommends $50,000,000, an 
increase of $5,126,000 (11.4 percent)--the same rate of 
increase approved for flight standards.
    Air traffic controller proficiency and developmental 
training.--The Committee continues to note the importance of 
controller training conducted under the existing air traffic 
instructional services (ATIS) contract. The FAA's budget 
request for fiscal year 2003 included $31,100,000 for these 
services. In past years, the agency has reprogrammed funds from 
this account, to the detriment of controller training. Within 
the $50,000,000 approved for controller training, the Committee 
directs FAA to utilize the planned amount of $31,100,000 under 
the ATIS contract. This is designated as an item of special 
Congressional interest. Any proposed adjustments from the 
amount recommended shall be subject to the Congressional 
reprogramming process.
    NAS handoff.--Once again this year, the FAA has proposed an 
accounting gimmick to make its operating budget appear smaller, 
a gimmick which the Committee rejected last year and encouraged 
the agency not to repeat. FAA's longstanding policy has been to 
include funds for maintenance of new systems in the operating 
budget, except for the first year after commissioning. During 
the first year, when start-up problems are typical, it is 
appropriate for funds to be included in the capital budget. 
Last year, however, the agency announced a plan to ``stretch'' 
to two years the length of time maintenance expenses would be 
paid from the capital budget. In this way, a portion of the 
agency's routine operating expenses can be disguised as a 
capital expense, crowding out legitimate capital expenses and 
covering up the agency's true operating costs. The Committee is 
disappointed that the Administration has repeated this proposal 
in fiscal year 2003, especially at a time when the public is 
demanding more accurate accounting and fewer gimmicks of 
private sector accounting. The Committee believes it is 
difficult for the Federal Government to show leadership in the 
issue of corporate accounting unless its own books are in 
order. As a result, the Committee recommendation transfers 
$70,000,000 of NAS handoff maintenance funds from ``Facilities 
and equipment'' to this appropriation to more properly reflect 
the work being performed. If the agency persists in making this 
flawed recommendation next year, the Committee will consider 
this performance in its review of the agency's request for 
financial management personnel.
    Air traffic control supervisory levels.--In fiscal year 
2002, Congress directed FAA to restore supervisory air traffic 
control positions proposed for elimination in the budget, and 
to halt further expansion of the controller-in-charge concept. 
Since the expansion began in February 2000, 250 operational 
supervisors have been eliminated, raising the supervisory ratio 
in this workforce from 7.4/1 to 9.1/1. The agency has clearly 
met its obligation to ``move toward'' a ratio of 10/1. Because 
of continuing concerns about the controller-in-charge program, 
the Committee retains the policy in effect for fiscal year 
2002, and directs FAA not to reduce the number of operational 
supervisor positions below the level at the time the Department 
of Transportation and Related Agencies Act, 2002 was enacted. 
FAA advises the Committee that the figure on board at that time 
was 1,700.
    Staffing reduction.--The President's budget includes a base 
reduction of $85,000,000 and 300 staffyears which is not 
adequately explained in the justifications. Although a decision 
was to have been made in June 2002 on the nature of this 
proposal, to date the Committee has received no information 
explaining how this large reduction will be accommodated 
without harm to essential air traffic services. The budget 
justifications indicate that the reduction would be taken by 
refusing to fill vacant positions except for those represented 
by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) or 
Professional Airways Service Specialists (PASS) bargaining 
units. By the Committee's estimate, approximately 25,500 such 
positions are represented by these two unions. The Committee is 
unclear how such a large reduction can be accommodated among 
the balance of air traffic positions, based on attrition 
assumptions accompanying the fiscal year 2003 budget, without 
harm to air traffic services around the country. Accordingly, 
the Committee directs FAA to submit, not later than December 1, 
2002, a detailed plan showing how this reduction will be 
allocated between the various air traffic offices, with a 
description of the impact on air traffic services at those 
locations.
    Office of the chief operating officer.--Although the 
Aviation and Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-
21) established the position of air traffic services chief 
operating officer, the agency has never filled this position 
and no funds are specifically identified in the budget request 
for the position or its supporting office. The Committee 
directs that, prior to the filling of any position in such 
office other than the chief operating officer, or the filling 
or detailing of any position to support the chief operating 
officer, the FAA request such funding through the normal 
reprogramming process.
    Contract tower cost-sharing.--The bill includes $6,000,000 
to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. The 
Committee continues to believe this is a valuable program which 
provides safety benefits to small communities.
    MARC.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue operating 
support for the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) 
in Minnesota. This program has been funded for many years.
    Newark delay reduction initiatives.--The Committee directs 
FAA to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on the status of delay reduction 
initiatives in Newark, New Jersey. A similar requirement was in 
place for fiscal year 2000.
    Contract tower cost-sharing.--The bill includes $6,000,000 
to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. As of July 
1, 2002, the following airports were financed through this 
important program:

New Century Air Center, KS
Manhattan, KS
Garden City, KS
Central Nebraska/Grand Island, NE
Bolton Field, OH
McKellar-Sipes Regional, TN
Hickory Regional, NC
Concord, NC
Grand Strand/Myrtle Beach, SC
Springdale Municipal, AR
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Williamsport/Lycoming County, PA
Chicago Meigs Field, IL
Lebanon Municipal, NH
Fayetteville, AR
Laughlin/Bullhead City, AZ
Shreveport Downtown, LA
Muncie, IN
Columbus, IN
Bloomington, IN
Henderson, NV
Jefferson City, MO
Latrobe, PA
Victorville, CA
Stillwater, OK
King Salmon, AK
Oneida County, NY
Walla Walla Regional, WA
Macon, GA
Kingston, NC
Elko, NV

    Real-time display of air traffic and flight information.--
Within the funds provided for air traffic services, the 
recommendation includes $240,000 for air traffic monitor 
software for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 
This technology is currently used in Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, and Louisville, and provides near real-time display 
of air traffic and flight information in and around major 
airports, which can be accessed via the internet. With this 
software, aviation authorities as well as private citizens can 
monitor flights to ensure they are following their scheduled 
flight paths as well as FAA flight regulations and 
restrictions.

                 AVIATION REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION

    The Committee recommends $826,174,000 for aviation 
regulation and certification, a reduction of $7,947,000 below 
the budget estimate. Reductions to the budget estimate are as 
follows:
    Safer skies.--The bill includes $10,000,000 for this 
activity, an increase of $4,525,000 (82.6 percent) above the 
funding provided for fiscal year 2002, but $6,887,000 below the 
budget estimate. While the Committee supports this initiative, 
a slower rate of growth is justified to fund other priorities. 
The Committee encourages FAA to allocate the reduction equally 
against commercial aviation and general aviation activities.
    International harmonization staff.--The recommendation does 
not include the $250,000 requested for five additional staff to 
conduct international harmonization activities. More than three 
years ago, the Committee directed FAA to submit a five year 
plan to improve international aviation safety. Although this 
was directed to be submitted not later than February 15, 2000, 
the report has still not been received. Until the Committee 
receives and reviews this plan, updated to current resources 
and world conditions, it is unreasonable to expect additional 
funds for staffing in this area.
    Drug/alcohol compliance testing.--The Committee 
recommendation does not include the proposed increase of 
$810,000 and 20 positions for the agency drug and alcohol 
testing program. Last year, Congress directed FAA to conduct a 
review investigating the validity of the current drug testing 
procedures, after Inspector General and other reports raised 
concerns over the current practices. This review will not be 
completed until fiscal year 2003. The Committee does not 
believe additional resources are warranted until evidence is 
presented that these concerns are resolved. Furthermore, the 
agency's justification for the additional funding makes note of 
deficiencies found in an FAA task force report dated January 
1999. The Committee has reviewed the task force report, and 
concludes that these deficiencies were largely procedural, and 
do not require additional funding. For example, the task force 
found several cases where unannounced drug testing was 
compromised when employees were called at home by managers or 
union representatives the day of the test and advised that 
testers would be in the facility that day. It also found that, 
because tests were almost always conducted during the day, the 
night shifts came to be regarded as ``safe havens''--a 
procedure undermining the notion of random testing. The task 
force also found that disciplinary measures for those employees 
caught using drugs or alcohol was inconsistent or nonexistent. 
The Committee believes procedural problems such as these need 
to be resolved immediately, before additional funds can be 
justified. Funding in the bill is the same as the fiscal year 
2002 enacted level.
    Digital imaging and workflow system.--The Committee is 
aware that FAA is implementing a new pilot medical 
certification procedure called the aeromedical digital imaging 
and workflow system (DIWS). DIWS is intended to expedite the 
processing of medical certificates that require direct 
authorization from specific FAA personnel. In light of the 
immediate benefits that would be realized by both pilots and 
the FAA, the Committee encourages the agency to complete 
implementation of DIWS no later than fiscal year 2004.
    Graphics in notice to airman publications.--The Committee 
believes there is potential to improve safety and efficiency by 
expanding the use of graphics in notice to airman (NOTAM) 
publications, including temporary flight restrictions. The 
Committee directs FAA to expand the use of graphics in these 
publications wherever feasible during fiscal year 2003.

                        CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

    The Committee deletes the $6,064,000 proposed for accrual 
benefits of former FAA employees now employed by the 
Transportation Security Administration as part of the 
Committee-wide initiative to deny the accrual proposal. In 
addition, the bill deletes the $60,000 assumed in the budget 
estimate for the Aviation Security Advisory Committee. Such 
expenses, if needed, should now be borne by the Transportation 
Security Administration.

                       RESEARCH AND ACQUISITIONS

    The Committee recommends $207,600,000 for research and 
acquisitions, the same as the budget estimate.

                    COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

    The Committee recommends $12,325,000 for commercial space 
transportation, the same as the budget estimate.

                     REGIONS AND CENTER OPERATIONS

    The Committee recommends $83,392,000 for regions and center 
operations, an increase of $1,200,000 above the budget 
estimate. The recommendation restores a proposed reduction in 
activities such as runway safety oversight, environmental 
reviews, and expedited reviews of proposed new runways at 
airports. The Committee believes these are high priority 
activities that should not be reduced.

                       HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $65,808,000 for human resource 
management, a reduction of $14,452,000 below the budget 
estimate. Adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows:
    Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) surcharge for 
administrative costs.--As explained in an earlier section of 
this report, the Committee recommendation deletes funds related 
to an administrative surcharge for the Department of Labor's 
costs to administer activities authorized under the Federal 
Employees' Compensation Act (commonly known as worker's 
compensation). This results in a reduction of $4,353,000 below 
the budget estimate.
    Human resource information system.--The Committee 
recommendation defers further implementation of the human 
resource information system due to weak justification and 
higher budgetary priorities. This results in a reduction of 
$4,600,000 below the budget estimate.
    Strategic alliances.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 
for strategic alliances, a reduction of $5,499,000 below the 
budget estimate. The following table compares the budget 
estimate to the Committee recommendation for various components 
of the strategic alliances budget activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee
            Activity                Budget estimate       recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall effectiveness of HRM              $8,697,000          $4,000,000
 program........................
Employee assistance program.....           1,550,000           1,550,000
Labor relations.................           4,242,000           4,000,000
Organizational development and             1,010,000             450,000
 performance improvement........
                                 ---------------------------------------
      Total.....................          15,499,000          10,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Personnel reform.--The Committee remains concerned that 
personnel reform has not achieved many of its original 
objectives. For example, the agency was expected to replace the 
general schedule personnel and compensation system with one 
that would be centered on merit reviews rather than automatic 
increases based on cost of living adjustments or time in grade. 
It was hoped that this would allow the FAA to reward the 
highest performers in the agency and provide incentives for 
improvement among weak performers. Unfortunately, while the 
agency still has the flexibility to design such a system, the 
large majority of pay increases remain automatic in nature. For 
example, funds are still included for the government-wide pay 
increase, although the agency has the flexibility to base such 
awards on merit. More than 12,000 agency employees still 
receive automatic within grade increases, even after the agency 
has tried to migrate to a performance-based compensation 
system. The Committee encourages FAA to review opportunities to 
reduce the use of automatic pay raises in the hopes of 
providing a stronger linkage between pay and performance within 
the agency. In addition, the Committee directs the Office of 
Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 
FAA's implementation of personnel reform, including the extent 
to which the agency has substituted merit-based pay raises for 
automatic increases, improved the matching of pay to 
performance, and met the other goals of personnel reform.

                           FINANCIAL SERVICES

    The Committee recommends $46,782,000 for the office of 
financial services, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget 
estimate. The Committee is disturbed to hear that the FAA 
continues to have problems in contracts management, and fails 
to adequately utilize the services of the Defense Contract 
Audit Agency to help the agency locate contract savings and 
excessive contractor claims. The Committee believes that 
greater use of DCAA will lead to savings at the agency and 
strongly encourages the FAA, once again, to increase the number 
of pre- and post-award contract audits. The recommendation 
assumes savings from this increased volume of audits.

                             STAFF OFFICES

    The Committee recommends $81,840,000 for staff offices, a 
reduction of $3,050,000 below the budget estimate. The 
Committee's review of staffing in the office of the 
administrator and deputy administrator and the office of public 
affairs indicate several positions which can be eliminated. The 
FAA should also look carefully at executive positions detailed 
to other federal agencies, to determine whether it would be 
appropriate for the receiving agency to provide reimbursement 
for those positions. The recommendation includes a reduction of 
$400,000 in these areas. Additional adjustments are as follows:
    Policy/planning office.--The recommendation includes a 
reduction of $1,750,000 in this office, which freezes the 
filling of 26 positions which were vacant at the time of this 
year's budget hearing. The Committee notes that the staffing of 
this office includes 30 economists, of which 6 are economists 
studying the aviation industry. The Committee believes that, 
given budget constraints, funds to fill these and other vacant 
policy and planning positions can be temporarily deferred.
    Office of system safety staffing.--The recommendation 
includes a reduction of $500,000 in staffing costs for the 
office of system safety.
    International aviation offices.--The recommendation 
includes an additional $500,000 for the operational costs of 
FAA's overseas offices. The Committee continues to support the 
work of these offices in promoting U.S. aviation safety 
interests overseas. Of these funds, $250,000 shall be allocated 
to FAA's European office in Brussels, Belgium and $250,000 
shall be allocated to the Asia-Pacific office in Singapore.

        OFFICE OF INFORMATION SERVICES/CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

    The recommendation includes $29,650,000 for the office of 
information services, the same as the budget estimate. This is 
a new budget activity for fiscal year 2003. Previously, funds 
for this office were included under ``Staff offices''.

                        ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

    The recommendation includes a reduction of $34,463,000 in 
accountwide adjustments, as described below:
    Staffing adjustment.--The recommendation includes a 
reduction of $10,000,000 due to slow hiring in fiscal year 
2002. The budget request assumes the continuation of personnel 
compensation and benefits for a baseline of 43,865 on board 
staff at the end of fiscal year 2002. However, information 
submitted for this year's budget hearing indicated that the 
agency was 900 short of meeting this goal. Given the delays in 
providing supplemental funding and the President's decision not 
to release contingent amounts--including funds for FAA's 
operating budget--the Committee does not believe FAA will be 
able to meet its hiring goals for fiscal year 2002. These 
delays indicate a lower budgetary requirement for fiscal year 
2003, as costs will not need to be annualized for the full 
fiscal year.
    Contract maintenance.--The bill includes $134,474,000 for 
contract maintenance, a reduction of $21,258,000 below the 
budget estimate. Without adequate justification, the budget 
estimate included $155,732,000, an increase of 27.6 percent 
over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The recommendation 
includes a 10 percent increase in these costs.
    Travel.--For several years, the Committee has been 
encouraging FAA to minimize its travel costs. While initial 
budgetary estimates appear to be responsive to this request, 
the Committee is concerned that end-of-year actual costs are 
greatly exceeding the initial estimates. For example, last 
year, the agency's estimate of travel costs for fiscal year 
2002 was $121,975,000. However, despite a hiring freeze and 
serious budget shortfalls in fiscal year 2002, the agency is 
now projecting travel expenses of $132,000,000. This comes on 
the heels of an $18,115,000 (17.4 percent) increase in agency 
travel for fiscal year 2001. This performance causes the 
Committee to question the internal controls and monitoring of 
travel costs within the agency. The recommendation includes a 
reduction of $1,064,000 in travel costs, to encourage the 
agency to monitor these costs more effectively.
    FAA/DOT library TASC charges.--It is the Committee's 
understanding that, despite FAA's proposal to close the FAA 
Library due to limited usage, the Transportation Administrative 
Service Center has denied this proposal and intends to bill FAA 
$2,141,000 in fiscal year 2003 for operations of that library 
and FAA's share of funding for the DOT Library in the Nassif 
building. The Committee believes TASC managers should be more 
responsive to the proposals of its customers, and should 
investigate carefully whether, in the age of e-government and 
e-commerce, the DOT Library should be downsized or eliminated 
entirely. The Committee recommendation does not include the 
$2,141,000 budgeted for these activities, and directs FAA not 
to pay TASC for such charges.
    OST assessments.--Even though the Committee directed two 
years ago that assessments only be charged by the office of the 
secretary for administrative activities, and not policy 
initiatives, a review of recent charges indicates the 
department is still not adhering to this direction. For 
example, in fiscal year 2000 FAA was charged for an open skies 
conference, an international symposium, and the DOT Center for 
Climate Change. In fiscal year 2002, FAA is being charged for 
an OST delay study ($125,000). These can hardly be classified 
as administrative activities. Last year, the Committee directed 
FAA not to pay such charges in the future, and to notify the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations if such proposals 
are made. However, obviously these improper cross-charges are 
still occurring. The FAA is directed, once again, not to fund 
policy-related assessments.

                             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 2003.
    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 request.
    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 2002.
    Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill maintains 
the provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used 
to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C;) 
activities through the transportation administrative services 
center (TASC). Public Law 106-181 authorizes the transfer of 
these activities from the Department of Commerce to the FAA, a 
move which the Committee supports. The Committee believes this 
work should be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively 
delegated to the TASC.

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)



Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\..................     $3,007,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.....................      2,981,022,000
Recommended in the bill..............................      2,981,022,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................        -33,978,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................  .................
\1\ Includes rescission of $15,000,000 and emergency supplemental
  appropriations totaling $108,500,000.

    The Facilities and Equipment (F&E;) appropriation is the 
principal means for modernizing and improving air traffic 
control and airway facilities. The appropriation 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 $2,981,022,000 
for this program, an decrease of $33,978,000 (1.1 percent) 
below the level provided for fiscal year 2002 and the same as 
the budget estimate. The amount proposed is required and 
guaranteed by Public Law 106-181. The bill provides that of the 
total amount recommended, not to exceed $2,559,904,000 is 
available for obligation until September 30, 2005, and 
$421,118,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is 
available until September 30, 2003. These obligation 
availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts and 
the same as the budget request.
    The following table shows the fiscal year 2003 budget 
estimate and the Committee recommendation for each of the 
projects funded by this appropriation:

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
                        (in thousands of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Budget         Committee
                                            estimate       recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety...............       $403,340.0       $484,214.2
    Terminal Business Unit............        141,000.0        151,183.0
    Aviation Weather Services                  23,440.0         23,440.0
     Improvements.....................
    Low Level Windshear Alert System            1,600.0          1,600.0
     (LLWAS)--Upgrade.................
    Aviation Safety Analysis System            21,700.0         15,000.0
     (ASAS)...........................
    Integrated Flight Quality                     500.0            500.0
     Assurance (IFQA).................
    Safety Performance Analysis                 2,100.0          2,100.0
     Subsystem (SPAS).................
    Performance Enhancement Systems             2,600.0          2,600.0
     (PENS)...........................
    Safe Flight 21....................         29,800.0         40,000.0
    Advanced Technology Development            41,100.0         43,100.0
     and Prototyping..................
    Aircraft Related Equipment Program         16,000.0         16,000.0
    National Aviation Safety Data               2,000.0          2,000.0
     Analysis Center (NASDAC).........
    Louisville, KY technology                       0.0         10,000.0
     demonstration....................
    Explosive Detection Technology....        121,500.0        176,691.2
Improve Efficiency of the Air Traffic         914,185.5        879,885.3
 Control System.......................
    Terminal Business Unit............        551,035.5        516,280.3
    Aeronautical Data Link (ADL)               33,200.0         33,200.0
     Applications.....................
    Free Flight Phase 2...............        106,200.0        106,200.0
    Air Traffic Management (ATM)......         13,000.0         13,000.0
    Free Flight Phase 1...............         39,900.0         36,600.0
    Automated Surface Observing System         12,100.0         12,755.0
     (ASOS)...........................
    Next Generation Very High                  71,100.0         71,100.0
     Frequency Air/Ground
     Communications System (NEXCOM)...
    En Route Automation Program.......         71,050.0         71,050.0
    Weather and Radar Processor (WARP)         13,600.0         13,600.0
    ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network          1,100.0          1,100.0
    NAS Management Automation Program           1,990.0              0.0
     (NASMAP).........................
    New York Integrated Control                     0.0          5,000.0
     Complex..........................
Increase Capacity of the NAS..........        353,500.0        394,875.0
    Navigation and Landing Aids.......        249,800.0        291,175.0
    Oceanic Automation System.........         87,400.0         87,400.0
    Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program...          2,300.0          2,300.0
    Voice Switching and Control System         14,000.0         14,000.0
     (VSCS)...........................
    Imrpove Reliability of the NAS....        443,410.0        434,010.0
    Guam Center Radar Approach Control          5,000.0          5,000.0
     (CERAP)--Relocate................
    Terminal Voice Switch Replacement/          6,200.0          6,200.0
     Enhanced TVS.....................
    Airport Cable Loop Systems--                4,000.0          4,000.0
     Sustained Support................
    En Route Automation Program.......        142,800.0        142,800.0
    ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant          40,200.0         40,200.0
     Improvements.....................
    Air Traffic Management (ATM)......         24,500.0         24,500.0
    Critical Telecommunication Support          1,000.0          1,000.0
    FAA Telecommunications Infrasturce         46,600.0         46,600.0
    Air/Ground Communications                  22,800.0         22,800.0
     Infrasturce......................
    Voice Recorder Replacement Program          3,300.0          7,000.0
     (VRRP)...........................
    NAS Infrastructure Management              29,100.0         16,000.0
     System (NIMS)....................
    Flight Service Station (FSS)                5,700.0          5,700.0
     Modernization....................
    FSAS Operational and                       19,710.0         19,710.0
     Supportability Implementation
     System (OASIS)...................
    Weather Message Switching Ctr               2,000.0          2,000.0
     Replacement (WMSCR)..............
    Flight Service Station Switch              13,200.0         13,200.0
     Modernization....................
    Alaskan NAS Interfacility                   2,900.0          2,900.0
     Communications System (ANICS)....
    Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/         50,700.0         50,700.0
     Support..........................
    NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM)          9,400.0          9,400.0
    Aeronautical Center Infrastructure         11,700.0         11,700.0
     Modernization....................
    Frequency and Spectrum Engineering          2,600.0          2,600.0
Improve the Efficiency of Mission             444,019.5        444,919.5
 Support..............................
    NAS Improvement of System Support           2,700.0          2,700.0
     Laboratory.......................
    Technical Center Facilities.......         12,000.0         12,000.0
    Technical Center Building and               3,000.0          3,000.0
     Plant Support....................
    En Route Communications and                 1,058.0          1.058.0
     Control Facilities Improvements..
    DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer.......          1,200.0          1,200.0
    Terminal Communications--Improve..          1,249.3          1,249.3
    Flight Service Facilities                   1,223.2          1,223.2
     Improvement......................
    Navigation and Landing Aids--               5,034.0          5,034.0
     Improve..........................
    FAA Buildings and Equipment.......         11,000.0         11,000.0
    Air Navigational Aids and ATC               2,100.0          2,100.0
     Facilities (Local Projects)......
    Modernization.....................          2,800.0          2,800.0
    Information Technology Integration          1,600.0          1,600.0
    Operational Data Management System         10,300.0          3,000.0
     (ODMS)...........................
    Logistics Support Systems and               9,300.0          5,000.0
     Facilities (LSSF)................
    Test Equipment--Maintenance                 1,700.0          1,700.0
     Support for Replacement..........
    Facility Security Risk Management.         37,300.0         25,000.0
    Information Security..............         13,291.0         13,291.0
    Distance Learning.................          1,300.0          1,300.0
    Natioal Airspace System (NAS)               2,300.0          2,300.0
     Training Facilities..............
    System Engineering and Development         25,800.0         25,800.0
     Support..........................
    Program Support Leases............         38,400.0         38,400.0
    Logistics Support Services (LSS)..          7,500.0          7,500.0
    Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center--        14,600.0         14,600.0
     Leases...........................
    In-Plant NAS Contract Support               2,900.0          2,900.0
     Services.........................
    Transition Engineering Support....         39,000.0         37,000.0
    FAA Corporate Systems Architecture          1,000.0          1,000.0
    Technical Support Services                 46,700.0         46,700.0
     Contract (TSSC)..................
    Resource Tracking Program (RTP)...          3,700.0          3,700.0
    Center for Advanced Aviation               81,364.0         81,364.0
     Systems Development..............
    Operational Evolution Plan........          1,000.0          1,000.0
    NAS Facilities OSHA and                    32,600.0         28,400.0
     Environmental Standards
     Compliance.......................
    Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and           8,500.0          8,500.0
     Monitoring.......................
    Hazardous Materials Management....         20,500.0         20,500.0
    Research Aircraft Replacement.....              0.0         25,000.0
Personnel, Compensation, Benefits, and        441,118.0        421,118.0
 Travel...............................
    Personnel and Related Expenses....        441,118.0        421,118.0
Accountwide Adjustments...............        -18,551.0        -70,000.0
    NAS Handoff--Transfer to Operating              0.0        -70,000.0
     Expenses.........................
    CSRS/FEHBP accruals...............        -18,551.0              0.0
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................      2,981,022.0      2,981,022.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This year, the FAA has proposed a new budget structure for 
this appropriation. On the one hand, this proposal allows one 
to more clearly monitor the allocation of resources among 
important missions of the agency such as safety and system 
efficiency. However, the elimination of categories designed to 
focus attention on the development status and technical risk of 
programs raises the possibility that more programs will proceed 
into the acquisition phase when they are not ready to do so. 
This type of inadequate management control was a significant 
failure of the agency in past years, the legacy of which should 
not be forgotten by the agency. While the Committee has 
approved the new budgetary structure, the Committee is mindful 
of the risks in this new system, and will monitor the situation 
closely.

                        IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

    The Committee recommends $484,214,200 for programs and 
activities designed to improve aviation safety. This is 
$78,874,200 more than the budget estimate. The Committee 
continues to place its highest priority on aviation safety 
programs, and has reallocated funding from other areas of FAA's 
capital budget to reflect this priority.
    Terminal business unit.--The Committee recommends 
$151,183,000 for programs under this budget activity of the 
terminal business unit. The following table compares the 
Committee recommendation to the budget estimate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Budget         Committee
                                            estimate       recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXRAD upgrade........................       $9,100,000       $9,100,000
Terminal doppler weather radar........        7,700,000        5,700,000
Airport surface detection equipment          10,000,000       10,000,000
 (ASDE)...............................
AMASS.................................       21,700,000       14,583,000
Weather systems processor.............        2,200,000        2,200,000
ASDE-X................................       90,300,000      109,600,000
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................      141,000,000      151,183,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airport movement areas safety system (AMASS).--The 
recommendation defers a portion of pre-planned product 
improvements and human factors modifications, a reduction of 
$7,117,000 below the budget estimate.
    ASDE-X.--The recommendation provides $109,600,000 for 
continued acquisition and installation of low-cost ASDE 
systems, an increase of $14,300,000 above the budget estimate. 
The following sites are included for funding:

St. Louis, MO
Los Angeles, CA
Dallas, TX
Chicago, IL
Louisville, KY
Memphis, TN
Atlanta, GA
Houston, TX (Hobby)
Hartford, CT
San Jose, CA
San Antonio, TX
Sacramento, CA
Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, FL
Honolulu, HI
Oakland, CA
Washington Dulles, VA

    The Committee continues to support the ASDE-X system, and 
encourages FAA to consider modifications of the system which 
would allow cost-effective deployment of the system at medium- 
and small-sized airports. The original premise of this program 
was to expand the applications of runway incursion technology, 
not just replace the aging ASDE-3 radar system at major 
international airports. The Committee also notes that a large 
percentage of runway incursions occur at medium and small 
airports.
    Aviation safety analysis system.--This request includes 17 
separate ADP subsystem upgrades in the areas of aviation 
medicine, safety, and security. The recommendation deletes or 
defers low priority ADP upgrades which can be phased more 
slowly in order to fund higher priority activities. The 
Committee's recommendation includes no funding for the joint 
vulnerability analysis system. If worthwhile, this activity 
should be requested by the Transportation Security 
Administration.
    Safe flight 21.--The Committee recommends $40,000,000, an 
increase of $10,200,000 above the budget estimate. Of the funds 
provided, $18,600,000 is for the Ohio River Valley Project, 
$19,900,000 is for Project Capstone; and $1,500,000 is for 
development of standards for automatic dependent surveillance-
broadcast (ADS-B).
    Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The 
Committee recommends $43,100,000, to be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Budget         Committee
                                            estimate       recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runway incursion......................       $6,700,000       $6,700,000
Aviation system capacity improvement..        6,300,000        4,000,000
Separation standards..................        2,200,000        2,200,000
Airspace management laboratory........        4,600,000        4,600,000
GA/vertical flight technology.........        1,000,000        1,000,000
Operational concept validation........        2,500,000               --
Software engineering..................        1,000,000        1,000,000
NAS requirements development..........        3,000,000               --
WAAS..................................        3,100,000        3,100,000
LAAS..................................        2,800,000        2,800,000
Domestic RVSM.........................        2,200,000        4,200,000
Development system assurance..........        2,700,000               --
Safer skies...........................        3,000,000               --
Lithium technologies..................               --        1,000,000
Phased array radar technology.........  ...............        3,000,000
Airport research......................  ...............        7,500,000
Fogeye................................  ...............        2,000,000
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................       41,100,000       43,100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aviation system capacity improvement.--The recommendation 
reduces funding for several studies. The Committee believes 
that some of these activities, such as development of 
performance measures for the air traffic system and expansion 
of data collection efforts for performance measurement, can and 
should be conducted as a routine management expense of the 
agency through its operating budget, and not as a capital 
expense.
    Unjustified requests.--The Committee has deleted funds for 
``operational concept validation'' (-$2,500,000) and 
``development system assurance'' (-$2,700,000) due to lack of 
justification.
    NAS requirements development.--The Committee deletes the 
$3,000,000 requested for NAS requirements development, and 
suggests the agency pursue this type of activity through air 
traffic requirements activities funded in the operating budget.
    Domestic reduced vertical separation minima.--The Committee 
recommends $4,200,000 for domestic reduced vertical separation 
minima (RVSM). The additional $2,000,000 provided is for final 
installation of a specialized ground-based system to estimate 
the geometric height of aircraft. Installations should be 
located at sites in the United States where there is a high 
volume of general aviation aircraft being tested, flown, and 
serviced.
    Safer skies.--The recommendation deletes the $3,000,000 
requested for this activity. Funding of $10,000,000 is provided 
for this project under FAA ``Operations''. The Committee 
believes this is sufficient to sustain this effort in fiscal 
year 2003.
    Lithium technologies.--The recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for the deployment of lithium technologies to 
prevent and mitigate alkali-silica reactivity.
    Phased array radar technology.--The bill includes 
$3,000,000 to continue the collaborative effort between FAA and 
NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory to continue research 
and testing of phased array radar technology and to incorporate 
airport/aircraft tracking and weather information. This is the 
same level of funding as provided for each of the past two 
fiscal years.
    Airport research.--The recommendation includes $7,500,000 
for airport-related technology research. This is essentially 
the same as the $7,457,000 provided for fiscal year 2002. The 
budget requested an increase to $16,429,000, funded out of 
``Grants-in-aid for airports''. The Committee notes that 
research is not an authorized use of grants-in-aid funds, and 
believes this work is more appropriately funded under this 
appropriation.
    Fogeye.--The recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue 
evaluation of emerging technology, known as fogeye, which 
utilizes ultraviolet light, in the solar-blind spectrum, to 
assist in low visibility landings and prevent runway 
incursions. An appropriation of $1,000,000 was made for this 
assessment in fiscal year 2002. An evaluation of this 
technology by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 
dated September 5, 2002 stated: ``The conclusions thus far are 
the technology has considerable merit, and therefore the FogEye 
assessments should continue, as planned, to determine the most 
attractive and effective aviation applications''.
    Louisville, KY technology demonstration.--The bill includes 
$10,000,000 to continue air traffic control technology 
demonstration activities at the Louisville International 
Airport in Kentucky. Funds will be utilized to integrate ADS-B 
technology into the common ARTS IIIE infrastructure, install a 
surface movement management system, acquire a laser-directed 
radar system for enhanced wake vortex research, develop 
procedures for continuous deceleration approaches, install an 
infrared perimeter security system, and provide for the initial 
installation of ADS-B and moving map displays in Kentucky Air 
National Guard C-130 aircraft. The continued integrated 
demonstration and deployment of these new technologies will 
provide valuable insights into improved safety, security, and 
efficiency of the national airspace system.
    Explosive detection technology.--The recommendation 
includes $176,691,200 for explosive detection systems, to be 
transferred to the Transportation Security Administration. This 
is $55,191,200 more than the budget estimate.

          IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

    The Committee recommends $879,885,300 for programs and 
activities designed to improve the efficiency of the air 
traffic control system. This is $39,300,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    Terminal business unit.--The Committee recommends 
$516,280,300 for programs under this budget activity of the 
terminal business unit. The following table compares the 
Committee recommendation to the budget estimate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                                        Budget estimate    recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal automation program (STARS)...     $166,000,000     $151,200,000
ATCBI-6...............................       47,100,000       35,000,000
ATC en route radar facilities                 3,000,000        3,000,000
 improvements.........................
Terminal ATC facilities replacement...      108,600,000      124,100,000
ATC/TRACON facilities improvement.....       52,755,192       44,000,000
Potomac TRACON........................        2,700,000        2,700,000
Northern California TRACON............          200,000          200,000
Dallas/Fort Worth TRACON..............        1,600,000        1,600,000
Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).......      123,400,000       80,000,000
ASR-9 SLEP............................       23,000,000       23,000,000
Mode S provide........................        3,000,000        3,000,000
Terminal applied engineering..........        8,200,000        4,000,000
Precision runway monitors.............        1,000,000       19,000,000
Houston area air traffic system.......        6,000,000        6,000,000
Terminal ASR improvements.............        1,380,304        1,380,300
PCS moves.............................        3,100,000        3,100,000
Transponder landing system (TLS)......  ...............       15,000,000
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................      551,035,496      516,280,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Standard terminal automation replacement system (STARS).--
The recommendation provides $151,200,000 for continued 
implementation of the STARS program. The reduction would defer 
some of the planned growth in system upgrades.
    ATC beacon interrogator-6 (ATCBI-6).--The recommendation 
provides $35,000,000, a reduction of $12,100,000.
    Terminal ATC facilities replacement.--The Committee 
recommends $123,100,000, to be distributed as follows:

Pago Pago, American Samoa...............................        $175,000
Baltimore, MD...........................................       2,088,581
Dulles International Airport, VA........................         600,000
Deer Valley, AZ.........................................         803,196
Memphis, TN.............................................       1,147,000
Portland, OR (Tracon)...................................       5,500,000
Addison Field, TX.......................................       5,700,000
Reno, NV................................................       8,349,000
Fort Wayne, IN..........................................       3,539,000
Newport News, VA........................................       6,400,000
LaGuardia, NY...........................................       9,460,000
St. Louis, MD (Tracon)..................................       1,500,000
Corpus Christi, TX......................................         700,000
Beaumont, TX............................................       1,000,000
Seattle, WA.............................................         550,000
Seattle, WA (Tracon)....................................       4,782,701
Salina, KS..............................................         500,000
Newark, NJ..............................................       3,000,000
Port Columbus, OH.......................................       2,100,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................         255,898
Savannah, GA............................................         919,190
Newburgh, NY............................................       2,065,000
Richmond, VA............................................         550,000
Vero Beach, FL..........................................         878,775
Everett, WA.............................................         925,000
Roanoke, VA.............................................         550,000
Merrimack, NH (BCT).....................................       4,700,000
Phoenix, AZ.............................................      14,107,919
Manchester, NH..........................................         943,609
Wilkes-Barre, PA........................................       2,000,000
Topeka, KS..............................................       1,690,131
Billings, MT............................................       2,120,000
McCarran Intl, NV.......................................       4,000,000
Provo Municipal, NV.....................................       1,000,000
St. Louis Downtown, MO..................................       4,000,000
North Bend Municipal, OR................................       1,500,000
Reno/Tahoe Intl, NV.....................................       5,000,000
Chippewa Valley Regional WI.............................       7,000,000
Wittman Regional, WI....................................       5,000,000
Double Eagle II, NM.....................................       2,000,000
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek, MI..............................       2,000,000
Columbia Metropolitan, SC...............................       2,000,000

    ATC/Tracon facilities improvement.--The recommendation 
includes a reduction of $3,700,000 in regional studies for 
possible facility consolidations and $5,000,000 in facilities 
improvements to accommodate implementation of the STARS system. 
The Committee believes the $24,744,800 remaining for STARS 
facility upgrades is sufficient to address high priority sites 
next year.
    Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends 
$80,000,000 for the troubled terminal digital radar (ASR-11) 
program, a reduction of $43,400,000 below the budget estimate 
but $15,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2002. 
The FAA has not provided the Committee with convincing evidence 
that this program's substantial development problems have been 
resolved.
    Terminal applied engineering.--The Committee recommends 
$4,000,000, the same level as provided for fiscal year 2002.
    Precision runway monitors.--The Committee recommends 
$19,000,000, an increase of $18,000,000 above the budget 
estimate. Currently, precision runway monitors are installed at 
international airports in Minneapolis-St. Paul, St. Louis, and 
Philadelphia. Two other systems are expected to be commissioned 
during fiscal year 2002, in New York City (John F. Kennedy 
International) and San Francisco. The system now being 
installed in San Francisco was originally scheduled for 
installation at Atlanta. However, due to delays in construction 
of the new runway in Atlanta, the FAA agreed to re-site this 
radar system in San Francisco, and authorized manufacture of an 
additional system for Atlanta. However, since that time, the 
requirement for a PRM system in Atlanta has slipped again, 
until at least the year 2005. For this reason, the Committee 
expects the FAA to install the system currently being 
manufactured at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in 
Ohio. Funding is included in this recommendation for those 
activities. In addition, the bill includes funding for the 
acquisition of three additional PRM systems, one of which is to 
be installed at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport in 
Georgia. In past years, the Committee has opposed the 
acquisition of small quantities of this system due to its high 
unit cost. The Committee is pleased that the manufacturer has 
been able to reduce these unit costs, making further 
acquisition affordable.
    Transponder landing system.--The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000, to be distributed as follows:

        Location                                                  Amount
Minden-Tahoe Airport, NV................................      $2,100,000
Omak Airport, WA........................................       2,100,000
Richland Airport, WA....................................       2,100,000
Truckee Tahoe Airport CA................................       2,100,000
Driggs Reed Memorial, ID................................       2,100,000
Sandpoint Airport, ID...................................       2,100,000
LaGrande/Union County, OR...............................       2,100,000
Installation of prior systems...........................         300,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      15,000,000

    Free flight phase one.--A reduction of $3,300,000 is 
recommended to fund other budgetary priorities. The Committee 
directs that none of this reduction shall be allocated to the 
CTAS traffic management advisor--single center (TMA-SC) 
program.
    Automated surface observing system (ASOS).--The Committee 
recommends an additional $655,000, to provide advanced weather 
observing systems in the following locations:

        Location                                                  Amount
West Houston Airport, TX................................        $150,000
Driggs Reed Memorial Airport, ID........................         150,000
Indiana Freeman Municipal Airport, IN...................         355,000

    National airspace management automation program (NASMAP).--
The Committee recommends deferral of the $1,900,000 requested 
for this program due to weak justification and the need to fund 
higher priorities with clearer goals.
    New York integrated control complex.--The bill includes 
$5,000,000 for initial design of an integrated air traffic 
control complex in the New York City area. Such a facility 
could reduce air traffic service inefficiencies currently 
experienced with en route and radar facilities in different 
locations.

           INCREASE CAPACITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

    The Committee recommends $394,875,000 for programs and 
activities designed to increase the capacity of the national 
airspace system. This is $41,375,000 more than the budget 
estimate.
    Navigation and landing aids.--The recommendation includes 
$291,175,000 for navigation and landing aids. A table comparing 
the budget estimate to the Committee recommendation for these 
activities is shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                                        Budget estimate    recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local area augmentation system........      $55,800,000      $55,800,000
Wide area augmentation system.........      110,500,000       98,900,000
VOR/DME...............................        2,200,000        2,200,000
ALSIP.................................        3,200,000       17,575,000
ILS establishment.....................       23,500,000       53,500,000
Runway visual range...................        7,200,000       13,000,000
DME sustain...........................        2,100,000        2,100,000
NDB sustain...........................        1,200,000        1,200,000
Visual navaids (PAPI/REIL)............        8,900,000        8,900,000
VASI replace with PAPI................        6,300,000        6,300,000
IAPA..................................        6,900,000        3,700,000
Navigation & landing aids--SLEP.......        3,000,000        3,000,000
Loran-C...............................       13,000,000       25,000,000
Nationwide differential GPS...........        6,000,000                0
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................      249,800,000      291,175,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).-- The reduction of 
$11,600,000 is based upon program savings realized earlier this 
year when program requirements were changed by the FAA.
    Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).--The 
recommended funding is to be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Location                     Activity            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide........................  Items in budget           $3,200,000
                                     estimate.
Jackson Airport, KY...............  Lighting............         175,000
Somerset Airport, KY..............  Runway lighting.....         500,000
Bowman Field, KY..................  Airfield lighting...         600,000
Max Westheimer, OK................  Install MALSR.......       1,000,000
Nationwide........................  MALSR acquisition...       7,000,000
Nationwide........................  PAPI acquisition....       3,000,000
Nationwide........................  ALSF-2 acquisition..       2,000,000
Newark International, NJ..........  PAPI installation,           100,000
                                     runway 22L.
                                                         ---------------
      Total.......................  ....................      17,575,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acquisition of medium-intensity approach lighting system 
with runway indicator lights.--For many years, the FAA has been 
acquiring medium-intensity approach lighting systems with 
runway indicator lights. Originally sole-sourced, this product 
now has multiple manufacturing candidates. The Committee 
encourages FAA to consider recompeting this product, in order 
to assure the agency the opportunity for cost savings.
    Instrument landing system establishment.--The 
recommendation includes $53,500,000 for establishment of 
instrument landing systems (ILS). Funding includes an 
additional $7,325,000 for the national ILS replacement program 
and $22,675,000 for specific ILS locations as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Location                     Activity            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Arthur-Fayette Field, AL..  Install ILS.........        $500,000
Rickenbacker Intl, OH.............  Install ILS.........         750,000
Stuttgart Municipal, AR...........  Purchase and install       2,000,000
                                     ILS.
Plymouth Municipal, MA............  Install ILS on               600,000
                                     runway 06.
Lambert St. Louis Intl, MO........  Navigation aids.....       3,750,000
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, OH..  Navigation aids for        4,000,000
                                     new runway.
Pangborn Memorial, WA.............  Install ILS.........       2,100,000
Winder Barrow Airport, GA.........  Purchase and install         500,000
                                     ILS.
LaGuardia International, NY.......  Purchase/install           1,000,000
                                     glideslope.
Talladega Municipal, AL...........  Purchase/install ILS         500,000
Auburn-Opelika Municipal, AL......  Purchase/install             750,000
                                     glideslope.
Mena Intermountain Regional, AR...  Install, Loc/Gldslp;       1,225,000
                                     NDB; OM.
Napa County Airport, CA...........  Install glideslope..       1,000,000
Hayward (Sawyer County), WI.......  Purchase/install ILS       2,000,000
Robert Gray AAF, TX...............  Purchase/install ILS       2,000,000
                                                         ---------------
      Total.......................  ....................      22,675,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Runway visual range (RVR).--The Committee recommends 
$13,000,000, an increase of $5,800,000 above the budget 
estimate. The additional funds are for continued acquisition of 
next generation RVR systems ($5,000,000) and for installation 
of a runway visual range visibility instrument at Westchester 
County Airport in New York ($800,000).
    Instrument approach procedures automation (IAPA).--The 
Committee recommends $3,700,000, a reduction of $3,200,000 
below the budget estimate. The recommendation holds such costs 
to the level approved for fiscal year 2002.
    Loran-C.--The committee continues to support the 
modernization of the Loran-C navigation system, and recommends 
$25,000,000, an increase of $12,000,000 above the budget 
estimate. The Committee remains disappointed that FAA proposes 
to reduce funding for this initiative each year in order to 
fund lower-priority activities.
    Nationwide differential GPS.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for this project, a savings of $6,000,000 from the 
budget estimate. The Committee has long questioned the merits 
of this effort, which has been budgeted, at one time or 
another, in virtually all of the modal administrations, 
including the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal 
Railroad Administration, the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, the United States Coast Guard, and now the 
Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee wonders how any 
program could be managed effectively with such frenetic 
activity, and takes this as a sign that experts in DOT question 
the need and value of the program. The value of this effort to 
FAA is far from clear, and use of trust fund revenues, paid by 
air travelers, for an activity with minimal relevance to air 
travel seems highly inappropriate.

          IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

    The Committee recommends $434,010,000 for programs and 
activities designed to increase the reliability of the national 
airspace system. This is $9,400,000 below the $3,700,000 above 
the budget estimate.
    NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS).--The Committee 
recommends that funding for this effort be held to the level 
provided for fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $13,100,000 below 
the budget estimate.

               IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF MISSION SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $411,919,500 for programs and 
activities designed to increase the efficiency of FAA's support 
services for capital programs. This is $32,100,000 below the 
budget estimate.
    Operational data management system.--The Committee 
recommends that funding for this effort be held to the level 
provided for fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $7,300,000 below 
the budget estimate.
    Logistics support systems and facilities.--The Committee 
recommends that funding for this effort be held to the level 
provided for fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $4,300,000 below 
the budget estimate.
    Facility security risk management.--The Committee 
recommends $25,000,000, a reduction of $12,300,000. The 
recommendation deletes funding for guard services, as such 
funding would be provided with operation funds (-$7,300,000), 
and lowers funding for building upgrades in recognition of 
significant funding provided in fiscal year 2002 (-$5,000,000).
    Transition engineering support.--The Committee recommends 
$37,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 to fund higher priority 
activities.
    Technical services support contract (TSSC).--The Committee 
recommends $44,700,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 available 
from contract savings experienced in the program.
    NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards 
compliance.--The bill includes $28,400,000, a reduction of 
$4,200,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation holds 
these costs to the fiscal year 2002 level due to budget 
constraints.
    Flight management system procedures, Newark and Teterboro 
Airports, NJ.--The Committee acknowledges the important ongoing 
work of Mitrie's Center for Advanced Aviation Systems 
Development (CAASD) in developing RNAV/flight management system 
procedures for Newark and Teterboro Airports in New Jersey. 
These procedures will be the foundation for the New Jersey/New 
York airspace redesign and the use of ``free flight'' 
technologies. The Committee expects FAA to continue using CAASD 
to develop RNAV procedures for Newark, Teterboro, John F. 
Kennedy International, LaGuardia International, and other 
airports where new runways are planned or under construction. 
The Committee supports the use of up to $1,000,000 in funding 
for this important work in fiscal year 2003.
    Research aircraft replacement.--The bill includes 
$25,000,000 to acquire a replacement for the 33-year old B-727 
research and development aircraft stationed at the FAA 
Technical Center in New Jersey. The FAA has been attempting to 
replace the current obsolete aircraft for some time, and 
maintenance expenses and downtime are rising rapidly. The 
Committee believes this is a high priority acquisition project 
that can no longer be deferred.

                  PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

    The Committee recommends $421,118,000 for personnel 
compensation and benefits costs related to FAA's acquisition 
personnel. This is $20,000,000 below the budget estimate. This 
includes a reduction of $18,551,000 to delete funding for the 
accruing costs of federal employee retirement and health care 
expenses, as explained in an earlier section of this report.

                        ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

    National airspace (NAS) handoff.--The Committee recommends 
a transfer of $70,000,000 from this appropriation to the 
agency's operations budget for NAS handoff costs, as explained 
under ``Operations''. These costs are appropriately budgeted as 
an operating expense of the agency, not a capital expense.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Capital investment plan.--The bill continues to require the 
submission of a five year capital investment plan.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\..................       $245,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.....................        124,000,000
Recommended in the bill..............................        138,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................       -107,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................       +14,000,000
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations.

    This appropriation provides funding for long-term research, 
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic 
control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, 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 $138,000,000, a decrease of 
$107,000,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and 
$14,000,000 above the President's budget request. The reduction 
below the fiscal year 2002 funding level is largely due to the 
transfer of aviation security research from FAA to the 
Transportation Security Administration. This activity received 
$94,511,000 in funding in fiscal year 2002.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2003 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                             RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Committee
                             Program                               2002 enacted   2003 estimated    recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
    Reduce commercial aviation fatalities:
        Fire research and safety................................      $5,242,000      $6,429,000      $5,500,000
        Propulsion and Fuel systems.............................       5,998,000       3,998,000       5,998,000
        Advanced materials/structural safety....................       1,338,000       1,374,000       1,374,000
        Flight safety/atmospheric hazards.......................       4,494,000       3,101,000       6,000,000
        Aging aircraft..........................................      26,600,000      20,974,000      19,131,000
        Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention................       2,794,000       1,920,000       1,920,000
        Flightdeck safety/systems integration...................       8,003,000       8,411,000       8,411,000
    Reduce general aviation fatalities:
        Propulsion and fuel systems.............................       2,570,000       1,713,000       1,713,000
        Advanced materials/structural safety....................       1,636,000       1,679,000       1,679,000
        Flight safety/atmospheric hazards.......................       1,926,000       1,329,000       1,329,000
        Aging aircraft..........................................       6,400,000       5,243,000      10,243,000
        Flightdeck safety/systems integration...................       1,903,000       2,000,000       2,000,000
Aviation System Safety:
    Aviation safety risk analysis...............................       5,784,000       6,926,000       5,784,000
    ATC/AF human factors........................................       8,500,000      10,317,000       8,098,000
    Aeromedical research........................................       6,121,000       6,603,000       6,603,000
    Weather research............................................      13,877,000      19,406,000      19,406,000
Improve Efficiency of the ATC System:
    Weather research efficiency.................................       9,791,000       9,099,000       6,000,000
Reduce Environmental Impacts:
    Environment and energy......................................      22,081,000       7,698,000      22,100,000
Improve Mission Efficiency:
    System planning and resource management.....................       1,200,000       1,459,000       1,000,000
    Technical laboratory facilities.............................      12,250,000       6,455,000       6,455,000
    Strategic partnerships......................................         400,000         610,000               0
System Security Technology:
    Explosives and weapons technology...........................      32,624,000               0               0
    Airport security technology integration.....................       2,084,000               0               0
    Aviation security human factors.............................       5,163,000               0               0
    Aircraft hardening..........................................       4,640,000               0               0
    Information system security.................................       2,581,000               0               0
Accountwide Adjustment:
    CSRS/FEHBP accruals.........................................               0      -2,744,000      -2,744,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     195,000,000     124,000,000     138,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

    Fire research and safety.--The Committee recommends 
$5,500,000, a reduction of $929,000 below the budget estimate. 
The reduction would allow a smaller rate of increase over the 
fiscal year 2002 enacted funding.
    Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee recommendation 
includes an additional $2,000,000 to continue the work of the 
specialty metals processing consortium, an activity which has 
been funded for many years.
    Flight safety/atmosphere hazards research.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue the development 
of in-flight simulator training for commercial pilots at the 
Roswell Industrial Center in New Mexico.
    Aging aircraft.--The Committee recommendations includes 
$5,000,000 for new flight safety research equipment at the 
National Institute for Aviation Research.

                         AVIATION SYSTEM SAFETY

    Aviation safety risk analysis and air traffic control/
airways facilities human factors.--The Committee recommends 
funding at or slightly below the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
funding level for these two activities.

        IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

    Weather research efficiency.--The Committee recommends 
$6,000,000 for this activity, a reduction of $3,099,000 due to 
budget constraints.

                      REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

    The Committee recommends $22,100,000 for this activity, an 
increase of $14,402,000 above the budget estimate. Of the funds 
provided, $850,000 is for a study of the effectiveness of 
current research in aircraft noise reduction technology, to be 
conducted by the Louisville Regional Airport Authority in 
Kentucky. Also included is the funding requested by the FAA for 
updating noise and emission models and $15,000,000 to speed up 
the introduction of lower noise aircraft technologies. Within 
the funding provided, FAA is directed to conduct, in concert 
with an affected airport, a further study of low frequency 
aircraft noise. The flaws identified with the previous low 
frequency noise impact study should be corrected with this 
follow-on study.

                       IMPROVE MISSION EFFICIENCY

    System planning and resource management.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000. The reduction is due to budget 
constraints.
    Strategic partnerships.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for this project in fiscal year 2003, a reduction of 
$610,000 below the budget estimate. This is similar to the 
Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 2002. The Committee 
continues to believe that this is a low priority activity that 
can be deferred.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                                    Liquidation of
                                       contract          Limitation on
                                     authorization        obligations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002       $1,800,000,000    ($3,300,000,000)
 \1\............................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003       3,100,000,000     (3,400,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.........       3,100,000,000     (3,400,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year        +1,300,000,000      (+100,000,000)
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................
\1\ Excludes $175,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations and a
  $301,720,000 rescission of contract authority.

    The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 
$3,100,000,000 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, airport program 
administration, and other authorized activities. This is the 
same as requested in the President's budget and $1,300,000,000 
above the level enacted for fiscal year 2002.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$3,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2003. This is the same as the 
President's budget request and $100,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 2002 level. This level of funding is required by Public 
Law 106-181 and protected by points of order in the House.
    A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to 
the fiscal year 2002 levels and the President's budget request 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                        Activity                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2002 enacted      2003 estimate     2003 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula grants:                                             $2,106,200,000     $2,109,100,000     $2,109,100,000
    Primary airports...................................    (1,028,400,000)    (1,028,500,000)    (1,028,500,000)
    Cargo service airports.............................       (96,700,000)       (97,100,000)       (97,100,000)
    Alaska set-aside...................................       (21,100,000)       (21,300,000)       (21,300,000)
    States (general aviation airports).................      (644,600,000)      (647,200,000)      (647,200,000)
    Carryover..........................................      (315,400,000)      (315,000,000)      (315,000,000)
Discretionary grants:                                        1,116,800,000      1,126,800,000      1,126,800,000
    Noise compatibility set-aside......................      (270,600,000)      (274,000,000)      (274,000,000)
    Military airport program set-aside.................       (31,800,000)       (32,200,000)       (32,200,000)
    Reliever set-aside.................................        (5,300,000)        (5,300,000)        (5,300,000)
    Capacity/safety/security/noise set-aside...........      (366,200,000)      (370,800,000)      (370,800,000)
    Remaining discretionary............................      (122,100,000)      (123,600,000)      (123,600,000)
    Returned entitlements..............................      (320,800,000)      (320,800,000)      (320,800,000)
Administration:                                                 57,050,000         68,257,000         62,820,000
    FY 2002 base funding...............................       (57,050,000)       (57,050,000)       (57,050,000)
    PC&B; increases.....................................                N/A        (6,284,000)        (2,647,000)
    Discretionary increases:
        Advisory circular contract.....................                N/A        (1,600,000)          (800,000)
        Airport financial reporting system.............                N/A          (500,000)          (250,000)
        E-government data transfer.....................                N/A        (1,000,000)  .................
        Analysis of PFC program........................                N/A          (300,000)          (300,000)
        Environmental streamlining.....................                N/A        (1,773,000)        (1,773,000)
Small community air service............................         20,000,000  .................              (\1\)
Airport technology research............................              (\2\)         16,429,000              (\3\)
Essential air service..................................  .................         83,000,000              (\4\)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................  .................  .................  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recommendation includes $20,000,000 under Federal Aviation Administration.
\2\ Airport Technology Research was funded under ``Facilities and equipment'' in fiscal year 2002 at a level of
  $7,457,000.
\3\ Recommendation includes $7,500,000 under ``Facilities and equipment''.
\4\ Recommendation includes $50,000,000 under ``Office of the secretary''.

                          DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

    Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, 
$1,126,800,000 is available for discretionary grants to 
airports. This is $10,000,000 more than provided for fiscal 
year 2002. Within this obligation limitation, the Committee 
directs that priority be given to grant applications involving 
further development of the following airports:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Airport name                       State                    Project description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbeville Municipal Airport....................           AL   Land acquisition; runway overlay/extension.
Andalusia/Opp Municipal Airport................           AL   Overlay airport pavement surfaces.
Atmore, AL (Escambia County) Airport...........           AL   Improvements to safety zones, land acquisitions
                                                                for approaches, construction of additional
                                                                apron--removal of obstructions, construction of
                                                                new taxiway/apron, conduct repairs.
Craig Field Airport............................           AL   Overlay runway and construct parallel taxiway.
Dothan Regional Airport........................           AL   Runway safety area improvements--runway 14.
Fairhope Municipal Airport.....................           AL   Runway replacement & conversion of existing
                                                                runway to taxiway..
Headline Municipal Airport.....................           AL   Land acquisition; runway/taxiway extension.
Huntsville International Airport...............           AL   Phase III of air cargo apron expansion, including
                                                                grade,base, pave, and drainage improvements;
                                                                complete final phase of intermodal transit
                                                                facility, including completion of air cargo
                                                                building and associated ramp to provide truck
                                                                access.
Jackson Airport................................           AL   Eliminate safety violations; construction; land
                                                                acquisition.
Lamar County Airport...........................           AL   Runway resurfacing improvements.
Lawrence County Airport........................           AL   Runway rehabilitation--runway 13/31.
Madison County Executive Airport...............           AL   Security fencing; drainage improvements; land
                                                                acquisition; parallel taxiway.
Mobile Airport Authority.......................           AL   Runway construction/rehabilitation; ramp repair/
                                                                rehabilitation.
Montgomery Regional Airport (Dannelly Field)...           AL   Third and final phase of major renovation to
                                                                passenger terminal building.
Oneonta Airport................................           AL   Runway extension.
Ozark Airport..................................           AL   Land acquisition for runway extension.
Prattville Municipal Airport...................           AL   Runway; aircraft parking apron overlay; airport
                                                                access road.
Richard Arthur-Fayette Field...................           AL   Improvement & extend runway; install ILS & ATIS;
                                                                improve runway markings and fencing.
Roundtree Field Airport........................           AL   Apron expansion.
Weedon Field Airport...........................           AL   Construct parallel taxiway.
American Samoa Airport.........................         Amer   Airport expansion; fuel tank relocation.
                                                       Samoa
Batesville Regional Airport....................           AR   Install localizer--DME; runway lighting; relocate
                                                                hangars; extend taxiway.
Baxter County Regional Airport.................           AR   Runway extension; install instrument landing
                                                                system.
Benton Airport Relocation......................           AR   Relocation of airport to new, donated site.
Blytheville Aeroplex...........................           AR   ILS upgrade; automated weather observation system
                                                                (AWOS); concrete repair and replacement.
Camden Municipal Airport--Harrell Field........           AR   Purchase and upgrade facility for construction of
                                                                a new aircraft manufacturing/repair facility on
                                                                existing airport.
Hot Springs Airport............................           AR   Construction of 14 general aviation hangers and
                                                                an addition to airport terminal.
Jonesboro Municipal Airport....................           AR   Runway extension & strengthening; hangar area
                                                                development; parallel taxiway extension; on-
                                                                field airport rescue station; overlay runway;
                                                                strengthening.
Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport............           AR   Expansion of commercial aviation ramp; expansion
                                                                of terminal; additional taxiway; additional
                                                                freight ramp and taxiway for air cargo; aircraft
                                                                parking.
Deer Valley Airport............................           AZ   Various improvements.
Williams Gateway Airport.......................           AZ   Funds for construction of north ramp taxiway.
San Francisco International Airport............             CA Security enhancements.
Fresno Chandler Downtown Airport...............             CA Historic restoration of terminal.
Livermore Municipal Airport....................             CA Security enhancements.
Fresno Yosemite International Airport..........             CA Runway rehabilitation; upgraded access control
                                                                system; additional staffing and equipment for
                                                                airport public safety team; redesign of
                                                                ticketing/baggage claim areas.
Lampson Airport................................             CA Construction of low-pressure wastewater
                                                                collection system and central pump station to
                                                                send airport's wastewater to treatment plant.
Little River Airport-Mendocino County..........             CA Land acquisition.
Meadows Field Airport..........................             CA Completle runway extension and attendant taxiway
                                                                for runway 30L; master plan; security
                                                                improvements.
Palm Springs International Airport.............             CA CNG fueling station; extend high-pressure natural
                                                                gas pipeline one mile.
Riverside Municipal Airport....................             CA Purchase 14 acres on west side of airport.
Southern California Logistics Airport..........             CA Runway extension.
Stockton Metropolitan Airport..................             CA Construct cargo apron on north side of Runway 11L/
                                                                29R.
Denver International Airport...................             CO Construction of runway 16R-34L.
Crystal River-Citrus County Airport............           FL   Security upgrades: video monitoring electronic
                                                                security access; fencing; ramp lighting.
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport           FL   Develop design and procurement documents for
                                                                automated people mover.
Gainesville Regional Airport...................           FL   Rehabilitation of primary runway; storm water
                                                                drainage; lengthening of secondary runway.
Inverness-Citrus County Airport................           FL   Security upgrades: video monitoring; electronic
                                                                security access; fencing; ramp lighting.
Jacksonville Airport...........................           FL   Taxiway F rehabilitation and extension.
Kissimmee Gateway Airport......................           FL   West aircraft apron and access road.
Miami International Airport....................           FL   Replacement of 41,000 square yard northwest apron
                                                                for aircraft parking; security enhancements.
Orlando International Airport..................           FL   Implement necessary wildlife-attractant
                                                                mitigation; completion of fourth runway.
Orlando Sanford Airport........................           FL   Runway 9R/27L extension; construction of aircraft
                                                                taxiway and pavement areas to access hanger
                                                                complex.
Sanford Airport................................           FL   Airport entrance streetscape improvement;
                                                                installation of landscaping and new
                                                                identification sign at entrance to passenger
                                                                terminals; installation of irrigation system.
St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport           FL   Completion of runway extension.
Cherokee County Airport........................           GA   Land acquisition, site prep, paving for runway
                                                                extension and parallel taxiway.
Glynco Jetport Terminal........................           GA   Renovations to modernize facility for operations
                                                                and security.
Paudling County Airport (proposed).............           GA   Planning and development of airport facility.
Richard Russel Airport.........................           GA   Extend runway; other infrastructure improvements.
Wright Army Airfield...........................           GA   Conversion of airfield to joint use, level II
                                                                airport; repair and upgrade runways, taxiways,
                                                                apons, and facilities.
Ankeny Regional Airport........................           IA   Grading, drainage, paving, marking, lighting of
                                                                south t-hanger apron area and of south t-hanger
                                                                taxiway.
Council Bluffs Municipal Airport...............           IA   Land acquisition for runway development for new
                                                                runway 18/36 to meet airport reference code C-II
                                                                standards.
Eastern Iowa Airport...........................           IA   Rehabilitation of east t-hanger taxiway, west t-
                                                                hanger taxiways, and general aviation apron.
Fairfield Municipal Airport....................           IA   Grading and drainage for new runways and taxiway.
Mason City Municipal Airport...................           IA   Reconstruction of primary runway--17/35.
Newton Municipal Airport.......................           IA   Obstruction removal and new taxiway.
Ottumwa Industrial Airport.....................           IA   Partial parallel taxiway to runway end 31.
Lewis University Airport.......................           IL   Pave new runway 1-19.
South Suburban Airport (proposed)..............           IL   Complete environmental impact statement.
Gary/Chicago Airport...........................           IN   Bituminous overlay for rehabilitation of runway;
                                                                expansion of general use apron.
Forbes Field Airport...........................           KS   Rehabilitation of taxiway C.
Kansas State University Airport................           KS   Rehabilitate apon at training facility.
Newton City/County Airport.....................           KS   Replace aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicle
                                                                (ARFFV).
Wichita Mid-Continent Airport..................           KS   Construct new full-length parallel runway and
                                                                connecting taxiways.
Barkley Regional Airport.......................           KY   Property acquisition to lengthen the secondary
                                                                runway by 1500 ft.
Big Sandy Airport..............................           KY   Runway strengthening.
Bowman Field...................................           KY   Reconstruction of taxiway and apron; upgrade
                                                                airfield visual pilot aids.
Capitol City Airport--Frankfort................           KY   Runway and taxiway overlays; extensions; apron
                                                                rehabilitation.
Elizabethtown Airport (Addington Field)........           KY   Land acquisition for extension of runway 5;
                                                                extension of parallel taxiway.
Harlan County Airport..........................           KY   Runway safety area.
Hawesville-Hancock County Airport..............           KY   Design and construct 4000-foot runway.
Hazard Airport.................................           KY   Runway extension.
Henderson City-County Airport..................           KY   Relocation of taxiway.
Lexington Blue Grass Field.....................           KY   Expansion of air carrier ramp.
London Airport.................................           KY   Runway overlay, taxiway.
Louisville International Airport...............           KY   Acquire properties surrounding airport and
                                                                relocate residents.
Madison County Airport.........................           KY   Runway safety area; runway extension; and
                                                                taxiway.
Madisonville Municipal Airport.................           KY   Widen/extend runway.
Marion/Crittendon County Airport...............           KY   Engineering for phase I development: excavate for
                                                                runway extension/widening.
Marshall Field--Scott County Airport...........           KY   Runway extension; taxiway and apron overlay.
Middlesboro Airport............................           KY   Taxiway and apron.
Monticello Airport.............................           KY   Parallel taxiway.
Mt. Sterling-Montgomery Airport................           KY   Parallel taxiway and safety area.
Pikeville Airport..............................           KY   Pavement overlay.
Pine Knot Airport..............................           KY   Runway extension.
Rowan County Airport...........................           KY   Master plan; environmental analysis; grade and
                                                                drain for replacement airport.
Somerset Airport...............................           KY   400 ft runway extension and overlay.,
Stantion Field--Powell County Airport..........           KY   Fencing.
Stuart Powell Field--Boyle County Airport......           KY   Runway and taxiway overlays and fencing.
West Liberty Airport...........................           KY   Fencing.
Williamsburg/Whitley County Airport............           KY   Grade and pave for new airport.
Baton Rouge Airport............................           LA   Installation of apron drainage system;
                                                                reconstruct taxiway M.
Houma-Terrebonne Airport.......................           LA   Runway upgrades.
Lafayette Regional Airport.....................           LA   Refurbish existing terminal and adjacent ramp,
                                                                air cargo, and maintenance facility; non-revenue
                                                                parking areas; commuter walkways; runway 11/29
                                                                subsidence reclamation.
Louis Armstrong International Airport..........           LA   Airfield safety improvements; terminal apron
                                                                rehabilitation; new aircraft rescue/firefighting
                                                                vehicle; rehabilitate runways 1/19 and 10/28.
Monroe Regional Airport........................           LA   Runway/taxiway lighting repair/upgrade.
Slidell Municipal Airport......................           LA   Reconstruction of airport taxiway.
Cherry Capital Airport.........................           MI   New terminal.
Chippewa County Airport........................           MI   New airport terminal.
Detroit Metropolitan/Wayne County Airport......           MI   Planned redevelopment.
Oakland Internation Airport....................           MI   Acquisition of residences under noise mitigation
                                                                program; sound attentuation of homes; screen
                                                                wall to mitigate noise on north side of airport.
Pellston Regional Airport......................           MI   Renovation of terminal.
Romeo State Airport............................           MI   Develop and expand runways; plan and develop
                                                                navigational aids; plan and develop runway/
                                                                taxiway lighting.
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.....           MN   Deicing pad for runway 12R.
Joplin Airport.................................           MO   New terminal building.
Kansas City International Airport..............           MO   Security upgrades.
Kennett Memorial Airport.......................           MO   Construct new runway--continuation of project.
Lambert St. Louis International Airport........           MO   W-1W expansion project; noise abatement measures.
Maryville Memorial Airport.....................           MO   Expansion master plan.
Springfield/Branson Airport....................           MO   Initiate design for new midfield terminal.
Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport...............           MS   Construction & relocation costs; acquisition of
                                                                land for runway extension.
Jackson International Airport..................           MS   Terminal renovations and airfield improvements,
                                                                including apron replacement and taxiway
                                                                rehabilitation; security upgrades.
Jackson Municipal Airport......................           MS   Terminal renovations and rehabilitation of air
                                                                carrier apron and connecting taxiways.
Helena Regional Airport........................           MT   Remodeling of airport terminal; parking lots;
                                                                entrance roads; increased security.
Anson County Airport...........................            NC  Enhancement of facilities, equipment, and
                                                                infrastructure.
Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport...........            NC  Paving and lighting of facility extension; runway/
                                                                taxiway extension.
Clinton-Sampson County Airport.................            NC  Airfield pavement rehabilitation.
Concord Regional Airport.......................            NC  Land acquisition, design & construction of 1500
                                                                foot runway extension.
Currituck County Airport.......................            NC  Rehabilitate and overlay existing runway.
Harnett County Airport.........................            NC  Runway extension--phase 2.
Johnston County Airport........................            NC  Wetland mitgiation and construction of extended
                                                                RSA.
Michael J. Smith Airport.......................            NC  Extend current runway to 5000 feet.
Monroe Municipal Airport--Union County.........            NC  Installation of gated system of secure fencing.
Morganton-Lenoir Airport.......................            NC  Partial parallel taxiway to runway 21; widen/
                                                                overlay runway 3-21; partial parallel taxiway to
                                                                runway 3.
Rockingham County Airport......................            NC  Runway extension and strengthening.
Stanly County Airport..........................            NC  Apron improvements; fuel farm relocation;
                                                                security fencing; other improvements.
Hickory Regional Airport.......................            NC  Infrastructure Improvements.
Statesville Municipal Airport..................            NC  Acquire land; design/build runway extension;
                                                                complete instrument landing system.
Warren Field Airport...........................            NC  Rehabilitate and overlay existing runway.
Wilmington International Airport...............            NC  Repair and replace deteriorating underground
                                                                drainage pipes; runway clearing.
Bismarck Municipal Airport.....................           ND   Construct new terminal; expand parking.
Grand Forks International Airport..............           ND   Planning, design, and site preparation for new
                                                                general aviation runway and parallel taxiway.
Central Nebraska Regional Airport..............           NE   Runway reconstruction; reconstruction of 4
                                                                taxiways; rehabilitation of airport terminal.
Newark International Airport...................           NJ   Engineering studies and EIS for installation of
                                                                offset localizer directional aid with glide
                                                                slope for runway 4L.
Sun Juan Pueblo Airport........................           NM   Construction and improvements to existing
                                                                facilities.
McCarran International Airport.................           NV   Two remote transmitter/receiver (RTR) sites.
North Las Vegas Airport........................           NV   Installation of runway position hold lights at 27
                                                                intersecting taxiways and runways.
Albany International Airport...................           NY   Extension of primary runway.
Buffalo Niagara International Airport..........           NY   Design and construction of extension to runway 14/
                                                                32; runway 5/23 extension/rehab; security
                                                                improvements.
Greater Rochester International Airport--                 NY   Terminal improvements; runway 10/28 safety area
 multiple projects.                                             improvements; security improvements; east apron
                                                                aircraft parking expansion.
Long Island Islip Airport......................           NY   Security enhancements.
Hancock International Airport..................           NY   Equipment infrastructure improvements.
Niagara Falls International Airport............           NY   Rehabilitate apron connecting taxiway D with
                                                                condor hangars; access improvements; demolition
                                                                of former Bell Helicopter production hanger.
Plattsburgh International Airport..............           NY   Construction of passenger terminal; hanger
                                                                rehabilitation.
Akron-Canton Regional Airport..................           OH   Design and construction of terminal expansion.
Cincinnati Municipal Airport-Lunken Field......           OH   Surfacing & drainage; security needs: additional
                                                                fencing/access control/surveillance.
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport........           OH   Installation of navaids; replacement runway
                                                                lighting; noise mitigation program; security
                                                                upgrades.
Port Columbus International Airport............           OH   Various improvements.
Rickenbacker International Airport.............           OH   Rehabilitation and expansion of air cargo
                                                                aircraft parking; installation of ILS on inside
                                                                runway.
Toledo Express Airport.........................           OH   Construction of new public aircraft parking
                                                                apron; security improvements.
Union County Airport...........................           OH   Runway extension; taxiway relocation.
Davis Field Airport............................           OK   Rehabilitate runway 13-31.
Max Westheimer Airport.........................           OK   Security requirements.
Stillwater Airport.............................           OK   Runway extension--paving and completion of
                                                                project.
Jefferson County Airport.......................           OR   New flight services building.
Roberts Field/Redmond Airport..................           OR   Security improvements.
Bradford Regional..............................           PA   Various improvements.
Connellsville Airport..........................           PA   Runway extension; benefit-cost analysis; right of
                                                                way acquisition; utility/construction drawings;
                                                                construction of structure span for local road;
                                                                relocation of gas lines.
Dubois-Jefferson County Airport................           PA   Various improvements.
Jersey Shore Airport...........................           PA   Various improvements.
Jimmy Stewart Airport..........................           PA   Construct new, longer runway; Phase II of
                                                                project.
Philadelphia International Airport.............           PA   Reconstruct terminal D-E apron; extend runway
                                                                safety area for runway 9R; increase airfield
                                                                capacity; security enhancements.
Punxsutawney Airport...........................           PA   Various improvements.
Venango Regional Airport.......................           PA   Various improvements.
Fairfield County Airport.......................            SC  Extend runway 500 feet.
Spartanburg Downtown Airport...................            SC  Extension of runway 5/23 to 5500 ft; construct
                                                                required safety area.
Campbell County Airport........................           SD   Lengthen and reconstruct existing 2300 foot
                                                                runway.
Chan Gurney Airport............................           SD   Reconstruction of runway; new high intensity
                                                                lighting system.
Highmore Municipal Airport.....................           SD   Land acquisition; right of way; design.
Pierre Regional Airport........................           SD   Reconstruction of runway; new high intensity
                                                                lighting system.
Winner Airport--Bob Wiley Field................           SD   Reconstruction of runway; taxiway; paving, new
                                                                medium intensity lighting system.
Chattanooga Airport............................           TN   Construct west airfield access road for aircraft
                                                                hangers.
Nashville International........................           TN   Security enhancement.
Upper Cumberland Regional Airport..............           TN   Extend airport runway 7000 ft; provide 1000 ft
                                                                full parallel taxiway extension; acquire 75
                                                                acres of land.
Abilene Regional Airport.......................           TX   Air carrier ramp improvements.
Arlington Municipal Airport....................           TX   Acquisition of 48.81 acres of land (right of way)
                                                                for airport extension.
Del Rio International Airport..................           TX   Land acquisition for runway extension and
                                                                improvements.
Denton Municipal Airport.......................           TX   Realignment of taxiway; runway extension;
                                                                terminal expansion; new equipment for new tower.
Draughton-Miller Regional Airport..............           TX   Extend runway 15/33 from 6301 to 7000 ft; improve
                                                                parallel taxiway; install new elextrical vault;
                                                                upgrade lighting.
Fort Worth Alliance Airport....................           TX   Extension of 2 runways.
Gainesville Municipal Airport..................           TX   Extend & mark runway 71-35; extend parallel
                                                                taxiway.
McKinney Municipal Airport.....................           TX   New taxiway along existing runway.
Robert Gray Army Airfield--Kileen Airport......           TX   Expansion of airport; planning; design;
                                                                construction.
San Antonio International Airport..............           TX   Various improvements.
Valley International Airport...................           TX   Acquire 115 acres for runway protection zones;
                                                                reconstruct/relocate 1.4 miles of road.
St George Airport replacement (replacement)....           UT   Land acquisition.
Ogden Hinkley Airport..........................           UT   Runway reconstruction.
Blue Ridge Airport.............................           VA   Construction of facility for the Martinsville
                                                                Composite Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol.
Breaks Interstate Regional Airport.............           VA   Land acquisition; design; engineering for new
                                                                airport to serve Buchanan and Dickerson
                                                                Counties.
Charlottsville-Albermarle Airport..............           VA   Rehabilitate general aviation apron pavement;
                                                                runway extension; construct air carrier access
                                                                road.
Franklin County Airport........................           VA   Airport study.
Manassas Airport...............................           VA   Various improvements.
Twin County Airport............................           VA   Rehabilitate and expand runway and apron.
Washington Dulles International Airport........           VA   Replace sections of runways, taxiways, taxi
                                                                lanes, and apron areas; construct additional
                                                                aircraft parking apron at air cargo building 6
                                                                with appropriate access taxiways; construct
                                                                fillet widening at intersection of taxiway Y and
                                                                high speed exit taxiway Y-7.
Henry E. Rohlsen Airport.......................           VI   Terminal modifications; runway extension.
Austin Straubel International Airport..........           WI   Runway intersection reconstruction.
Central Wisconsin Airport......................           WI   Reconstruct primary air carrier runway and
                                                                parallel taxiway.
General Mitchell International Airport.........           WI   Extend outer taxiway around concourse C.
LaCrosse Municipal Airport.....................           WI   Reconstruct parallel taxiway; upgrade electrical
                                                                systems; reconstruct east apron.
Jackson County Airport.........................           WV   Various improvements.
Upshur County Airport..........................           WV   Runway Extension; land purchase; sewer and water
                                                                infrastructure improvements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             ADMINISTRATION

    The bill provides that, within the overall obligation 
limitation, $62,820,000 is available for administration of the 
airports program. Prior to fiscal year 2001, these expenses 
were included in the FAA's operating budget. This is a 
reduction of $5,437,000 below the budget estimate but an 
increase of $5,770,000 (10.1 percent) above the fiscal year 
2002 enacted level. Reductions from the budget estimate are 
shown in the table below, and are necessary to preserve as many 
resources as possible for critical grants to the nation's 
airports. Under the Administration's proposal, only 13 percent 
of the $100,000,000 increase in the obligation limitation for 
fiscal year 2003 would be used for grants at the nation's 
airports. The majority of funding would instead have been used 
for in-house administrative expenses, research, and the 
essential air service program. Funding in the bill is 
sufficient to support the requested 535 staffyears, which is an 
increase of 34 staffyears (6.7 percent) above the current 
fiscal year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget         Committee
                                             estimate       recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSRS/FEHBP accruals.....................      $3,637,000  ..............
Advisory circular contract..............       1,600,000        $800,000
E-government data transfer..............       1,000,000  ..............
Airport financial reporting system......         500,000         250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSRS/FEHBP accruals.--The reduction of $3,637,000 is 
consistent with reductions taken elsewhere in the bill, and is 
explained in an earlier section of this report.
    Airport technology research.--The Committee recommends no 
funding under the limitation on obligations, as such funding is 
not authorized from the AIP program. However, funding of 
$7,500,000 is recommended under ``Facilities and equipment, 
advanced technology development and prototyping''. This is 
essentially the same level as provided for fiscal year 2002. 
The budget estimate included $16,429,000 for this activity.
    Essential air service.--The Committee does not approve the 
Administration's request to allow the use of AIP funds to 
support the essential air service (EAS) program. Sufficient 
appropriations are included elsewhere in this bill to support 
the EAS program, as explained in an earlier section of this 
report. EAS subsidies are not an authorized use of AIP funding, 
and there is no logical connection between these two programs 
that would justify the diversion of AIP funding for this 
purpose. The merits of funding the EAS program should be 
evaluated on their own. While the Committee is well aware of 
the budgetary constraints facing the nation, forcing one 
program to subsume earmarks for unrelated programs, just to 
give the appearance of saving money, is not sound budgetary 
policy. Rather, the Administration should be making tough 
budget decisions based upon a review of each program on its 
merits. While the Committee is aware that costs for EAS service 
have risen since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 
the Administration should address those costs directly, rather 
than earmark funds from unrelated existing programs.
    Security and Safety Training.--Educating and training 
employees at airports holds enormous potential in reducing 
security risks and enhancing the safety of airport operations. 
Security awareness programs, for example, were mandated by 
Public Law 101-71 for airport employees, ground crews, gate, 
ticket and curbside agents of air carriers and other 
individuals employed at airports to enhance airport security. 
In addition, the FAA has repeatedly highlighted the promise of 
training--particularly interactive training--in reducing runway 
incursions, an urgent safety problem the Committee has long 
sought to address. In light of these examples, and given the 
importance of complementing other measures aimed at addressing 
safety and security with efforts to address human factors, the 
committee directs the FAA to consider grant requests for 
equipment associated with security and safety training among 
the highest priority for AIP discretionary funding.

                             BILL LANGUAGE

    Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.--
Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181 and the 
DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, the bill 
allows funds under this limitation to be used for airports to 
procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and 
devices. Because of the urgent safety problem related to runway 
incursions, the FAA is directed to consider such grant requests 
among the highest priorities for discretionary funding.

                Small Community Air Service Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.....................     $20,000,000
Budget Request, fiscal year 2003........................
Recommended in the bill.................................      20,000,000
Bill compared with:
        Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................
        Budget request, fiscal year 2003................     +20,000,000

\1\ Funded under ``Grants-in-aid for airports'' program.

    The Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program 
was authorized in section 203 of Public Law 106-181. The 
program, authorized at $27,5000,000 for fiscal year 2003, is 
designed to stimulate new or expanded air service at 
underutilized airports in small and rural communities 
throughout the United States. Communities eligible for service 
include those which have insufficient air carrier service, 
unreasonably high air fares, or which have an airport no larger 
than a small hub. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$20,000,000, from the general fund, to continue this program in 
fiscal year 2003. This is the same amount as enacted for fiscal 
year 2002. No funding was requested in the budget estimate.
    The following communities received grants under this 
program in fiscal year 2002. Funds provided in this bill are 
available to continue activities in these locations or provide 
service to new locations during fiscal year 2003.

King Cover, AK
Sand Point, AK
Akutan, AK
Cold Bay, AK
False Pass, AK
Nelson Lagoon, AK
Mobile, AL
Fort Smith, AR
Lake Havasu City, AZ
Santa Maria, CA
Lamar, CO
Daytona Beach, FL
Augusta, GA/Aiken, SC
Mason City, IA
Hailey, ID
Marion, IL
Fort Wayne, IN
Manhattan, KS
Paducah, KY
Somerset, KY
Lake Charles, LA
Presque Isle, ME
Houghton and Pellston, MI
Brainerd and St Cloud, MN
Cape Girardeau, MO
Meridian, MS
Asheville, NC
Bismarck, ND
Scottsbluff, NE
Taos/Ruidoso, NM
Binghamton, NY
Akron/Canton, OH
Baker City, OR
Reading, PA
Rapid City, SD
Bristol/Kingsport/Johnson City, TN
Abilene, TX
Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX
Moab, UT
Lynchburg, VA
Bellingham, WA
Pasco, WA
Rhinelander, WI
Charleston,W V
Casper and Gillette, WY

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides 
financial assistance to the states to construct and improve 
roads and highways, 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 
in Appropriations Acts.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 
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 
highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's motor carrier safety funding, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) highway safety grants 
funding and NHTSA highway safety research and development 
funding.

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program

    TEA-21 caps the highway category obligations at 
$28,233,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 and Federal-aid obligations 
at $23,284,143,000. If highway account receipts exceed levels 
specified in TEA-21, automatic adjustments are made to increase 
or decrease obligations and outlays for the highway category 
accordingly. The increases and decreases associated with 
highway account receipts are called revenue aligned budget 
authority (RABA). Under TEA-21, if appropriations action forces 
highway obligations to exceed this obligation level specified 
in TEA-21 as adjusted by RABA, the resulting difference in 
outlays is charged to the non-defense discretionary spending 
category.

                    Revenue Aligned Budget Authority

    In fiscal year 2003, the provisions of TEA-21 would require 
a reduction of $4,369,000,000 in federal-aid highway funding 
due to RABA. The guaranteed level for federal-aid highways 
would be reduced to $23,284,143,000, representing a reduction 
of almost 16 percent from the base funding level in TEA-21, and 
a total reduction of 27 percent from the $31,799,104,000 
provided in FY 2002.
    Section 1402 of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental 
appropriations bill (Public Law 107-206) restores the fiscal 
year 2003 highway funding reduction that would have been caused 
by the RABA adjustment and raises the highway guarantee by 
$4,369,000,000. Therefore, the Committee's recommendation 
exceeds the guaranteed level contemplated in TEA-21 by 
$4,369,000,000. However, because the provision increases the 
highway category specifically, the additional highway funding 
does not come at the expense of other discretionary programs. 
The following table summarizes the program levels within the 
Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 2002 enacted, 
the fiscal year 2003 budget request and the Committee's 
recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fisal year 2002    Fiscal year 2003   Recommended in the
                       Program                              enacted             request              bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways................................  \1\ $27,280,000,00     $27,628,536,000     $27,653,143,000
                                                                       0
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA).............       4,519,104,000      -4,369,000,000                   0
Adjustment..........................................  ..................         -54,749,000  ..................
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................................      31,799,104,000      23,204,787,000      27,653,143,000
Exempt obligations..................................   \2\ 1,274,176,000         892,767,000         892,767,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................................      33,073,280,000      24,097,554,000      28,545,910,000
Appalachian Development Highway System..............         200,000,000  ..................         100,000,000
Miscellaneous appropriations........................  \3\ \4\ 248,300,00  ..................  ..................
                                                                       0
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................      33,521,580,000      24,097,544,000     28,645,910,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $100,000,000 above the obligation limitation above that guaranteed by TEA-21.
\2\ Reflects $75,000,000 emergency relief (ER) supplemental funding provided by P.L. 107-117.
\3\ Provided by section 330 of P.L. 107-87.
\4\ Reflects $100,000,000 supplemental funding provided by P.L. 107-117.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses


Limitation, fiscal year 2003 \1\......................    ($311,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003......................     (317,732,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................     (370,042,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2002......................     (+59,042,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................     (+52,310,000)
\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $841,000 pursuant to section 349 of
  Public Law 107-87 as amended by section 1106 of P.L. 107-117.

    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 (TEA-21) created 
a separate limitation for transportation research. Accordingly, 
in fiscal year 2003, costs related to highway research, 
development and technology are included under a separate 
limitation.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $370,042,000. This 
level is sufficient to fund 2,422 FTEs. The recommended level 
assumes the following adjustments to the budget request:

Reduce funding for employee development...............       -$1,606,000
Increase funding for environmental streamlining.......        +7,000,000
Southern border truck inspection facilities...........       +47,000,000
Deny FECA administrative costs........................          -$84,300

    Employee development.--The Committee has reduced the 
request for workforce development activities by $1,606,000. The 
Committee has provided $2,500,000, the same level as provided 
in fiscal year 2001.
    Environmental streamlining.--The budget request included a 
total of $6,000,000 for environmental streamlining initiatives, 
funded from the administrative balances set-aside. The 
Committee recommendation includes a total of $7,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2003 for environmental streamlining initiatives 
within the limitation on administrative expenses. The Committee 
directs FHWA to provide the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations a report, not later than March 1, 2003, 
summarizing FHWA's streamlining efforts. The report should 
include specific examples of FHWA activities that have helped 
streamline the environmental process.
    The Committee is extremely disconcerted with the 
unprecedented actions the Department took with regard to the 
report on FHWA's streamlining efforts due to the Committee 
January 2, 2002. The report was delivered to the Committee on 
the evening before FHWA was to testify before the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. Without prior 
notice or approval, the Department violated the standard 
practice in place for many years, and not only attached the 
report to testimony delivered to the Committee for public 
dissemination, but also widely distributed the report to other 
Committees and to the press. Although directed by Congress 
specifically for the use of this Committee, members of the 
Appropriations Committee had no opportunity to read the report 
before mass distribution to the public. The Committee strongly 
recommends the Department confer with the Committee and adopt 
procedures for report distribution similar to the standards in 
place and followed before February 28, 2002. In addition, the 
Committee directs the Department to refrain from attaching 
miscellaneous documents, including reports, to Congressional 
testimony without prior consultation with the Committee.
    Truck safety inspection facilities.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $47,000,000 from the limitation on 
administrative expenses for the construction of permanent truck 
safety inspection facilities along the U.S./Mexico border. The 
budget request included this funding proposal from within the 
national corridor planning and development program. In its 
fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Administration's stated 
goal was to receive a total of $160,000,000 over three years to 
contribute towards funding of state border inspection 
facilities at 23 sites. In 2002, the Committee provided 
$66,000,000 for this effort.
    FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced 
funding by $84,300 from the budget request for workers 
compensation administrative costs as explained in an earlier 
section of this report.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research


Limitation, fiscal year 2002 \1\....................  ..................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\................  ..................
Recommended in the bill.............................      ($462,500,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2002....................      (+462,500,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................      (+462,500,000)
\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2002 and requested in fiscal year
  2003 are assumed within the federal-aid obligation limitation in the
  budget request for fiscal year 2003.

    This limitation controls spending for the transportation 
research and technology contract programs of the Federal 
Highway Administration. It 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 recommendation 
includes an obligation limitation for transportation research 
of $462,500,000. This limitation is consistent with the 
provisions of TEA-21 and mirrors the House-passed fiscal year 
2002 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill.
    The bill provides $462,500,000 in fiscal year 2003 for the 
following transportation research programs:

Surface transportation research.........................    $103,000,000
Technology deployment program...........................      50,000,000
Training and education..................................      20,000,000
Bureau of transportation statistics.....................      31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests and 
    development.........................................     110,000,000
ITS deployment..........................................     122,000,000
University transportation research......................      26,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................    $462,500,000

                            Highway Research

    In response to the Committee's concern the U.S. General 
Accounting Office completed a review of FHWA's research program 
in May 2002. The report included recommendations to help ensure 
that FHWA's research agenda and approach to evaluation result 
in identification of research with the highest value to the 
surface transportation community. The Committee directs FHWA 
to: (1) develop a systematic approach for obtaining input from 
external stakeholders in determining the research and 
technology program's agendas; (2) develop a systematic process 
that incorporates peer review or other best practices in use at 
federal agencies that conduct research; (3) and develop 
specific plans for implementing these recommendations, 
including time frames and cost estimates.

                    Surface Transportation Research

    Within the funds provided for highway research and 
development under the surface transportation research program, 
the Committee recommends the following:

Environment, planning, and real estate..................     $17,000,000
Research and technology program support.................       8,000,000
International research..................................         500,000
Structures..............................................      13,500,000
Safety..................................................      12,000,000
Operations..............................................      12,500,000
Asset management........................................       3,000,000
Pavements research......................................      15,500,000
Policy research.........................................       9,000,000
Long-term pavement project..............................      10,000,000
Advanced research.......................................       1,000,000
R&T; strategic planning/performance measures.............       1,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................    $103,000,000

    Environment, planning, and real estate research.--The 
environment research and technology program 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. The planning and real estate 
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 has provided $17,000,000.
    Research and technology program support.--The Committee has 
provided $8,000,000. Funds provided under this category support 
a variety of programs, including the Transportation Research 
Board core program; the small business innovative research 
program; and marketing, publication and communication 
activities.
    International research.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000, the level authorized under TEA-21, for international 
research activities. FHWA is directed to consult the Committee 
before any international agreements are consummated that are 
likely to require financial support.
    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. The committee has provided $13,500,000 
for structures research. Funds provided will help FHWA make 
progress towards its performance goal to reduce deficiencies on 
NHS bridges from 21.5 percent in 2000 to 21 percent in 2003, as 
well as reduce deficiencies on all bridges. This funding will 
ensure continued progress on high performance materials and 
engineering applications to efficiently design, repair, 
rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges. Within the funds provided, 
FHWA shall provide $1,000,000 for the deployment of lithium 
technologies to prevent and mitigate alkali silica reactivity. 
The Committee notes that funding has been provided to the FHWA 
for several years, yet little progress has been made in the 
deployment of these promising technologies. Within the funds 
provided, the FHWA shall provide $1,000,000 for the New York 
City Bridges Corrosion Monitoring Project.
    Safety.--The safety research and technology program 
develops engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment, 
roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information 
that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway 
fatalities and injuries. The Committee has provided $12,000,000 
for safety research programs. Within the funds provided, the 
Committee directs the FHWA to provide $600,000 to the 
University of Florida's Seniors Institute for Transportation 
and Communications, and $1,000,000 to the National 
Transportation Research Center, University of Tennessee for 
heavy vehicle research.
    Operations and asset management.--The Committee has 
provided $15,500,000 for operations research and asset 
management. The highway operations research program is designed 
to develop, deliver, and deploy advanced technologies and 
administrative methods to provide pavement and bridge 
durability, and to reduce construction and maintenance-related 
user delays. Funds provided under this category support a 
variety of research projects seeking to improve highway 
operations, including work to improve the manual on uniform 
traffic control devices, work zone operations, technologies 
that facilitate operational responses to changes in weather 
conditions, and freight management operations. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee directs the FHWA to provide $550,000 to 
the Southern Rural Transportation Center and $400,000 to the 
Orangeburg County Rural Transit Demonstration project at South 
Carolina State University.
    The Committee has not included any funds for statistical 
analysis of the National Quality Initiative under any FHWA 
research program. Such analysis shall be performed by the 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
    Pavements research.--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. Activities include work on 
asphalt, Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled 
materials. The Committee has provided $15,500,000 for pavement 
research. Pavement research amounts, along with the $10,000,000 
provided for long-term pavement performance, will allow FHWA to 
undertake research projects to improve the nation's 
infrastructure. Within the funds provided, the Committee 
directs the FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to the Center for 
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology in Idaho, $500,000 
to the Institute for Aggregates Research at Michigan 
Technological University, and $1,000,000 to the test track and 
hot mixed asphalt research at Auburn University.
    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 enhancement of highway program contributions to economic 
productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. The 
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for policy research. Within 
the funds provided, the Committee directs the FHWA to provide 
$2,000,000 to the University of Kentucky's Academy for 
Community Transportation Innovation for transportation research 
on integrating public involvement technology and environmental 
issues in the transportation planning process.

       ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests and Development

    The Committee recommends the $110,000,000 provided in TEA-
21 for ITS research be allocated in the following manner:

Research and development................................     $48,680,000
Operational tests.......................................      12,930,000
Evaluation..............................................       7,750,000
Architecture and standards..............................      15,290,000
Integration.............................................      11,350,000
Program support.........................................       9,000,000

    Commercial vehicle operations (CVO) research.--The 
Committee's allowance includes $6,800,000 for commercial 
vehicle operations research. The funds will be used to continue 
to develop and test advanced technology for roadside 
identification. This technology is needed to identify 
commercial carriers and vehicles without transponders in 
advance of their approach to an inspection site. This 
technology will ensure that maximum use of the SAFER, ASPEN, 
Mailbox data system, PIQ, PRISM target file, and the ISS2 
systems is facilitated. Advancement of technology to promote 
the transfer of information from NLETS to MCSAP officers, 
including improved communications between the NLETS bridge and 
the PRISM target file and other information systems, should 
also be supported with the additional funds provided.

                             ITS Deployment

    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 TEA-21 and promote 
deployment of the commercial vehicle intelligent transportation 
system infrastructure as provided under section 5209 of TEA-21. 
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. Projects selected for funding 
shall use all applicable, published ITS standards. This 
requirement may be waived if the Secretary determines that the 
use of a published ITS standard would be counterproductive to 
achievement of the program objectives. Funding for ITS 
deployment activities is as follows:

        Project                                                   Amount
Advanced Traffic Analysis Center, North Dakota State 
    University..........................................      $1,000,000
Alameda-Contra Costa transit district (SatCom), 
    California..........................................       1,000,000
American Tobacco Trail Project, Wake County, North 
    Carolina............................................         500,000
ATMS/ATIS Hutchinson River Parkway, New York............       2,000,000
Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) and Mobile Data 
    Terminals--Palm Tran--Palm Beach Florida............       1,000,000
Bay County Area Wide Traffic Signal System, Florida.....       1,000,000
CalTrain train tracking information system (SamTrans), 
    San Mateo County, California........................         500,000
Capital District Transportation Authority, customer 
    information ITS project, New York...................         800,000
Chapel Hill Transit, North Carolina, real time passenger 
    information system and vehicle location system......       1,000,000
Chattanooga, Tennessee CARTA ITS........................       4,400,000
Cicero Avenue travel information system, Illinois.......         500,000
City of Boston intelligent transportation system, 
    Massachusetts.......................................       1,000,000
City of Alexandria, Virginia, intelligent transportation 
    system (Alexandria ITS--King/Braddock/Quaker).......         750,000
City of Austin, Texas ITS Deployment Program, Texas.....         500,000
City of Inglewood, California intelligent transportation 
    system deployment project...........................         500,000
Concord Parkway Traffic Signals System Integration--
    Concord, North Carolina.............................       1,400,000
Continental 1...........................................       1,500,000
DelDOT Integrated Transportation Management System--
    DelTrac, Statewide Transit Passenger Info System....       1,000,000
Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) camera deployment and 
    integration program, Monroe County, New York........       1,000,000
Elkhorn Boulevard Project, Sacramento, California.......         350,000
Emergency Vehicle Access Program, Antrim, Pennsylvania..          60,000
Emergency Vehicle Optical Pre-Emption, Town of Islip, 
    New York............................................         750,000
Fog Detection Improvement and Traffic Monitoring, Rural 
    Mountain Region, North Carolina.....................         200,000
Gettysburg Borough Signal Coordination and Upgrade--
    Signalization; Adams County, Pennsylvania...........       1,950,000
HART Bus Tracking and Communication, Florida............       4,000,000
Houma, Louisiana........................................       1,000,000
Hunt County, Texas......................................       1,000,000
I-90 Truck Wind Warning System--Columbia River, 
    Washington..........................................         100,000
Idaho Commercial Vehicle Systems and Networks (CVISN)--
    Level 1 Completion..................................       1,000,000
Image-based toll collection system project, California..       1,000,000
Intelligent transportation system statewide, Illinois...       1,000,000
Intelligent transportation, ADART phase IV 
    implementation, Corpus Christi, Texas...............         500,000
Intermodal ITS center, Orleans Parish, Louisiana........         500,000
Interstate 95/Interstate 40 travel information 
    improvements, Johnston County, North Carolina.......         500,000
Law Enforcement Communications for Security and 
    Biometrics, Iowa....................................       3,500,000
Baton Rouge, Louisiana..................................       1,000,000
Johnson County Transit, Kansas, automatic vehicle 
    locator.............................................         500,000
Kansas City Scout Advanced Traffic Management System 
    (along I-635), Kansas...............................       1,500,000
Kansas City, Kansas Smart Port (International trade 
    processing center)..................................       1,500,000
Libertyville Traffic Management Center, Illinois........       1,000,000
Macomb County ITS Integration, Michigan.................         500,000
Maricopa County, AZTech integrated emergency and 
    transportation communication network, Arizona.......       1,500,000
Metrolina Traffic Management Center Communication, North 
    Carolina............................................       1,000,000
MetroLink Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) passenger 
    information delivery system project.................         500,000
Minnesota Guidestar.....................................      12,000,000
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) advanced 
    vehicle location system, Massachusetts..............         200,000
Monterey-Salinas Transit, intelligent transportation 
    system, California..................................         750,000
Montgomery County, Maryland Advanced Transportation 
    Management System (ATMS)............................       1,550,000
Nebraska ITS............................................       2,000,000
New Bedford, Massachusetts intelligent transportation 
    information center..................................       1,000,000
New York Metropolitan Area enhanced operations, New York       1,000,000
North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Hillsborough 
    weigh station Orange County, North Carolina.........       1,000,000
Oakland County Smart Corridor and Emergency Routing 
    System, Michigan....................................       4,800,000
Oklahoma Department of Transportation, intelligent 
    transportation systems project......................       1,000,000
Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles Advanced Transportation 
    Management & Information Systems....................       1,000,000
Positive Protection Railroad/grade Crossing System 
    Project, Alabama....................................       2,000,000
Project Hoosier SAFE-T, Indiana.........................       1,000,000
Richmond Highway intelligent transportation system 
    project, Virginia...................................         400,000
Round Rock, Texas, Williamson County, Communications 
    Integration.........................................         500,000
Rural Highway Information System, Kentucky..............       6,000,000
Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Sacramento 
    region intelligent transportation system projects, 
    California..........................................       1,000,000
Salem, New Hampshire ITS................................         900,000
San Diego Joint Transportation Operations Center, 
    California..........................................       2,000,000
San Francisco, Muni, automatic vehicle location/GPS, 
    California..........................................       1,000,000
Santa Teresa Border Tech Center, New Mexico State 
    University..........................................       1,000,000
SD, ND, MN, IN Maintenance Decision Support System......         850,000
Shreveport ITS, Louisiana...............................       1,500,000
Sierra Madre Villa Intermodal Transportation Center, 
    California..........................................       1,000,000
South Carolina DOT inroads intelligent transportation 
    system, statewide...................................       3,000,000
South Com Regional Dispatch Trauma Center, Matteson, 
    Olympia Fields, and Richton Park, Illinois..........         200,000
Springfield Regional ITS, Missouri......................       1,500,000
SR 316/SR 81 Intersection Improvements--Barrow and 
    Oconee counties, Georgia............................       1,600,000
State of Wisconsin, deployment of commercial vehicle 
    information system and networks, level one 
    capability..........................................         500,000
State of Wisconsin, upgrade of state patrol's data 
    communications network..............................       2,000,000
Statewide Transportation Operations Center, Kentucky....       1,000,000
Surveillance Camera and Transportation Management 
    Center, Des Moines, Iowa............................       1,000,000
Texas Transportation Institute's Monitoring and 
    Emergency Notification for the Texas Medical Center 
    campus, Texas.......................................         350,000
The Rapid, Grand Rapids, Michigan Public Transportation.       1,000,000
Traffic Corridor Communications System, Lake County, 
    Illinois............................................       2,000,000
TRANSCOM regional architecture and TRANSMIT and IRVN 
    projects, New Jersey................................         500,000
Tri-Cities Advanced Traffic Management System, 
    Washington..........................................         500,000
UALR Intelligent transportation system, Little Rock, 
    Arkansas............................................         500,000
UK 1-75 Research, Kentucky..............................       1,640,000
University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Injury 
    Sciences, Alabama...................................       3,250,000
US-395 Columbia River Bridge Traffic Operations and 
    Traveler Information System, Washington.............         250,000
Utah's ITS (CommuterLink)...............................       1,000,000
Vallejo Baylink Ferry Intermodal Center, California.....         500,000
Wayne County Road Information Management System (RIMS), 
    Wayne County, Michigan..............................       2,500,000
Witchita ITS (ITS Traffic/Emergency Operations Center 
    and transit ITS)....................................       4,000,000

    Joint Program Office.--In the early 1990s, the 
Appropriations Committees expressed strong support for the 
formulation of a Joint Program Office (JPO) within the DOT to 
oversee the federal role in the national Intelligent 
Transportation System (ITS) effort. This office, which is 
located within the Federal Highway Administration, now provides 
overall program direction and budget coordination among the 
multiple DOT offices conducting ITS activities. The Committee 
believes the JPO has sucessfully managed the ITS program. For 
example, the JPO's close association with FHWA's research, 
headquarters staff, and regional offices has ensured a unified 
approach to providing training, implementation and testing of 
standards, and adherence to a national systems architecture. 
The Committee maintains that the JPO's positive working 
relationship with the FMCSA and FTA has facilitated progress in 
advancement of technologies and the deployment of systems.
    The appropriation for ITS provided herein is predicated on 
the continuation of the JPO conducting the functions identified 
previously. Maximum efficiencies are most likely to be obtained 
by retaining the current administrative structure of the JPO 
within the FHWA with a reporting function to the Deputy 
Secretary. If there is any change in the administrative 
structure or responsibilities of the JPO, the Secretary is 
directed to inform the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations and to justify in detail such changes.

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics

    Under the FHWA appropriation, the accompanying bill 
provides $31,000,000 for the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics (BTS), the amount authorized in TEA-21. The 
Committee does not provide additional amounts requested from 
the airport and airway trust fund. The Committee notes that BTS 
has undergone significant increases in staffing since 1993, the 
year BTS was established. In fiscal year 1993, on-board 
positions totaled 5, in 2001 total staff stood at 101, and BTS 
estimates on-board staff to total 146 by the end of 2002. In 
fiscal year 2003, BTS requests a level of 157 full time 
position (FTP). The Committee is concerned about these staff 
increases, particularly when the staffing level has exceeded 
the Administration's request to Congress. Therefore, the 
Committee limits BTS full time positions to 146 or, if lower, 
the number of on-board positions upon enactment of this bill.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                                   Liquidation of
                                      contract          Limitation on
                                   authorization         obligations
Limitation, fiscal year 2002..      $30,000,000,000    ($31,799,104,000)
Budget request, fiscal year          29,000,000,000     (32,204,787,000)
 2003\1\......................
Recommended in the bill.......       29,000,000,000     (27,653,143,000)
Bill compared with:...........
    Limitation, fiscal year          -1,000,000,000     (-4,145,961,000)
     2002.....................
    Budget request, fiscal      ...................     (+4,448,356,000)
     year 2003................
\1\ The budget request includes an adjustment of $4,369,000,000
  associated with revenue aligned budget authority; excludes transfer of
  $182,464,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; and
  reduction of $54,749,000 associated with that transfer.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

    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 958,000 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 84 percent of 
total U.S. highway traffic.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 
reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other 
surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. TEA-
21 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.
    The Committee recommends liquidating cash appropriation of 
$30,000,000,000. This is equal to the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
level and is the required amount to pay the outstanding 
obligations of the various highway programs at levels provided 
in past Appropriation Acts.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 2003 federal-aid highways obligations to $27,653,143,000, 
a reduction of $4,145,961,000 from the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
level and $4,448,356,000 over the budget request. The 
recommended level is $4,369,000,000 above the level assumed in 
TEA-21.
    The obligation limitation for the federal-aid highways 
program does not include a downward adjustment of 
$4,369,000,000 in obligations resulting from revenue aligned 
budget authority. TEA-21 provides for an automatic adjustment 
in the federal-aid highways program budget authority and 
obligation authority in any budget year in which projected 
income to the highway account of the highway trust fund are 
above or below estimates of income to the trust fund that were 
made at the time TEA-21 was enacted. Under law, a determination 
of the size of this increase or decrease in so-called 
``firewall'' spending levels is made in the President's budget 
submission. TEA-21 calls for any such decreases in budget 
authority to be distributed proportionately among certain 
federal-aid highways apportioned and allocated programs, and 
for the overall federal-aid obligation limitation to be 
decreased by an equal amount. In total, the estimate of reduced 
income, and therefore obligations for fiscal year 2003, is 
$4,369,000,000 for the federal-aid highway program. However, 
the Appropriations Committee included language in section 1402 
of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill 
(Public Law 107-206) that restores the fiscal year 2003 highway 
funding reduction due to TEA-21 by raising the highway 
guarantee by $4,369,000,000. Therefore, the entire 
$27,653,143,000 is guaranteed under the highway category. 
Because the provision increases the highway category, the 
increase in highway funding does not come at the expense of 
other discretionary programs.
    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 $27,653,143,000 provided by 
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent 
law:

               FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS

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

                                          ESTIMATED FY 2003 OBLIGATIONS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Estimated FY       FY 2003       Appalachian
              State                2003 formula       minimum       development        Total      Change from FY
                                    limitation       guarantee     highways \1\                        2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................        $384,255         $34,022         $43,794        $462,071        -$64,034
Alaska..........................         199,842          70,039               0         269,881         -33,080
Arizona.........................         365,260          52,053               0         417,313         -58,505
Arkansas........................         271,508          27,056               0         298,564         -37,756
California......................       1,959,265         139,960               0       2,099,225        -267,525
Colorado........................         283,927          19,380               0         303,307         -38,159
Connecticut.....................         296,518          47,902               0         344,420         -42,502
Delaware........................          97,800           8,337               0         106,137         -12,262
District of Columbia............          91,935             315               0          92,250         -12,690
Florida.........................         929,943         158,387               0       1,088,329        -152,610
Georgia.........................         703,280         103,998          17,502         824,780        -115,146
Hawaii..........................         107,038          10,226               0         117,264         -16,266
Idaho...........................         148,249          19,639               0         167,887         -23,248
Illinois........................         722,137          41,703               0         763,840        -105,432
Indiana.........................         472,220          62,792               0         535,012         -67,684
Iowa............................         266,073          10,090               0         276,163         -34,610
Kansas..........................         260,726           7,997               0         268,723         -37,024
Kentucky........................         335,024          26,786          40,174         401,984         -55,689
Louisiana.......................         337,422          23,726               0         361,148         -42,022
Maine...........................         113,758           8,313               0         122,071         -16,943
Maryland........................         347,116          25,341           6,848         379,305         -44,525
Massachusetts...................         395,516          26,342               0         421,857         -54,407
Michigan........................         664,026          75,221               0         739,248        -102,802
Minnesota.......................         316,312          19,781               0         336,093         -41,724
Mississippi.....................         271,328          21,580           4,911         297,819         -37,689
Missouri........................         502,919          32,083               0         535,002         -67,848
Montana.........................         200,922          34,512               0         235,434         -27,334
Nebraska........................         179,788           6,201               0         185,989         -25,794
Nevada..........................         150,183          18,532               0         168,716         -23,542
New Hampshire...................         104,974           9,965               0         114,938         -13,622
New Jersey......................         559,537          33,418               0         592,956         -81,851
New Mexico......................         204,828          21,628               0         226,456         -28,436
New York........................       1,061,869          86,048           9,439       1,157,356        -150,818
North Carolina..................         551,483          70,602          25,784         647,869         -90,258
North Dakota....................         145,450          10,771               0         156,222         -19,598
Ohio............................         721,868          58,722          19,749         800,339        -101,629
Oklahoma........................         343,372          14,902               0         358,274         -49,553
Oregon..........................         259,448          14,247               0         273,695         -34,338
Pennsylvania....................         938,654          56,851         107,082       1,102,587        -151,588
Rhode Island....................         128,924          11,892               0         140,817         -18,349
South Carolina..................         345,092          45,378           2,145         392,616         -50,241
South Dakota....................         150,810          13,143               0         163,953         -20,588
Tennessee.......................         440,046          37,433          49,098         526,577         -60,998
Texas...........................       1,594,413         214,113               0       1,808,525        -252,766
Utah............................         170,275           7,816               0         178,091         -24,550
Vermont.........................         101,110           6,876               0         107,986         -12,532
Virginia........................         533,615          61,643          10,320         605,578         -70,062
Washington......................         385,806          18,210               0         404,016         -55,647
West Virginia...................         174,804          11,106          60,894         246,805         -29,861
Wisconsin.......................         400,802          53,363               0         454,164         -63,352
Wyoming.........................         156,135           9,559               0         165,692         -18,335
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................      20,847,605       2,000,000         397,740      23,245,345      -3,057,826
Special Limitation:
    High Priority Projects......  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,778,372         170,725
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge.......  ..............  ..............  ..............         202,275         -30,667
    Allocation Reserve..........  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,427,152      -1,228,192
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Limitation..........  ..............  ..............  ..............      27,653,143      -4,145,961
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals for Appalachian Development Highways do not include $100,000,000 provided in this bill outside of TEA-
  21

    Under TEA-21, Federal-aid highways funds are made available 
through the following major programs:

               FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2001       FY 2002       FY 2003
           Programs                actual       estimate      estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
    Surface Transportation        $7,125,997    $6,960,222    $6,233,877
     Program..................
    National Highway System...     5,444,542     5,954,976     5,340,660
    Interstate Maintenance....     4,107,833     5,020,689     4,437,608
    Bridge Program............     3,035,729     4,300,544     3,805,079
    Congestion Mitigation and        883,818     1,692,402     1,515,103
     Air Quality Improvement..
    Minimum Guarantee.........     2,004,786     1,572,609     1,829,044
    Safety Incentive Grants           93,286       110,220       100,688
     for Use of Seat Belts....
    ITS Standards, Research           86,018       120,488        98,890
     and Development..........
    ITS Deployment............        86,366       167,328       109,678
    Transportation Research...       201,025       261,872       210,351
    Federal Lands Highways....       635,672       855,323       624,010
    National Corridor Planning       122,096       509,419       125,860
     and Coordinated Border
     Infrastu.................
    Administration............       294,470       310,159       370,042
    Other Programs............     1,753,597       793,438       365,656
    High Priority Projects         1,159,272     1,413,556     1,478,376
     Program..................
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge            342,084       305,110       202,275
     (Special)................
    Transportation                   113,748       109,161       116,870
     Infrastructure Finance
     and Innovation...........
    Appalachian Development          320,641       720,786       397,740
     Highway System \1\.......
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total Subject to            27,810,980    31,178,302    27,361,807
       Obligation Limitation
       \2\....................
                               =========================================
Emergency Relief Program......        87,919       125,287       100,000
Minimum Allocation/Guarantee..       745,440       595,493       621,597
    Demonstration Projects....       159,855       244,529       171,170
Reestimates of Direct Loan                 0        19,000             0
 Subsidy/Interest on Subsidy..
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total Exempt Programs...       993,214       984,309       892,767
                               =========================================
Emergency Relief Supplemental.       566,298       400,867             0
                               =========================================
      Grand Total, Federal-Aid    29,370,492    32,563,478    28,254,574
       Highways (Direct)......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals for Appalachian Development Highways do not include
  $100,000,000 provided in this bill outside of TEA-21.
\2\ Reflects estimated obligations which may be less than the enacted
  obligation limitation.

    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 76 percent 
of commercial truck traffic and 44 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 46,567-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.
    Funds provided for the Interstate maintenance discretionary 
program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the 
following activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Freeway Interchange at Lammers Road and I-205, Tracey, 
    California..........................................        $500,000
Grandview Triangle, Kansas City, Missouri...............       1,000,000
Hawkins Crossing, I-20/59 Interchange, Meridian, 
    Mississippi.........................................       5,000,000
I-10 Interchange at Grand Prairie Highway, Rayne, 
    Louisiana...........................................       1,000,000
I-10 Irvington Interchange, Alabama.....................       4,000,000
I-10 Riverside Avenue Interchange, California...........       2,000,000
I-12 at Essen Lane, Louisiana...........................         250,000
I-12 sound barriers, Slidell, Louisiana.................       1,500,000
I-12/Northshore Blvd-Airport Road Interchange 
    Improvements--St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.........       1,000,000
I-16 and Dean Forest Road Interchange, Georgia..........         250,000
I-16/I-516 Interchange design and reconstruction, 
    Georgia.............................................       1,000,000
I-16/I-95 Interchange Reconstruction Concept Study 
    Chatham County, Georgia.............................         250,000
I-235 reconstruction, Polk County, Iowa.................       2,800,000
I-235/Harrison Avenue off-ramp and Walnut Avenue 
    Relocation, Oklahoma................................       1,200,000
I-26 Little Mountain Interchange improvements, South 
    Carolina............................................         500,000
I-29 Madison Street interchange, Sioux Falls, South 
    Dakota..............................................       2,500,000
I-295 Interchange at Meadowville Road, Chesterfield 
    County, Virginia....................................         500,000
I-35 East/I-635 interchange, Texas......................         750,000
I-35W Lake Street Access, Minnesota.....................       9,000,000
I-40 and Paseo del Volcan Interchange and Access Road to 
    Double Eagle II, Albuquerque, New Mexico............       2,000,000
I-44 Interchanges at SH-51 and US-169, Tulsa, Oklahoma..         750,000
I-44, Phelps County, Missouri...........................       2,250,000
I-49 North to the Arkansas Line (Access Improvements to 
    I-220 @ US 71/LA 1 & LA 172), Louisiana.............       1,000,000
I-540 & Perry Road Interchange, Rogers, Arkansas........       2,000,000
I-64, Vanderburgh and Posey counties, Indiana...........       1,000,000
I-69/SR 304 (construction Odom Road to I-55), 
    Mississippi.........................................       2,000,000
I-70/MD85/MD355 intersection reconstruction, Maryland...       1,000,000
I-74 Reconstruction, Mississippi River Bridge 
    Replacement, Scott County, Iowa.....................         950,000
I-75 Exits 49 and 52, McMinn County, Tennessee..........         500,000
I-75, Rockcastle County, Kentucky.......................       4,500,000
I-77/Shuffel Road interchange, Canton, Ohio.............       1,000,000
I-80 Colfax Narrows Project, Placer County, California..         250,000
I-81 Interchange, Syracuse, New York....................       1,300,000
I-84/Exit 17 at Routes 63 and 64, Middlebury/Waterbury, 
    Connecticut.........................................       2,000,000
I-84/I-87 Interchange, New York.........................       1,500,000
I-84/Route 2 East Hartford, operational improvements, 
    Connecticut (flyover access)........................       1,000,000
I-90 two-way transit operations, Washington.............         500,000
I-96/Cedar/Pennsylvania Interchange, Michigan...........         450,000
Interstate 40: Mississippi River Bridge Seismic 
    Retrofit, Arkansas..................................       1,000,000
Interstate 5, Rush Road to Maytown widening, Washington.       1,000,000
Interstate 5, Salem, Oregon (Boone Road Bridge 
    replacement)........................................       1,000,000
Interstate Highway 35 perpetual pavement testing 
    section, LaSalle County, Texas......................       1,000,000
Interstate Highway 45 frontage road and ramp system 
    improvements, Huntsville, Texas.....................       1,000,000
Interstate Highway 30 in Texarkana from FM 989 (Kings 
    Highway) in Bowie County, Texas to the Arkansas 
    state line (US 71)..................................       1,000,000
Laval Road Interchange Upgrade at I-5, California.......         500,000
Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project, 
    Indiana.............................................       4,000,000
Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project, 
    Kentucky............................................       4,000,000
Marquette Interchange, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.............       6,000,000
Needs assessment study of the I-84/Route 8 interchange, 
    Waterbury, Connecticut..............................       1,000,000
New York State Thruway Authority, Westchester County, 
    Bryam Bridge rehabilitation and pavement 
    reconstruction, New York............................       1,000,000
Port Everglades-Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport Return 
    Loop, Florida.......................................       1,000,000
Reconstruction of I-135, Sedgwick County, Kansas........       1,000,000
Reconstruction of I-95/I-91/CT 34 Interchange, New 
    Haven, Connecticut (Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge--I-
    95 New Haven East Approach to Q-Bridge).............       2,000,000
Rehabilitation of I-20, Erath, Palo, Pinto, and Parker 
    counties, Texas.....................................       2,350,000
Rehabilitation of pavement and bridges on I-95 in 
    Halifax/Nash Counties, North Carolina...............       1,000,000
Lyndale Avenue Bridge, Richfield, Minnesota.............       3,000,000
Right of way acquisition, Paterson, New Jersey 
    interchange improvements............................         200,000
Interstate 79/SR 3025 missing ramps, Jackson Township, 
    Pennsylvania........................................         500,000
Tippecanoe/I-10 Interchange and medical center access, 
    San Bernardino, California..........................       3,000,000
Waukee/West Des Moines I-80 Interchange, Iowa...........       2,500,000

    All remaining federal funding to complete the initial 
construction of the interstate system has been provided through 
previous highway legislation. TEA-21 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 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 TEA-21, 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 provides 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 national bridge 
needs used in the program's apportionment formula for the 
following year.
    Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in 
fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the following 
activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
12th Street Viaduct, Kansas City, Missouri..............      $1,000,000
Batchellerville Bridge replacement, New York............       3,000,000
Bridge Renovations, Meriden, Connecticut (Hanover/Grove 
    Street, Hanover/South Butler Street, and approaches 
    to the Center Street Bridge)........................       1,000,000
Brown Road Bridge, Anderson County, South Carolina......       2,000,000
Chattahoochee River Bridge, Roswell, Georgia............       3,000,000
Chouteau Bridge, Kansas City, Missouri..................       1,000,000
City of El Paso, Texas, Ysleta Port of entry dedicated 
    commuter lane.......................................         500,000
CR 528 Mantoloking Bridge, Brick Township, New Jersey...       2,000,000
Gilmerton Bridge Replacement, Chesapeake, Virginia......       3,000,000
Grand Lagoon Bridge Replacement, Florida................       1,000,000
Gravina Bridge, Ketchikan, Alaska.......................       2,000,000
Highway 3364 bridge replacement at College Road, Bourbon 
    County, Kentucky....................................         200,000
Highway 82, Greenville Bridge, Arkansas.................       3,500,000
Hood River/White Salmon Bridge and toll plaza 
    resurfacing, Oregon.................................       1,350,000
I-195 Washington Bridge (east bound), Rhode Island......       2,000,000
I-30 replacement bridge, Dallas, Texas..................       2,000,000
I-40/Louisiana Interchange, New Mexico..................       1,000,000
I-95 Bridge, New Haven Replacement of Bridge No. 00163A, 
    West River, Connecticut.............................       2,000,000
Indian River Inlet Bridge Repair and Planning, Sussex 
    County, Delaware....................................       1,000,000
Interstate 74 Mississippi River Bridge between Moline, 
    Illinois and Bettendorf, Iowa.......................       1,000,000
Iowa/Nebraska Missouri River Bridge--#DPS-34-7(114), 
    near Plattsmouth, Nebraska..........................       2,200,000
LA 143-US166 Connector and Ouachita River Bridge, 
    Louisiana...........................................         500,000
Leeville Bridge, Lafourche parish, Louisiana............       1,000,000
Lincoln County bridge renovation, Kentucky..............       1,000,000
Martin Luther King, Jr., Bridge rehabilitation, Ohio....       4,100,000
McCleary Bridge, Wausau, Wisconsin......................       5,500,000
Monroe Street Bridge rehabilitation, Washington.........       2,500,000
Randleman Lake Project bridge replacement, North 
    Carolina............................................       2,000,000
Red Cliff Arch Bridge (US 24), Minturn, Colorado........       1,000,000
Replacement of US 34 Missouri River Bridge, Mills 
    County, Iowa........................................       1,000,000
Route 52 Causeway Replacement and Somers Point Circle 
    Elimination, New Jersey.............................       2,000,000
Route 72 Manahawkin Bay Bridges, New Jersey.............       2,000,000
Sauvie Island Bridge, Oregon............................       1,000,000
SH 6 at Waco, South Bosque River Bridge, McLennan 
    County, Texas.......................................       4,500,000
Snake River Crossing, Twin Falls, Idaho.................       1,500,000
SR 104/Hood Canal Bridge east half replacement, 
    Washington..........................................       1,000,000
Tate's Bluff Bridge Project, Arkansas...................         500,000
US 15 Market Street Bridge Replacement, Williamsport, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       4,000,000
US 6 Broadway Street Viaduct, Council Bluffs, Iowa......       1,000,000
West Broadway Bridge, Patterson, New Jersey.............         350,000
Woodrow Wilson Bridge restoration project, Mississippi..       2,800,000

    Funds provided for seismic retrofit under the bridge 
discretionary program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available 
for the following activity in the corresponding amount:

        Project                                                   Amount
Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit.....................      $5,000,000

    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, provided DOT, after 
consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help meet 
national ambient air quality standards. TEA-21 provides greater 
flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and expands 
and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to reduce 
extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate matter 
(PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state has no 
non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be used as 
if they were STP funds.
    On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be 
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both 
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ 
program, including reducing regional emissions and verifying 
new mobile source control techniques.
    Federal lands highways.--This program provides funding 
through four major categories--Indian reservation roads, 
parkways and park roads, public lands highways (which 
incorporates the previous forest highways category), and 
Federally-owned public roads providing access to or within the 
National Wildlife Refuge System. TEA-21 also established a new 
program for improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation 
roads.
    Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year 
2003 shall be available for the following activities in the 
corresponding amounts:
        Project                                                   Amount
14th Street Bridge Corridor, Virginia...................      $7,600,000
17-Mile Road on Wind River Indian Reservation, Fremont 
    County, Wyoming.....................................       1,000,000
206 Stokes State Park, New Jersey.......................       1,245,000
Abraham Lincoln's birthplace, national historic site, 
    Kentucky............................................         600,000
Access roads to Beale Air Force Base, California........       1,000,000
Arches National Park, Utah..............................       1,385,000
BIA Route 1281 (Snake Road Realignment & Repair), 
    Florida.............................................       1,000,000
Black Narrows and Chinoteague Bridge, Virginia..........       1,180,000
Blackstone River Valley Bikeway, Rhode Island...........       2,000,000
Cape Flattery Tribal Scenic Byway paving project, 
    Washington..........................................       3,000,000
Cattle Point Road (San Juan Island)--erosion 
    remediation, Washington.............................         350,000
City of Boston--Boston Harbor Islands National Park/Long 
    Island Pier Planning and design, Massachusetts......         250,000
City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Cassia County, Idaho..       1,000,000
CN3852 FHP 45-1(5), Sunspot Road, New Mexico............       1,000,000
Cold Hill Road, Laurel County, Kentucky.................       1,600,000
Construct Regional Tourism Center and Transportation 
    Hub, Hyde Park, New York............................       1,500,000
Council Grove Lake/Reservoir from US highways 177 and 
    56, Kansas..........................................       1,500,000
Cuyahoga Scenic Rail Line (Canton-Akron-Cleveland 
    Commuter Rail Project), Ohio........................       3,000,000
Daniel Boone Parkway, Kentucky..........................       1,000,000
Forest Highway 87 (FM 201), Sabine National Forest, 
    Sabine County, Texas................................       2,000,000
Frog Level Road Improvement, Mississippi................       5,000,000
GBH Solomon National Cemetery Access, Saratoga, New York          40,000
Highway 26, Oregon......................................       1,980,000
Homochitto National Forest access road, Lincoln County, 
    Mississippi.........................................       2,000,000
Hoover Dam Bypass, Arizona..............................       5,000,000
I-215/I-515 Interchange, Henderson, Nevada..............       2,000,000
Improved access to Dyess Air Force Base, Texas..........       1,000,000
Lake Mead National Recreation Area gateway improvements, 
    Nevada..............................................         500,000
Land Between the Lakes Roads, Trigg and Lyon counties, 
    Kentucky............................................         100,000
Louisiana Highway (LA 117), 4-lane expansion study, 
    Louisiana...........................................         500,000
Lowell Canalway and Riverwalk Design, Massachusetts.....         780,000
Mammoth Cave Parkway (KY 101), Edmonson County, Kentucky         450,000
Marin Parklands/Muir Woods visitor access, California...       2,000,000
Marysville Road, Montana................................       1,000,000
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, SR 164, Washington............         420,000
Needles Highway, CA/NV Improvements, California.........       2,000,000
Patuxent River Naval Air Station Museum and Visitor 
    Center, Maryland....................................       3,400,000
Presidio Trust/Crissy Field transit access improvement, 
    California..........................................       1,000,000
Preston North and South Project, Nebraska...............       1,300,000
Ramsey Street extension, Banning, California............       3,000,000
Rehabilitation of County Route 37 and Alternate Route 
    37, Jefferson County, New York......................         750,000
236 Claggett Hill Road Construction with Lewis & Clark 
    Ferry Boat Facilities, Missouri River, Montana......       3,000,000
Sotgun Cove Road, City of Whittier, Alaska..............       2,000,000
Southern Beltway (I-215) upgrade project from Pecos Road 
    to Stephanie Street and from Interstate 15 to Pecos 
    Road, Clark County, Nevada..........................       1,000,000
Spirit Lake Tribe shared use path, Fort Totten, North 
    Dakota..............................................         520,000
State Highway 149, Colorado.............................       1,000,000
Tank Destroyer Boulevard, Fort Hood, Texas..............       2,000,000
Timucuan Preserve bike route, Florida...................       1,000,000
Tombigee National Forest public access improvements, 
    Mississippi.........................................       1,750,000
Traffic abatement study for highway 98, entrance to 
    Hurlbert Field, Florida.............................         500,000
Trail Extension at Mount Vernon Circle, Virginia........         400,000
Tualatin River NWR Turn Lanes, Oregon...................         900,000
USMC Heritage Center Access Improvements, Virginia......       2,000,000
Western MD Low Impact Welcome Center at Byron Overlook, 
    Maryland............................................         800,000
Widening and rehabilitation of FM 2500, Polk County, 
    Texas...............................................       1,000,000
Woonsocket Depot rehabilitation, Rhode Island...........       1,000,000

    The Committee directs that the funds allocated above be 
derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and 
not from funds allocated to the Fish and Wildlife Service's and 
National Park Service's regions.
    Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA-21, after the computation of 
funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are 
distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional 
amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee 
provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5 
percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of 
the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each 
fiscal year, $2.8 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. TEA-21 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.--TEA-21 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 
TEA-21 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 TEA-21, 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.--TEA-21 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.
    Funds provided for the national corridor planning and 
border infrastructure programs in fiscal year 2003 shall be 
available for the following activities in the corresponding 
amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
12 Mile Road, Orchard Lake Road to Middlebelt Road, 
    Michigan............................................        $750,000
Alameda Corridor East, Los Angeles County, California...       1,000,000
Appalachian Development Highway System, Corridor V, 
    Mississippi.........................................         500,000
Appalachian North-South Corridor Study on US Route 220, 
    West Virginia.......................................       1,000,000
Barton River Port Industrial Park, US Hwy 72, Colbert 
    County, Alabama.....................................       1,500,000
Baseline Road Project--Isabella County, Michigan........         500,000
Bomber Road, Fort Worth, Texas..........................       1,000,000
Clay/Leslie Industrial Park Access, Kentucky............         570,000
County Road 1050 Bridge over Embarrase River to SR 130, 
    Cumberland County, Illinois.........................       2,000,000
County Road 222 Bridge, Cullman County, Alabama.........       1,000,000
Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project Environmental 
    Impact Statement, New York..........................       2,000,000
Dempster Commercial Corridor Improvements--Village of 
    Morton Grove, Illinois..............................         500,000
Donna-Rio Bravo International Border Crossing, Texas....       1,000,000
Effingham-Teutoplois Road, Illinois.....................       1,000,000
EIS for State Rt 75, Coronado Tunnel, California........       1,500,000
Fairmont Gateway Connector (I-79 Connector), West 
    Virginia............................................       2,000,000
Gateway Corridor Initiative, Indiana....................         850,000
Granite Falls Alternate Route Project, Washington.......       1,000,000
Heartland Expressway (SD79), South Dakota...............         500,000
Highway 100 (Collins Road)--Cedar Rapids, Iowa..........         750,000
Highway 231 Glover Carey Bridge and Owensboro 
    intersection, Kentucky..............................         800,000
Highway 412 Springdale Bypass, Springdale, Arkansas.....       1,778,000
Highway 52 Corridor Plan, Intersection of US Hwy 52 at 
    Dakota City, Rd 47, Minnesota.......................       1,000,000
Highway 55 Corridor Preservation--I-494 in Hennepin 
    County to Annadale--Wright County, Minnesota........       1,500,000
Highway 71 Texarkana South, Arkansas....................       1,000,000
Highway 71, Alma--Greenwood, Arkansas...................       1,000,000
Highway Improvements along T.H. 13 corridor near Ports 
    of Savage, Minnesota................................       1,000,000
Highway US 12 Phase II, between Burbank and Walla Walla, 
    Washington..........................................       1,000,000
Hot Springs Bypass, Highway 270 to Highway 5/7, Arkansas       1,000,000
Hwy 15 Bridge Replacements, Jasper County, Bay Springs, 
    Mississippi.........................................       1,000,000
I-35 expansion, Hill County, Texas......................       1,500,000
I-35/127th Street Overpass, Olathe, Kansas..............       1,000,000
1-39 (Stevens Point--Mosinee, Wisconsin)................       2,000,000
I-40 Crosstown Expressway realignment, Oklahoma City, 
    Oklahoma............................................       1,000,000
I-59 and FM 2919, Isleib, Texas.........................         500,000
I-65 and County Road 24 interchange, Limestone County, 
    Alabama.............................................       1,500,000
I-66, Pike County, Kentucky.............................       2,000,000
I-69 Connector from I-530 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.......       1,000,000
I-69 Corridors 18 and 20, Texas.........................       3,000,000
I-69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65--Mississippi Highway 
    1, Mississippi......................................       5,250,000
I-75--Laurel County, Kentucky...........................       1,000,000
I-99 Frankstown Road, Pennsylvania......................         200,000
IH 35--FM 2484 Amity Road, Shankin Road Overpass--Bell 
    County, Texas.......................................       2,000,000
Illinois Pioneer Parkway and Growth Cell Infrastructure 
    Improvements, Peoria................................       1,000,000
Illinois Route 29, Berry and Edinburg, Illinois.........       1,000,000
Industrial park access improvements, Escambia County, 
    Atmore, Alabama.....................................       1,000,000
Intermodal Transportation study for corridor from 
    Atlanta to Chattanoga, Tennessee....................         750,000
Lakeland In-Town Bypass, Florida........................         200,000
Lincoln bypass--SR 65/Westwood Interchange Construction, 
    California..........................................       2,000,000
Lincoln Highway 65 Widening (The Gap) Project, 
    California..........................................         500,000
Martel Road Underpass--Loudon County Tennessee..........         750,000
Meridian Bridge Replacement--US 81 Missouri River--
    Yankton, South Dakota...............................         500,000
Monticello Street Overpass, Kentucky....................       7,750,000
Mississippi Highway 44/Pearl River Bridge Extension 
    Project.............................................       2,000,000
New Corridor Land Acquisition; Westlake--North Olmstead/
    Crocker--Stearns Connection, Ohio...................         500,000
New York Avenue Between 11th Street and Nassau Road--
    Huntington Station, New York........................         500,000
North Street Corridor, Fitchburg, Massachusetts.........         800,000
Old Highway 471, Rankin County, Mississippi.............       1,000,000
Port Connector Road, Pine Bluff/Jefferson County, 
    Arkansas............................................         900,000
PA 501 Schaefferstown Bypass, Lebanon County, 
    Pennsylvania........................................         620,000
Railroad Avenue Extension--Berkeley County, South 
    Carolina............................................         750,000
Ranchero Road/Cajon Line Grade Separation, California...         750,000
River Road from Beargrass Creek to Zorn Avenue, Kentucky       1,000,000
Roosevelt Connector--Pinellas County, Florida...........      10,000,000
Route 1/9, 35 Interchange, New Jersey...................         750,000
Route 116 planning and design, Amherst, Massachusetts...         800,000
Route 12--Auburn Veteran's Memorial Corridor, Auburn, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         250,000
Route 2 Improvements in Erving, Orange, Massachusetts...       4,400,000
Route 334/Derr Road, Ohio...............................       1,000,000
Route 422 East, Between New Castle and Rose Point, 
    Pennsylvania........................................         250,000
Route 67, St. Francois County, Missouri.................         250,000
Route 7 Bypass West of Leesburg (Loudoun County/Town of 
    Leesburg), Virginia.................................       1,750,000
Route 72 Relocation--Briston, Connecticut...............       1,500,000
Route 79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement--Fall River, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         500,000
South Avis Industrial Access Road, Pennsylvania.........         500,000
Northern bypass around Somerset, Kentucky...............       2,500,000
Southern Mahoning County US 62/SR 14 Bypass, Ohio.......       1,000,000
Southern bypass around Somerset, Kentucky...............       1,500,000
SR 247 and SR 2008, Moosic Mountain Business Park, 
    Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.....................         500,000
State Highway 158--US 87 to 4.75 miles west--Sterling 
    County, Texas.......................................       1,000,000
State Route 0039 (Hershey Road) and I-81 Interchange, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       2,700,000
Sterns Road Fox River Bridge Crossing, Illinois.........       4,800,000
STH 29 (Chippewa Falls I-94)--between I-94 and CTH J, 
    Wisconsin...........................................       2,000,000
Thomas Cole House Access, Catskill, New York............          22,000
Trunk Highway 23 (TH 71 to CSAH 31), Minnesota..........         500,000
U.S. 24 Corridor Improvement Study and Implementation, 
    Ohio................................................       2,000,000
U.S. 319 Expansion, Florida.............................       3,000,000
U.S. Route 35 Improvements (upgrade road to I-64/US 
    Route 35), West Virginia............................       1,500,000
US 20 relocation and right of way, Webster, Iowa........       1,500,000
US 22 Reconstruction--Export to Delmont, Pennsylvania...         500,000
US 278 Cullman County, Alabama..........................         200,000
US 280/ US 27 Intersection Improvement--Chattahoochee 
    County, Georgia.....................................         250,000
US 41 A--Hopkins County, Kentucky.......................         230,000
US 51/SR 43 Connector Road--South Canton Industrial 
    Access Corridor--Canton, Mississippi................         500,000
US 60 Carter and Butler Counties, Missouri..............       1,250,000
US 87 Relief Route, Lamesa, Texas.......................       1,000,000
US Route 422 Transportation Improvement Project, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       1,000,000
USH 10 (Stevens Point--Waupaca), Wisconsin..............       2,000,000
USH 53 (Chippewa Falls-New Auburn, Wisconsin)...........       1,000,000
USH 53 Bypass of Eau Claire, Wisconsin..................       2,000,000
Veteran's Drive from Broadway to I-474, Pekin, Illinois.         500,000
West End Bypass, Johnstown, Pennsylvania................       1,000,000
West Laredo Multimodal Trade Corridor, Texas............       2,500,000
Whatcom County, Cascade Gateway Mobility and Security 
    Improvements, Washington............................       1,000,000
Whitley County emergency access road off US 25 W, 
    Kentucky............................................         380,000

    Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of 
TEA-21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats 
and ferry terminal facilities. TEA-21 also included a new 
requirement that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal years 1999 
through 2003 be set aside for marine highway systems that are 
part of the National Highway System for use by the states of 
Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2003, TEA-21 
provides $38,000,000.
    Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal 
facilities program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for 
the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Beacon and Newburgh cities ferry boat and ferry 
    facilities, New York................................      $1,100,000
Bridgeport High Speed Ferry Terminal improvements, 
    Connecticut.........................................         500,000
City of Rochester harbor and ferry terminal 
    improvements, New York..............................       1,500,000
Coffman Cove Ferry Terminal, Alaska.....................         500,000
Curtis ferry boat replacement, Maine State Ferry System.         500,000
Ferry Service--Dutchess County, New York................       1,000,000
Ferry service from Rockaway Peninsula to Manhattan 
    (Jamaica Bay Transportation Hub), New York..........       1,000,000
Fishers Island Ferry District, Connecticut..............       3,000,000
Golden Gate ferry berth facility, San Francisco 
    Terminal, California................................       1,000,000
Hatteras Inlet ferry connecting Ocracoke Island and 
    North Carolina Outer banks, North Carolina..........         400,000
Jacksonville Ferry Stations (formerly St. Johns River 
    Ferry Terminal), Florida............................         500,000
Middle Bass Ferry Dock, Phase II, Ohio..................         500,000
Newport Harbor water shuttles, Newport, Rhode Island....         500,000
Palm Beach County Water Taxi Facilities Project, Florida       1,000,000
Plaquemines Parish ferry, Louisiana.....................         500,000
Ponce De Leon Inlet Water Taxi, Volusia County, Florida.         500,000
Port of Galveston, intermodal improvement program, Texas         500,000
Removal and replacement of ferry-dock structure at 
    Cherry Grove, Fire Island, New York.................         100,000
Savannah Water Ferry, Georgia...........................         500,000
Stamford High Speed Ferry, Connecticut..................         500,000
State of Vermont, construction of Allen Point Ferry and 
    ferry terminal facilities, Vermont..................         200,000
Toledo Hovercraft service development, Ohio.............       1,200,000
Valdez, Alaska, ferry and dock facilities...............         500,000
Winthrop commuter ferry project, Massachusetts..........         500,000

    National scenic byways program.--This program provides 
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of 
Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic 
Byways (NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, 
cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. 
In fiscal year 2003, TEA-21 provides $26,500,000 for this 
program. Funds provided for the national scenic byways program 
in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the following 
activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Berkshire/Franklin Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway & Berkshire 
    Jacobs Ladder Trail Scenic Byway, Massachusetts.....      $1,000,000
Delsea Scenic Byway, Salem, Cumberland, Cape May 
    Counties, New Jersey................................         149,000
High Street Revitalization, Lawrenceburg, Indiana.......       1,200,000
Intervale Scenic Vista Project, New Hampshire...........         500,000
Kentucky Scenic Byways..................................       1,425,000
Mt. Greylock Reservoir Road Improvements, North Adams, 
    Massachusetts.......................................       1,100,000
Multi-Colored Scenic Byways Signs for Idaho's Scenic, 
    Historic, and Back County Byways....................         382,000
New York State Scenic Byways Project: Statewide.........       1,600,000
U.S. Route 40 and National Road, Garrett County, 
    Maryland............................................         233,600
Ventura Freeway Scenic Corridor Initiative, California..       1,000,000
Washington DOT Scenic Byways Statewide Program..........       1,000,000

    Transportation and community and system preservation pilot 
program.--TEA-21 established a new transportation and community 
and system preservation program that provides grants to states 
and local governments for planning, developing, and 
implementing strategies to integrate transportation and 
community and system preservation plans and practices. These 
grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the 
transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on 
the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments 
in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, 
services, and centers of trade.
    Funds provided for the transportation and community and 
system preservation pilot program in fiscal year 2003 shall be 
available for the following activities in the corresponding 
amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Arlington Boulevard design enhancements, Virginia.......         100,000
Assembly Street railroad consolidation and grade 
    crossing elimination, South Carolina................         500,000
Bronx Center Transportation Project--E 161st Section II: 
    between Grand Concourse/Sherman Ave and Park, New 
    York................................................         700,000
Bronx Center Transportation Project (East 161st Street), 
    streetscape improvement between Park & 3rd Avenue...         300,000
Bronx River Greenway, Bruckner to Hunts Point Riverside 
    Park, New York......................................         700,000
Campaign to Save Oatland's Scenic Vistas, Virginia......         500,000
Center City/University City bike and pedestrian bridge 
    improvements, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania............         100,000
Centredale Village revitalization, Rhode Island.........         100,000
Charlestown, West Virginia Gateway Revitalization 
    Project.............................................         400,000
City of Fort Worth corridor redevelopment program, Texas         100,000
City-wide automobile insurance feasibility study, 
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..........................         100,000
Comprehensive transportation impact study for OH, KY, IN 
    Regional Council of Governments.....................         200,000
Congestion improvements to Passaic Street, New Jersey...         100,000
Connaught Avenue Street Drainage Project, West Amwell 
    Township, New Jersey................................         100,000
Copeland Covered Bridge, Saratoga County, New York......          28,000
Crawford County and Palestine Illinois Road upgrade, 
    Illinois............................................         200,000
Detroit Streetscape Improvements, Michigan..............         350,000
Detroit Area Regional Transportation Authority (DARTA), 
    Michigan............................................         500,000
Eisenhower Avenue Greenway, Phase II, Virginia..........         100,000
Elkins Railroad Bridge Visitors Center, West Virginia...         600,000
Five Point Improvement Project, Huntsville, Alabama.....         100,000
Gasholder House and Underground Railroad Museum, 
    Oberlin, Ohio.......................................         100,000
Grade Separation at Intersection of Hamilton Boulevard 
    over the CSX rail line near US 90, Mobile, Alabama..         100,000
Grand Illinois Trail bike connections, Illinois.........         100,000
Greeno Road (US98) Pilot Program, Fairhope, Alabama.....         650,000
Haleyville, Alabama downtown revitalization.............         600,000
Harden Street improvements, Columbia, South Carolina....         500,000
Highway 212 between Norwood Young America and Cologne in 
    Carver County, Minnesota............................       1,000,000
Houston Main Street Corridor revitalization project 
    implementation, Texas...............................         100,000
HUB Business District Project, New York.................       1,000,000
I-73 North Carolina State line to Myrtle Beach, South 
    Carolina............................................         272,000
I-84 Exit 11 Danbury/Newton, Connecticut................         300,000
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (IDNL) hike/bike trail 
    and pedestrian bridge/overpass, Indiana.............         100,000
Jasper, Alabama downtown revitalization.................         150,000
Johnsontown Road, Kentucky..............................         250,000
Kentucky Trimodal Transpark access road, Kentucky.......         250,000
Lewis and Clark Intepretive Center to Fort Mandan shared 
    use path, North Dakota..............................         400,000
Louisville Waterfront/Frankfort Avenue historical 
    entryway, Kentucky..................................         300,000
Lower Second Creek Greenway, Knoxville, Tennessee.......         100,000
Marlboro Township traffic improvement project...........         100,000
Massachusetts Wood in Transportation, Mount Wachusett 
    Community College, Gardner, Massachusetts...........         200,000
Monroe Township intersection signalization project, New 
    Jersey..............................................         100,000
Morgan, Menifee, Rowan County Regional Business Park 
    Access Road, Kentucky...............................         250,000
Multimodal transportation plan, Wisconsin...............         100,000
Multi-use Equestrian and Hiking Trail, Holmes County, 
    Ohio................................................         500,000
Pedestrian Access, Rockville, Maryland..................         150,000
Pedestrian Bridge, 36th Avenue, Robbinsdale, Minnesota..         750,000
Pine Creek Bridge and Rail-Trail, Pennsylvania..........         200,000
Pine Mountain Industrial Park Access Road, Kentucky.....       1,500,000
Railroad Avenue Underpass, East Chicago, Indiana........         500,000
Route 50 traffic calming, Loudoun and Fauquier counties, 
    Virginia............................................         750,000
Route 79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement--Fall River, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         100,000
Sayville, New York, pedestrian improvements.............         100,000
Simon Kenton Trail, Springfield to Urbana, Ohio.........         750,000
Somerset downtown revitalization, Kentucky..............       1,800,000
South Suburban Commuter Rail Service (Metra), Illinois..         100,000
St. Louis economic council community and system 
    preservation project, Missouri......................         100,000
St. Petersburg, Florida, Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan....         600,000
State of New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicle Services 
    (NJ MVS)............................................         300,000
Syracuse Lakefront Project, New York....................       1,000,000
Tiverton Stone Bridge abutment repairs and 
    beautification, Rhode Island........................         100,000
Toulon Township, Illinois...............................         100,000
Traffic calming devices and pedestrian streetscape 
    improvements, Windemere, Florida....................         325,000
Traffic Calming Devices, Winter Park, Florida...........         325,000
Trinity River Visions, Texas............................         500,000
Urban Education Development Research and Retreat Center, 
    Transportation Education and Career Institute, 
    Pennsylvania........................................         100,000
VA Cemetery Road, Mobile, Alabama.......................         750,000
Village of Dieterich Industrial Park Road, Illinois.....         100,000
Wichita Riverwalk on Arkansas River, Kansas.............         100,000
Wisconsin 29 and Marathon County Y Intersection.........         500,000

    Performance based outcomes.--The Committee recognizes the 
impact the performance based outcomes can have on the road 
building industry by allowing contractors the freedom and 
flexibility to focus on quality and long term performance and 
encourage the Department of Transportation to further explore 
their use.
    Rural consultation.--During the past two years, the 
Committee has repeatedly expressed its concern about the lack 
of progress FHWA has made in promulgating final rules that 
assure a clearly defined and strong role for rural local 
elected officials in the statewide transportation planning and 
programming processes, as set forth in 1998 in TEA-21. The 
Committee is particularly displeased with the supplemental 
notice published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2002. 
While the Committee understands that this notice represents an 
implementation option besides the May 25, 2000 proposal, it is 
a proposal that falls far short of the congressional intent. It 
essentially retains the status quo by allowing state officials 
to determine which local officials they choose to consult, 
meaning rural local elected officials in many states would 
continue to be left out of vital transportation planning and 
programming decisions. The Committee remains firm that FHWA 
should immediately promulgate final rules that closely resemble 
the May 25, 2000 proposal.
    Large Project Management and Oversight.--As evidenced by 
the high profile difficulties that have plagued the Central 
Artery, Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and Springfield Interchange 
projects--including dramatic cost increases and significant 
schedule delays--the need for improvement of FHWA's financial 
oversight and accountability on large projects cannot be 
overemphasized. Although the FHWA has made notable progress in 
converting these difficulties into constructive catalysts for 
change, the Committee remains concerned about project 
management. The Inspector General has noted that FHWA's 
traditional engineering focus has inhibited the effective 
scrutiny of other major project drivers such as financing, cost 
controls, and schedule performance. To successfully refocus on 
the evaluation of each state's processes for managing and 
overseeing projects, the FHWA will need to evaluate the range 
of disciplines and skills within its staff. Specifically, the 
Committee directs the FHWA to develop a strategy for achieving 
a more multidisciplinary approach towards its oversight 
activities, to include: identification of staff with private 
sector management skills, such as financing and cost 
estimation; streamlining and delegation of project-level 
approvals to facilitate greater emphasis upon oversight of 
higher-level management and financial issues; and 
implementation of a planned data collection system for trend 
analysis. The Committee directs FHWA to deliver this strategy 
no later than March 3, 2003.
    Ambassador Bridge.--The Committee appropriated substantial 
funds for critically important direct access improvements 
between the Ambassador Bridge/Gateway Project, as authorized in 
Section 1217(b) of Public Law 105-178. In obligating all 
authorized and appropriated funds for the project, the 
Committee expects that the Federal Highway Administration shall 
ensure that such funds are used only for the Ambassador Bridge/
Gateway Project. Specifically, the original scope and intent of 
the Gateway Project was and continues to permit direct access 
and relief from traffic congestion between the Ambassador 
Bridge and the trunkline system, including on- and off-ramps to 
and from Interstates I-75 and I-96; for local road access 
improvements to Porter, 21st and other streets in the 
neighboring community; to accommodate access to meet future 
border crossing capacity needs and protect plans identified by 
the Ambassador Bridge, including a second span of the 
Ambassador Bridge; to accommodate access to a proposed 
Visitor's Center/Retail Complex on the U.S.-side of the 
Ambassador Bridge; and for other planning and environmental 
initiatives needed to ensure access improvements and 
connectivity to the Ambassador Bridge.
    Rural road safety.--The most dangerous automobile travel 
occurs on two-lane roads. Accident rates on rural two-lane 
roads are double the rates on interstate highways and, in 1999, 
77.1% of highway fatalities occurred on two-land roads. The 
Committee directs the General Accounting Office to review 
Federal funding of rural road safety improvements and whether 
some interstate design characteristics could improve rural road 
safety. The GAO is to include cost estimates for improvements 
to rural road safety and should submit this report one year 
from the date of enactment of this act.
    Interstate 49 South, Louisiana.--The Committee understands 
there is conflicting data regarding the alignment of future 
Interstate 49 south below Interstate 10 and directs the 
Secretary to review alternative routes, such as the Teche Ridge 
route. The Committee believes that a careful review of 
alignment alternatives could provide significant savings to the 
taxpayer while eliminating a number of environmental concerns. 
The Committee directs that this review be done concurrent with 
planning, design and construction in other areas of U.S. 90 and 
not prevent progress or delay completion of this upgrade.
    Costa Mesa, California Susan Street Project.--The Committee 
directs the Secretary to review the ``Harbor Boulevard North 
Off-Ramp from (I-405 Northbound Distributor Road to Susan 
Street'' project in the city of Costa Mesa, California. The 
review should include the impacts this construction project 
would have with regard to operational and safety implications 
and other federal requirements. The results shall be submitted 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 90 days 
from the enactment of this Act.
    Projects.--In addition to the aforemention projects, funds 
shall be available for the following activities in the 
corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Chinese Community Center--Chinatown Study, New York.....        $500,000
Clay/Leslie Industrial Park Access, Kentucky............         430,000
Detroit city center study, Michigan.....................         300,000
Highway 21, Missouri....................................         340,000
Honeybranch Regional Business Park Access Road, Kentucky       1,650,000
Mobile Port, Waterfront and Transportation Initiative/
    Maritime Center of the Gulf of Mexico, Alabama......       1,000,000
Pearl and Leaf Rivers Rails-to-Trails Recreational 
    District ``Longleaf Trace,'' Mississippi............         360,000
Phalen Boulevard, Minnesota.............................         500,000
Southeast Main Avenue / 20th /21st Street Railroad Grade 
    Separation Project, Minnesota.......................         500,000

                             (Rescissions)

    The Committee includes rescissions of appropriations and 
contract authorizations of $5,609,337 in unobligated balances 
from completed highway projects in previous highway 
authorization and appropriations Acts.

                Appalachian, Development Highway System


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.......................      $200,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003......................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................       100,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................      -100,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................  ................

    The Committee recommendation includes $100,000,000 for the 
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). The amount is 
$100,000,000 less than the level provided in fiscal year 2002. 
Funding for this initiative is authorized under section 1069(y) 
of Public Law 102-240. The ADHS program provides funds for the 
construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in the 13 
states that comprise the Appalachian region.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program

    In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act (P.L. 106-159), which established the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within the 
Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation, motor 
carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the Federal 
Highway Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement 
Act (MCSIA) formed a new administration that placed truck and 
bus safety on par with other modes of transportation.
    The primary mission of FMCSA is to improve the safety of 
commercial vehicle operations on our nation's highways. To 
accomplish this mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the 
number and severity of large truck crashes. Agency resources 
and activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial 
vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of 
stronger enforcement measures against safety violators; 
expedited safety regulation; technology innovation; 
improvements in information systems; training; and improvements 
to commercial driver's license testing, record keeping, and 
sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely 
with federal, state, and local enforcement agencies, the motor 
carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual 
citizens. In addition, FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure 
that Mexican Commercial Vehicles, entering the U.S. in 
accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement, meet 
all U.S. hazardous material and safety regulations.
    MCSIA and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) provide funding authorizations for FMCSA, 
including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and 
technology, the national motor carrier safety assistance 
program (MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic 
safety initiatives (ISSSI). FMCSA's scope was expanded in 
fiscal year 2002 by the U.S.A. Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56), which 
called for new security measures. In addition, the fiscal year 
2002 Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87) increased border 
enforcement and safety related activities associated with 
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

                          Motor Carrier Safety


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

    The motor carrier safety account provides salaries, 
expenses, research, and safety program funding for the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended section 104(a)(1) of 
title 23 to deduct one third of one percent from specified 
Federal-aid program funds to fund personnel, and to administer 
motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier research. This 
mechanism is known as a ``takedown.'' Because the resulting 
funding level does not cover current personnel on board, 
important safety-related programs, and safety research, the 
budget request proposed to amend title 23 and increase the 
takedown to 45/100 of one percent. The Committee agrees that 
the TEA-21 and MCSIA did not provide sufficient flexibility for 
motor carrier safety funding requirements. The $92,857,000 
resulting from the takedown required by TEA-21 would require 
reductions to important programs, which would compromise 
safety. Therefore, instead of increasing the takedown 
percentage, the Committee provides an additional $24,587,000 
from the highway trust fund for a total $117,444,000 for motor 
carrier administration, safety, and research programs, 
consistent with the amount requested.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                                                         Limitation on
                                                         administrative
                                                            expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\..................     ($110,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\.................      (117,444,000)
Recommended in the bill \3\..........................       (92,857,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................      (-17,143,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................      (-24,587,000)
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $158,000 pursuant to section 349 of
  P.L. 107-87 as amended by section 1106 of P.L. 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $2,995,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals requested in the FY 2003
  President's Budget.
\3\ Excludes $24,587,000 in direct appropriations.

    The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to 
the budget request:

Deny FECA administrative costs..........................        -$19,800
Increase hazardous materials safety and security........        +500,000
Undistributed reduction.................................        -500,000

    The Committee has provided $92,857,000 for the motor 
carrier safety account from the limitation on administrative 
expenses, plus an additional direct appropriation of 
$24,587,000 for a total funding level of $117,444,000. Of the 
total provided, $110,444,000 is for operating expenses and 
$7,000,000 is for research and technology initiatives.
    FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced 
funding by $19,800 from the budget request for workers 
compensation administrative costs as explained in this report.
    Hazardous materials safety and security.--The Committee 
provides a total of $758,000, $500,000 above the budget 
request, to assess hazardous materials security and incident 
risks to meet national security and safety needs, and to 
develop strategies to minimize risks of transporting hazardous 
materials.
    Share the road program.--Statistics for 1999 show that 78 
percent of all fatal truck crashes are collisions between large 
trucks and other vehicles. Data from 1998 indicate that in 
approximately 81 percent of fatal crashes between large trucks 
and other vehicles, the passenger vehicle driver was found to 
be at fault. The safety community asserts that the share the 
road program's main campaign, focused on warning noncommercial 
drivers to avoid truck blind spots is not effective. The 
Committee directs the General Accounting Office to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the Share the Road program and submit the 
study to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 
April 1, 2003.
    Commercial drivers license program.--The Committee includes 
$10,000,000, consistent with the budget request, for the 
commercial drivers license (CDL) program from the office of 
motor carrier safety. For many years, the Committee has stated 
that more work needs to be done to address deficiencies in the 
CDL program and the Committee continues to strongly encourage 
the use of MCSAP funding for programs that enhance state driver 
record information systems, to speed the entry of convictions 
onto the driving record and ensure that records are complete. 
The 2002 supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 107-206) 
provided an additional $17,300,000 to correct flaws in the CDL 
program, including funds to complete background checks on CDL 
drivers as directed by the U.S.A. Patriot Act, and to develop 
and implement fraud detection and prevention techniques for 
state licensing and enforcement agencies. The Committee is 
concerned that the final ruling implementing the U.S.A. Patriot 
Act requirements has yet to be issued.
    The Inspector General included recommendations in its May 
8, 2002 report, Improving testing and licensing of commercial 
drivers, to strengthen state CDL programs and to improve 
FMCSA's oversight of the programs. The Committee urges FMCSA to 
implement these recommendations in a timely fashion.
    Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should 
continue working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead 
MCSAP agencies and licensing agencies to improve all aspects of 
the CDL program. In addition, FMCSA should consider sponsoring 
another pilot project involving law enforcement and driver 
licensing agencies to explore new and innovative ways to ensure 
that drivers who have been convicted of a disqualifying offense 
do not operate during the period of suspension or revocation. 
Finally, FMCSA should continue to support the judicial and 
prosecutorial outreach effort.
    Untethered truck trailer tracking and security.--Truck 
trailers pose a significant potential security threat since 
they provide an easy means to transport dangerous cargoes. In 
addition, the inability to track freight movements causes 
inefficiencies in the intermodal freight transportation system, 
increasing operating costs and congestion, and decreasing 
safety, economic competitiveness, and air quality. While 
commercially available technology can track a trailer when it 
is tethered to a cab, commercially available technologies are 
needed to track and control an untethered trailer. Within the 
funds provided for FMCSA's limitation on administrative 
expenses and high priority initiative program, the Committee 
has provided $2,000,000 to leverage existing technology and 
develop an untethered trailer tracking and control system that 
will provide real-time trailer identification, location, 
geofensing, unscheduled movement notification, door sensors, 
and alarms.
    Solid waste shippers.--Interstate truck shipments of solid 
waste are subject to all of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
regulations and standards as well as each state's Environmental 
Agency's regulations. Although garbage, refuse, and trash 
carriers account for 3 percent of the fatal truck crashes, 
preliminary information from the motor carrier management 
information system indicate that these carriers have a 5 
percent higher vehicle out of service rate in fiscal year 2002 
as compared to the overall truck population. Therefore, the 
Committee directs FMCSA to work with the Commonwealth of 
Virginia's MCSAP agency and conduct three one-day concentrated 
roadside inspections strike forces on interstate waste haulers. 
If the safety data warrants, the agency shall notify and advise 
other states of safety concerns regarding motor carriers 
domiciled in that state so they may take appropriate action. 
The reviews conducted shall be compiled and analyzed in a 
letter submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations before July 1, 2003.
    Truck crash causation study.--The Committee understands 
that a committee empanelled by NHTSA and the FMCSA for review 
of the Truck Crash Causation Study (TCCS) has transmitted a 
number of memorandums to FMCSA detailing several major concerns 
and misgivings about the basic design and conduct of the TCCS. 
The Committee understands that FMCSA has taken the concerns of 
this panel into account and has made numerous changes to its 
forms, procedures, and research design. The Committee directs 
that this revised research design be reviewed by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics and published for public comment. 
BTS's review shall be provided to the House and Senate 
Committee on Appropriations.

                 National Motor Carrier Safety Program


                  (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                                    (Liquidation of
                                       contract         (Limitation on
                                    authorization)       obligations)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002       ($205,896,000)      ($205,896,000)
 \1\............................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003       (190,000,000)       (190,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.........       (190,000,000)       (190,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year         (-15,896,000)       (-15,896,000)
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................
\1\ $23,896,000 was provided from revenue aligned budget authority
  (RABA) as authorized in FY2002.

    The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program (NMCSP) 
was authorized by TEA-21 and amended by the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two 
major areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program 
(MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic safety 
initiatives (ISSSI) program. MCSAP provides grants and project 
funding to states to develop and implement national programs 
for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and 
regulations concerning motor carrier safety. The major 
objective of this program is to reduce the number and severity 
of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are 
made to qualified states for the development of programs to 
enforce the federal motor carrier safety and hazardous 
materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act of 1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle 
safety inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial 
motor vehicle traffic. ISSSI provides funds to develop and 
enhance data-related motor carrier programs.
    The Committee recommends $190,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for this program.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$190,000,000 for the national motor carrier safety program. 
This is the level authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999, which amended TEA-21. Although this is 
a reduction compared to fiscal year 2002 funding, a total of 
$23,896,000 was due to revenue aligned budget authority 
available in 2002. Therefore, the fiscal year 2003 funding 
level is an increase of $8,000,000 from the underlying 
authorization of $182,000,000 for NMCSP in fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as 
follows:

Motor carrier safety assistance program.................    $170,000,000
    Basic motor carrier safety grants...................   (130,329,000)
    Performance based incentive grant program...........    (16,108,000)
    Border assistance...................................     (8,250,000)
    High-priority activities............................     (8,250,000)
    State training and administration...................     (2,063,000)
    Crash causation (Sec. 224(f) MCSIA).................     (5,000,000)
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives....      20,000,000
    Information systems.................................     (5,200,000)
    Motor carrier analysis..............................     (8,800,000)
    Implementation of PRISM.............................     (5,000,000)
    Driver programs.....................................     (1,000,000)

                       Border Enforcement Program


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

    Enacted in 1993 and entered into force in 1994, the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was based on the premise 
that all of the countries in North America would be integrated 
into one free trade area. Under NAFTA's original timeline, the 
U.S. and Mexico agreed to permit commercial vehicle access to 
each other's border states by December 18, 1995. Reciprocal 
access beyond the border states was promised by January 1, 
2000. (Canadian carriers have been operating throughout the 
United States since 1982.) The NAFTA timetable also called for 
the United States and Mexico to lift all restrictions on 
regular route, scheduled cross-border bus service by January 1, 
1997.
    In December 1995, the prior administration postponed 
implementation of NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions, which 
continued to limit Mexican trucks to operations in designated 
commercial zones within Arizona, California, New Mexico, and 
Texas. A NAFTA arbitration panel concluded in February 2001 
that the U.S. blanket refusal to process the applications of 
Mexican carriers seeking U.S. authority because of concerns 
over the carriers' safety was in breach of its NAFTA 
obligations. The current administration has assured Mexico that 
the U.S. will move in a timely manner to meet NAFTA 
obligations.
    In February 2001, the Administration announced it would 
fully comply with NAFTA obligations regarding truck and bus 
access. Concerns regarding safety compliance and monitoring of 
Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles were resolved in Section 
350 of the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-87), and a total of $139,832,000 was 
provided for border safety enforcement in FY 2002 under Federal 
Highway Administration and FMCSA appropriations, including: 
$17,666,000 under the Motor Carrier Safety limitation on 
administrative expenses; $28,000,000 for state operations 
grants under the national motor carrier safety program account; 
$25,866,00 under section 350; and $68,300,000 for inspection 
station construction and land acquisition under FHWA 
coordinated border infrastructure program.
    The Administration has affirmed its commitment to open the 
border to Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles and to 
implement a regime of regulations to ensure safety. DOT has 
been inspecting Mexican trucks and buses at the border since 
1995, and in fiscal year 2003, FMCSA's border enforcement 
program will support 274 Federal border enforcement personnel, 
more than four times the number at the border in fiscal year 
2001.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\...................       $25,866,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\..................        59,967,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        59,967,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................       +34,101,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................               (0)
\1\ Does not include $19,300,000 in emergency supplemental funding
  provided in P.L. 107-206 to implement the USA Patriot Act and for
  other security-related programs.
\2\ Does not include CSRS/FEHB accruals of $941,000 requested in the FY
  2003 President's Budget.

    Consistent with the budget request, the Committee 
recommends $41,967,000 for Federal border enforcement staffing 
and operations and $18,000,000 for state operations grants to 
the southern border-states.
    Additional border enforcement related funding is also 
provided in this bill including $8,250,000 for state operations 
grants under the national motor carrier safety program account 
and $47,000,000 for inspection station construction from FHWA's 
limitation on administrative expenses. Dedicated funding for 
border safety in FY 2003 totals $115,217,000.
    The Committee has extended a provision from the fiscal year 
2002 appropriations act regarding the safety of cross-border 
trucking between the United States and Mexico. While the safety 
of Mexico-domiciled trucks operating in the United States 
commercial zones has improved over the past year as measured by 
out of service order rates, the Committee expects FMCSA and DOT 
to continue to closely monitor the safety and security of all 
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating within the United 
States. The Committee directs that the Secretary report 
annually on the safety and security of the United States 
southern border with regard to motor carrier transportation 
into the United States by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 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 
(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 Act (MVICSA) (Part C of subtitle 
VI of title 49, U.S.C.); and (4) the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
    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 (MVICSA) 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 MVICSA established automobile content 
labeling requirements.
    The fourth law (TEA-21) 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 a highway safety data improvement incentive grant program 
(section 411). TEA-21 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, TEA-21 adopts a number of new 
motor vehicle safety and information provisions, including 
rulemaking directions for improving air bag crash protection 
systems, lobbying restrictions, exemptions from the odometer 
requirements for classes or categories of vehicles the 
Secretary deems appropriate, and adjustments to the automobile 
domestic content labeling requirements.
    In 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act amended the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in numerous 
respects and enacted many new initiatives. These consist of a 
number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, 
including a requirement that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of 
safety recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries 
involving motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment 
that are identical or substantially similar to vehicles or 
equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties for 
violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of the 
law's reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking 
directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for 
light duty vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling 
standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and 
establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer 
information program.

                         Traffic Safety Trends

    After dipping to a low of 39,250 in 1992, the nation over 
the past five years has experienced a fairly constant number of 
traffic related fatalities at or just below 42,000 per year. 
The latest NHTSA estimates indicate fatalities in 2001 were 
42,116, which is marginally more than the 41,945 traffic 
related deaths in 2000. However, motorcycle rider deaths 
continued to increase, with 3,181 riders killed in 2001 
compared to 2,897 in 2000. Additionally, passenger car 
fatalities were down, 20,233 in 2001 compared to 20,699 in 
2000, whereas fatalities in light trucks, vans and sport 
utility vehicles increased, 11,677 in 2001 compared to 11,526 
in 2000. In comparing 2000 to 2001, the number of police-
reported nonfatal crashes reduced from 6,356,000 in 2000 to 
6,285,000 in 2001. The number of injured persons declined 
significantly from 3,189,000 in 2000 to 3,033,000 in 2001. The 
fatality rate in 2001 has declined to 1.52 deaths per 
100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1.53 deaths in 
2000. The following graphs show the safety trends for total 
fatalities and the fatality rate for the past two decades.


                        Operations and Research


                                                        (Highway trust
                                    (General fund)           fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.        $127,780,000         $74,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003         126,445,000          74,000,000
 \1\............................
Recommended in the bill.........         131,433,000          74,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year            +3,653,000  ..................
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year           +4,988,000  ..................
 2003...........................
\1\ Excludes $4,437,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

    For fiscal year 2003, the Administration requested a total 
of $200,445,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities. 
Funding was to be allocated from three different accounts. 
First, the Administration requested $72,000,000 of contract 
authority from the highway trust fund to finance NHTSA's 
operations and research activities under 23 U.S.C. 403. This 
funding is included within the firewall guarantee for highway 
spending. Second, the Administration requested $126,445,000 
from the general fund for operations and research activities 
under sections 30102 and 30104 of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the 
budget included an authorization from the highway trust fund of 
$2,000,000 for the National Driver Register. The latter two 
requests are subject to appropriations.
    The Committee recommends new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for a total program level of 
$205,433,000, a two percent increase above fiscal year 2002. Of 
this total, $131,433,000 is for operations and research from 
the general fund; $72,000,000 is for 23 U.S.C. 403 activities 
from the highway trust fund; and $2,000,000 is for the National 
Driver Register from the highway trust fund. This is 
essentially a current services budget, with a few minor 
exceptions. The funding shall be distributed as follows:

Salaries and benefits...................................     $63,316,000
Travel..................................................       1,324,000
Operating expenses......................................      22,949,000
Contract programs:
    Safety performance..................................      10,393,000
    Safety assurance....................................      15,760,000
    Highway safety programs.............................      41,163,000
    Research and analysis...............................      61,021,000
    General administration..............................         657,000
Grant administration reimbursements.....................     -11,150,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     205,433,000

    Reorganization.--NHTSA reorganized in fiscal year 2002. The 
objectives of the reorganization were two-fold. First, the 
reorganization sought to improve internal management of the 
behavioral and vehicle safety programs by better aligning 
resources with responsibilities. Second, the reorganization was 
directed at improving communication and coordination with 
external partners, especially with State and local highway 
organizations. Because funding was not altered among the 
salaries and benefits or contract programs, the department was 
not required to submit a reprogramming request for 
Congressional approval.
    The Committee is aware of extensive dissatisfaction and a 
significant drop in morale following the reorganization. While 
temporary dissatisfaction can be expected when programs and 
responsibilities are altered, if low morale and a resulting 
decline in program effectiveness continues into fiscal year 
2003, the Administrator should be prepared to address the 
negative results of this reorganization during the fiscal year 
2004 hearing cycle.
    FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has denied the 
FECA administrative costs included in the budget request 
(-$12,000). This policy is consistent across all modal 
administrations funded in this bill.
    Seat belts.--In February 2002, the Department revised its 
unrealistic seat belt usage goals from 85 percent in 2000 and 
90 percent in 2005 to 78 percent in 2003. Over the past few 
years, NHTSA has worked aggressively with states to increase 
the seat belt usage rates, up from the mid-60s to 73 percent in 
2001. Most notably, the ``Click it or Ticket'' program,which 
involves high visibility enforcement by multiple law 
enforcement agencies combined with extensive media coverage of 
the program, has dramatically increased seat belt usage rates. 
For the 49 states that participated in the May 2002 
mobilization, preliminary data shows that there was a 
significant increase in seat belt usage. For example, Vermont 
showed a 19 percent increase and West Virginia had a 15 percent 
increase. The Committee applauds these increases, but NHTSA 
should not rest on its laurels. A highly visible and sustained 
seat belt campaign must continue throughout 2003 if the agency 
hopes to reach the 78 percent goal. The Committee directs NHTSA 
not to divert funds from these efforts to other activities.
    State data safety grants.--Included within the total for 
research and analysis is $3,000,000 for state data safety 
grants. The Committee is strongly supportive of continuing the 
state highway data safety improvements program in fiscal year 
2003. This program was authorized by TEA-21 only through fiscal 
year 2002. Most states have applied for these grants in the 
past and funding has been used to improve the timeliness, 
accuracy, uniformity, and accessibility of state data that is 
used by the federal government, states and localities to 
improve highway and traffic safety programs. These funds can 
also be used to improve the compatibility of state data with 
national data systems and/or data systems in other states, 
which enhances NHTSA's ability to observe and analyze national 
trends in accident and fatality rates. A failure to continue 
this program may limit future improvements states may make to 
their data systems, due to a lack of funding, and may reduce 
NHTSA's ability to compare state data nationwide. It is the 
Committee's understanding that NHTSA plans to request the 
continuation of this grant program during reauthorization next 
year, which makes fiscal year 2003 funding critical to prevent 
a gap in the program.
    Crash causation study.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for NHTSA to begin updating its 23 year old crash 
causation study. While NHTSA continues to utilize the data from 
this old study, the information is clearly outdated. For 
example, the use of minivans, light trucks and sport utility 
vehicles were virtually nonexistent 23 years ago; vehicle 
technologies, such as antilock braking systems and stability 
control systems, did not exist; and distracting devices, such 
as cell phones and in-vehicle navigation systems, had not been 
introduced. An updated study is necessary so that NHTSA can 
continue to work on achieving substantial reductions in highway 
fatalities and injuries, particularly in those hard to reach 
areas such as alcohol-related fatalities and motorcycle 
fatalities. This study will assist NHTSA researchers in 
identifying and creating new initiatives for their crash 
avoidance and countermeasures programs (i.e. those programs 
designed to develop new techniques to prevent crashes from 
occurring). The Committee believes it is imperative to begin 
this work in 2003 because NHTSA is in the process of completing 
a large truck crash causation study. Beginning a broader crash 
causation study as the truck study is concluding will reduce 
startup costs and shorten the timeframe for this follow-on work 
because NHTSA will be able to make use of the contract already 
in place.
    Impaired driving.--For the past two years, alcohol-related 
traffic fatalities have increased by the largest percentage on 
record. These increases are particularly disturbing because 
total alcohol-related traffic fatalities had dropped from 57 
percent in 1982 to a low of 38 percent in 1998. Now over 40 
percent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
    This summer, NHTSA has repeatedly announced that it will 
intensify its work in 2003 to reverse the trend in alcohol-
related fatalities. However, after repeated questioning, the 
agency has been unable to explain what new initiatives will be 
undertaken. The bill fully funds the agency's 2003 budget 
request for impaired driving (under section 403) as submitted 
in February. However the Committee expects NHTSA to revise this 
budget request to reflect the agency's change in mission by 
November 2002 and inform the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations about these changes. Some areas that NHTSA may 
want to consider are: working more aggressively with states to 
reduce underage drinking, reinvigorating the court monitoring 
program, and working more closely with the judicial system 
(both judges and prosecutors) to increase penalties on drunk 
drivers. In addition, the Committee has included a general 
provision (sec 325) that allows $8,000,000 of the section 163 
grant funds to be used for media messages on the dangers of 
alcohol-impaired driving, in hopes that these messages will be 
as successful as the seat belt messages procured with section 
157 grant funds.
    Point of sales training.--The Committee is concerned that 
many alcohol enforcement programs are overlooking the 
importance of proper education and training of point of sales 
employees. According to the Center for Substance Abuse and 
Prevention, responsible server training programs are most 
likely to succeed when servers and managers know that the law 
will be enforced, or realize that they have responsibility and 
may assume significant liability if they serve intoxicated or 
underage individuals. Point of sales education is the most 
effective means for disseminating accurate information to 
servers and managers. The Committee suggests that NHTSA 
evaluate including point of sales training as part of its 
impaired driving initiatives.
    Emergency medical services head injury research.--Within 
the funding provided for emergency medical services, $750,000 
shall be used to continue training emergency medical service 
personnel in delivering prehospital care to patients with 
traumatic brain injuries.
    Improving ejection prevention measures.--Occupant ejection 
from motor vehicles continues to be a major safety problem. 
According to NHTSA, partial and complete ejections result in 
about 7,800 fatalities and 7,100 serious injuries annually. The 
agency has estimated that reducing the incidence of ejection 
using available safety technologies such as advanced side 
glazing, side air bags, and enhanced roof strength could save 
hundreds of lives. In its Vehicle Safety Rulemaking Priorities 
2002-2005, which was issued July 25, 2002, NHTSA identified 
both occupant ejection and upgraded roof crush resistance as 
``near term'' regulatory priorities that the agency expects to 
undertake in 2002 and 2003. Consistent with this proposal, the 
Committee supports the adoption of measures to improve ejection 
prevention performance of motor vehicles no later than December 
31, 2004, and recognizes that the agency may need to develop 
new test procedures.
    Motorcycles.--There was a continuous decline in motorcycle 
crash fatalities from the mid-1980s through 1997. Since 1997, 
motorcyclist fatalities have increased. The Committee 
understands that the demand for motorcycle training in the 
United States exceeds current capacity and that in some states 
motorcyclists must wait over six months to receive necessary 
training. This is despite the fact that in 1999 there were 
192,122 people trained, close to 19 percent more than in 1998. 
Within the funding available to NHTSA, $500,000 shall be used 
for motorcycle training demonstration projects to enable states 
to develop ways to reduce their motorcycle training backlog.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                                    (Liquidation of
                                       contract         (Limitation on
                                    authorization)       obligations)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.        $223,000,000      ($223,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003         225,000,000       (225,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.........         225,000,000       (225,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year            +2,000,000        (+2,000,000)
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................

    TEA-21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway 
safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 
grant program, the occupant protection incentive grant program, 
and the state highway safety data improvement grant program. 
Three of these grant programs continued in fiscal year 2003. 
The fourth--state highway safety data improvement grant 
program--was only authorized through 2002; however the 
Committee has provided funding under the operations and 
research account to continue this work in 2003. The Committee 
recommends $225,000,000 for liquidation of contract 
authorization, which is less than a one percent increase above 
the 2002 enacted level.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

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

Highway safety programs.................................    $165,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants....................      20,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures................      40,000,000

    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 $165,000,000 is included in the 
bill, which is the same amount as requested. The national 
occupant protection survey shall be funded within this total. 
Also, language is included in the bill that limits funding 
available for federal grants administration from this program 
to $8,150,000.
    Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has 
fully funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at 
$20,000,000. States may qualify for this grant program by 
implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law 
requiring safety belt use in any seat in the vehicle; (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. Language is 
included in the bill that limits funding available for federal 
grants administration from this program to $1,000,000.
    In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant 
program, TEA-21 established a safety incentive grant program 
(section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage. 
The grant program totals $500,000,000 over six 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. States 
that meet the section 157 requirements can use funds for any 
purpose under title 23, including highway construction, highway 
safety, and intelligent transportation systems. NHTSA and FHWA 
are jointly administering this program. NHTSA will collect the 
state data and determine the allocation of funds.
    Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.--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) drivers with high 
blood alcohol content (BAC); (6) young adult programs to reduce 
impaired driving by individuals ages 21-34; (7) a rate of 
testing for BAC of drivers in fatal crashes that is above the 
national average. Second, they can demonstrate a reduction in 
alcohol involved fatality rates in each of the last three years 
for which Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data is 
available 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 $40,000,000 for 
these grants in fiscal year 2003. Language is included in the 
bill that limits funding available for federal grants 
administration from this program to $2,000,000.
    In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant 
program, TEA-21 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 
it receives section 402 funds. The states may use these funds 
for any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g. 
highway construction, bridge repair, highway safety, etc.). 
This grant program encourages states to adopt and enforce more 
strigent anti-drunk driving legislation.
    Bill language.--The bill contains two provisions that 
pertain to NHTSA's highway safety grant programs. First, 
language is continued 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. Second, language is continued that 
limits the amount available for technical assistance to 
$500,000 of funds provided to implement section 410.
    General provision.--The Committee continued a general 
provision (sec. 325), that was included for the first time in 
fiscal year 2001, which allows section 402 funds to be used to 
produce and place highway safety public service messages in 
television, radio, cinema, print media, and on the internet. In 
addition the provision was modified to allow up to $8,000,000 
of the funds provided for innovative seat belt programs 
(section 157 grants) and alcohol-impaired driving programs 
(section 163 grants) to be used by the States to purchase 
advertising to publicize seat belt enforcement efforts and on 
ways to reduce alcohol-related fatalities during one or more of 
the national mobilization campaigns. The language also provides 
up to $2,000,000 for the Administrator to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the States' seat belt and alcohol programs 
that purchased such advertising.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program

    The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry, as well as managing the high-speed ground 
transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance 
programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's 
physical plant are also administered by the FRA.
    The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal 
year 2003 is $937,614,000, which is $285,349,000 (43 percent) 
more than requested. The following table summarizes the fiscal 
year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests 
and the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2002   Fiscal year 2003    Recommended in
                        Program                            enacted level         request            the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations..................................   \1\ $116,857,000   \3\ $118,264,000       $117,363,000
Safety and operations user fees........................  .................        -45,000,000  .................
Railroad research and development......................         29,000,000         28,325,000         27,325,000
Railroad research and development user fees............  .................        -14,000,000  .................
Next generation high speed rail........................         32,300,000         23,200,000         30,450,000
Alaska railroad........................................         20,000,000  .................  .................
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation......    \2\ 826,476,000    \1\ 521,476,000        762,476,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
  Total................................................      1,044,632,000        652,265,000        937,614,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $6,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L. 107-117).
\2\ Includes $100,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L 107-117) and $205,000,000 in
  supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-206).
\3\ Excludes $4,625,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

                         Safety and Operations


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.................        $116,857,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\................         118,264,000
Recommended in the bill.............................         117,363,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................            +506,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................            -901,000
\1\ Includes $6,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L.
  107-117).
\2\ Excludes $3,625,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

    The safety and operations account provides support for 
FRA's rail safety and passenger and freight program activities. 
Funding also supports salaries and expenses and other operating 
costs related to FRA staff and programs.
    A total of $117,363,000 has been allocated to safety and 
operations, which is 6 percent above the 2002 enacted level, 
when the $6,000,000 supplemental emergency appropriation is 
excluded. Of this total, $6,636,000 is available until 
expended. The following adjustments were made to the budget 
request:

Deny six new staff positions........................           -$836,000
Deny FECA administrative costs......................             -65,000

    New staff.--The Committee has denied six of the ten new 
staff requested in fiscal year 2003. Last year, the Committee 
approved 26 new staff and an additional 4 staff in the 
emergency supplemental. To date, FRA has filled half (15) of 
these positions. Because of the length of time it has taken FRA 
to fill its 2002 positions, the Committee has deferred a 
substantial increase in new staff in 2003 until it is clearer 
that the previously approved and on board staff cannot fulfill 
some or all of the functions requested in 2003.
    FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has denied 
funding for FECA administrative costs included in the budget 
(-$65,000). This policy is consistent across all modal 
administrations funded in this bill.
    User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's 
request to collect $45,000,000 in user fees for railroad safety 
activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such 
authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund 
railroad safety activities in the traditional manner.
    Pierre, South Dakota.--To accommodate the anticipated rail 
traffic from the Powder River Basin through Pierre and Fort 
Pierre, SD, the Committee directs the Administrator to work 
with the State of South Dakota, the cities of Pierre and Fort 
Pierre, and other entities to facilitate the construction of a 
project that will reduce rail congestion, mitigate noise, and 
increase safety. The mitigation projects may include, but are 
not limited to, a rail bypass around Pierre and Fort Pierre, 
including a Missouri River crossing, or noise and grade 
crossing mitigation and other safety measures associated with 
the existing track.
    General provision.--The bill includes language pertaining 
to the use of previously appropriated local rail freight 
assistance funds in the State of Iowa.

                   Railroad Research and Development


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................         $29,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................          28,325,000
Recommended in the bill.............................          27,325,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................          -1,675,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................          -1,000,000

    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 $27,325,000, 
which is $1,000,000 less than requested. The following 
adjustments were made to the budget request:

Train control.......................................            $750,000
Transportation Technology Center....................            -250,000

    Train control.--The Committee has reduced funding for 
testing and evaluation of train control systems under this 
account (-$750,000). Under the next generation high-speed rail 
account, the Committee has provided $9,000,000 for train 
control projects and evaluations. It is unclear how this 
research funding differs from work being done by FRA under the 
next generation high-speed rail account.
    Transportation Technology Center (TTC).--The Committee has 
provided a total of $675,000 for site improvements at the 
Transportation Technology Center. While this is only half of 
the increase requested (+$250,000), it should provide ample 
resources for the refurbishment and replacement of facilities 
and equipment at the Center in Pueblo, Colorado.
    University of Nebraska and Marshall University projects.--
The Committee continues to support the track and structures 
research being conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
and Marshall University. A total of $500,000 has been provided 
for these efforts in fiscal year 2003.
    User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's 
request to collect $14,000,000 in user fees for railroad 
research and development activities. This request has not been 
authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will 
continue to fund railroad research and development activities 
in the traditional manner.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

    TEA-21 establishes 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.
    The Committee has included bill language specifying that no 
new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made 
using federal funds for the payment of any credit premium 
amount during fiscal year 2003, as requested.

             Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation

    Funds are being used to redevelop Pennsylvania Station in 
New York City, which involves renovating the James A. Farley 
Post Office building into a train station and commercial 
center, and basic upgrades to Pennsylvania Station. In fiscal 
year 2000, Public Law 106-113 provided an advance appropriation 
totaling $60,000,000 of which $20,000,000 was allocated to 
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Committee has provided 
the advanced appropriation, which fulfills the federal 
commitment to this project.
    The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation has had 
significant problems with the proposed renovation of the James 
A. Farley Post Office building so that it can be used as a 
transportation facility and alleviate congestion at the 
adjacent Pennsylvania Station. However, after much effort, it 
appears that this project may finally get off the drawing 
board. Currently, the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment 
Corporation and the United States Post Office are negotiating 
an agreement through which the State of New York would purchase 
a portion of the James A. Farley Post Office building, which 
will then be converted largely into Amtrak-based facilities. It 
is the Committee's understanding that the U.S. Postal Service 
will retain ownership of that portion of the building which 
they are using and the State of New York will own the remainder 
of the building. The current cost estimate for this project is 
approximately $815,000,000. With this appropriation and a 
$160,000,000 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act loan and line of credit, the federal commitment 
is complete. The State of New York, Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority, New York City Economic Development Corporation, New 
York State Urban Development Corporation, U.S. Postal Service 
and private equity will provide the remainder of the funding 
for this project.

                Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................         $32,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................          23,200,000
Recommended in the bill.............................          30,450,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................          -1,550,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................          +7,250,000

    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 TEA-21.
    The Committee recommends $30,450,000 for the next 
generation high-speed rail program, which is $7,250,000 more 
than the budget request. Total program funding is allocated as 
follows:

                                                               Committee
                                                          recommendation
Train control systems:
    North American joint PTC project....................      $8,000,000
    Train control at the Transportation Technology 
      Center............................................       1,000,000
Non-electric locomotives:
    Advanced locomotive propulsion system...............       3,500,000
    Prototype non-electric locomotive...................       2,000,000
    Diesel mutiple units compliance and demonstration...       8,000,000
Grade crossing and innovative technologies:
    Mitigating hazards..................................       2,250,000
    Low-cost technologies...............................       1,000,000
Track and structures....................................       1,000,000
Corridor planning:
    California corridor.................................       1,000,000
    Gulf Coast corridor.................................         600,000
    Southeast corridor..................................         100,000
    Florida corridor....................................       2,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      30,450,000

    Diesel multiple units (DMU) compliance and demonstration 
program.--There is a growing interest from both commuter and 
intercity rail passenger service providers to use diesel 
multiple units on commuter and future high-speed rail 
corridors. However, this form of rail technology has not been 
produced in the United States since the Federal Railroad 
Administration has issued passenger equipment safety 
regulations. The Committee has provided $8,000,000 to validate 
the compliance of diesel multiple units with existing passenger 
car safety standards and to make a grant to a public body for 
the purpose of initiating a demonstration in daily revenue 
service of a compliant DMU during calendar year 2003. Federal 
funding shall only be made available if funds are matched on a 
dollar-for-dollar basis from non-federal sources and shall only 
be used for activities related to establishing the compliance 
of the DMU design with passenger car safety standards and for 
the acquisition of DMUs and service facilities necessary for 
revenue service demonstration. All other expenses, including 
the cost of passenger facilities and any net operating 
expenses, are not eligible for funding under this 
appropriation.
    California high-speed corridor.--In making funds available 
to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the Committee 
expects FRA to ensure that the State of California maintains 
its level of effort in allocating state funds to support high-
speed rail development and does not use federal funds as a 
substitute for state funding.
    Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.--Under section 
1003 of TEA-21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is 
made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing 
hazards. A limited number of corridors are eligible for these 
funds. Of these funds, $2,000,000 shall be used to mitigate 
grade crossing hazards between Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans, 
Louisiana; $1,400,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing 
hazards on the Empire Corridor between New York City and 
Albany, New York (including Hamilton Printing and Hook Boat); 
$1,000,000 to mitigate grade crossing hazards along the high-
speed rail corridor in South Carolina; $250,000 to mitigate 
grade crossing hazards between Staples Mill Station and Main 
Street Station in Richmond, Virginia; $350,000 to mitigate 
grade crossing hazards between Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis, 
Missouri; and $250,000 shall be used on the high-speed rail 
corridor between Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota and Chicago, 
Illinois.

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation


                                (AMTRAK)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\...................      $826,476,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003......................       521,476,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       762,476,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................       -64,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................      +241,000,000
\1\ Includes $100,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L.
  107-117) and $205,000,000 in supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-
  206).

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

                            Status of Amtrak

    Amtrak's financial situation has been especially precarious 
over the past year. While the railroad saw increased ridership, 
particularly on the Northeast Corridor, following the tragic 
events of September 11, 2001, its financial condition 
deteriorated so dramatically that the railroad began plans to 
cease all operations in early July of 2002. Serious structural 
reforms must occur during fiscal year 2003 if the railroad is 
to remain a viable entity instead of one that lurches from 
crisis to crisis.
    In 1997, with the passage of the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act, Amtrak was required to reach operating 
self-sufficiency by the end of 2002. Year after year, Amtrak 
repeatedly told the Committee that it was fixated on meeting 
this mandate, even as others expressed serious reservations 
about Amtrak's ability to meet or sustain operating self-
sufficiency. On November 9, 2001, the Amtrak Reform Council 
rendered a decision that Amtrak could not achieve operational 
self-sufficiency by its statutory deadline of December 2, 2002. 
The council found that Amtrak's financial performance since 
enactment of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act had 
deteriorated to such as degree that the railroad was in a 
weaker financial condition at the end of 2001 than it was prior 
to enactment in 1997.
    On January 25, 2002, the Inspector General reached a 
similar conclusion in its report on Amtrak's fiscal year 2001 
performance. In that report, the Inspector General stated, 
``Amtrak's cash losses have not decreased and Amtrak is no 
closer to operating self-sufficiency now than it was in 1997. 
With less than a year remaining in its mandate, there is not 
sufficient time for Amtrak to implement the kinds of 
sustainable improvements necessary to meet its deadlines for 
self-sufficiency. At this point in time, Amtrak will face a 
formidable challenge in 2002 just managing its cash resources--
be they from operating revenues or federal subsidies--to make 
ends meet without further borrowing.'' The Inspector General's 
concern was right on target.
    In early February 2002, the President of Amtrak announced 
$285,000,000 in operating cuts, capital deferrals, and 
maintenance actions to provide the railroad enough money to get 
through this fiscal year. Yet, even these cuts were 
insufficient.
    In May 2002, it became apparent to the new President of the 
Corporation that Amtrak had enough money to only last through 
mid-July. After that, the railroad would need to borrow money 
to make payroll through the end of the fiscal year. While 
Amtrak has done this before, the ability to borrow money in 
fiscal year 2002 had become much more complicated. Amtrak did 
not have a clean audit report from 2001, and still remains 
without an audit report of any type to this day. The Committee 
understands, however that the auditors had expressed serious 
concerns about Amtrak's financial situation. During their 
audit, they found approximately $200,000,000 in financial 
misstatements. Without an audit report, banks were reluctant to 
loan Amtrak short-term cash for operating expenses. At the end 
of June, the Secretary of Transportation stepped in and 
provided Amtrak a direct loan for $100,000,000 to keep the 
railroad operating past mid-July. At the end of July, Congress 
appropriated an additional $205,000,000 in supplemental 
appropriations to keep the railroad operating through the end 
of fiscal year 2002.
    Amtrak's shaky financial situation has had a direct impact 
on its revenues and riders. Amtrak's year-to-date operating 
results are $65,000,000 worse than they anticipated. In June 
2002 (when Amtrak was reporting the possible cessation of 
service), passenger revenues dropped by $13,300,000 and the 
railroad experienced a large number of cancellations. Revenues 
have been further impacted by a growing number of service 
quality issues, including an increase in the number of track 
slow orders, cancellations of service, and equipment problems, 
most notably the cancellation of Acela high-speed rail service 
due to cracking in the locomotives and railcars in August. A 
spate of accidents and derailments has led to a record number 
of railcars being placed out of service. As of June, over 100 
railcars and locomotives need to be repaired. This number has 
built up over time, as the railroad has had insufficient 
resources to repair them.

                            Budget Requests

    The Committee has received two very different budget 
requests for Amtrak. The Administration has recommended an 
appropriation of $521,476,000 and has stated that this amount 
is a placeholder until Congress decides how Amtrak should be 
structured. The Administration's budget request notes that 
``Amtrak has utterly failed'' to graduate from federal 
financial support and that Amtrak cannot continue indefinitely 
under current circumstances. In comparison, Amtrak has asked 
for more than double this amount--requesting a total of 
$1,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. This request does not allow 
for any new growth in service, it merely sustains their current 
deteriorated level of service. Amtrak also noted that if the 
railroad did not receive this entire appropriation, it would 
stop all long-distance service, 18 trains in all, on October 1, 
2002.
    Since receiving these budget requests, numerous events have 
occurred that alter, to some degree, the requests before this 
Committee. First, in June 2002, the Department developed a 
white paper that outlined a broad restructuring of Amtrak. This 
proposal put details behind the broad assertions contained in 
the budget request. In general, the paper rejected the 
assertion that Amtrak's problems can be fixed simply by a 
massive infusion of federal dollars. Instead, the 
Administration recommended systematic, root-and-branch 
rethinking of Amtrak's structure and its public policy mandate. 
The Department suggested reforms that would: require Amtrak to 
transition to a pure operating company; introduce competition 
to provide higher quality rail service at a reasonable price; 
establish long-term partnerships between states and the Federal 
Government to support intercity rail; and create a public 
partnership to manage the capital assets of the Northeast 
Corridor. While Amtrak has rejected many of these notions 
outright, the railroad has not developed a separate proposal 
for consideration. Second, in the summer, Amtrak informally 
told the Committee that it may require more funding for 
operating expenses than originally anticipated in their grant 
request in part due to a perceived inability to access up to 
$300,000,000 in private loans and $3.7 billion in debt.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $762,476,000 for grants to Amtrak 
in fiscal year 2003, which is $241,000,000 more than the budget 
request. Of this total, $521,476,000 is for operating losses 
and mandatory payments and $241,000,000 is for general capital 
improvements. Funding is provided to the Secretary of 
Transportation, who shall allocate these funds to Amtrak 
quarterly through the grant making process.
    The Secretary is directed to assure that any funds provided 
to Amtrak be spent in a prudent manner, on projects where 
positive results can be seen. Funding should be spent on 
projects that maximize operational efficiencies and promote 
those lines that have the highest ridership and have cost 
sharing agreements in place. Amtrak shall not be permitted to 
begin any new projects unless it can be fully funded with the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation and Amtrak generated revenues 
unless such projects are critical for safety or infrastructure 
repairs.
    Capital and operating work plan.--Bill language is included 
that requires Amtrak to submit to the Secretary of 
Transportation and the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations an operating and capital work plan for projects 
and expenses to be funded in fiscal year 2003. This work plan 
should not exceed funding provided in the final Appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2003. The work plan must be approved by 
Amtrak's Board of Directors and submitted no later than (1) 60 
days of enactment of the final Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 or 
(2) before Amtrak submits its 2004 grant request to Congress on 
February 15, 2003, whichever comes first. The capital and 
operating work plan shall include a description of the work to 
be funded, along with cost estimates and an estimated timetable 
for completion of the projects covered by this work plan. The 
Committee includes specific language directing the Secretary of 
Transportation that no funding may be used for operating and 
capital expenses not included on the approved work plan, 
excluding those payments made at the beginning of the fiscal 
year. Development and approval of the operating and capital 
plan should minimize the number of stopgap measures Amtrak has 
had to employ during the last few years, particularly relating 
to capital projects when the Corporation has been unable to 
commit funding to complete an entire project.
    Additional bill language is included that requires Amtrak 
to provide supplemental quarterly reports on the status of work 
included in the plan, including work completed to date, any 
changes to the work plan and reasons for such changes. The 
Committee directs that the work plan should be amended 
appropriately if changes to it occur during the fiscal year.
    In addition to the submission of an operating and capital 
plan for fiscal year 2003, the Secretary must vouch for the 
accuracy of Amtrak's financial information. This must be in the 
form of a signed letter that would accompany the operating and 
capital plans. In doing so, the Secretary must certify in 
writing, that based on his knowledge, the financial statements 
and other financial information prepared by Amtrak for Congress 
(e.g. capital and operating plans, business plans that are 
attached to their yearly grant requests, etc.) fairly present 
in all material respects the financial condition of the 
Corporation. Specifically:
    1. Amtrak's financial information and reports are prepared 
using generally accepted accounting standards.
    2. Amtrak has corrected any material weaknesses or 
inaccuracies identified by a publicly registered accounting 
firm according to generally accepted accounting principles.
    3. Amtrak has disclosed to the Secretary any and all 
material off-balance sheet transactions, arrangements, and 
obligations that may have a current or future material effect 
on the Corporation's financial condition, changes in financial 
condition, results in operations, liquidity, capital 
expenditures, capital resources, or any significant components 
of revenues or expenses.
    4. Amtrak has designed internal controls to ensure that 
material information is made known to the Board of Directors 
and the Secretary of Transportation in a timely fashion.
    5. The Secretary has evaluated the effectiveness of 
Amtrak's internal controls to assure that deficiencies are not 
occurring and, if so, all significant deficiencies in the 
design or operation of internal controls that could adversely 
affect the Corporation's ability to record, process, summarize, 
or report financial data and identify fraud, have been 
corrected prior to certification.
    6. Finally, Amtrak should ensure that all of its financial 
information does not contain untrue statements of a material 
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order for 
the Board of Directors and the Secretary of Transportation to 
make informed financial decisions.
    The Secretary of Transportation and the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations must approve any variations to the 
base operating and capital plans. Variations must be submitted 
through the reprogramming process.
    Reprogrammings.--During the start up phase in the 1970s and 
early 1980s, Amtrak was subject to reprogramming guidelines. 
Given their current financial status, the Committee finds it 
necessary to exert greater management controls by reinstituting 
the reprogramming process. While the Committee generally 
accepts the view that rigid adherence to the amounts justified 
in a grant request or capital plan may unduly jeopardize the 
effective accomplishment of planned programs in the most 
economical way, the Committee believes that it must be notified 
of any significant changes. For example, unforeseen 
requirements or changes in operating conditions may require 
some changes in funds from the specific purposes for which they 
were initially justified. Reprogrammings (defined as changes in 
the application of grant monies appropriated differently than 
initially justified to Congress, as amended by final action by 
Congress) must be developed by the Corporation in consultation 
with the Department of Transportation and the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations. This will provide the basis for 
appropriate oversight of the utilization by the Corporation of 
grant appropriations while providing flexibility in the 
execution of the railroad's programs.
    Specifically, Amtrak must provide timely information to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and to the 
Secretary of Transportation on the Corporation's entire 
spending plan. To do so, Amtrak must issue an operating and 
capital plan, or a ``base'' report, following final 
Congressional appropriation action on the Corporation's grant 
request. This report should show, by budget category, the base 
reflecting Congressional action with annotations to include any 
specific Congressional direction or guidance on the use of 
capital grant monies for specific purposes. The report should 
be promptly transmitted to the Department of Transportation and 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Approval by the Subcommittee Chairman of the House and 
Senate Committee on Appropriations is a prerequisite before any 
reprogramming action can be implemented. The following 
information must be provided by Amtrak, if relevant, to permit 
review of the reprogramming request:
    1. A description of why the reprogramming is necessary and 
what may occur without it.
    2. A table or worksheet showing an increase in monies for 
budget categories, activities or items and similarly one 
showing where specific reductions are proposed.
    3. Any proposed increase in monies for budget categories, 
activities, or items for which specific reductions were made by 
the Congress below amounts requested in the budget.
    4. Any proposed change to an action that, by its nature, is 
known to be or has been designated as a matter of special 
interest to either of the Committees.
    5. An increase by ten percent or more in monies previously 
approved for a budget category, except that increases of less 
than $1,000,000 to a category will not be subject to prior 
approval.
    6. An addition of a new budget category.
    7. Other reprogramming actions which individually do not 
require prior Congressional approval but that, when considered 
cumulatively with previous unreported actions, would equal or 
exceed the ten percent and $1,000,000 thresholds for a budget 
category for the applicable fiscal year.
    These proposed reprogramming shall be submitted to the 
Department of Transportation and the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations promptly. Reprogramming actions 
will not be implemented if either of the Committees offers an 
objection to the proposed reprogramming. In the event that the 
Corporation has not been informed of approval or disapproval, 
or has not otherwise requested to defer action, within 30 
calendar days of receipt by the Committees, it will be assumed 
by the Corporation that there is no objection and the 
reprogramming action can be implemented. However, in the case 
where the Department of Transportation has, within this 30-day 
period, notified the Corporation and the Committees in writing 
of its non-concurrence, the proposed reprogramming will not be 
implemented without the affirmative approval of both 
Committees.
    Direct loan provisions.--Bill language is also included 
that requires Amtrak to continue to abide by some provisions of 
the direct loan agreement signed on June 28, 2002, which would 
otherwise expire. These include:
    (1) Amtrak management will significantly improve financial 
controls and accounting transparency, including developing or 
enhancing any existing capacity separately. Management must 
report to the Board of Directors, the Department of 
Transportation (DOT), and the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations monthly on: (a) all revenues and expenses 
associated with rail operations by route, and (b) budgeted and 
actual expenditures for all capital investments.
    (2) Amtrak management will provide to the Board of 
Directors, the Department of Transportation, and Congress 
monthly performance reports. Amtrak shall also make available 
to DOT the same details and reports on its financial 
performance that it makes available to Amtrak management, at 
the same that it provides those reports and details to Amtrak 
management.
    (3) Amtrak funds will be spent only on existing plant and 
services. With the exception of expenditures for which it 
obtains written approval from DOT, Amtrak will suspend use of 
any of its funds for actual expansion or planning for expansion 
of rail service, including high speed rail service through 
fiscal year 2003.
    (4) Amtrak will provide DOT core operating data so that the 
Department can monitor and evaluate the railroad's ability to 
manage its cash flow, within the current appropriations level 
and using conservative revenue assumptions.
    An additional requirement of the direct loan provision was 
$100,000,000 in cost savings. The Committee directs Amtrak to 
continue this provision and find $100,000,000 in cost savings 
annually. Amtrak management should formulate a prioritized list 
of expense reduction options for implementation beginning in 
fiscal year 2003. These expense reduction options should 
identify at least $100,000,000 of potential reductions on an 
annualized basis. In concert with the provision, Amtrak must 
seek the cooperation of all of its employees in achieving 
substantial operating cost reductions.
    Short distance trains.--The Committee is aware that Amtrak 
does not uniformly charge states for operations on their short 
distance or corridor trains outside of the Northeast Corridor. 
Amtrak shall establish a more uniform methodology for cost 
sharing on these routes. To do so, Amtrak shall analyze current 
state funding for operating expenses and capital improvements, 
and review the contractual terms under which this funding is 
provided, and consult with states served by these routes to 
establish new cost sharing procedures and increase state 
support on these routes. Amtrak shall report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of these 
efforts by April 1, 2003.
    Long distance operations.--Amtrak trains have rarely 
operated at a profit. In 2001, only two Amtrak routes were 
profitable--the Metroliner/Acela Express and the Heartland 
Flyer, which is a heavily state supported train operating 
between Oklahoma City and Dallas/Fort Worth. Every other train 
(39 of 41) operates at a loss. The per rider losses range from 
$4.11 for the Capitols (Colfax-Sacramento-San Jose, CA) to 
$347.45 for the Sunset Limited (Los Angeles, CA to Orlando, 
FL). Nationally, the loss per rider is $33.09; however, the 
average per rider loss escalates to $138.71 for long distance 
trains. In other words, for Amtrak to break even financially, 
American taxpayers would be required to subsidize each Amtrak 
rider's trip an average of $33.09, and each long distance 
rider's trip $138.71.
    Over the past five years, the number of long distance 
trains that operate at a substantial loss has grown 
dramatically. In 1997, the General Accounting Office reported 
that only two routes--the Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited--
lost over $200 per passenger. By comparison, in fiscal year 
2001, six routes--the Three Rivers, the Southwest Chief, the 
Texas Eagle, the Sunset Limited, the Kentucky Cardinal, and the 
Pennsylvanian--incurred a loss of more than $200 per passenger. 
This growth in per passenger loss is particularly startling 
because, during this same time period, Congress required Amtrak 
to become operationally self-sufficient, and in trying to meet 
this mandate, Amtrak negotiated new or increased support 
payments from some states to improve the financial performance 
of various routes. For example, between 1998 and 2002, state 
operating support increased from $83,000,000 to $126,000,000. 
California has been a leader in this front. In 2002, California 
will provide about $65,000,000 for operating support of Amtrak 
services and has contributed funding for specific capital 
improvements.
    It is clear that increased state support could improve 
Amtrak's finances. It is equally clear that Congress cannot 
provide huge increases in subsidies for Amtrak without some 
cost-sharing by those receiving the value of those services. 
The Committee is aware that Amtrak is in the process of 
refining its route contribution analysis to better identify how 
each train performs and what percentage of its costs are 
covered by revenues so that Amtrak can renegotiate state 
contracts for additional support. The Committee has included 
bill language that limits the amount of assistance available to 
operate long distance trains to $150,000,000 in fiscal year 
2003. Any amount above that level will require Amtrak to make 
up the difference, through operating efficiencies, increased 
revenues from new riders, and/or contributions from states, 
localities, or non-Federal entities that benefit from these 
long distance trains. The Committee believes that Amtrak is in 
the best position to make route decisions and to determine 
which, if any, routes may be impacted by this cap on operating 
assistance. However, through a combination of increased 
revenues, perhaps based on new riders, and contributions from 
non-federal sources, Amtrak may be able to continue every long 
distance train, but at lower federal subsidy.
    As Amtrak begins to reduce the cost of operations of its 
long distance trains, the Committee directs Amtrak to report on 
measures it undertakes after the start of fiscal year 2003 to 
reduce the financial burden of such trains on the federal 
treasury. Specific estimates of cost savings to be achieved 
shall be provided in both fiscal year 2003 and for a five-year 
period. Further, the report shall highlight any impacts these 
measures may have on Amtrak's mail and express services. This 
report is due to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than April 1, 2003.
    Cessation in commuter services.--A general provision is 
included that would authorize directed rail service along 
commuter lines after a service cessation by the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation. Under this language, states and 
mass transit authorities can petition the STB if there is a 
substantial threat of cessation of service by a passenger 
contractor. The STB may, as necessary, also permit commuter 
railroads to override contracts with Amtrak and government 
grant agreements to assure a continuation of service.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 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 portions of all accounts.
    The current authorization for the programs funded by the 
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 
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 $7,226,000,000 and outlays are capped 
at $5,781,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. Any additional 
appropriated funding above the levels specified as guaranteed 
for each transit program in TEA-21 (that which could be 
appropriated from general funds authorized under section 
5338(h)) is scored against the non-defense discretionary 
category.
    The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 2003 is 
$7,226,000,000, including $1,445,000,000 in direct 
appropriations and $5,781,000,000 in limitations on contract 
authority. The total recommended is $383,200,000 (5.6 percent) 
over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level when supplemental 
appropriations are excluded. The following table summarizes the 
fiscal year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request, and the fiscal year 2003 recommended levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2002   Fiscal year 2003    Recommended in
                        Program                               enacted            request            the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................        $67,000,000    \4\ $73,000,000        $73,000,000
Formula grants \1\, \2\................................      3,615,500,000      3,839,000,000      3,839,000,000
University transportation research.....................          6,000,000          6,000,000          6,000,000
Transit planning and research..........................        116,000,000        122,000,000        122,000,000
Capital investment grants \2\, \3\.....................      4,741,000,000      3,036,000,000      3,036,000,000
Job access and reverse commute grants..................        125,000,000        150,000,000        150,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
  Total................................................      8,670,500,000      7,226,000,000     7,226,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $23,500,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-117).
\2\ Does not reflect transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital investment grants.
\3\ Includes a total of $1,900,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations exclusively for the
  rehabilitation and enhancements of transit systems in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York
  following September 11, 2001 (P.L. 107-117 and P.L. 107-206).
\4\ Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

                        Administrative Expenses


                                                         Limitation on
                                     Appropriation    obligations (Trust
                                    (General fund)           fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.         $13,400,000       ($53,600,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003          14,600,000        (58,400,000)
 \1\............................
Recommended in the bill.........          14,600,000        (58,400,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year            +1,200,000        (+4,800,000)
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................
\1\ Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

    The bill provides a total appropriation of $73,000,000 for 
FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $6,000,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. This appropriation is 
guaranteed under the transit funding category. The 
recommendation of $73,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation 
of $14,600,000 from the general fund and $58,400,000 from 
limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the 
highway trust fund.
    Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee has 
approved the 12 new positions requested to implement statutory 
requirements for over 160 new starts projects, to improve the 
oversight of transit grants and contracts, and to meet FTA's 
statutory and administrative requirements. While a total of 
$1,098,000 was requested for the 12 positions, funding has been 
reduced by half (-$549,000). This reduction reflects half year 
funding for these new positions instead of full year funding, 
which is consistent with last year's hiring practices in FTA 
and general budget guidance and practices. Also, the Committee 
continues to be concerned about FTA's high attrition rate (9 
percent in 2001). Because of this rate, it is likely that it 
will take FTA a substantial amount of time to fill these new 
positions, especially considering the high level of current 
vacancies.
    FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has denied 
funding included in the budget request for FECA administrative 
costs (-$15,000). This is consistent across all modal 
administrations funded in this bill and is explained in an 
earlier section of this report.
    Project management oversight activities.--The Committee 
recommends that FTA increase funding available for project 
management oversight activities by $564,000. According to FTA, 
funding for oversight is expected to decrease from $52,500,000 
in 2002 to $48,305,000 in 2003. This decrease is attributable 
to FTA no longer having carryover to finance these activities. 
It is critical that FTA continue to support strong project and 
financial oversight activities, particularly as more 
communities are interested in applying for funding under newer 
statutory programs; are developing or expanding rail systems; 
and more will become interested in the program as urbanized 
areas grow.
    To further support oversight activities, the Committee 
includes bill language that requires FTA to reimburse the 
Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General for 
$2,000,000 in costs associated with audits and investigations 
of transit related issues, including reviews of new fixed 
guideway systems. This reimbursement must come from funds 
available for the execution of contracts. 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 the Inspector General will continue 
such oversight activities in fiscal year 2003.
    Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21, as amended, 
requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking 60 days 
before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its 
notification to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, FTA is directed to include therein the 
following: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant 
agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations 
required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal 
appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated 
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2003; (4) a 
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and 
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization; and (5) a 
financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability 
to finance, which shall be conducted by an independent examiner 
and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost 
estimate and the finance plan; the source and security of all 
public- and private-sector financial instruments, the project's 
operating plan which enumerates the project's future revenue 
and ridership forecasts, and planned contingencies and risks 
associated with the project.
    Also FTA is directed to inform the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations before approving scope changes in 
any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to 
scope changes shall include any budget revisions or program 
changes that materially alter the project as originally 
stipulated in the full funding grant agreement, and shall 
include any proposed change in rail car procurements.
    Bill language.--New bill language is included pertaining to 
the timely submission of the annual new starts report. A 
detailed discussion explaining why this language is necessary 
can be found under ``new starts, capital investment grants''.

                             Formula Grants


                                                         Limitation on
                                     Appropriation    obligations (Trust
                                    (General fund)           fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002         $741,900,000    ($2,873,600,000)
 \1\, \2\.......................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003         767,800,000     (3,071,200,000)
 \2\............................
Recommended in the bill.........         767,800,000     (3,071,200,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year           +25,900,000      (+197,600,000)
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................
\1\ Includes $23,500,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L.
  107-117).
\2\ Does not reflect transfer of $2,000,000 to the Office of Inspector
  General and $50,000,000 to capital investment grants.

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,839,000,000 
for transit formula grants. This level is $247,000,000 above 
the 2002 enacted level when the supplemental appropriation is 
excluded and is guaranteed under the transit category.
    The recommended program level of $3,839,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $767,800,000 from the general 
fund and $3,071,200,000 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 grant program for intercity bus operators to 
finance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility 
costs and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger 
operations.
    Within the total funding level of $3,839,000,000, the 
Committee's recommendation includes the following distribution:

Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307).......................      $3,428,709,908
Oversight...........................................          18,432,736
Clean fuels (sec. 5308).............................          50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)....................          90,652,801
Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311).....................         239,404,605
Over-the-road bus accessibility program.............           6,950,000
Alaska railroad \1\.................................           4,850,000
\1\ Includes $24,300 for oversight activities.

    Operating costs.--Section 3007 of TEA-21 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 
can include landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and 
connections to parks.
    Major project alternatives analysis and preliminary 
engineering and design.--The accompanying bill provides 
appreciable increases in formula funds allocated to transit 
authorities. These funds can be used, among other activities, 
for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and 
design (PE&D;) of new rail extensions or busways. The Committee 
asserts that local project sponsors of new rail extensions or 
busways should use these funds (or those provided under section 
5303 metropolitan planning) for alternatives analysis and PE&D; 
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 alternatives analysis and preliminary 
engineering and design activities of proposed new systems.
    Clean fuels program.--TEA-21 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 of the capital investment grants account.
    Over-the-road bus accessibility program.--The Committee has 
provided $6,950,000 in fiscal year 2003 for the over-the-road 
accessibility program. This program is designed to assist 
operators of over-the-road buses in financing the incremental 
capital and training costs of complying with the department's 
final rule on accessibility required by the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. Of this total, $5,250,000 will be available 
for intercity fixed route projects and the remainder will be 
available for other services such as local fixed route service, 
commuter service or charter service.
    Denial of two new initiatives.--The Committee has denied 
funding for two new initiatives--the ``new freedom initiative 
(-$144,275,000) and ``environmental streamlining'' 
(-$6,000,000) from the formula grant program. Neither is 
authorized. Funding from this program would unfairly reduce 
each state's apportionment.
    Salaries and benefits.--No funds provided in this Act can 
be used by the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority to pay 
either the salary or benefits to the elected or appointed 
officers of the Association of Commuter Rail Employees. Nor may 
any funds in this Act be used to pay the Association of 
Commuter Rail Employees unless the New York Metropolitan 
Transit Authority makes equal payments to all officers elected 
and appointed and all local labor unions in equal proportional 
amounts.
    The following table displays the state-by-state 
distribution of formula funds within each of the program 
categories:

 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2003 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Section 5310
                                     Section 5307      Section 5311 non-      elderly and        Total formula
              State                 urbanized area      urbanized area       persons with        programs \2\
                                                                             disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................         $14,927,927          $6,693,617          $1,582,925         $23,204,469
Alaska..........................       \1\ 8,546,214             932,932             240,303           9,719,449
American Samoa..................                   0             153,033              60,088             213,121
Arizona.........................          44,214,267           3,265,400           1,652,847          49,132,514
Arkansas........................           8,076,720           4,841,871           1,029,871          13,948,462
California......................         583,841,997          10,475,294           9,488,919         603,806,210
Colorado........................          46,448,166           2,907,313           1,160,010          50,515,489
Connecticut.....................          46,629,133           1,488,013           1,128,644          49,245,790
Delaware........................           6,342,133             674,647             352,994           7,369,774
District of Columbia............          66,802,132                   0             309,042          67,111,174
Florida.........................         158,320,783           6,710,664           6,064,881         171,096,328
Georgia.........................          63,237,705           8,484,475           2,295,637          74,017,817
Guam............................           1,359,878              60,272             157,227           1,577,377
Hawaii..........................          26,885,021           1,003,351             476,147          28,364,519
Idaho...........................           5,731,779           1,843,482             455,768           8,031,029
Illinois........................         220,316,888           7,163,547           3,526,256         231,006,691
Indiana.........................          36,011,838           7,130,780           1,871,517          45,014,135
Iowa............................          12,875,848           4,838,882             980,862          18,695,592
Kansas..........................           9,613,682           3,954,869             882,653          14,451,204
Kentucky........................          19,550,450           6,611,124           1,461,839          27,623,413
Louisiana.......................          31,467,926           5,164,303           1,455,553          38,087,782
Maine...........................           3,062,068           2,566,899             533,084           6,162,051
Maryland........................          69,014,462           2,800,694           1,545,478          73,360,634
Massachusetts...................         127,232,927           1,907,117           2,041,414         131,181,458
Michigan........................          68,303,580           8,975,050           2,938,848          80,217,478
Minnesota.......................          42,155,128           5,897,179           1,366,007          49,418,314
Mississippi.....................           5,276,443           5,782,322           1,032,720          12,091,485
Missouri........................          36,804,592           6,690,078           1,788,808          45,283,478
Montana.........................           2,581,607           1,784,329             384,485           4,750,421
N. Mariana Islands..............             676,035              20,103              60,998             757,136
Nebraska........................           8,374,720           2,420,469             596,510          11,391,699
Nevada..........................          24,300,864             859,972             721,940          25,882,776
New Hampshire...................           4,650,337           1,826,955             457,852           6,935,144
New Jersey......................         216,873,343           1,764,450           2,587,773         221,225,566
New Mexico......................           9,107,633           2,555,496             655,206          12,318,335
New York........................         548,839,731           9,273,805           6,091,120         564,204,656
North Carolina..................          37,223,366          11,455,078           2,563,722          51,242,166
North Dakota....................           3,056,087           1,098,920             310,725           4,465,732
Ohio............................          91,723,614          10,796,386           3,431,195         105,951,195
Oklahoma........................          13,978,521           5,254,198           1,208,398          20,441,117
Oregon..........................          36,021,230           3,860,548           1,122,512          41,004,290
Pennsylvania....................         155,123,266          10,871,771           4,044,433         170,039,470
Puerto Rico.....................          44,710,018             886,606           1,399,708          46,996,332
Rhode Island....................           8,295,427             321,072             463,004           9,079,503
South Carolina..................          14,169,630           5,711,432           1,383,261          21,264,323
South Dakota....................           2,348,155           1,496,539             339,305           4,183,999
Tennessee.......................          28,761,361           7,277,715           1,914,830          37,953,906
Texas...........................         194,268,566          16,176,384           5,644,548         216,089,498
Utah............................          27,314,937           1,295,746             592,321          29,203,004
Vermont.........................           1,043,904           1,344,823             294,426           2,683,153
Virgin Islands..................                   0             290,119             150,772             440,891
Virginia........................          54,257,001           6,317,842           2,017,699          62,592,542
Washington......................          95,180,075           4,247,980           1,720,930         101,148,985
West Virginia...................           4,929,603           3,461,591             784,330           9,175,524
Wisconsin.......................          41,295,126           6,734,456           1,574,405          49,603,987
Wyoming.........................           1,381,764             982,612             256,054           2,620,430
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................       3,433,535,608         239,404,605          90,652,801       3,763,593,014
Oversight.......................          17,253,948           1,203,038                   0          18,456,986
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................       3,450,789,556         240,607,643          90,652,801       3,782,050,000
Clean Fuels.....................  ..................  ..................  ..................          50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility.  ..................  ..................  ..................           6,950,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total...............  ..................  ..................  ..................   \2\ 3,839,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.
\2\ Does not include new freedom initiatives nor environmental streamlining.

                   University Transportation Research


                                                         Limitation on
                                     Appropriation    obligations (Trust
                                    (General fund)           fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.          $1,200,000        ($4,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003           1,200,000         (4,800,000)
Recommended in the bill.........           1,200,000         (4,800,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year    ..................  ..................
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................

    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 2002. This appropriation 
is guaranteed under the 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 (Trust
                                    (General fund)           fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.         $23,000,000       ($93,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003          24,200,000        (97,800,000)
Recommended in the bill.........          24,200,000        (97,800,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year            +1,200,000        (+4,800,000)
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $122,000,000 for 
transit planning and research. The recommendation is $6,000,000 
more than provided in fiscal year 2002 and the same level as in 
the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the 
transit funding category.
    The recommended program level of $122,000,000 is comprised 
of an appropriation of $24,200,000 from the general fund and 
$97,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund.
    The bill contains language specifying that $60,385,600 
shall be available for metropolitan planning; $12,614,400 shall 
be available for state planning; $31,500,000 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 bill includes funds for the following projects within 
the funds provided for the national program in fiscal year 
2003:

Project ACTION (TEA-21).................................      $3,000,000

    National planning and research.--Within the $31,500,000 for 
national planning and research, support is provided for a 
number of important initiatives including:

Calstart/Westart bus rapid transit......................      $2,000,000
Clean mobility and transit enhancements.................       2,000,000
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute, TN..................         500,000
University of South Florida (Urban Transit Research)....         250,000
Santa Barbara Electric Transit Institute, CA............         500,000
Hennepin County community transportation, MN............       1,000,000
Joblinks/Community Transportation Association...........         500,000
Electrostatically-charged aerosol decontamination system       1,000,000
North Dakota Transit Center.............................         400,000
PVTA electric bus project...............................       1,000,000

    Electrostatically-charged aerosol decontamination system.--
The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for research on an 
electrostatically changed, aerosol decontamination system 
(ECADS) to be used in transit systems. Over 20 million riders 
in the top 30 U.S. cities utilize metropolitan transit systems 
to get to and from their places of employment. Any extended 
disruption of these systems due to chemical or biological 
attack would not only endanger riders but cripple businesses 
and communities that depend on these transit systems. While FTA 
and local transit authorities are testing sensor systems to 
detect such attacks, there are no available means to 
decontaminate, quickly and effectively, a facility after such 
an event to provide a safe environment, and restore service and 
rider confidence. The Committee believes ECADS has potential to 
meet these requirements and requires further evaluation by FTA.

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................      $5,397,800,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................       5,781,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............................       5,781,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................        +383,200,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................  ..................

    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided 
$5,781,000,000 for liquidation of contract authorization. The 
increase over last year is necessary to pay outstanding 
obligations of the various transit programs at the funding 
levels contained in TEA-21 and supported by prior 
appropriations Acts.

                       Capital Investment Grants


                                                         Limitation on
                                     Appropriation    obligations (Trust
                                    (General fund)           fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002       $2,468,200,000    ($2,272,800,000)
 \1\, \2\.......................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003         607,200,000     (2,428,800,000)
 \2\............................
Recommended in the bill.........         607,200,000     (2,428,800,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year            -1,861,000        +156,000,000
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................
\1\ Includes a total of $1,900,000,000 in emergency supplemental
  appropriations exclusively for the repair and rehabilitation of
  transit systems in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York
  following September 11, 2001 (P.L. 107-117 and P.L. 107-206).
\2\ Does not reflect transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants.

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,036,000,000 to 
be available for capital investment grants. The recommendation 
is $195,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2002 when the 
supplemental appropriations are excluded and the same level as 
the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the 
transit category.
    The recommended program level of $3,036,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $607,200,000 from the general 
fund and $2,428,800,000 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
                                                             the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities.................................     $607,200,000
Fixed guideway modernization...........................    1,214,400,000
New starts.............................................    1,214,400,000
                                                        ----------------
      Total............................................    3,036,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2000 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act and previous Acts are available for 
reallocation in fiscal year 2003 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 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 
accompanying reports of the fiscal year 2003 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, consistent with the 
department's reprogramming guidelines.

                        BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

    The accompanying bill provides $607,200,000 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.
    TEA-21 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).
    Funds made available for bus and bus facilities are to be 
supplemented with $21,572,640 from projects included in 
previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these 
funds may not be needed due to changing local circumstances or 
are in excess of the project requirements. Unexpended funding 
from previous appropriations Acts are reallocated:

          Lancaster Pennsylvania RRTA bus terminal (1999)
          Essex Junction, Vermont, multimodal station rehabilitation 
        (2000)
          Buffalo, New York auditorium intermodal center (1999)
          Fayette County, Pennsylvania intermodal parking facility, 
        (1999)
          Ithaca, New York intermodal transportation center
          Towamencin Township, Pennsylvania intermodal transportation 
        center (1999 and 2000)
          Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania intermodal facility (1998 and 
        1999)
          Richmond, Virginia GRTC bus maintenance facility (2000)
          Birmingham-Jefferson County, Alabama buses (2000)
          Dothan Wiregrass, Alabama vehicles and transit facility 
        (2000)
          Jefferson/Montevallo, Alabama pedestrian walkway (2000)
          Pritchard, Alabama bus transfer facility (1999)
          Wilcox County, Alabama Gees Bend ferry facilities (2000)
          Central Midland, South Carolina transit system (2000)
          Pee Dee Transit, South Carolina buses and facilities (2000)
          South Carolina statewide virtual transit enterprise (2000)
          Folsom, California multimodal facility (1999)
          Washoe County, Nevada transit improvements (2000)
          Fairbanks, Alaska intermodal rail/bus transfer facility 
        (2000)
          Juneau, Alaska downtown mass transit facility (2000)
          Georgetown University fuel cell bus and bus facilities 
        program (2000)

    In addition, the Committee directs the FTA not to 
reallocate funds provided in the fiscal year 2000 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or 
previous Acts for the following bus and bus facilities 
projects:

          Swampscott, Massachusetts, buses
          Washington County, Pennsylvania intermodal facilities, buses, 
        and bus facilities
          Foothills Transit, California buses and HEV vehicles
          Chatham, Georgia area transit buses and transfer center
          Fair Lakes League, Virginia
          Dulles Corridor, Virginia park-and-ride express bus program
          Fayette County, Pennsylvania intermodal facility
          Ithaca, New York intermodal transportation center
          Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania intermodal facility

    As noted earlier, the Committee will not extend projects 
again that have already been extended in previous 
Appropriations bills (e.g. 1998 and 1999 funding). Those 
projects have had at least four years to spend their funding, 
and if they still remain unable to do so, the Committee 
believes it is better to allocate these funds to projects that 
can obligate these funds in a more timely fashion.
    The Committee recommendation assumes the following 
distribution of bus and bus facilities funds:

Alabama:
    Bevill State Community College transit project......        $500,000
    Cullman County Commission (CARTS)...................         150,000
    Huntsville intermodal center........................       4,000,000
    Jefferson County, diesel hybrid electric buses......       1,500,000
    Union Station/Molton Street multimodal facility, 
      Montgomery........................................       1,000,000
Alaska:
    Skagway Municipal and Regional Transit..............         350,000
Arizona:
    Coconino County buses...............................       2,000,000
    Phoenix (RPTA) bus facilities.......................       4,200,000
    Phoenix (RPTA) bus replacement......................       3,835,000
    Sun Tran bus storage and maintenance facility.......       3,500,000
    Sun Tran replacement buses, including alternatively 
      fueled............................................       2,000,000
    Tucson intermodal center (Union Pacific Depot)......       4,000,000
Arkansas:
    State of Arkansas bus and bus facilities--urban, 
      rural, and elderly and disabled agencies..........       3,000,000
California:
    Alameda Contra Costa bus and bus facilities.........       2,500,000
    Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) project.........       1,000,000
    Antelope Valley Transit Authority, operations and 
      maintenance facility..............................       3,000,000
    BART Fruitvale Transit Village, parking structure...         500,000
    Chinatown intermodal center.........................       2,500,000
    Chinco Transcenter, Omnitrans.......................         660,000
    City of Salinas, intermodal transportation center...       2,500,000
    City of Sierra Madre buses and natural gas vehicle 
      fueling station...................................         300,000
    East County bus maintenance facility................       3,200,000
    El Garces intermodal station........................       3,000,000
    Fairfield/Suisun Transit alternative fueled buses...       1,500,000
    Folsom Railroad Block project.......................       3,400,000
    Foothill Transit buses..............................       3,000,000
    Fresno Area Express (FAX) buses.....................       1,000,000
    Golden Empire Transit District......................       1,500,000
    Los Angeles County (MTA), metro bus program.........       3,500,000
    Modesto bus maintenance facility....................       3,750,000
    Monterey-Salinas Transit bus facility and buses.....       4,800,000
    MUNI buses and facility upgrade.....................       5,000,000
    Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, bus and bus 
      facilities........................................       2,500,000
    Omnitrans, City of Yucaipa--the Yucaipa Transit 
      Advancement Project...............................       1,482,000
    Redondo Beach, bus transfer station.................       1,000,000
    Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Transit Centers--
      Corona, Riverside.................................       2,000,000
    Roseville Multitransit Center.......................       1,850,000
    Sacramento hydrogen bus technology (University of 
      California, Davis)................................       1,100,000
    Sacramento Regional CNG bus and bus facility........       3,000,000
    San Diego bus rapid transit.........................       1,000,000
    San Fernando Valley East and Ventura Boulevard park 
      and rides.........................................       1,000,000
    San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) zero-
      emission buses....................................       2,770,000
    Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) 
      hybrid bus BRT project............................       1,500,000
    Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority clean 
      fuel bus program..................................       1,500,000
    Solano Transportation Authority (STA)--Fairfield/
      Vacaville intermodal station......................       1,000,000
    Sonoma County CNG fueling facility upgrade..........       1,000,000
    South Pasadena circulator bus.......................         300,000
    Sun Line Transit hydrogen refueling station.........       2,500,000
    Yolobus and Unitrans CNG buses......................       2,600,000
Colorado:
    Colorado Transit Coalition..........................      10,000,000
Connecticut:
    Bridgeport intermodal corridor project..............       4,000,000
    Hollyhock station/intermodal transportation center, 
      Norwich...........................................       4,600,000
    New Britain-Hartford busway.........................       2,000,000
    New Haven bus maintenance facility..................       2,000,000
    New Haven fuel cell and electric bus project........       2,000,000
    West Haven intermodal station.......................       2,000,000
Delaware:
    Delaware Transit Corporation........................       3,000,000
District of Columbia:
    Georgetown University fuel cell transit bus program 
      (TEA21)...........................................       4,850,000
    Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority buses       2,000,000
Florida:
    Citrus Connection...................................       1,000,000
    Collier Area Transit facility.......................       1,500,000
    DeLand intermodal center (VOTRAN)...................       2,100,000
    Ft. Lauderdale, transit shuttle vehicles............       2,000,000
    Gainesville, mulitmodal transportation center.......       2,000,000
    Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART)...........       1,000,000
    Jacksonville Transit Authority, buses...............       2,500,000
    Key West buses and bus facilities...................         500,000
    Lee County Transit Division, bus facility...........       1,500,000
    LYNX buses, bus facilities and passenger amenities..       3,000,000
    Miami Beach intermodal transit center...............       3,000,000
    Miam-Dade buses.....................................       3,500,000
    Pinellas County.....................................       4,200,000
    Miami-Dade County 7th Avenue Bus transfer center....       1,000,000
    SunTran transit maintenance facility--City of Ocala.       1,600,000
    Tallahassee (TALTRAN) buses.........................       2,500,000
    Tallahassee (TALTRAN) intermodal center.............       1,000,000
    West Palm Beach, trolley buses......................       2,000,000
    Westcoast Florida Bus Coalition.....................       8,000,000
    Winter Haven transit terminal.......................       1,000,000
Georgia:
    Atlanta, multimodal terminal........................       4,000,000
    Chatham Area Transit................................       5,300,000
    Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, regional 
      express bus and bus facilities....................       2,000,000
    Georgia Statewide bus replacement program...........       2,000,000
    Gwinnett County operators and maintenance facility..       2,500,000
    Macon intermodal center.............................       3,000,000
    Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority clean fuel 
      buses.............................................       2,000,000
Hawaii:
    Bus transit centers--Waianae, Mililani, and Wahiawa.       2,000,000
Idaho:
    Idaho Transit Coalition.............................       2,635,000
Illinois:
    Illinois Statewide bus and buses facilities.........      20,000,000
Indiana:
    Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corporation (Fort 
      Wayne Citilink)...................................       1,200,000
    Indiana Transit Consortium, Bloomington Public 
      Transportation....................................       1,060,000
    Indianapolis Downtown transit facility..............       4,000,000
Iowa:
    Des Moines MTA bus purchase.........................       2,100,000
    Iowa City Transit System, intermodal facility.......       2,000,000
    State of Iowa buses and bus facilities..............       8,000,000
Kansas:
    City of Wichita, mini-transfer station..............         800,000
    Johnson County, transit vehicle life extension and 
      improvement program...............................         500,000
    Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA)...       1,000,000
    Kansas, buses and bus facilities....................       3,000,000
    Lawrence Transit System transfer center.............       2,500,000
    Nolte Transit Center in Johnson County..............         250,000
    Unified Government transit bus Replacement--
      Wyandotte County/Kansas City......................         350,000
    Wichita Transit Authority...........................       2,000,000
Kentucky:
    Fulton County Transit Authority cutaways............         180,000
    Henderson Area Rapid Transit buses..................          96,000
    Kentucky statewide, buses and bus facilities........       4,690,000
    Kentucky Transportation Cabinet--Community Action 
      groups............................................       1,425,000
    Laurel County intermodal facility...................       5,000,000
    Paducah Area Transit Authority buses................         480,000
    Pennyrile Allied Community Services transit facility         372,000
    Red Cross Wheels....................................       2,000,000
    Southern and Eastern Kentucky transit vehicles......       6,000,000
    Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK).......       3,000,000
    Transit Authority of River City.....................       3,000,000
Lousiana:
    Louisiana Public Transit Association buses and bus 
      facilities........................................      10,000,000
Maine:
    Maine Statewide buses and bus facilities............       2,500,000
    Westbrook intermodal facility.......................       1,000,000
Maryland
    Maryland Statewide buses and bus facilities.........       8,000,000
Massachusetts:
    Attleboro intermodal mixed-use garage facility......       1,000,000
    Brockton Area Transit (BTA) intermodal center.......       1,000,000
    Cape Cod intermodal facilities (Cape and Island 
      Transit Centers)..................................         500,000
    CTS Northern Tier buses.............................         300,000
    Essex County, City of Peabody, MA, buses............          48,000
    Essex County, Town of Danvers, MA, buses and senior 
      citicens vans.....................................          66,372
    Essex County, City of Lynn, MA, buses and senior 
      citizen vans......................................         320,000
    Gallagher intermodal transportation center--Lowell 
      regional transit authority........................         500,000
    Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority, MA, 
      facility improvements.............................         500,000
    Cities of Beverly & Salem, MA, facility improvements         500,000
    Cape Ann Transit Authority, MA, buses and trolleys..         265,628
    Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) commuter 
      park and ride facility--Leominster................       1,500,000
    Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) passenger 
      and handicap vans.................................         850,000
    Montachusett commuter facilities in Fitchburg.......       3,200,000
    Northern Tier intermodal center--Athol..............         350,000
    Springfield Union Station intermodal redevelopment 
      project...........................................       4,000,000
    Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA) 
      maintenance facility..............................         400,000
Michigan:
    Blue Water Area Transportation commission...........       1,000,000
    Branch County Transit Authority.....................         324,000
    Caro Transit Authority..............................         118,000
    City of Alma--transportation center intermodal 
      facility and replacement buses....................       1,553,000
    Detroit Department of Transportation--transit 
      facility..........................................      11,000,000
    Flint Mass Transit buses............................       1,000,000
    Grand Rapids, buses and bus facilities..............       1,000,000
    Ionia Area Transportation Authority dial-a-ride.....         304,000
    Jackson Transportation Authority, bus maintenance 
      facility..........................................       1,000,000
    Kalamazoo Metro Transit.............................       1,000,000
    Lansing, Capital Area Transit Authority.............       1,000,000
    Livingston Essential Transportation Service.........         220,000
    Ludington Mass Transportation Authority replacement 
      facility..........................................       1,050,000
    Milan Public Transit................................         180,000
    Sanilac Transportation Corporation..................         500,000
    State of Michigan, bus and bus facilities...........       1,000,000
    Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transit 
      (SMART)...........................................       5,000,000
    Washtenaw County, Chelsa Area Transportation System 
      (CATS)............................................         264,000
    Yates Township Transit System.......................         904,000
Minnesota:
    Dakota, Cedar Avenue project........................       3,000,000
    Duluth Transit Authority bus and bus facilities.....       1,000,000
    Grand Rapids bus and bus facilities.................         212,000
    La Crescent, public transfer hub....................          60,000
    Metropolitan Light Rail Transit Joint Powers Board, 
      Rush Line Corridor................................       1,000,000
    Metro Transit.......................................      19,000,000
    Minneapolis, 63rd Avenue North park and ride........       1,000,000
    Northwest corridor busway...........................       4,000,000
    Rochester, buses....................................         917,600
    St. Cloud MTC transit facilities....................       1,000,000
    STEELE buses........................................          48,000
Mississippi:
    Brookhaven multi-modal center.......................       2,000,000
    Harrison County multimodal facility and shuttle 
      service...........................................       1,000,000
Missouri:
    Missouri bus and bus facilities--Dunklin County, 
      Southeast Missouri Transporation Service, City of 
      Houston, Scott County, Southeast Missouri State 
      University........................................       4,000,000
    Southwest Missouri State University intermodal 
      transfer facility.................................       4,500,000
    Springfield Public Utilities........................       1,000,000
    St. Joseph buses....................................       1,000,000
    St. Louis Bi-State Development Agency buses.........       4,000,000
Montana:
    District IX--Bozeman Galavan........................         500,000
North Carolina:
    City of Charlotte buses and bus facilities..........       3,000,000
    Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation buses       2,000,000
    State of North Carolina, bus and bus facilities.....       8,000,000
    Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) maintenance 
      facility..........................................         500,000
North Dakota:
    North Dakota Statewide Capital Transit..............       2,903,000
Nevada:
    Bus Rapid Transit on South Virginia Street, Reno....       4,900,000
    Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) BRT, North 
      Las Vegas CIVIS Bus Stops.........................       1,000,000
New Mexico:
    Albuquerque, transit revenue vehicles...............       2,000,000
    Alvorado Transportation Center--Phase II............         300,000
New Jersey:
    Bergen County Intermodal facilities and park-and-
      ride..............................................       4,500,000
    Central New Jersey Raritan Valley Line park-and-ride       2,000,000
    Harrison New Jersey PATH station rehabilitation.....         500,000
    Montclair community wide bus system.................       1,000,000
    Morris County, intermodal park-and-rides facilities.       2,500,000
    Newark Penn Station intermodal access enhancements..       2,000,000
    Route 80 Howard Boulevard, New Jersey park-and-ride.         500,000
    Trenton intermodal station..........................       1,700,000
New York:
    Albany, Capital District Transportation Authority 
      (CDTA) buses and bus facilities...................       4,400,000
    Brooklyn, downtown intermodal transit district......       1,000,000
    Broome County, Binghamton intermodal terminal.......       2,000,000
    Buffalo intermodal transportation center............       2,000,000
    Central New York Regional Transportation Authority..       5,000,000
    City of Schenectady buses and bus facilities........       1,000,000
    Jamaica intermodal facility.........................         500,000
    Lower Hudson Intercounty bus program................       1,600,000
    Nassau County's Long Island Bus.....................         500,000
    New Rochelle intermodal center......................       1,500,000
    Niagara Transportation Authority (NFTA) buses and 
      bus facilities....................................       4,500,000
    Oneonta Public Transit buses........................       1,500,000
    Orange County buses.................................       2,000,000
    Rennselaer intermodal station.......................       1,500,000
    Rochester-Genessee Regional Transportation Authority 
      (RGRTA), Rochester Central Station................       5,000,000
    Ulster County rural bus facility....................       1,800,000
    Utica Transit Authority buses.......................       1,800,000
    Westchester County buses............................       3,500,000
Ohio:
    Statewide buses and bus facilities..................      15,500,000
Oklahoma:
    Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking 
      Authority (COPTA).................................       4,000,000
    Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority (MTTA).........       2,000,000
    Oklahoma Transit Association........................       4,000,000
Oregon:
    Albany buses........................................         220,000
    Canby Transit.......................................         200,000
    Eugene, Lane Transit District.......................       2,000,000
    Portland bus improvements...........................       2,000,000
    Rogue Valley Transit District.......................       2,000,000
    Wilsonville, South Metro Area Rapid Transit.........         500,000
Pennsylvania:
    Adams County, buses.................................         400,000
    Altoona (TEA-21)....................................       3,000,000
    AMTRAN bus and transit system improvements..........       1,000,000
    Area Transit Authority (ATA) of North Central 
      Pennsylvania......................................       2,000,000
    Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority, buses 
      and facilities....................................       8,000,000
    Bucks County Intermodal facility improvement (SEPTA)       1,000,000
    Butler Township/City Joint Municipal Transit multi-
      modal transfer center.............................         849,000
    Cambria County operations and maintenance facility..         973,500
    Capital Area Transit buses..........................       4,800,000
    Endless Mountain Transportation Authority...........         335,000
    Fayette County transit facility.....................       1,650,000
    Frankford Transportation Center, Philadelphia.......       1,000,000
    Harrisburg Intermodal facility......................         955,000
    Indiana County Transit Authority....................         410,000
    Mid-County Transit Authority facilities and 
      equipment.........................................       1,000,000
    Port Authority of Allegheny County buses (including 
      clean fuels)......................................       3,000,000
    Schuylkill Transportation System buses..............       1,000,000
    Somerset County Transportation System...............         160,000
    Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 
      paratransit vehicles..............................       1,000,000
    Westmoreland County Transit Authority...............       2,900,000
    Williamsport Bureau of Transportation, Lycoming 
      County (City bus).................................       2,000,000
Puerto Rico:
    Puerto Rico Metropolitan Bus Authority (MBA), buses 
      and bus facilities................................       1,000,000
Rhode Island:
    Rhode Island buses and alternatively fueled 
      infrastructure....................................       3,000,000
South Carolina:
    Myrtle Beach Regional multimodal transit center.....       2,250,000
    North Charleston regional intermodal transportation 
      center............................................       1,000,000
    South Carolina DOT, vehicles and facilities.........       7,000,000
    Union Station intermodal transportation center, City 
      of Sumter.........................................       6,100,000
South Dakota:
    South Dakota Statewide, buses and bus facilities....       2,000,000
Tennessee:
     Electric Transit intermodal center project, 
      Knoxville.........................................       3,400,000
    State of Tennessee, buses and bus facilities........      10,000,000
Texas:
    Abilene buses and bus facilities, Citylink..........       1,400,000
    Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority 
      (RTA) buses and bus facilities....................       1,000,000
    Fort Worth Transportation Authority.................       5,000,000
    Galveston, buses....................................       1,000,000
    Houston Advanced Transit Program....................       5,000,000
    Laredo, administrative, operations, and maintenance 
      facility..........................................       3,500,000
    Odessa and Midland, alternatively fueled buses......       2,000,000
    San Antonio, VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority.....       1,000,000
    Texas Tech University park-and-ride, buses..........       3,750,000
    Waco Transit maintenance and administration 
      facility, buses...................................       3,866,000
    Woodlands District park-and-rides...................       2,400,000
Utah:
    State of Utah, bus and bus facilities...............       1,990,000
Vermont:
    Winooski Falls downtown multimodal transportation 
      center............................................       1,000,000
Virginia:
    Arlington bus transfer stations.....................         600,000
    Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) buses........       2,104,000
    Hampton Roads regional bus plan.....................       1,000,000
    Petersburg Area Transit.............................       1,500,000
    Potomac Rappahannock Transportation Commission buses       2,100,000
    Potomac Yard Transitway.............................       1,600,000
Virgin Islands:
    Virgin Islands Transit (VITRAN) buses...............       1,000,000
Washington:
    Clark County, C-TRAN Vancouver mall transit center..         557,000
    Grant Transit Authority.............................         452,000
    Grays Harbor Transportation minibuses...............         144,000
    Intercity Transit (Thurston County) fare collection 
      equipment.........................................         500,000
    Issaquah Highlands park-and-ride....................       2,800,000
    Jefferson Transit facilities........................       2,000,000
    King Street Station multimodal facility.............         500,000
    Lakewood SR 512 park-and-ride expansion.............       3,000,000
    Mason County Transportation Authority facilities....         360,000
    Mercer Island transit center, park-and-ride.........       1,000,000
    Mount Vernon multi-modal facility and buses.........       2,000,000
    Pullman Transit buses...............................       1,150,000
West Virginia:
    Huntington, Tri-State Transit Authority.............       1,000,000
    Monongalia Courthouse Annex in Morgantown, 
      intermodal parking facility.......................       7,000,000
Wisconsin:
    Wisconsin Statewide bus and bus facilities..........      24,000,000
Wyoming:
    Wyoming Department of Transportation buses and bus 
      facilities........................................       2,500,000

    Bevill State Community College transit project.--Funding 
provided to Bevill State Community College transit project may 
also be made available to Jasper, Alabama for work in 
conjunction with this project.
    Dulles Corridor park-and-ride.--Funding provided to the 
Dulles Corridor park-and-ride express bus program in fiscal 
year 2000 can also be used for the Reston East park-and-ride 
project in Virginia.
    Fort Worth intermodal center park and ride facility.--
Funding provided to the Fort Worth intermodal center park and 
ride facility in 2002 shall be used to facilitate the finish 
out of the intermodal connections into downtown Fort Worth and 
to enhance the linkage of TRE with the T's bus operation and 
park and ride elements occurring at two locations: the ITC (and 
geographically related areas like the 7th Street parking lot 
and Alarm Supply Building) and a larger facility at the Texas 
and Pacific Station.
    Kansas buses.--Funding provided for the Wyandotte County 
buses and the Kansas City Joblinks in fiscal year 2001 shall be 
made available to the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/
Kansas City to replace buses.
    Commonwealth of Kentucky.--Of the $4,690,000 provided for 
statewide bus and bus facilities, $628,160 shall be for the 
Bluegrass Community Action Services, $58,400 shall be for the 
City of Frankfort; $760,000 shall be for Kentucky Rivers 
Foothills Development Council; $138,000 shall be for the 
Community Action Council of Fayette/Lexington, $639,000 shall 
be for the Lexington Red Cross, $66,000 shall be for East 
Kentucky Independent Service Organization, and $2,400,000 shall 
be for Lexington Transit Authority.
    Mt. Sinai Intermodal Center.--Funding provided for the Mt. 
Sinai Intermodal Center in fiscal year 1992 shall also be made 
available to the Miami Beach, Florida intermodal facility.
    State of Illinois.--Within the funding allocated to the 
State of Illinois, $2,000,000 should be provided to begin the 
refurbishment of the Dan Ryan station.
    State of Michigan.--Of the $1,000,000 provided to the State 
of Michigan, $261,100 shall be for Alger County public transit, 
$350,100 shall be for Charlevoix County public transit, 
$124,900 shall be for Delta Area Transit Authority, $51,000 
shall be for Houghton motor transit line, $38,900 shall be for 
Ontonogan County public transit, $47,000 shall be for the City 
of Sault Ste Marie dial-a-ride, and $127,000 shall be for 
Schoolcraft County public transportation.
    Swampscott buses.--Funding provided for Swampscott buses in 
fiscal year 2000 may also be made available to Lynnfield, 
Massachusetts to replace buses.
    State of Ohio.--Within the funding provided to the State of 
Ohio, $1,000,000 should be provided to the East Side transit 
center in Cleveland, $2,000,000 for the multimodal 
transportation center in Kent, and $4,000,000 for the 
Government Square transit center in Cincinnati.
    Sierra Madre Villa Intermodal Center.--Funding provided for 
the Sierra Madre Villa Intermodal Center in fiscal year 2002 
shall also be made available to the Los Angles County 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for bus and bus 
related facilities in the LACMTA's service area.

                      FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

    The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 from the 
capital investment grants program to modernize existing rail 
transit systems. These funds are to be distributed, consistent 
with the provisions of TEA-21, as follows:

                            SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year--
                        State                        ---------------------------------------- Change from fiscal
                                                             2002            2003 Estimate         year 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..............................................          $8,974,767          $2,423,937         -$6,550,830
Arizona.............................................           1,607,863           1,845,317             237,454
California..........................................         125,266,567         139,151,518          13,884,951
Colorado............................................           1,962,656           2,261,031             298,375
Connecticut.........................................          39,070,586          40,546,804           1,476,218
Delaware............................................             931,285                   0         \1\-931,285
District of Columbia................................          48,787,806          57,562,724           8,774,918
Florida.............................................          16,840,663          19,685,468           2,844,805
Georgia.............................................          23,114,533          27,042,153           3,927,620
Hawaii..............................................           1,094,132           1,304,537             210,405
Illinois............................................         125,263,153         131,151,605           5,888,452
Indiana.............................................           8,429,345           8,972,016             542,671
Louisiana...........................................           2,881,274           2,972,818              91,544
Maryland............................................          26,748,405          29,372,229           2,623,824
Massachusetts.......................................          71,701,594          75,767,529           4,065,935
Michigan............................................             487,176             575,906              88,730
Minnesota...........................................           5,094,649           5,896,427             801,778
Missouri............................................           4,265,676           5,008,671             742,995
New Jersey..........................................          99,960,024         104,313,737           4,353,713
New York............................................         349,553,296         368,542,791          18,989,495
Ohio................................................          17,355,872          18,427,652           1,071,780
Oregon..............................................           4,167,985           4,930,300             762,315
Pennsylvania........................................          95,692,115         100,301,564       \1\ 4,609,449
Puerto Rico.........................................           2,313,155           2,722,582             409,427
Rhode Island........................................              84,705              98,373              13,668
Tennessee...........................................             329,166             406,222              77,056
Texas...............................................           7,887,580           9,197,893           1,310,313
Virginia............................................          15,441,327          18,194,293           2,752,966
Washington..........................................          19,519,362          22,695,789           3,176,427
Wisconsin...........................................             756,488             884,114             127,626
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total Apportioned.............................       1,125,583,205       1,202,256,000          76,672,975
Oversight (1 percent)...............................          11,364,000          12,144,000           7,938,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total...................................       1,136,947,205       1,214,400,000          84,610,795
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1990 census urbanized areas of Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD-PA and Philadelphia, PA-NJ were merged to form the
  Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD under the 2000 census. The FY 2003 apportionment for this urbanized area was
  allocated to Pennsylvania.

                               NEW STARTS

    The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 for new 
starts. These funds are available for preliminary engineering, 
right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and 
construction of new systems and extensions. TEA-21 requires 
that no more than eight percent of the funding provided for new 
starts be available for preliminary engineering and design 
activities. Funds made available in this Act for new starts are 
to be supplemented with $23,436,971 from projects included in 
previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these 
funds are not needed due to changing local circumstances or are 
in excess of project requirements. The bill, therefore, 
reallocates the following unexpended sums from previous 
appropriations Acts, the fiscal years of which are noted in 
parentheses:

          Burlington-Essex, Vermont commuter rail project (1998, 1999)
          Stamford, Connecticut fixed guideway connector (2000)
          West Trenton, New Jersey rail project (2000)
          Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Capital Area Transit, Corridor One 
        commuter rail project (2000)
          Charleston, South Carolina Monobeam corridor project (1999)
          Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor (2000)
          Cleveland-Berea, Ohio red line extension to Hopkins 
        International Airport (1999)
          Dayton, Ohio light rail study (2000)
          Albuquerque, New Mexico light rail project (1999)
          Greater Albuquerque, New Mexico mass rail transit project 
        (2000)

    The Committee, however, directs the FTA not to reallocate 
funds provided in the fiscal year 2000 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or 
previous Acts for the following new start projects:

          Roaring Fork Valley, Colorado project (2000)
          Twin Cities, Minnesota, transitways project
          Altamount, California commuter rail project
          Dulles, Virginia corridor project
          Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, Wisconsin rail extension project

    The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA 
information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the 
first quarter of fiscal year 2003 or soon thereafter.
    For those projects where Congress extends the availability 
of funds that remain unobligated after three years and would 
otherwise be available for reallocation at the discretion of 
the administrator, such funds are extended only for one 
additional year, absent further congressional direction. The 
Committee will not extend projects again that have already been 
extended in previous Appropriations bills. Those projects have 
had four years to expend their balances, and if they still 
remain unable to do so, the Committee believes it is better to 
allocate these funds to projects that can obligate these funds 
in a more timely fashion.
    New starts report.--The Committee was displeased with the 
untimely submission of FTA's annual report on new starts 
projects. TEA-21 required this report to be submitted in 
conjunction with the budget. Yet year after year, this report 
is not submitted until months after that date. For example, the 
2002 new starts report was provided to the Committee in May, 
three months after release of the budget request. Without a 
timely submission of this information, the Committee cannot 
make well informed decisions about new starts projects. As a 
result, the Committee has included bill language that requires 
FTA to submit its annual new starts report with the initial 
submission of the President's budget request. If the report is 
not submitted, FTA's administrative expenses appropriation will 
be reduced by $100,000 per day.
    Appropriations for full funding grant agreements.--Before 
passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which was the precursor to TEA-21, 
there were less than 10 new starts projects that had full 
funding grant agreements (FFGAs). Since 1993, a total of 47 
FFGAs have been signed or recommended in Presidential budgets. 
Currently, there are 26 existing FFGAs. The total capital cost 
for these projects is $13.1 billion and the federal commitment 
is $6.9 billion.
    To meet the increasing demand for transit, more communities 
than ever are planning and designing new starts and other 
transit projects to add capacity and replace their aging 
facilities and equipment. As of February 2002, in FTA's new 
starts pipeline, there are over 100 projects in alternatives 
analysis; another 39 have been approved for entry into 
preliminary engineering; and an additional 12 projects have 
been approved for entry into final design. Collectively, these 
projects reflect an estimated investment of $42 billion. Of 
that total, the project sponsors are planning to seek 
approximately $20 billion of new starts funds. Many of the 
projects in final design and preliminary engineering will be 
seeking an FFGA in the next two years. Currently, federal 
resources are not available to fund even a fraction of these 
projects.
    In fiscal year 2003, of the $1,214,400,000 guaranteed for 
new starts projects, approximately $1,046,870,000 (86 percent) 
is allocated to projects that currently have an FFGA. In 
addition, approximately $10,296,000 is reserved for Alaska and 
Hawaii ferries. This leaves approximately $157,230,000 in truly 
discretionary funds that can be allocated to new starts 
projects without FFGAs.
    Since demand has so quickly outstripped available 
resources, the Committee has had to make difficult decisions in 
this area. The Committee recommendation adheres to the 
following guidelines: First, the Committee has tried to fund 
every project that has a current FFGA at its funding schedule 
(commonly referred to as the schedule 6) unless the project is 
experiencing financial or construction problems. Second, the 
Committee has tried to complete as many current FFGA 
commitments as possible so that additional resources will be 
freed up for fiscal year 2004. Third, because of the limited 
dollars available for final design and preliminary engineering 
activities, no funding has been provided for projects currently 
in the alternatives analysis phase. Local project sponsors of 
new rail extensions or busways may use section 5307 formula 
funds or section 5303 metropolitan planning funds for 
alternatives analysis activities rather than seek section 5309 
discretionary set-asides. Fourth, the Committee reiterates its 
direction originally agreed to in the fiscal year 2002 
conference report that FTA should not sign any FFGAs after 
September 30, 2002 that have a maximum federal share higher 
than 60 percent. Based on this earlier direction, significant 
appropriations have been provided for those projects in final 
design or preliminary engineering that have a federal share of 
no more than 60 percent. Less, or in some instances no, funding 
has been provided for those projects that have a federal share 
above 60 percent. The Committee strongly encourages the 
impacted projects to revisit the amount of local funding being 
contributed and seek effective ways to increase their local 
share.
    In total, the $1,238,818,050 provided in this Act, together 
with previous appropriations, are to be distributed as follows:

        Project Name                                           Recommend
Alaska/Hawaii ferries...................................     $10,296,000
Atlanta, GA, North Springs (North Line Extension).......      16,110,000
Baltimore, MD, Central LRT Double Tracking Project......      10,500,000
Boston, MA, South Boston Piers Transitway...............         681,824
Charlotte, NC, South Corridor Light Rail Transit Project      14,000,000
Chicago, IL, Douglas Branch Reconstruction..............      55,000,000
Chicago, IL, North Central Corridor Commuter Rail.......      20,000,000
Chicago, IL, Ravenswood Reconstruction..................       4,000,000
Chicago, IL, South West Corridor Commuter Rail..........      20,000,000
Chicago, IL, Union Pacific West Line Extension..........      12,000,000
Cleveland, OH, Euclid Corridor Transportation project...       4,000,000
Dallas, TX, North Central Light Rail Extension..........      70,000,000
Denver, CO, Southeast Corridor LRT......................      70,000,000
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Tri-County Commuter Rail Upgrades...      39,689,213
Little Rock, AR, River Rail Streetcar Project...........         700,000
Los Angeles, CA, Eastside Corridor LRT..................       8,200,000
Los Angeles, CA, North Hollywood Red Line...............      40,485,912
Lowell, MA-Nashua, NH, Commuter Rail Extension..........       5,000,000
Maryland, MARC Commuter Rail Improvements...............      11,500,000
Memphis, TN, Medical Center Rail Extension..............      15,610,000
Minneapolis, MN, Hiawatha Corridor LRT..................      60,000,000
Minneapolis, MN, Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail.......       7,000,000
Nashville, TN, East Corridor Commuter Rail..............       6,000,000
New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail--MOS1..............      19,200,000
New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail--MOS2..............      50,000,000
New Orleans, LA, Canal Street Streetcar.................      22,000,000
New Orleans, LA, Desire Corridor........................       1,200,000
New York, NY, Long Island Rail Road, East Side Access 
    Project.............................................      15,000,000
New York, NY, Second Avenue Subway......................       4,000,000
Newark-Elizabeth, NJ, Rail Link.........................      60,000,000
Northern Indiana, South Shore Commuter Rail project.....       3,000,000
Oceanside-Escondido, CA, Rail Corridor..................      15,000,000
Orange County, CA, Centerline Light Rail Project........       1,800,000
Phoenix, AZ, Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail.....      18,000,000
Pittsburgh, PA, North Shore Connector LRT...............       7,025,000
Pittsburgh, PA, Stage II LRT Reconstruction.............      26,250,000
Portland, OR, Interstate MAX LRT Extension..............      70,000,000
Puget Sound, WA, Sounder Commuter Rail..................       5,000,000
Raleigh, NC, Phase I Regional Rail Project..............       5,000,000
Salt Lake City, UT, CBD to University LRT...............      68,760,000
Salt Lake City, UT, Medical Center Extension............      20,000,000
Salt Lake City, UT, North-South LRT.....................         718,006
San Diego, CA, Mission Valley East LRT Extension........      65,000,000
San Francisco, CA, BART Extension to San Francisco 
    Airport.............................................     100,000,000
San Francisco, CA, Third Street Light Rail Project, 
    phase II............................................       1,750,000
San Jose, CA, Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor 
    Project.............................................         250,000
San Juan, PR, Tren Urbano...............................      59,740,000
St. Louis, MO, Metrolink St. Clair Extension............       3,368,422
Washington, D.C./MD, Largo Extension....................      60,000,000
Washington, D.C., Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project.      35,000,000

    Atlanta, Georgia, north line extension project.--The 
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is 
constructing a 2.3-mile, 2-station extension of the north line 
from the Dunwoody station to North Springs. This extension will 
serve the rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which includes 
Perimeter Center and north Fulton County, and will connect this 
area with the rest of the region by providing better transit 
service for both commuters and inner-city residents traveling 
to expanding job opportunities. On December 20, 1994, FTA 
issued an FFGA committing a total of $305,010,000 in new starts 
funding to this project. In the conference report to the fiscal 
year 2000 appropriations act, FTA was instructed to amend the 
FFGA for this project to incorporate a change in scope as 
authorized under Section 3030(d)(2) of TEA-21. On March 2, 
2000, FTA amended the FFGA to include 28 additional railcars, a 
multilevel parking facility in lieu of a surface parking lot, 
and enhancements to customer security and amenity measures at 
the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations. These changes 
will increase the total project cost to $463,180,000, and the 
Federal share to $370,540,000. Of the $65,530,000 increase in 
Federal funding, $10,670,000 will be applied from unexpended 
funds identified from cost savings on the Dunwoody section of 
the north line extension. Including the prior years funds, a 
total of $354,340,000 has been appropriated for this project 
through fiscal year 2002. This leaves $16,110,000 million 
remaining in the amended FFGA for this project. The Committee 
has recommended $16,110,000 in fiscal year 2003 to complete the 
federal commitment to this project.
    Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double 
track project.--The Maryland Mass Transit Administration is 
upgrading 9.4 miles of track in designated areas of the 
Baltimore central corridor light rail line that are currently 
single track. The central corridor is 29 miles long and 
operates between Hunt Valley in the north to Cromwell/Glen 
Burnie in the south, serving Baltimore City and Baltimore and 
Anne Arundel Counties, with extensions providing direct service 
to the Amtrak Penn Station and the Baltimore-Washington 
International Airport. The proposed project will double-track 
eight sections of the central corridor between Timonium and 
Cromwell Station/Glen Burnie, for a total of 9.4 miles. 
Although no new stations are required, the addition of a second 
track will require construction of second station platforms at 
four stations. Other elements included in the project are 
bridge and crossing improvements, a bi-directional signal 
system with traffic signal preemption on Howard Street, and 
catenary and other equipment and systems. The double tracking 
will be constructed almost entirely in existing right-of-way. 
The total cost of the double-tracking and related improvements 
is estimated at $153,700,000. The FFGA for this project was 
awarded in July, 2001, with a federal commitment of 
$120,000,000 (78 percent) in section 5309 new starts funds. A 
total of $21,490,000 in section 5309 new starts funds has been 
appropriated for this project through fiscal year 2002. For 
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $10,500,000. Due to 
the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot 
fully support those projects that are seeking such a high 
federal share from the new starts account.
    Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway 
project.--The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 
is developing an underground transitway to connect the existing 
transit system with the South Boston Piers area. The Piers 
area, which is connected to the central business district (CBD) 
by three local bridges, is undergoing significant development. 
A 1.5-mile tunnel, which is planned to be constructed in two 
phases, will extend from the existing Boylston Station to the 
World Trade Center; five underground stations will provide 
connections to the MBTA's red, orange and green lines. Dual-
mode trackless trolleys will operate in the transitway tunnel 
and on surface routes in the eastern end of the Piers area. 
Phase 1 of this project consists of a 1-mile, three-station bus 
tunnel between South Station and the World Trade Center, with 
an intermediate stop at Fan Pier. Part of the construction is 
being coordinated with the Central Artery highway project. 
South Station serves the existing MBTA red line, as well as 
Amtrak and commuter rail and bus service. The total estimated 
cost of phase I is $601,000,000. Phase II would extend the 
transitway to Boylston Station on the green line and the 
Chinatown Station on the orange line. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA 
directed FTA to enter into an FFGA for this project. On 
November 5, 1994, an FFGA was issued for phase I, committing a 
total of $330,730,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. 
Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $330,050,000 has been 
provided for this project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee 
has provided $681,924, which will fulfill the federal 
commitment to this project.
    Charlotte, North Carolina, south corridor light rail 
transit project.--The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), in 
cooperation with the City of Charlotte, is proposing to design 
and construct an 11-mile light rail transit (LRT) line 
extending from Uptown Charlotte to the Town of Pineville, North 
Carolina, near the South Carolina border. The proposed project 
is currently planned to operate within portions of existing 
Norfolk-Southern (NS) railroad rights-of-way (ROW), including 
sharing ROW with the city's existing downtown trolley system. 
The South corridor is an area generally paralleling Interstate 
77 along NS railroad ROW in the City of Charlotte and 
Mecklenburg County. A 3.7-mile portion of the proposed system--
between Uptown and Scaleybark Road--would operate on abandoned 
NS ROW owned by the City of Charlotte. The remainder of the 
planned system (7.5 miles) would operate on separate tracks 
generally paralleling NS ROW. The proposed project also 
includes construction of 16 stations, purchase of up to 15 
light rail vehicles and the construction of a light rail 
vehicle maintenance and storage facility. The stations at the 
southern terminus of the line would include park-and-ride lots 
and serve as transfer points for local and feeder bus service. 
Total capital costs for the south corridor project are 
estimated at $348,200,000 million. The federal share is 
estimated to be $174,100,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 
2002, Congress has appropriated $19,780,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2003, the bill 
includes $14,000,000 for this project.
    Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project.--
The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is completing a 
reconstruction of the Douglas Branch heavy rail line. Part of 
CTA's blue line, the 11-station Douglas Branch extends 6.6 
miles from Cermack Avenue to a point just west of downtown 
Chicago. Dating to the 19th century, the oldest segment on the 
line opened in 1896 and the ``newest'' in 1910, though numerous 
improvements and upgrades were made through the mid-1980s. Age-
related deterioration has resulted in high maintenance and 
operating costs on the line, as well as declining service. The 
Douglas Branch is authorized by section 3030(a)(106) of TEA-21. 
The total capital cost of the Douglas branch reconstruction 
project is estimated at $482,600,000. In January 2001, FTA and 
CTA entered into an FFGA that commits a total of $320,100,000 
in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. A total of 
$52,200,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2002. The 
Committee has included $55,000,000 for this project in fiscal 
year 2003.
    Chicago, Illinois, North Central corridor commuter rail.--
The North Central corridor extends from downtown Chicago to 
Antioch on the Illinois-Wisconsin border, and traverses 
suburban Lake County. Metra, the commuter rail division of the 
Regional Transportation Authority of northeastern Illinois, is 
seeking to add a second mainline track along 12 miles of the 
53-mile North Central Service commuter rail line and a 2.3-mile 
stretch of third track. The proposed project also includes 
track and signal upgrades, construction of five new stations, 
parking facilities, rail yard expansion and purchase of one new 
diesel locomotive and eight bi-level passenger cars. Section 
3030(a)(10) of TEA-21 authorized the North Central project. The 
major investment study for this project was completed in August 
1998, and a locally preferred alternative was selected shortly 
thereafter. FTA approved the North Central corridor to initiate 
preliminary engineering and the environmental review process in 
December 1998. FTA issued a finding of no significant impact on 
the environmental assessment in May 2000 and allowed the 
project to enter into final design in October 2000. The total 
capital cost of this project is estimated at $235,532,216. FTA 
awarded Metra an FFGA on November 5, 2001 for a total of 
$135,319,330 in new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2002, a 
total of $51,260,000 has been appropriated for this project. 
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.
    Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.--The 
Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to reconstruct existing 
platforms and stations on the existing Ravenswood (brown) line 
to accommodate eight-car trains. The brown line extends 9.3 
miles from the north side of Chicago to the ``loop elevated'' 
in downtown Chicago and includes 19 stations. The majority of 
the brown line is operated on an elevated structure (8.1 miles) 
except one portion near the north end of the line, which 
operates at grade (1.2 miles). The brown line was built between 
1900 and 1907. The line currently carries approximately 104,000 
average weekday boardings; however, current station and 
platform size prohibit CTA from increasing capacity on the line 
to handle increased demand. The proposed project would expand 
stations and platforms and straighten curves to allow CTA to 
operate longer trains, which would increase the capacity of the 
line. Section 3030(a)(11) of TEA-21 authorized the project. In 
November 1997, CTA included the Ravenswood line expansion 
project in the region's financially constrained long-range 
transportation plan. CTA is currently completing an examination 
of the environmental impacts and benefits related to the 
proposed project, including historical preservation issues 
related to several stations that would be reconstructed as part 
of this project. The environmental review process is scheduled 
for completion in 2002. Total capital costs are currently 
estimated at $476,000,000. To date, Congress has appropriated 
$7,890,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the project. 
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.
    Chicago, Illinois, Southwest corridor commuter rail.--Metra 
is planning to extend the existing Southwest commuter rail 
line. The 29-mile Southwest line provides service from Orland 
Park, Illinois, to downtown Chicago. This project would extend 
the line 11 miles from the existing 179th street station in 
Orland Park, southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. Also included in 
this project are the construction of three miles of a second 
mainline track, two additional stations and parking facilities, 
and multiple track, signal, and station improvements. The 
project also includes expansion of two existing rail yards, 
construction of a third rail yard, rehabilitation of several 
railroad bridges, and the purchase of two diesel locomotives 
and 13 bi-level passenger cars. Finally, the downtown Chicago 
terminal would be relocated from Union Station to the LaSalle 
street station as part of this project. Section 3030(a)(12) of 
TEA-21 authorized the ``Southwest extension''. The total cost 
of this project is estimated at $198,100,000. A FFGA was signed 
on November 5, 2001 authorizing $103,020,000 in section 5309 
new starts funding. To date, Congress has appropriated 
$38,500,000 to the project. The Committee has provided 
$20,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.
    Chicago, Illinois, Union Pacific West line extension 
project.--Chicago's Metra commuter rail division is planning 
additional extensions and improvements on its Union Pacific 
west commuter rail line. The Union Pacific west project, also 
known as the Central Kane corridor, is an extension of the 
existing 35-mile Union Pacific west line, which currently 
provides service between Geneva and downtown Chicago. This 
project would extend the line 8.5 miles west to Elburn, with 
two new stations serving Elburn and La Fox. The extension 
itself will use existing railroad track and right-of-way 
currently used by both Metra and the Union Pacific freight 
railroad. The scope of the project includes multiple track and 
signal improvements, construction of two new stations and 
associated parking facilities, a new train yard, and the 
purchase of one diesel locomotive and eight bi-level passenger 
cars. This project will link rapidly growing communities to the 
west of Chicago with the major employment centers in Chicago. 
Section 3030(a)(13) of TEA-21 authorizes this project as the 
Chicago ``west line expansion''. The total capital costs of the 
Union Pacific west extension and improvements project is 
estimated at $134,600,000. An FFGA was issued on November 5, 
2001 that will provide a total of $80,760,000 in federal new 
starts funding. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of 
$32,840,000 has been appropriated. A total of $12,000,000 has 
been recommended for fiscal year 2003.
    Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor transportation project.--
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is 
proposing to design and construct a 9.8-mile transit corridor 
incorporating exclusive bus rapid transit 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 transportation project 
(ECTP). The ECTP incorporates a series of transit improvements 
including an exclusive center median busway along Euclid Avenue 
from Public Square to University Circle, improvements to East 
17th/East 18th Street, as well as a ``transit zone'' on St. 
Clair and Superior avenues utilizing exclusive transit lanes. 
The proposed busway will provide service to the University 
Circle area and continue into the city of East Cleveland, 
terminating at the Stokes/Windermere rapid transit station. 
GCRTA proposes to operate sixty-foot articulated hybrid-
electric buses with both left and righthand side doors for 
access and egress of patrons on the corridor. The vehicles will 
have access to the entire length of the proposed corridor. 
However, conventional buses will not be able to access Euclid 
Avenue in the central business district. GCRTA estimates that 
29,500 average weekday boardings will use the ECTP in the 
forecast year (2025).
    Section 3035 of ISTEA authorized FTA to enter into a 
multiyear grant agreement for development of the Dual Hub 
Corridor, originally considered as a rail link between downtown 
and University Circle. In November 1995, the GCRTA Board of 
Trustees selected the ECTP as the locally preferred alternative 
(LPA), which included a busway and the rehabilitation and 
relocation of several existing rapid rail stations. In December 
1995, the Northeast Ohio areawide coordinating agency (local 
metropolitan planning organization) adopted a resolution 
supporting the ECTP. In 1999, GCRTA reconfigured the scope of 
the ECTP to incorporate only the construction of a busway along 
Euclid Avenue. The rapid rail elements have been eliminated 
from the ECTP proposal for Section 5309 New Starts funding. The 
environmental review process is scheduled for completion in 
2002. Total capital costs for the ECTP are estimated at 
$228,600,000 (escalated dollars), of which Cleveland is 
expected to seek $135,000,000 in new starts funding for the 
project (59 percent). Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has 
appropriated $19,390,000 in section 5309 new start funds for 
the Euclid corridor transportation project. Of this amount, 
$4,720,000 was rescinded or reprogrammed by Congress because of 
project delays. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has 
provided $4,000,000 for final design and construction 
activities.
    Dallas, Texas, north central light rail transit extension 
project.--Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has initiated 
construction of the north central corridor light rail transit 
(LRT) extension to the region's 20.5 mile starter system. 
DART's starter system opened in three phases from June 1996 to 
May 1997 (one underground station was opened in 2000). This 
extension, part of a 20-year, $4,800,000,000 transit capital 
program adopted in fiscal year 1998, measures 12.5 miles long 
from the current northern terminus at Park Lane station to the 
new terminal in Plano. The extension has nine stations. 
Although some single track sections were originally planned, 
the DART Board of Directors in 1997 approved the double 
tracking of the entire extension. DART estimates that over 
17,000 daily riders, of which 6,800 will be new riders, are 
expected to use the extension in the year 2010. The project is 
estimated to cost $517,200,000. FTA entered into an FFGA with 
DART for the north central extension project on October 6, 1999 
with a section 5309 new starts commitment of $333,000,000. The 
project is currently in the construction phase. An associated 
northeast LRT extension is being built solely with local funds. 
The project has been included in the regionally adopted 
metropolitan transportation plan and transportation improvement 
program that conforms with the state implementation plan for 
air quality. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has 
appropriated $230,910,000 in section 5309 new start funds to 
this project. For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes 
$70,000,000 for this project.
    Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit 
project.--The Regional Transportation District (RTD) and 
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are implementing a 
19.12 mile, 13-station light rail line between downtown Denver 
and Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County, with a LRT spur line 
along I-225 to Parker Road in Arapahoe County. The double track 
system is proposed to operate on an exclusive, grade-separated 
right-of-way and connect with the existing 5.3-mile central 
corridor light rail line in downtown Denver at the existing 
Broadway station. At I-25 and Broadway, the southeast corridor 
would also connect with RTD's southwest corridor light rail 
line that is currently in operation. The total capital cost of 
this project is estimated at $879,300,000. Revenue service is 
projected to begin by June 30, 2008. Section 3030(a)(23) of 
TEA-21 authorized this project. FTA issued an FFGA for this 
project on November 17, 2000, which will provide a total of 
$525,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. A total of 
$60,860,000 has been appropriated to this project through 
fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for this 
project in fiscal year 2003.
    Dulles Corridor, Virginia, bus rapid transit project.--The 
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) 
proposes to construct, under the technical guidance of the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), an 
approximately 23 mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system as an 
interim step to rail in the Dulles Corridor. The Dulles 
Corridor, a rapidly growing suburban area west of Washington, 
DC, contains major regional employment and residential centers, 
including Tysons Corner, Reston Town Center, Dulles 
International Airport, the town of Herndon, the Smithsonian Air 
and Space Museum annex, and new commercial and residential 
development in eastern Loudoun County. The BRT project is 
proposed as a minimum operating segment (MOS) of the Dulles 
Corridor rapid transit project, which will phase in 
implementation of rapid transit technologies throughout the 
corridor. The proposed BRT system will be developed as an 
interim step to rail, using the reserved lanes of the Dulles 
airport access road (DAAR) as a fixed guideway for advanced 
technology buses. BRT service will be provided between the 
Metrorail orange line and the western regional park and ride 
lot located at Route 606 in Loudoun County. The proposed BRT 
system will include construction of at least three transit 
stations convertible to rail stations located in the median of 
the DAAR, stations at major park and ride lots within the 
corridor and Tysons Corner, and interface with Metrorail at 
Falls Church. BRT service is scheduled for operation in 2006 at 
an estimated cost of $389,100,000 (escalated). The fully built 
rail project is scheduled for operation in 2010 at an estimated 
cost of $3,500,000,000 (escalated). Average weekday boardings 
for the BRT are estimated to be 23,000 in 2020 with 13,600 
daily new riders.
    A major investment study (MIS) for the corridor was issued 
in 1996, recommending construction of a Metro-like rail system. 
The Dulles Corridor Task Force issued the Dulles Corridor MIS 
refinement in July 1999, reaffirming development of a rail 
system but with interim development of a BRT system. The phased 
BRT/rail system was adopted by the national capital region 
transportation planning board and included in the metropolitan 
Washington region constrained long range plan in October 1999. 
VDRPT and WMATA submitted a request to initiate preliminary 
engineering for the BRT MOS and to initiate the NEPA process 
for the full Dulles Corridor rapid transit project to FTA in 
November 1999.
    The recently completed draft environmental impact statement 
identifies 5 alternatives for the project including a baseline/
no-build alternative, bus rapid transit, metrorail, a combined 
BRT/Metrorail, or a phased implementation. The public hearings 
on the project were completed on August 28, 2002, with a final 
approval date set for late fall by the Virginia Commonwealth 
Transportation Board. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has 
appropriated $115,680,000 for this project in section 5309 new 
starts funds. For fiscal year 2003, the bill provides 
$35,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and 
construction activities.
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail commuter rail upgrades 
project.--The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) 
operates a 71.7-mile regional transportation system connecting 
Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties in south Florida. 
This area has a population of over four million, nearly one-
third of the total population of Florida. Tri-Rail is proposing 
improvements to enhance significantly the service reliability 
of commuter rail in the rail corridor owned by the Florida 
Department of Transportation (FDOT). Tri-Rail intends to 
construct a second mainline track, rehabilitate the signal 
system, and provide station and parking improvements. In 
addition, project costs include acquisition of new rolling 
stock, improvements to the Hialeah maintenance yard facility, 
and construction of a new, northern maintenance and layover 
facility. The proposed project will allow Tri-Rail to operate 
20-minute headways during peak commuter hours, as opposed to 
the one-hour headways that now exist. On May 16, 2000, FTA 
issued an FFGA for segment 5 of the double track corridor 
improvement program, which includes construction of 44.31 miles 
of the second mainline track and upgrades to the existing grade 
crossing system along the entire 71.7-mile south Florida rail 
corridor. It is expected to open for revenue service in March, 
2005. The first four segments, upgrading the Hialeah 
maintenance yard and replacing the New River bridge, while part 
of the overall double track corridor improvement program, are 
not included in the scope of this project. Total capital costs 
for the segment 5 project are estimated at $327,000,000. The 
FFGA will provide a total of $110,500,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funding. A total of $52,400,000 has been appropriated to 
this project through fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommends 
$39,689,213 in fiscal year 2003.
    Largo, Maryland, Metrorail extension project.--The Maryland 
Mass Transit Administration (MTA) and the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) are joint lead 
local agencies planning a proposed 3.1 mile heavy rail 
extension of the Metrorail blue line. The proposed Largo 
Metrorail Extension will be from the existing Addison Road 
Station to Largo town center, located just beyond the Capital 
beltway in Prince George's County, Maryland. The project 
follows an alignment that has been preserved as a rail transit 
corridor in the Prince George's County master plan. The 3.1 
mile alignment, containing at-, above- and below-grade 
segments, has been modified to be underground or covered 
between Central Avenue and the Capital beltway to address 
concerns raised during public review of the DEIS. Two new 
stations will be provided at Summerfield and at the Largo town 
center station. The stations will provide 500 and 2,200 park-
and-ride spaces, respectively, plus a hundred or more kiss-and-
ride spaces and 11 bus bays each. A number of WMATA and Prince 
George's County bus routes will connect to the two new 
stations; shuttle bus service is proposed between both stations 
and the FedEx Field (formerly known as the Redskins Stadium). 
The project will also directly serve the USAir Arena, a former 
major sports complex planned for entertainment and retail uses. 
MTA will manage the project through preliminary engineering, 
with WMATA undertaking final design and construction. The 
project is anticipated to open for service by December 2004, 
with a total capital cost estimated at $433,900,000. Average 
weekday boardings are estimated to be 28,500 in 2020 with 
16,400 daily new riders. The proposed Largo extension was 
approved by the WMATA Board as an addition to the 103-mile 
Metrorail adopted regional system in February 1997, applying 
WMATA compact funding arrangements, contingent upon requisite 
FTA approvals. The project is included in the national capital 
region's constrained long range plan. Preliminary engineering 
was initiated in February 1996. The draft environmental impact 
statement (DEIS) was completed and approved by FTA in October 
1996. The draft final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was 
completed in September 1999. On December 15, 2000, FTA entered 
into an FFGA with WMATA that commits a total of $260,300,000 in 
section 5309 new starts funds to this project. This does not 
include $5,650,000 in prior year funds that were provided to 
the MTA for planning activities associated with the project, 
which would bring the total amount of new starts funding to 
$265,690,000. To date, Congress has appropriated $72,190,000 to 
this project. For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes 
$60,000,000.
    Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project.--The Central 
Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) is planning the 
implementation of a vintage streetcar circulator system on 
existing right-of-way connecting the Alltel Arena, the River 
Market, and the Convention Center in downtown Little Rock to 
the communities of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. CATA 
proposes that service be provided by four replica streetcars 
operating on a single track powered by overhead catenary. Phase 
I of the proposed system will include a 2.1 mile alignment, 
purchase of vehicles, and construction of a maintenance 
facility. Ridership projections estimate 1,000 to 1,200 average 
weekday boardings with an additional 1,000 to 1,800 riders on 
special event days. Phase II of the project includes a proposed 
0.4 mile extension along existing right-of-way to the William 
Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library site. The project is 
estimated to cost $15,100,000 in escalated dollars, with a 
proposed section 5309 new starts share of $8,600,000 (57 
percent). Because the proposed new starts share is less than 
$25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts 
criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and 
rating. A feasibility study was completed in 1997. No formal 
major investment study (MIS) was completed due to the limited 
scale of the proposed investment, the use of existing rail and 
street rights-of-way, and the estimated low cost. FTA approval 
to enter the preliminary engineering phase of project 
development was granted in May 1998. FTA approved project 
entrance into final design in September 1999. Through fiscal 
year 2002, Congress has appropriated $7,930,000 in section 5309 
new starts funds to this project. For fiscal year 2003, 
$700,000 is provided to complete stage I of this project.
    Los Angeles, California, Eastside corridor light rail 
transit project.--The Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority is proposing to implement a 5.9 mile 
light rail transit (LRT) line in the Eastside Corridor, 
connecting downtown Los Angeles with low-to moderate-income 
communities in east Los Angeles. The proposed system would 
include 8 stations and will traverse eastward from Union 
Station along Alameda street through the City of Terrace, 
Belvedere, and East Los Angeles communities of unincorporated 
Los Angeles County. The project would terminate at Atlantic 
Boulevard, where a 200 space park-and-ride facility is planned. 
The project is primarily at grade, with a 1.8-mile mid-section 
underground in tunnel. The project is intended to improve 
mobility for residents and employees in the corridor, and 
provide improved access to employment opportunities throughout 
the MTA service area. By 2020, 15,000 average weekday boardings 
are forecasted, including 7,600 new riders.
    On May 14, 1993, an FFGA was issued to the Los Angeles 
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for the 
third construction phase, MOS-3. MOS-3 was defined under ISTEA 
(Section 3034) to include three segments: the North Hollywood 
segment, a 6.3-mile, three-station subway extension of the 
Hollywood branch of MOS-2 to North Hollywood through the Santa 
Monica mountains; the Mid-City segment, a 2.3-mile, two-station 
western extension of the Wilshire Boulevard branch; and an 
undefined segment of the Eastside project, to the east from the 
existing red line terminus at Union Station. LACMTA later 
defined this eastern segment as a 3.7-mile, four-station 
extension under the Los Angeles River to First and Leona in 
East Los Angeles. On December 28, 1994, the FFGA for MOS-3 was 
amended to include this definition of the eastern segment, 
bringing the total commitment of Federal new starts funds for 
MOS-3 to $1,416,490,000. In January 1997, FTA requested that 
the MTA submit a recovery plan to demonstrate its ability to 
complete MOS-2 and MOS-3, while maintaining and operating the 
existing bus system. On January 14, 1998, the LACMTA Board of 
Directors voted to suspend and demobilize construction on all 
rail projects other than MOS-2 and MOS-3 North Hollywood 
extension. The MTA submitted a recovery plan to FTA on May 15, 
1998, which was approved by FTA on July 2, 1998. In 1998, the 
MTA undertook a regional transportation alternatives analysis 
(RTAA) to analyze and evaluate feasible alternatives for the 
Eastside and Mid-City corridors. The RTAA addressed system 
investment priorities, allocation of resources to operate 
existing transit services at a reliable standard, assessment 
and management of financial risk, countywide bus service 
expansion, and a process for finalizing corridor investments. 
On November 9, 1998, the LACMTA Board reviewed the RTAA and 
directed staff to reprogram resources previously allocated to 
the Eastside and Mid-City extensions to the implementation of 
RTAA recommendations. In June 1999, the MTA initiated a re-
evaluation/major investment study on the Eastside corridor, and 
began a draft environmental impact statement on the corridor in 
March 2000. In June 2000, the MTA board formally selected a 
light rail transit technology in the Eastside corridor as the 
locally preferred alternative. FTA approved the initiation of 
preliminary engineering in August 2000. The MACMTA plans to 
begin final design in the fall of 2002, and begin construction 
in 2003. The total capital cost of this project is estimated to 
be $817,900,000, of which MTA will seek $490,700,000 (60 
percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal 
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $76,480,000 for the 
original Eastside and Mid-City projects. Through fiscal year 
2002, Congress appropriated $21,300,000 for the Eastside 
project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 
$8,200,000.
    Los Angeles, North Hollywood, California, extension 
project.--Continuing the discussion noted above under the 
Eastside corridor, on June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated a 
revised FFGA covering the North Hollywood segment (phase 1-A) 
of MOS-3, which opened in May 2000. The total capital cost of 
the North Hollywood project was estimated at $1,310,820,000, of 
which the revised FFGA commits $681,040,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $640,350,000 
has been appropriated for the North Hollywood segment of MOS-3. 
The Committee recommends $40,485,912 to complete the commitment 
under the revised FFGA for this project.
    Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire, commuter rail 
extension project.--The New Hampshire Department of 
Transportation (NHDOT) is proposing to design and construct a 
12-mile extension of an existing commuter rail line from 
Lowell, Massachusetts to Nashua, New Hampshire. The proposed 
project would extend existing commuter rail service provided by 
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) on an 
anticipated schedule of six round trips per weekday and three 
roundtrips on Saturday. The proposed service extension would 
provide an alternative to a highly congested highway corridor 
and is also anticipated to provide traffic mitigation during 
the planned expansion of Route 3 in Massachusetts. The proposed 
project also includes the purchase of commuter rail equipment 
for use by the MBTA, rehabilitation of existing track and the 
construction of new trackage (where necessary), and a park-and-
ride lot with a boarding platform near Everett Turnpike (exit 
2) in Nashua. MBTA anticipates 900 weekday boardings at the 
start of service. In 1999, the Nashua Regional Planning 
Commission (NRPC) completed a major investment study that 
analyzed the passenger rail market, required capital 
investments, operational issues, and several alternatives to 
the commuter rail extension option. In June 1999, NRPC and 
NHDOT selected the extension as the locally preferred 
alternative. FTA approved NHDOT's request to initiate 
preliminary engineering on the project in May 2000. NHDOT is 
currently undergoing the environmental review phase of the 
proposed project. The total capital cost for the commuter rail 
extension is estimated at $40,700,000 (escalated dollars), with 
a proposed section 5309 new starts share of $18,000,000 (44 
percent). Since the proposed new starts share is less than 
$25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts 
criteria. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 
$5,930,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. 
For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes $5,000,000 for this 
project.
    Maryland (MARC) commuter rail improvements project.--The 
Maryland Mass Transit Administration is proposing three 
projects for the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system serving 
the Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. These 
projects are: (1) Mid-day storage facility, (2) Penn-Camden 
connection, and (3) Silver Spring intermodal transit center. 
The proposed Mid-Day storage facility would be used for daytime 
equipment layover, minor repair, daily servicing and 
inspections of commuter rail trains sets within the Amtrak yard 
at Washington D.C.'s Union Station. Platforms that are 
currently used to store these trains at Union Station are no 
longer available due to the introduction of high-speed Amtrak 
service, and the new facility will avoid the operating cost of 
sending trains back to Baltimore for mid-day storage. MTA will 
lease the five-acre site owned by Amtrak. The estimated capital 
costs for the project total $26,600,000. The Penn-Camden 
connection is a six-mile connection between the MARC Camden 
line and MARC Penn line/Amtrak Northeast corridor in southwest 
Baltimore. The connection of these two commuter rail lines is 
designed to achieve many benefits: the opportunity to remove 
trains from the congested Camden line for reverse peak 
movements; access to the planned MARC maintenance facility to 
be located along the connection; and increased operating 
flexibility on both commuter rail lines. Estimated capital 
costs for the project total $30,800,000. With the development 
of the Silver Spring intermodal transit center, MTA will 
relocate a transit center from the Silver Spring MARC station 
to the Silver Spring metrorail station. The transit center 
would allow convenient passenger transfers between several 
modes of travel. The center will also accommodate the proposed 
Georgetown branch trolley to operate between Silver Spring and 
Bethesda, Maryland. Estimated capital costs for the project 
total $33,300,000. The proposed MARC commuter rail improvements 
are in varying stages of planning and project development--the 
Mid-day storage facility is in final design; a finding of no 
significant impact was issued in November 1999 for the MARC 
Penn-Camden connection and final design is in process; an 
environmental assessment for the MARC Silver Spring intermodal 
center has been completed; and FTA action is pending local 
decisions regarding joint development opportunities for the 
site. The total cost of the project is estimated at 
$90,700,000, with $37,800,000 (42 percent) to be derived from 
section 5309 new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2002, 
$26,360,000 has been appropriated for these improvements. The 
Committee recommends $11,500,000 for fiscal year 2003. This 
funding will complete the federal commitment to these three 
projects.
    Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail extension 
project.--The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in 
cooperation with the City of Memphis, is building a 2.5-mile 
light rail transit extension to the Main Street Trolley/
Riverfront Loop village rail system. The extension would expand 
the central business district (CBD) rail circulation system to 
serve the Medical Center area east of the CBD. The project 
would operate on the city streets in mixed traffic and would 
connect with the Main Street trolley, sharing a lane with 
automobile traffic on Madison Avenue between Main Street and 
Cleveland Street. At the eastern terminus, near Cleveland 
Street, a bus transfer point and a small park-and-ride lot 
would be constructed to accommodate transfers with buses and 
cars. At the western terminus, existing stations on Main Street 
near Madison Avenue would be utilized for transfers to/from the 
Main Street trolley/riverfront loop system. Six new stations 
would be located along the route. The line will be designed to 
accommodate light rail vehicles but vintage rail cars would be 
utilized until a proposed regional LRT line is implemented and 
a fleet of modern LRT vehicles is acquired. The project is 
proposed as the last segment of the downtown rail circulation 
system as well as the first segment of a regional light rail 
line. The total capital cost of the 2.5-mile project is 
estimated at $74,580,000. On December 12, 2000, FTA issued an 
FFGA committing a total of $59,670,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds to the Medical Center extension. Through fiscal 
year 2002, a total of $35,310,000 has been appropriated. For 
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $15,610,000.
    Miami Metromover Stage I.--As agreed to in the 1999 
conference report, the Committee permits FTA to reprogram 
$5,834,000 in new starts funds, originally obligated for Miami-
Dade Transit (MDT) Metromover Stage I, to the Metrorail 
Palmetto Extension project.
    Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Hiawatha corridor 
project.-- Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council (local 
metropolitan planning organization), in cooperation with the 
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County 
and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), plan to 
implement a 11.6-mile, 17 station light rail line linking 
downtown Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul international 
airport, and the Mall of America in Bloomington. The line will 
operate on the Hiawatha Avenue/Trunk Highway 55. The LRT is the 
transit component of a locally preferred alternative, which 
includes reconstruction of TH-55 as a four lane, at-grade 
arterial between Franklin Avenue and 59th Street and 
construction of an interchange between TH-55 and TH-63 
(Crosstown Highway). Current plans call for the north end of 
the LRT to begin in the Minneapolis central business district 
(CBD) and operate on the existing transit mall along 5th 
Street. The LRT is planned to exit the CBD near the Hubert H. 
Humphrey Metrodome, following the former Soo Line Railroad to 
Franklin Avenue, then parallel Hiawatha Avenue. The project 
will include a 1.8-mile tunnel to be constructed under the MSP 
airport runways and taxiways with the construction of one 
station. The line is then planned to emerge from the tunnel on 
the West side of the airport with a station located at the HHH 
Terminal. It then would continue south with three proposed 
stations in Bloomington, including a station near the Mall of 
America. The project is expected to serve 24,800 average 
weekday boardings by the year 2020; 19,300 average weekday 
boardings are projected in the opening year. The estimated 
capital cost for the 11.6-mile Hiawatha Avenue LRT, including 
17 proposed stations, totals $675,400,000. In January 2001, FTA 
issued an FFGA that commits a total of $334,030,000 in section 
5309 new starts funds to the Hiawatha Corridor LRT. Of this, 
$168,350,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2002. 
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $60,000,000.
    Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar corridor commuter 
rail.--The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is 
proposing to design and construct an 82-mile commuter rail line 
within the Northstar corridor connecting the Minneapolis-
St.Paul metropolitan area and Rice, Minnesota. The proposed 
project also includes a 0.3-mile extension of the proposed 
Hiawatha Corridor LRT project from its currently planned 
terminus in downtown Minneapolis to provide a direct link to 
the proposed commuter rail service. The project would also have 
a direct link to the 4th Street Transit Center and the downtown 
Minneapolis skyway system. The proposed commuter rail line 
would operate along existing Burlington-Northern Santa Fe 
(BNSF) railroad track. The commuter rail project also includes 
the purchase of five locomotives, 17 passenger rail cars, and 
construction of layover and vehicle storage facilities. In May 
1998, the Northstar Corridor Development Authority undertook a 
major investment study and draft environmental impact statement 
to examine the transportation options in the Northstar 
Corridor. The MIS was completed in December 1999 with the 
selection of a locally preferred alternative. FTA approved 
MnDOT's request to initiate preliminary engineering in June 
2000 on the commuter rail and light rail extension. A final EIS 
is scheduled for completion in mid to late 2002. Following 
completion of the final EIS, FTA's issuance of a record of 
decision, and the solidification of the state's financial 
commitment to the project, MnDOT is planning to request entry 
into final design in late 2002. Total capital costs for the 
project are $304,000,000, of which, $23,400,000 is for the 
Hiawatha light rail extension and $270,600,000 for the 
Northstar commuter rail segment. The anticipated federal share 
will be $147,000,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2002, a 
total of $14,850,000 has been appropriated to this project. For 
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $7,000,000.
    Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor commuter rail 
project.--The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the 
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) of Nashville, Tennessee 
are proposing the implementation of a 31.1-mile, 5 station 
commuter rail line between downtown Nashville and the city of 
Lebanon in Wilson County. The east corridor commuter rail 
project is proposed to operate on an existing rail line owned 
by the Nashville and Eastern Railroad Authority (N&E;), a 
governmental entity comprised of the Tennessee Department of 
Transportation (TDOT), Wilson County, Lebanon, Mt. Juliet, and 
the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. 
Rolling stock and maintenance facilities will be leased from 
the N&E.; In 1996, the MTA and RTA initiated a study to explore 
the potential of commuter rail in the Nashville region. From 
this study, six corridors were considered for further 
evaluation. A 1998 study analyzed the capital costs for the 
three most promising corridors. As the result of these studies 
and efforts of the Nashville area commuter rail task force--
which includes the Nashville Chamber of Commerce, area business 
leaders, the MPO, MTA, RTA, the Tennessee Department of 
Transportation (TDOT), CSX Railroad and the Nashville and 
Eastern Rail Authority, and the Nashville congressional 
delegation--the east corridor was selected as the first 
corridor to be implemented in the Nashville area commuter rail 
system. The Nashville MPO included the east corridor commuter 
rail project in its fiscally constrained long range 
transportation plan in September 1999. FTA approved the project 
into preliminary engineering on November 30, 1999. The RTA 
completed an environmental assessment and received a finding of 
no significant impact for the project in May 2000. In June 
2001, FTA approved the project to advance into final design. 
The MTA is currently considering moving to a minimum operating 
segment that would be exclusively within Davidson County. The 
project is estimated to cost $33,200,000 in escalated dollars, 
with a proposed section 5309 new starts share of $22,900,000 
(69 percent). Because the proposed new starts share is less 
than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts 
criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and 
rating. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 
$11,870,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2003, the 
Committee recommends $6,000,000 for final design and 
construction. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, 
the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are 
seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The 
Committee strongly encourages Nashville to revisit the amount 
of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and 
find ways to increase the local share.
    Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project.--The New 
Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is developing a one 
mile, five station minimum operable segment (MOS) of an 8.8-
mile, 16-station light rail transit (LRT) system which will 
eventually link Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey. The MOS will 
function as an extension of the existing 4.3-mile Newark City 
subway light rail line, running from Broad Street Station in 
Newark to Newark Penn Station. NJ Transit estimates that the 
one mile MOS will cost $207,700,000 (escalated dollars), 
including associated stations, and will serve 13,300 average 
weekday boardings in 2015. NJ Transit estimates that the entire 
8.8-mile project will have a capital cost of $694,000,000 (1995 
dollars) and will carry 24,900 average weekday boardings per 
day in 2015. The Newark-Elizabeth rail link is being advanced 
in three stages: the MOS, a one mile connection between the 
Broad Street station and Newark Penn Station; the second 
segment, a one mile line from Newark Penn station to Camp 
Street in downtown Newark; and the third segment, a seven mile 
LRT line from downtown Newark to Elizabeth, including a station 
serving Newark International Airport. The draft environmental 
impact statement (DEIS) covering all three stages of the full 
build alternative was completed in January 1997. The final 
environmental impact statement (FEIS), which addressed only the 
MOS, was completed in October 1998. The FTA signed the record 
of decision (ROD) for the MOS in November 1998. In August 2000, 
FTA and New Jersey Transit executed an FFGA for MOS-1, 
committing $141,950,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to 
construct the project. Environmental work on the other segments 
of the rail line awaits completion of ongoing planning efforts. 
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $59,390,000 
in section 5309 new starts funds for the Newark rail link MOS-1 
project, including funds from the Omnibus Consolidated 
Appropriations Act. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee 
recommends $60,000,000.
    New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail transit project (MOS-
1).--The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is 
constructing a 9.6-mile, 16-station light rail project along 
the Hudson River waterfront in Hudson County, from the Hoboken 
terminal to 34th Street Bayonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey 
City. The line is intended as the initial minimum operating 
segment (MOS-1) of an eventual 21-mile, 30-station light rail 
line extending from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot in 
Bergen County to Bayonne, passing through Port Imperial in 
Weehauken, Hoboken, and Jersey City. The core of the system 
will serve the high density commercial and residential centers 
in Jersey City and Hoboken and connect to ferries, PATH, and NJ 
Transit commuter rail lines. MOS-1 is expected to cost 
$992,140,000 (escalated dollars) and to carry 31,300 riders per 
day. The full 21-mile system is expected to cost $2,000,000,000 
(escalated dollars) and to carry 94,500 riders per day. A 
portion of the MOS-1 line, between 34th Street and Exchange 
Place, opened in April 2000, and the New Jersey Transit began 
revenue service from Exchange Place north to the Pavonia-
Newport Station in November 2000. Full service to Hoboken 
terminal will begin in the fall, 2002.
    In February 1993, NJ Transit initially selected, as its 
locally preferred alternative, a 26-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. A final 
environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the full project was 
completed in the summer of 1996. In October 1996, the FTA 
issued a record of decision (ROD) for the full project. In that 
same month, FTA signed a FFGA committing $604,090,000 of 
section 5309 new start funds to support the 9.6-mile MOS-1. In 
January 1997, the governor of New Jersey, in conjunction with 
the mayor and the City Council of Hoboken, agreed to shift the 
alignment in Hoboken to the west side of the city. An 
environmental assessment (EA) was completed on the impacts 
resulting from this proposed change and submitted to the FTA in 
August 1998. Public review of the EA has been completed. The 
shift from the east side alignment to the west side alignment 
in Hoboken places the station south and adjacent to the Hoboken 
terminal and raises the number of stations for the full project 
from 6 to 30 stations. The Hudson-Bergen LRT project is one of 
eight elements eligible for funding as part of the New Jersey 
Urban Core project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has 
appropriated $584,890,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to 
the Hudson-Bergen MOS-1. For fiscal year 2003, the bill 
provides $19,200,000 to complete the federal commitment to this 
project.
    New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen (MOS-2).--The second minimum 
operable segment (MOS) of the New Jersey Transit Hudson-Bergen 
light rail transit system is a 5.1-mile, seven station segment 
running north from Hoboken terminal to the Tonnelle Avenue 
park-and-ride lot in North Bergen, and to south 22nd Street in 
Bayonne. The Hudson-Bergen MOS-2 line will serve an area with 
one of the highest residential densities in the region, and the 
downtown Jersey City area contains the largest concentration of 
office development in Hudson County. By providing ferry and 
commuter rail service, the line will also serve the Manhattan 
central business district. MOS-2 is scheduled for completion in 
2005 and is anticipated to carry 39,400 average weekday 
boardings in 2010. Total costs for MOS-2 are estimated at 
$1,215,400,000. FTA issued an FFGA for this project on October 
31, 2000, commiting a total of $500,000,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds. The MOS-2 project did not require funding from 
the section 5309 new starts program until fiscal year 2003; 
however, the issuance of an FFGA in 2000 provided New Jersey 
Transit with the authority to borrow funds to begin 
construction while the MOS-1 is being completed, under the same 
turnkey contract. This permits the entire Hudson-Bergen project 
to be constructed at a lower cost by avoiding significant costs 
associated with stopping and then restarting a major 
construction project. No prior year funding has been 
appropriated for MOS-2. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2003.
    New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal carline project.--The New 
Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is proposing to return 
streetcar service on Canal Street. The project is 5.5 miles in 
the downtown area, running along the median of Canal Street. 
The Canal Streetcar spine will extend from the Canal ferry at 
the Mississippi River in the central business district, through 
the Mid-City neighborhood to Carrolton Avenue, where one branch 
will continue on Canal street to the cemeteries and another 
will follow Carrolton Avenue to City Park/Beauregard Circle. 
The project also includes 37 stations: 26 stations on Canal 
Street, five stations on the City Park spur, and six stations 
on the Riverfront line. In addition, the project includes the 
assembly of 24 streetcars, real estate acquisition, utility 
relocation, power distribution, signals, communication systems, 
upgrades to power stations, track alignments on the Riverfront 
Line, construction of a paint/vehicle storage facility, and a 
new service/inspection/storage facility on the grounds of the 
existing Randolph Street facility on Canal Street. RTA 
completed a major investment study for this project in March 
1995, fulfilling the requirement for an alternative analysis. 
FTA approved entry into preliminary engineering in September 
1995, and RTA initiated final design in September 1997. Final 
design is essentially complete, contracts for vehicle assembly 
have been awarded, and construction contracts were awarded in 
mid-2001. Sufficient local funds are now committed to the 
project due to an extension of the RTA sales tax. The total 
capital cost of this project is estimated at $161,300,000, of 
which RTA is expected to seek $129,050,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funding (80 percent). To date, Congress has appropriated 
$70,030,000 for this project). For fiscal year 2003, the 
Committee recommends $22,000,000. While the Committee 
recognizes that this project has a pending FFGA, the federal 
share for this project is at 80 percent, which is too high. 
Numerous discussions have occurred about ways to reduce the 
federal share from 80 percent but to no avail. Yet, New Orleans 
RTA is also requesting substantial bus and access to jobs 
funding from the Committee, which require a local match (20 
percent and 50 percent respectively). Since local funds are 
available for bus and access to jobs projects, the Committee is 
dismayed that the RTA could not increase its local share for 
this streetcar project. As such, the Committee cannot fully 
support this project at the level requested in the budget.
    New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor streetcar 
project.--The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is restoring a 
2.9-mile traditional streetcar line in downtown New Orleans, as 
part of the locally preferred alternative for the Desire 
Corridor. The Desire Corridor streetcar project will operate 
along North Rampart Street and St. Claude Avenue between Canal 
Street and Poland Avenue. The proposed streetcar alignment will 
loop at Canal Street and use exclusive right-of-way in the 
median of city streets, as much as possible. The single-track 
loop will operate in the median of North Rampart and Canal 
Streets and in the traffic lanes of Basin and Toulouse Streets. 
The double track section will operate in the left traffic lanes 
of North Rampart Street, McShane Place, and St. Claude Avenue 
between Elysian Fields and Poland Avenues. The project will 
serve the communities of Iberville, Treme, Faubourg, Marigny, 
St. Roch, and Bywater. Six major bus transfer points with 
construction of center platforms, canopies, passenger benches, 
and landscaping will be provided: 16 intermediate stops with 
less elaborate center platforms are also planned. The project 
also includes the purchase of 13 new vehicles. RTA completed a 
major investment study for the Desire Corridor in September 
1999. FTA approved initiation of preliminary engineering in 
August 2000. The capital cost estimate of the streetcar project 
is $93,500,000, of which RTA will be seeking an FFGA for 
$56,100,000 (60 percent). To date, $7,160,000 has been 
appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2003, the 
Committee recommends $1,200,000.
    New York Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access 
project.--The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is 
the lead agency for the proposed Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) 
East Side access project. The project would provide increased 
capacity for the commuter rail lines of the Long Island Rail 
Road and direct access between suburban Long Island and Queens 
and a new passenger terminal in Grand Central Terminal (GCT) in 
east Midtown Manhattan, in addition to the current connection 
to Penn Station in Manhattan. The East Side Access (ESA) 
connection and increased LIRR capacity would be achieved by 
constructing a 4,600-foot tunnel from the LIRR Main Line in 
Sunnyside, Queens to the existing tunnel under the East River 
at 63rd Street. LIRR trains would use the lower level of this 
bi-level structure. A second 5,000-foot tunnel would carry LIRR 
trains from the 63rd Street Tunnel under Park Avenue and into a 
new LIRR terminal in the lower level of GCT. ESA will provide 
the LIRR with additional tunnel capacity across the East River. 
Increased capacity and headways would be introduced at most 
LIRR stations. For example, an additional 24 peak hour trains 
would operate through the existing 63rd Street Tunnel to GCT. 
Ten new tracks and five platforms will be constructed for LIRR 
trains at GCT. In addition, a new LIRR station would be 
constructed at Sunnyside Yard to provide access between Long 
Island City and Penn Station in Manhattan. The East River 
tunnels in Manhattan are at capacity. ESA is anticipated to 
improve LIRR tunnel capacity constraints and enable the growth 
of the overall system. Total capital costs are approximately 
$4,350,000,000 (escalated dollars), including $3,880,000,000 
for project management, design, construction and right-of-way, 
and $790,000,000 for rolling stock. MTA is expected to seek 
$2,172,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for this 
project (50 percent). In fiscal year 2020, MTA estimates that 
this project would serve approximately 167,000 average weekday 
boardings at Grand Central Terminal, including 15,400 daily new 
riders. MTA estimates an additional 161,000 daily LIRR 
boardings serving New York City's Penn Station.
    A major investment study (MIS) on the Long Island Rail Road 
East Side access was completed in April 1998. In June 1998, the 
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the 
metropolitan planning organization, passed a resolution 
endorsing the recommended extension of the LIRR into Grand 
Central station. In September 1998, FTA approved preliminary 
engineering and preparation of an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for the project. A DEIS for the LIRR ESA was 
completed in May 2000. MTA completed the final EIS in March 
2001. A record of decision was issued in May 2001. Through 
fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $68,250,000 in 
Section 5309 New Start funds for this project. For fiscal year 
2003, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for preliminary 
engineering, final design and construction.
    New York, Second Avenue Subway.--The New York Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority/New York City Transit (NY MTA/NYCT) is 
the lead agency for the proposed Second Avenue Subway projects. 
The project would alleviate severe overcrowding conditions that 
currently occur on the East Side of Manhattan's only full 
north-south rapid transit line (Lexington Avenue, number 4, 5, 
and 6 lines). In addition, the project would reduce the overly 
long travel times and improve transit accessibility to the east 
side of Manhattan. The Second Avenue Subway would be 
constructed as an eight-mile subway extending from 125th Street 
(Harlem) to the Financial District in lower Manhattan. Two 
services are proposed, one on Manhattan's East Side from 125th 
Street to lower Manhattan via Second Avenue, and the other from 
125th Street to 63rd Street via Second Avenue and then 
continuing south and to Brooklyn via the existing Broadway 
line. On the Second Avenue alignment, the line would enter 
lower Manhattan via either the existing Nassau Street subway or 
via Water Street, using existing tunnels that were constructed 
during the 1970s. The new eight-mile tunnel would include 
approximately 19.5 miles of trackage (double track and 
bellmouths) from 125th Street to lower Manhattan and 16 new 
stations. Total capital costs for the project are estimated at 
$16.8 billion (escalated dollars), including $16.18 billion for 
project management, design, construction, and right-of-way and 
$624,900,000 for rolling stock. Of this total, the federal 
share is estimated at $8.38 billion (50 percent). In December 
2001, FTA approved entry into preliminary engineering for this 
project. A supplemental draft EIS is anticipated for completion 
in the fall of 2002, with a final anticipated in the summer or 
fall of 2003. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has 
appropriated $1,980,000 for this project. The Committee 
recommends $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.
    Northern Indiana Commuter Rail, South Shore Service.--The 
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District is continuing 
a project of capital reinvestment. The capital reinvestment 
plan will provide greater operational reliability and will 
increase track capcity. The plan includes providing full 
Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) coverage of the line and 
installing the necessary signal and communication devices to 
support this type of operation. The CTC equipment will be 
state-of-the-art technology, utilizing microprocessor-based 
systems to support the signal network. The signal network will 
provide full reverse running capability on all tracks, 
including two-track territories. For fiscal year 2003 the 
Committee recommends $3,000,000 to continue to this plan.
    Oceanside-Escondido, California, light rail extension 
project.--The North County Transit District (NCTD) is planning 
to convert an existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a 
diesel multiple unit (DMU) transit system running east 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. The alignment also includes 1.7 miles of new 
right-of-way to serve the campus of California State University 
San Marcos (CSUSM). The proposed project is located along the 
State Route 78 corridor, which connects Interstate Highways 5 
and 15, the principal east-west corridor in northern San Diego 
County. The proposed project also includes the construction of 
fifteen stations; four of these stations would be located at 
existing transit centers. Average daily weekday boardings in 
2015 are estimated at 15,100, with 8,600 daily new riders. An 
environmental impact report (EIR) for the Oceanside-Escondido 
rail project and an EIR for the CSUSM alignment were published 
and certified in 1990 and 1991 respectively. A major investment 
study was not required based on concurrence from FTA, FHWA, the 
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Caltrans, the 
city of San Marcos, and NCTD. Advanced planning for the 
Oceanside-Escondido rail project, which resulted in 30 percent 
design, was completed in December 1995. The environmental 
assessment/subsequent environmental impact report (EA/SEIR) was 
completed in early 1997. The North San Diego County Transit 
Development Board certified the SEIR in March 1997. FTA issued 
a finding of no significant impact in October 1997. FTA 
approved the NCTD's request to enter into final design in 
February 2000. The total capital cost for this project is 
estimated at $332,300,000; of which NCTD is expected to seek 
$152,100,000 in FTA new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2002, 
Congress has appropriated $24,280,000 to this project. For 
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for 
final design and construction.
    Orange County, Centerline LRT project.--The Orange County 
Transportation Authority (OCTA) is undertaking preliminary 
engineering on an 18.7-mile rail corridor in central Orange 
County between Santa Ana and Irvine. The proposed project will 
connect major activity centers within the corridor, including 
downtown Santa Ana, John Wayne Airport, El Toro Marine Base 
(which is being converted to a civilian government center), and 
several hospitals and regional shopping, employment, cultural 
and entertainment centers. Additionally, the proposed project 
would serve two major intermodal centers in Santa Ana and 
Irvine that will provide connections to Metrolink commuter 
trains, local buses, and Amtrak. OCTA completed a major 
investment study for the corridor in June 1997, which led to 
the selection of a rail/bus project consisting of a 28-mile 
rail corridor and a 49 percent increase in bus service. In 
February 2002, FTA approved entry into the preliminary 
engineering. In response to input from citizens and local 
elected officials, OCTA has revised the project. The proposed 
project alignment has shortened from 30 miles to 18.7 miles and 
will be an elevated LRT system, including 22 stations. OCTA 
estimates that in 2025, the project will have 42,400 average 
weekday boardings, with approximately 37,000 daily new riders. 
Project costs are estimated at $1,889,000,000 (escalated 
dollars), with $944,500,000 to be derived from the section 5309 
new starts program. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has 
appropriated $7,450,000 for this project. The Committee 
recommends $1,800,000 in fiscal year 2003.
    Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/east valley corridor 
project.--The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) 
is proposed to implement a 25-mile at-grade light rail system 
to connect the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. As a first 
step, the RPTA is undertaking preliminary engineering on a 
20.3-mile segment from the Christ-Town Mall area, through 
downtown Phoenix and downtown Tempe, to Mesa. The proposed 
project would have 28 stations and serve major activity centers 
including downtown Phoenix, the Sky Harbor airport, Papago Park 
Center, and downtown Tempe. The RPTA completed the Central 
Phoenix/East Valley (CP/EV) major investment study (MIS) in the 
spring of 1998. In September 1998, FTA granted RPTA permission 
to enter the preliminary engineering/environmental impact 
statement (PE/EIS) phase on 13 miles of the corridor. FTA has 
subsequently approved preliminary engineering on 20.3 miles of 
the proposed system. The RPTA plans to complete NEPA process 
and receive a record of decision in the fall of 2002, undertake 
final design in 2003, and begin construction in 2004. The 
proposed 20.3-mile LRT system is estimated to cost 
approximately $1,181,000,000 (escalated), of which the RPTA 
intends to seek $590,700,000 in new starts funding (50 
percent). Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 
$33,670,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2003, the 
Committee recommends $18,000,000 for preliminary engineering, 
final design and construction.
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light rail 
transit project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County 
(PAAC), proposes to construct a 1.6-mile light rail transit 
system extension connecting the Golden Triangle and the North 
Shore wholly within downtown Pittsburgh. The project would 
extend the existing LRT service from the Gateway center LRT 
station in Golden Triangle to the vicinity of the West End 
Bridge on the North Shore via a tunnel below the Allegheny 
River. On the North Shore, the project would be a mix of at-
grade and elevated alignment. The project would also include a 
Convention Center connection, linking the existing Steel Plaza 
LRT station and the Convention Center. The North Shore 
connector LRT project would include the construction of four 
new LRT stations and modifications of the Gateway Center and 
Steel Plaza stations, and the acquisition of 10 new light rail 
vehicles. The alternatives analysis was completed in early 1999 
and the ``gateway LRT alternative'' was selected as the locally 
preferred alternative for the North Shore connector LRT project 
on August 16, 2000 by PAAC. FTA approval to initiate 
preliminary engineering was granted in January 2001. PAAC is 
currently developing the final EIS and anticipates FTA issuance 
of a record of decision in 2002. Project capital costs are 
estimated at $389,900,000 (escalated); the section 5309 new 
starts share is estimated at $272,900,000 (70 percent). Revenue 
service start-up is planned in 2007. Through fiscal year 2002, 
Congress has appropriated $23,670,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2003, the 
Committee has provided $7,025,000 for preliminary engineering, 
final design and construction. Due to the volume of projects 
seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those 
projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new 
starts account. The Committee strongly encourages Pittsburgh to 
revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to 
the North Shore Connector LRT project, and find ways to 
increase the local share.
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit 
reconstruction project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County 
(PAAC) has undertaken reconstruction of the 25-mile Pittsburgh 
rail system to modern light rail standards. The stage I light 
rail transit (LRT) project resulted in the reconstruction of a 
13-mile system to light rail standards during the 1980s. The 
stage II LRT project proposes reconstruction and double-
tracking of the remaining 12 miles of the system consisting of 
the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley lines. The stage II 
LRT project would reconstruct these three lines to modern LRT 
standards, double track the single track segments, reopen the 
closed Overbrook and Drake Lines, add approximately 2,400 
spaces in park and ride lots, and purchase 28 new light rail 
vehicles. During 1999, PAAC reconfigured its rail improvement 
program to prioritize program needs against available funding. 
The modified new starts project, the stage II LRT priority 
program, would reconstruct the Overbrook Line and a portion of 
the Library Line, and add the 2,400 park and ride spaces and 28 
vehicles. The remainder of the stage II LRT program would be 
built as funds become available. The estimated cost of the 
priority program is $386,400,000. In January 2001, FTA issued 
an FFGA for this project that would commit a total of 
$100,200,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal 
year 2002, a total of $41,530,000 has been appropriated. The 
bill includes $26,250,000 for fiscal year 2003.
    Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit 
extension project.--The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 
District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is planning a 5.8-mile, 10-station 
extension of its light rail transit (LRT) system known locally 
as the Metropolitan Area Express. The proposed Interstate 
Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) line will extend existing LRT 
service northward from the Rose Quarter Arena and the Oregon 
Convention Center, to North Portland neighborhoods, medical 
facilities, the Portland International Raceway, and the 
Metropolitan Exposition Center. Riders will be able to transfer 
between the Interstate MAX extension and the existing 33-mile 
East/West MAX line at Rose Quarter station. This line will 
complement regional land use plans by connecting established 
residential, commercial, entertainment, and other major 
activity centers, and providing a key transportation link in 
the region's welfare to work programs. The LRT extension is 
estimated to cost $350,000,000 (escalated dollars) and carry 
18,100 average weekday boardings (8,400 new riders) by 2020. On 
September 20, 2000, FTA and Tri-Met entered into an FFGA that 
commits a total of $257,500,000 in section 5309 new starts 
funds to the Interstate MAX project. This does not include 
funding appropriated in prior years that was allocated to 
Portland Metro for the 12-mile South-North light rail line 
originally proposed for this corridor. Through fiscal year 
2002, $76,750,000 has been appropriated for the Interstate MAX 
extension. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 in fiscal year 
2003.
    Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder commuter rail 
projects.--The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 
(Sound Transit) is proposing to implement two commuter rail 
projects: Everett to Seattle and Lakewood to Tacoma.
    For the Everett to Seattle commuter rail project, the 
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is proposing to 
implement peak-hour commuter rail service in the 35-mile 
corridor linking Everett to Seattle, Washington. This service 
will be part of the overall 82-mile Sounder commuter rail 
corridor serving 14 stations from Lakewood, through the 
downtowns of Tacoma and Seattle, and terminating in Everett, 
Washington. Service from Tacoma to Seattle began in September 
2000. The Everett-Seattle commuter rail segment would include 
three multimodal stations that provide connections to a variety 
of transportation services, including local and express bus 
service, the Washington State ferry system (connecting cities 
on the east and west sides of Puget Sound), the proposed Link 
light rail system, and Amtrak. Twelve trains per day will serve 
up to six stations. The draft environmental impact statement 
for this project was issued in June 1999 and a final EIS was 
published in November 1999. The record of decision was signed 
in February 2000. Sound Transit will be seeking FTA 
authorization to enter into final design in 2002. Sound Transit 
estimates total project costs for the Everett-Seattle segment 
of the Sounder system at $104 million in escalated dollars. The 
federal new starts share is $24.9 million (24%). Because the 
proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project 
is exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject 
to FTA's evaluations and ratings.
    For the Lakewood to Tacoma commuter rail project, Central 
Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is proposing to 
implement peak-hour commuter rail service for an eight-mile 
segment linking Tacoma and Lakewood, Washington. This service 
will be part of the overall 82-mile Sounder commuter rail 
corridor serving 14 stations from Lakewood, through the 
downtowns of Tacoma and Seattle, and terminating in Everett, 
Washington. Sound Transit proposes to run eighteen trains per 
day (including reverse commute service) to the cities along the 
alignment, including Lakewood, South Tacoma, and Tacoma, 
connecting to stations in Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, 
Tukwila, and Seattle. Two trains will run from Lakewood to 
Everett. Service from Tacoma to Seattle began in September 
2000. The Lakewood to Tacoma commuter rail service is scheduled 
to begin in operations in 2004. The final EIS was published in 
May 2000 and a record of decision was signed in June 2000. 
Sound Transit will be seeking final design authorization for 
this project in 2002. The total budget for this segment, 
including vehicle purchase, track and signal improvements, and 
station construction is $86,000,000 in escalated dollars. Sound 
Transit is proposing a section 5309 new starts share of 
$24,900,000 (29 percent). Because the proposed new starts share 
is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new 
starts criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluations 
and ratings.
    Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 
$79,320,000 to the 82-mile Sounder commuter rail system. Of 
this total, $10,226,431 was made available to the Lakewood to 
Tacoma commuter rail project and $10,877,131 was made available 
to the Everett to Seattle commuter rail project. For fiscal 
year 2003, the bill includes $5,000,000 for final design and 
construction activities.
    Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project, phase 
I.--The phase I regional rail project is the first segment of a 
three-phased regional transit plan for linking the three 
counties--Wake, Durham, and Orange--in the Triangle Region of 
North Carolina. In phase I, the Triangle Transit Authority 
(TTA) intends to initiate regional rail service from Durham to 
downtown Raleigh and from downtown Raleigh to North Raleigh. 
TTA proposes to use diesel multiple unit (DMU) rail vehicles to 
serve the 16 phase I stations. TTA has proposed that the phase 
I regional rail 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 
Raleigh, and North Raleigh. The proposed project is estimated 
to serve 31,700 average weekday boardings by the year 2025. The 
most recent capital cost estimate for Phase I is $754,800,000 
(escalated dollars). The cost estimate includes final design, 
acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) and rail vehicles, station 
construction, park and ride lots, and construction of storage 
and maintenance facilities. The ROW proposed to be used by TTA 
for the project is shared among a number of operating 
railroads, thus TTA is considering a number of track 
realignments to accommodate inter-city and high-speed rail 
improvements. In 1995, TTA completed the Triangle Fixed 
Guideway Study. The Authority's Board of Trustees has adopted 
the study's recommendations to put into place a regional rail 
system, and resolutions of support have been received from all 
major units of local government, chambers of commerce, 
universities, and major employees in the Triangle area. The 
Durham-Chapel Hill, Carrboro MPO and the Capital Area MPO have 
each adopted the locally preferred alternative into their 
fiscally constrained long-range plans and the phase I regional 
rail project is included in their respective 1998-2004 TIPs and 
North Carolina STIP. In January 1998, TTA initiated preliminary 
engineering and the preparation of a draft environmental impact 
statement (DEIS). The DEIS was released in May 2001. Selection 
of the locally preferred alternative occurred in early 2002. 
TTA anticipates completion of the final EIS in the summer of 
2002 and a record of decision in the fall/winter 2002. TTA rail 
alignment issues are currently being worked out with a number 
of participating agencies, including the North Carolina 
Railroad (NCRR), CSX Railroad, NCDOT Rail, and the Federal 
Railroad Administration. TTA is expected to request an FFGA for 
$377,300,000, or 50 percent, of the costs of this project. 
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $55,550,000 
in section 5309 new starts funds for this project. For fiscal 
year 2003, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 for preliminary 
engineering, final design and construction.
    Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT.--The Utah 
Transit Authority (UTA) has implemented a 2.5-mile, four-
station light rail line in eastern Salt Lake City, from the 
downtown area to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of Utah 
campus. The line connects with the existing North/South line at 
Main Street and travels east along 400 South and 500 South to 
the stadium. Light rail vehicles operate on city streets and 
property owned by Salt Lake City, the Utah Department of 
Transportation, and the University. The CBD to University line 
was scaled back from the originally proposed 10.9-mile West/
East line from the airport to the university. FTA issued an 
FFGA for the CBD to University LRT project on August 17, 2000, 
committing a total of $84,600,000 in section 5309 new starts 
funds. This does not include $4,960,000 in fiscal year 2000 and 
prior year funding, which brings the total amount of new starts 
funding for this project to $89,560,000. To date, $20,800,000 
has been appropriated. The bill provides $68,760,000 in fiscal 
year 2003, completing the federal commitment to this project.
    Salt Lake City, Utah, Medical Center extension.--The Utah 
Transit Authority has proposed the Medical Center extension 
project, a 1.5-mile light rail transit (LRT) system extending 
from the University Line station at Rice-Eccles Stadium to the 
University of Utah Health Science Complex (Medical Center). The 
proposed Medical Center LRT line includes three stations: 
Huntsman Center, Wasatch Drive, and Medical Center. The Medical 
Center LRT will connect to the University Line LRT and the 
existing North/South LRT corridor. Revenue operations are 
scheduled to begin in 2004. FTA and UTA signed a full funding 
grant agreement in August 2000 for the Central Business 
District to University LRT project. The University LRT project 
opened for service on December 15, 2001. In August 2001, FTA 
approved the initiation of final design for the Medical Center 
Extension. The total capital costs for this project are 
anticipated to be $89,400,000, of which $53,600,000 is from the 
section 5309 new starts funds. On May 17, 2002, FTA executed an 
FFGA for this project. To date, Congress has appropriated 
$2,970,000 for this project. For fiscal year 2003, the 
Committee recommends $20,000,000.
    Salt Lake City, Utah, North South light rail transit 
extension project.--The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has 
completed construction of a 15-mile LRT line from downtown Salt 
Lake City to the southern suburbs. The line opened for regular 
weekday service on December 6, 1999. The system operates on 
city streets downtown (2 miles) then follows a lightly used 
railroad alignment owned by UTA to the suburban community of 
Sandy (13 miles). The project is one component of the 
Interstate 15 corridor improvement initiative, which includes 
reconstruction of a parallel segment of I-15. Though original 
ridership projections for the South LRT were estimated at 
14,000 daily passengers in 2000 and 23,000 passengers in 2010, 
current ridership has already exceeded 19,000 weekday 
passengers. Total cost for this project was $312,490,000, of 
which the FFGA committed $237,390,000 in new starts funding, 
not including $6,600,000 in prior year funds that were provided 
before the FFGA was issued. To date, a total of $243,280,000 
has been appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2003, the 
bill includes $718,006 to fulfill the terms of the FFGA for 
this project.
    San Diego, California, Mission Valley East light rail 
transit project.--The Metropolitan Transit Development Board 
(MTDB) is constructing a 5.9-mile Mission Valley East Light 
Rail Transit (LRT) extension of its Blue Line. The project 
would extend the existing system from its current termini east 
of Interstate 15 to the City of La Mesa, where it would connect 
to the existing Orange Line near Baltimore Drive. The line 
would serve four new stations at Grantville, San Diego State 
University (SDSU), Alvarado Medical Center and 70th Street, as 
well as two existing stations at Mission San Diego and 
Grossmont Center. The proposed project would include elevated, 
at-grade, and tunnel portions and provide two park-and-ride 
lots and a new access road between Waring Road and the 
Grantville Station. The project is expected to serve 
approximately 10,800 average weekday boardings in the corridor 
by 2015. The major investment study/draft environmental impact 
statement (DEIS) was completed in May 1997. The locally 
preferred alternative was selected by the Metropolitan Transit 
Development Board in October 1997 with concurrence from the San 
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, the local 
metropolitan planning organization). FTA approval to enter the 
preliminary engineering (PE) phase of project development was 
granted in March 1998. Preliminary engineering was completed in 
July 1998. This abbreviated schedule for PE was possible due to 
the extensive public involvement and detailed analyses 
undertaken during the planning stages, streamlining much of the 
work that would traditionally be undertaken in the PE phase. 
The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was completed 
and the record of decision (ROD) was issued in August 1998. FTA 
approval to enter final design was granted in October 1998. The 
total project capital cost is $431,000,000 (escalated dollars). 
On June 22, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of 
$329,960,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for the 
project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 
$112,720,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. 
The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
    San Francisco, California, BART extension to the airport 
project.--The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and San Mateo 
County Transit District (SamTrans) are constructing an 8.7-
mile, 4-station, BART extension which proceeds southeast from 
the Colma BART Station through the cities of Colma, South San 
Francisco and San Bruno, and then continues south along the 
Caltrain right-of-way to the city of Millbrae. Approximately, 
1.5 miles north of the Millbrae Avenue intermodal terminal, an 
east-west aerial ``wye'' (Y) stub will service the San 
Francisco International Airport (SFIA). Originally, this 
project was estimated to cost $1,054,000,000; however, total 
capital costs have risen to $1,510,200,000 (escalated dollars) 
due to higher than estimated construction costs. FTA's 
commitment of $750,000,000 to the project remains unchanged. 
Ridership is projected to be 73,600 trips per day by 2010, 
including approximately 17,800 daily trips by air travelers and 
airport employees. An alternatives analysis/draft environmental 
impact statement (DEIS)/draft environmental impact report 
(DEIR) was completed in 1992, resulting in a locally preferred 
alternative. New alignments were later evaluated and, in April 
1995, BART and SamTrans revised the preferred alternative. Due 
to MTC and Congressional direction to evaluate lower cost 
options, an aerial design option into the airport was evaluated 
in a focused re-circulated DEIR/supplemental #2 DEIS. The final 
EIS was completed in June 1996 and a record of decision (ROD) 
was issued in August 1996. On June 30, 1997, FTA entered into 
an FFGA for the BART/SFO Extension for $750,000,000 in Federal 
section 5309 new start funds. Through fiscal year 2002, 
$371,370,000 has been appropriated to the BART-SFO Extension. 
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $100,000,000.
    San Francisco, Third Street Light Rail, phase II.--The San 
Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) has proposed implementing a 
7.1-mile light rail line that will link the southeast section 
of San Francisco to downtown San Francisco and Chinatown. Phase 
I will run 5.4 miles from an existing Caltrain Bayshore Station 
at the San Francisco County line to the south and connecting to 
the existing LRT system in downtown San Francisco via Third 
Street. This 5.4-mile segment is estimated to cost $557,900,000 
and will be entirely funded through local sources. This phase 
will be open in 2005. The second phase, known as the new 
central subway, would extend the light rail line 1.7 miles into 
a subway terminating in Chinatown. According to FTA, the 
central subway phase is estimated to cost $763,900,000, with a 
federal share of $432,000,000 (or 57 percent).
    In 1996, FTA authorized preliminary engineering and 
preparation of a draft environmental impact statement on the 
third street corridor. In November 1997, MUNI began preliminary 
engineering for phase 1 of the light rail alignment as well as 
the Metro East maintenance facility. In June 1998, the San 
Francisco Public Transportation Commission, which governs Muni, 
designated a two-phase light rail project as the locally 
preferred alternative. A record of decision was issued in April 
1999. FTA approved the phase I's entrance into final design in 
April 2000 and it is currently under construction. FTA approved 
phase II's entrance into preliminary engineering in July 2002. 
No federal funding has been provided to this project yet. For 
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $1,750,000 for phase 
II.
    San Jose, California, Silicon Valley Rapid Transit 
Corridor.--The Silicon Valley rapid transit corridor is a 16.3-
mile, seven station project that would extend BART south 
through the cities of Fremont, Milipitas, San Jose, and would 
terminate at a Caltrain commuter rail station in Santa Clara. 
The majority of the alignment would be at or above grade, 
although a portion would be underground (subway) in San Jose. 
This project will connect to a variety of rail systems in the 
region, including the Altamount Commuter Express service, the 
Caltrain commuter rail service, the Capitol Corridor intercity 
rail service, and Amtrak; Valley Transportation Authority 
buses; and to the peoplemover at the San Jose airport. The 
project is estimated to cost $3.7 billion, with a federal share 
of $834,000,000 (22 percent). The project is estimated to cost 
$3.7 billion, with a federal share of $834,000,000 (22 
percent). The project is authorized by TEA21, section 
3030(b)(19). In September 2002, FTA approved the project's 
entry into preliminary engineering. For fiscal year 2003, the 
Committee recomments $250,000 for preliminary engineering and 
design activities.
    San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project.--The Puerto 
Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW), 
through its Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), is 
constructing a 10.7-mile (17.2 km) double-track guideway 
between Bayamon Centro and the Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce 
in San Juan. Approximately 40 percent of the alignment is at or 
near grade. The remainder, aside from a short below-grade 
segment in the Centro Medico area as well as an underground 
segment through Rio Piedras, is generally elevated above 
roadway rights-of-way. The project includes 16 stations and a 
vehicle and right of way maintenance/storage facility. The 
original capital cost for the project as specified in the FFGA 
totals $1,250,000,000 (escalated dollars). The cost of the 
project is now estimated at $1,653,600,000. The Tren Urbano 
project is expected to carry 113,300 riders per day in 2010. 
The Tren Urbano phase 1 environmental review process was 
completed in November 1995 and included 14 stations. The 
alignment design allowed for the future addition of two 
stations, one in Rio Piedras and one in Hato Rey. A record of 
decision (ROD) was issued in February 1996. In March 1996, FTA 
entered into an FFGA for the Tren Urbano project providing a 
Federal commitment of $307,400,000 in section 5309 new start 
funds out of a total project cost of $1,250,000,000. The cost 
of the project is now estimated at $1,653,000,000. Subsequent 
to the FFGA, three environmental assessments were prepared 
which revised the alignment at the Villa Nevarez station and 
added new stations, in Rio Piedras at the University of Puerto 
Rico, and in Hato Rey at Domenech Street. Findings of no 
significant impact (FONSI) by the FTA were issued for these 
three environmental assessments in November 1996, February 
1997, and July 1997, respectively. An amendment to the FFGA 
signed in July 1999, added the two stations identified in the 
environmental process as well as 10 additional railcars. The 
amendment also added $141,000,000 in section 5307 funds and 
$259,900,000 in flexible funding. The new cost estimate for the 
project encompasses the cost for extended project management 
and construction management services, for advance design 
development activities and for anticipated costs for claims and 
contingencies. The local share funding for the project is being 
provided by local revenues from the Puerto Rico Highway and 
Transportation Authority (PRHTA). All operating costs, as well 
as debt service on PRHTA bonds, are included as part of the 
PRHTA annual budget, established in accordance with standard 
PRHTA budget procedures. The project was also awarded a TIFIA 
(Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 
1998) loan of $300,000,000. The project is well into the 
construction phase of development. During 1996 and 1997, seven 
design-build contracts were awarded for different segments of 
the Tren Urbano phase 1 system. The systems test track and 
turnkey contract, awarded in August 1996, provided for the 
purchase of rolling stock, design and installation of all 
systemwide components, construction of one of the civil 
segments, and operation and maintenance of Tren Urbano phase 1 
for an initial period of five years.
    Contractors for this project have had problems meeting 
construction milestones and quality standards. Significant 
problems include tunnel misalignments, inadequate protection of 
steel reinforcements, cracking in guideways, and Buy America 
issues. Because of the serious, and unresolved, nature of these 
problems, FTA withheld a total of $165,690,000 ($105,700,000 in 
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 appropriations, $20,000,000 in 
section 5307 urbanized formula funds in 2001, and $40,000,000 
of flexible funds for fiscal year 2001) from the project until 
PRTHA submitted a recovery plan. The recovery plan has been 
submitted to FTA and in March 2002, FTA released the withheld 
funds. The project is now expected to enter revenue service in 
2003 or 2004, a slip from May 2002. Through fiscal year 2002, 
Congress has appropriated $198,530,000 in section 5309 new 
start funds for the project, with an additional $4,960,000 
appropriated to the project but not included in the scope of 
the FFGA. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 
$59,740,000.
    St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink St. Clair extension 
project.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is 
developing a 26-mile light rail line between downtown East St. 
Louis, Illinois, and the Mid America Airport in St. Clair 
County. The project will extend the MetroLink light rail 
project that opened in July 1993. The adopted alignment 
generally follows the former CSXT railroad right-of-way from 
East St. Louis to Belleville, Illinois, serving the Belleville 
Area College (now known as Southwest Illinois College), Scott 
Air Force Base and Mid America Airport. The ``minimum operable 
segment'' (MOS) includes 8 stations (seven with park and ride 
lots), 20 new light rail vehicles, and a new light rail vehicle 
maintenance facility in East St. Louis, Illinois. Revenue 
service began on May 5, 2001. The MOS is estimated to cost 
$339,200,000 (escalated dollars). On October 17, 1996, Bi-State 
and FTA entered into an FFGA that commits $243,930,000 in 
section 5309 new start funds contributing to the total 
estimated cost of $339,200,000 (escalated dollars). An 
additional $8,500,000 in section 5309 new start funds were 
previously appropriated but not included in the FFGA scope. 
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 
$249,040,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the FFGA 
covered minimum operable segment portion of the project. For 
fiscal year 2003, the bill provides $3,368,422.
    Seattle, Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail.-- The 
Committee has given special attention since January, 2001 to 
the Central Link Light Rail project in the Seattle region. 
Testimony from Sound Transit leadership and the Federal Transit 
Administration has assisted the Committee in evaluating the 
project and the management of it by its sponsor and by the FTA. 
The Inspector General issued an interim report on the project 
in April, 2001 which raised a number of issues to be addressed 
by Sound Transit and the FTA. The Committee takes note of the 
progress made in addressing these issues. Sound Transit's Board 
of Directors adopted a new initial segment in November, 2001. 
This 14-mile line will run from Downtown Seattle to just north 
of Sea-Tac Airport. The FTA has given its approval to the 
commencement of final design on this segment. In anticipation 
of further developments on this project, the Committee has 
asked the Inspector General to update his report on it. The 
Committee will evaluate any future request for funding and/or 
review of a proposed Full Funding Grant Agreement in light of 
the IG report and additional information from the grantee and 
the Administration.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants


                                                         Limitation on
                                     Appropriation    obligations (Trust
                                    (General fund)           fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.         $25,000,000      ($100,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003          30,000,000       (120,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.........          30,000,000       (120,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year            +5,000,000       (+20,000,000)
 2002...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2003...........................

    Section 3037 of TEA-21 established the job access and 
reverse commute (JARC) grants program. The program is to make 
competitive grants to qualifying metropolitan planning 
organizations, local governmental authorities, agencies, and 
non-profit organizations. Grants may not be used for planning 
or coordination activities. No more than $10,000,000 may be 
provided for reverse commute grants.
    For fiscal year 2003, the program is funded at a total 
level of $150,000,000, with $30,000,000 derived from the 
general fund and $120,000,000 derived from the mass transit 
account of the highway trust fund. These funds are guaranteed 
under the transit funding category.
    The Committee recommends the following allocations of job 
access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 
2003:

Ajo to Phoenix, Arizona, rural express bus service......        $200,000
City of Phoenix, Arizona, Valley Metro..................       1,000,000
Southwest Transit, Arizona, bus route 131...............         300,000
AC Transit, California--CalWORKS Welfare to Work........       3,000,000
County of Santa Clara, California, Guaranteed Ride Home 
    Program.............................................         650,000
East Palo Alto, California, shuttle service.............       1,000,000
Los Angeles County, California, MTA.....................       2,000,000
Sacramento, California..................................       3,000,000
State of Colorado.......................................       1,524,471
State of Connecticut....................................       3,500,000
Georgetown Metro Connection, Washington, DC.............       1,100,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority..........       2,500,000
State of Delaware.......................................         750,000
Hillsborough, Florida (HART)............................         700,000
Key West, Florida.......................................       1,000,000
Jacksonville, Florida, ChoiceRide.......................       2,500,000
Macon-Bibb County Transit Authority, Georgia, reverse 
    commute program.....................................       1,000,000
DuPage County, Illinois, coordinated paratransit program         500,000
State of Illinois, ways to work.........................         400,000
Ways-to-Work--Illinois and Missouri.....................       2,000,000
Rock Island County Mass Transit District, Illinois, 
    CityLINK............................................         360,000
IndyGo Service, Indiana.................................       1,000,000
Mid America Regional Council, Kansas....................       1,000,000
Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority, Kansas...........       1,600,000
Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 
    Kansas..............................................       1,000,000
Community Transit Association of America,...............       1,000,000
Northern Tier Dial-A-Ride, Massachusetts................         400,000
Transportation Services of Northern Berkshire, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         400,000
State of Maryland.......................................       5,000,000
Flint, Michigan, Mass Transportation Authority..........       1,000,000
Grand Rapids/Kent County, Michigan......................       1,200,000
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota.........................       1,000,000
Metropolitan Kansas City Job Access Partnership, 
    Missouri............................................       1,000,000
St. Louis, Missouri, West Gateway Coordinating Council 
    (Metrolink).........................................       3,000,000
Community Transportation Association of America's 
    Joblinks Employment Transportation Initiative, North 
    Carolina............................................       2,000,000
Wake County, North Carolina, Coordinated Transportation 
    System..............................................       1,000,000
State of New Jersey.....................................       5,000,000
Binghamton, New York, Broome County Transit.............         250,000
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority......         500,000
Columbia County, New York...............................         100,000
Long Island, New York (MTA).............................         500,000
State of New York.......................................       1,000,000
Orange County, New York.................................         100,000
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, New 
    York................................................         600,000
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit--Tompkins County, New 
    York................................................         300,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority..........................         600,000
Toledo, Ohio............................................         500,000
Oklahoma Transit Association............................       5,000,000
Portland, Oregon........................................       2,800,000
Salem Area Transit, Oregon..............................       1,000,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania........       4,000,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 
    (SEPTA), Pennsylvania...............................       6,000,000
Rhode Island Public Transit.............................       2,000,000
Chattanooga, Tennessee..................................         500,000
Abilene, Texas, (Citylink)..............................         200,000
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Reverse 
    Commute Transit Exchange Center, Texas..............       2,000,000
Lubbock, Texas, (Citibus)...............................         230,000
Galveston, Texas........................................         600,000
San Antonio, Texas, VIA Metropolitan Transit............       1,250,000
Corpus Christi, Texas...................................       1,700,000
Texas, Just Transportation Alliance.....................         267,210
City of Charlottesville, Virginia.......................         375,000
Fairfax County, Virginia................................       1,600,000
Washington State, WorkFirst Initiative..................       6,000,000
Yakima, Washington, Ways to Work........................         500,000
Community Transit Association of the Northwest, 
    Washington..........................................         150,000
State of Wisconsin......................................       5,200,000

    Community Transit Association of America.--The Committee 
provides $1,000,000 for the Community Transit Association of 
America continuation of activities and programs to be used for 
demonstration projects, technical assistance for demonstration 
projects and technical assistance to small and urban and rural 
community providers. This assistance may include a toll-free 
hotline, on site technical assistance and training, preparation 
of technical manuals and related assistance.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the 
corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation 
established by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. 
The corporation is responsible for the operation, maintenance, 
and development of the United States portion of the Saint 
Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie, including the 
two Seaway locks located in Massena, NY and vessel traffic 
control in areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. 
The mission of the corporation is to serve the United States 
intermodal and international transportation system by improving 
the operation and maintenance of a safe, secure, reliable, 
efficient, and environmentally responsible deep-draft waterway. 
The corporation's major priorities include: safety, 
reliability, environmental stewardship, trade development, 
management accountability, and bi-national collaboration with 
its Canadian counterpart.
    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 in previous years. 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, secure, 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--derived primarily from prior-years revenues 
received in excess of costs, unused borrowing authority, and 
miscellaneous income--for emergency purposes.

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................         $13,345,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\................          14,086,000
Recommended in the bill \2\ \3\.....................          15,486,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................          +2,141,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................          +1,400,000
\1\ Does not reflect $702,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.
\2\ Does not reflect reduction of $11,000 pursuant to Section 349 of
  Public Law 107-87.
\3\ Does not reflect reduction of $10,000 pursuant to Section 1106 of
  Public Law 107-117.

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$15,486,000 to fund the operations and maintenance of the 
corporation. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund and revenues from non-federal sources finance the 
operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the 
corporation is responsible. The appropriation recommended in 
the bill provides sufficient funding for the corporation's 
capital priorities as well as for the recommendations of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' survey and evaluation of the 
corporation's lock and maintenance practices. Furthermore, the 
amount recommended in the bill includes funds for new and 
revised security measures that are based upon the results of an 
independent security assessment. The following summarizes the 
adjustments that were made to the budget request:

Additional security funds...............................     +$1,431,000
Deny FECA administrative costs..........................         -31,300

    Security.--Following the events of September 11, 2001, the 
vulnerability of the Seaway's infrastructure became a 
significant concern. Given the economic value and strategic 
importance of the Seaway, the corporation took immediate steps 
to enhance security and assess future needs. The corporation 
conducted an independent security risk assessment to determine 
the extent of enhancements required to secure the waterway's 
facilities with minimal impact upon operations and commerce. 
The Committee applauds the corporation's efforts to improve the 
security of its infrastructure without impeding trade and 
vessel operations, and has provided an additional $1,431,000 
for these activities. The corporation's efforts to mitigate the 
additional costs associated with security enhancements by 
seeking support from local entities that use common access 
roads and land, such as the New York State Power Authority and 
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic 
Preservation, is recognized. Further efforts to obtain support 
and fiscal contributions from such organizations are 
encouraged.
    In addition to infrastructure enhancements, the 
corporation, in conjunction with its Canadian counterpart, 
established a protocol for addressing high risk inbound 
vessels. These efforts include early identification and a 
comprehensive inspection regimen coordinated between both the 
United States and Canadian Coast Guards. The efforts of the 
corporation are consistent with the U.S. Coast Guard's 
intention of identifying high interest vessels well before they 
enter U.S. waters. The Committee applauds these efforts and 
encourages the corporation to continue the development of this 
protocol with assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard and 
Transportation Security Administration.
    FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has denied 
funding proposed in the budget for FECA administrative costs. 
This is consistent with actions taken DOT-wide.

              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. RSPA provides 
research, analytical and technical support for transportation 
programs through headquarters offices and the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center.

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program

    The Committee recommends $99,574,000 in new budget 
authority to continue the operations, research and development, 
and grants-in-aid administered by the Research and Special 
Programs Administration. This is an increase of $1,345,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, excluding supplemental 
amounts. The following table summarizes fiscal year 2002 
program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2002   Fiscal year 2003    Recommended in
                        Program                             enacted \1\          estimate           the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special programs..........................    \2\ $39,779,000    \3\ $44,378,000        $40,677,000
Hazardous materials user fee...........................  .................         -5,987,000  .................
Pipeline safety........................................         58,250,000      \4\63,857,000         58,697,000
Emergency preparedness grants..........................            200,000            200,000            200,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................         98,229,000        102,448,000        99,574,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $348,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107-87 and section 1106 of
  Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Includes $2,500,000 in fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental funding.
\3\ Does not reflect accruals of $1,316,000 in FY 2003 for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the
  Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB).
\4\ Does not reflect accruals of $653,000 in FY 2003 for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the
  Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB).

                     Research and Special Programs


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\ \2\.............         $39,779,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \3\................          44,378,000
Recommended in the bill.............................          40,677,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................            +898,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................          -3,700,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $210,000 pursuant to section 349 of
  Public Law 107-87 and section 1106 of Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Includes $2,500,000 in fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental
  funding.
\3\ Does not reflect accruals of $1,316,000 for the Civil Service
  Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Health Benefits
  (FEHB).

    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 for 
RSPA's programs is also provided under this appropriation. The 
total recommended program level for research and special 
programs is $40,677,000. Budget and staffing data for this 
appropriation are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2002   Fiscal year 2003    Recommended in
                                                              enacted            estimate           the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety.............................        $21,217,000        $23,079,000        $22,998,000
        (Positions)....................................              (135)              (137)              (137)
Hazardous materials safety user fees...................  .................         -5,987,000  .................
Research and technology................................         $2,784,000          2,854,000          2,846,000
    (Positions)........................................                (9)                (9)                (9)
Emergency transportation...............................          4,397,000          2,058,000          1,951,000
    (Positions)........................................                (9)               (10)                (9)
Program support........................................         11,381,000         16,387,000         12,882,000
    (Positions)........................................               (53)               (67)               (57)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Special Programs.............         39,779,000         38,391,000         40,677,000
    (Positions)........................................              (206)              (223)              (212)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:

Reduce funding for reimbursement of prior year                 -$265,000
 budget decisions...................................
Deny funding for one emergency transportation                   -100,000
 detailee position..................................
Deny ten positions for program support..............          -1,093,000
Reduce funding for information technology                     -2,239,000
 infrastructure.....................................
Deny FECA administrative costs......................              -3,200

    Prior year funding decisions.--The budget included $265,000 
for reimbursement of salary and administrative funding that 
Congress did not provide in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations 
bill. The Committee has made its decisions regarding fiscal 
year 2002 funding levels, and therefore deletes funding for 
this purpose.
    New positions.--The budget included a request for two new 
personnel for the office of hazardous materials. This is to 
compensate for the two personnel provided for this purpose in 
2002 that were transferred to other hazardous materials safety 
duties in the wake of September 11th. These new employees are 
part of the strategic hazardous materials incident reduction 
team. The Committee has provided funding associated with these 
new positions.
    The budget also requested a total of fourteen new positions 
for RSPA's information management program for information 
technology (IT) infrastructure (7), administrative support (3), 
and financial management (4). The Committee has provided a 
total of four of these new positions, two of which are 
accounting positions to establish proper accounting procedures. 
The Committee has also provided funding for one security 
officer and for one network administrator/computer analyst.
    Although the Committee remains concerned that RSPA's 
information technology strategic plan did not adequately 
address a definitive order of infrastructure upgrades or a 
timeline of development for other large improvements, 
subsequent meetings and discussions indicate a need for some 
additional staff in the IT arena. The Government Information 
Security Reform Act requires RSPA to employ one security 
officer to develop, implement, and maintain a security program 
that assesses risk and maintains security.
    Emergency transportation detailee.--RSPA requested $100,000 
to pay for an existing detailee position from the Department of 
Defense to serve as a liaison officer in the office of 
emergency transportation. Because this position is filled by an 
employee of the Department of Defense, not RSPA, and detailees 
are customarily paid for by the sponsoring department, the 
Committee deletes funding for this purpose.
    Research and technology.--The Committee has funded the 
request of $1,560,000 for research and development planning and 
transportation infrastructure assurance. The Committee 
encourages RSPA to continue to evaluate and streamline their 
research programs to eliminate duplicative programs within RSPA 
and among other modal administrations in DOT.
    In addition, Section 352(b) of the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 
2002 directs DOT, in consultation with the Comptroller General, 
to conduct a study of the effects on public health and safety, 
the environment, and the economy association with the 
transportation of hazardous and radioactive materials. The 
Committee is disturbed to learn that DOT did not consult with 
the Comptroller General on the report that it submitted to the 
Congress. The GAO only received a draft report for review one 
week prior to its scheduled delivery date to Congress, although 
the GAO offered several times since January 2002 to consult 
with DOT on the scope and design of the study. DOT's report 
does not fully address all of the matters requested by the 
Committee and provides only a description of the transportation 
systems in the United States. The Committee understands that 
the issues to be studied are complex in nature, but it is clear 
that RSPA performed very little analysis in what it provided to 
Congress.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) to provide a report by February 1, 2003, 
evaluating RSPA's research program. The report should address 
RSPA's effectiveness in coordinating with other modes of 
transport, including the avoidance of duplication; contain a 
description of how RSPA develops its research agenda and 
evaluates the outcomes; and include an overview of current RSPA 
projects, including challenges and successes of the program.
    The Committee also directs the GAO to provide a separate 
report by February 1, 2003, on RSPA's transportation 
infrastructure assurance research initiative begun in fiscal 
year 2001. The report should address the status of the program, 
key vulnerabilities (both safety and security) of national 
transportation infrastructure, and a description of how the 
events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent establishment 
of the Transportation Security Administration, may have changed 
the initial objectives of the program.
    Information technology infrastructure.--The Committee has 
reduced funding by $2,239,000 from the request for computer 
infrastructure, for a total funding level of $1,500,000. The 
Committee notes that the funding provided is a significant 
increase from the $123,000 made available the previous year. 
The Committee directs RSPA to develop a spending plan by 
December 31, 2002, that details exactly how these funds will be 
spent and how the plan best addresses RSPA's needs. The 
Committee directs RSPA to focus its information technology 
investment funding on safety and security related mission 
critical areas, such as pipeline safety and hazardous materials 
areas, as well as on addressing the internal and external 
computer-related security threats identified by the March 2002 
security posture assessment report. Further, the Committee 
directs RSPA to provide a detailed report to both the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of the 
infrastructure upgrades, including an itemization of spent 
resources and the sequence in which RSPA addresses security and 
infrastructure needs, by March 15, 2003.
    FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced 
funding by $3,200 from the budget request for workers 
compensation administrative costs as explained in this report.
    User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request 
to begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from 
user fees. On February 14, 2001, RSPA finalized a rule that 
changed the agency's registration and fee assessment program 
for persons who transport, or offer for transport, certain 
categories and quantities of hazardous materials. The rule 
increased the number of persons required to register and 
increased the annual registration fee for shippers and carriers 
which are not small businesses. These fees have raised 
additional funds to enhance support for the national hazardous 
materials emergency preparedness grant program.
    To begin funding the hazardous materials safety program 
would require RSPA to initiate a rule to collect $5,987,000 in 
user fees in fiscal year 2003 and fully fund the office of 
hazardous materials beginning in fiscal year 2004. These fees 
would be above those already in place for emergency 
preparedness grants. Currently, this new fee is not authorized. 
Further, the Committee is concerned about raising fees twice on 
a small segment of the transportation industry. While the 
Committee supported fees to increase funding available for 
emergency preparedness training and grants, it is unwilling to 
have the same segment of the industry fully fund the Federal 
Government's entire hazardous materials safety program.

                            Pipeline Safety


                                               (Oil spill
                                  (Pipeline     liability       Total
                                safety fund)   trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year       $50,386,000    $7,864,000   $58,250,000
 2002 \1\.....................
Budget estimate, fiscal year      56,385,000     7,472,000    63,875,000
 2003 \2\.....................
Recommended in the bill.......    51,225,000     7,472,000    58,697,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year      +839,000      -392,000      +447,000
 2002.........................
    Budget estimate, fiscal       -5,160,000  ............    -5,160,000
 year 2003....................
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $138,000 pursuant to section 349 of
  Public Law 107-87 and section 1106 of Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Does not reflect accruals of $653,000 for the Civil Service
  Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Health Benefits
  (FEHB).

    The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national 
regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to 
life and property in the transportation of natural gas, 
petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The 
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the 
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection 
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and 
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The 
office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and 
administers a grants-in-aid program to state pipeline programs.
    The bill includes $58,697,000 to continue pipeline safety 
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid 
in fiscal year 2003. This is a 1 percent increase from the 
level enacted for fiscal year 2002. The bill specifies that of 
the total appropriation, $7,472,000 shall be derived from the 
oil spill liability trust fund and $51,225,000 shall be from 
the pipeline safety fund.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:

Reduce funding reimbursement of prior year funding             -$286,000
 decisions..........................................
Deny twelve new positions...........................          -1,152,000
Reduce requested research and development increase..          -4,008,000
Deny FECA administrative costs......................             -15,000

    Prior year funding decisions.--The budget included $286,000 
for reimbursement of salary and administrative funding that 
Congress did not provide in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations 
bill. The Committee has made its decisions regarding fiscal 
year 2002, and therefore deletes funding for this purpose.
    New positions.--The budget included a request for fifteen 
new pipeline safety-related positions, eight of which are 
specialists/inspectors to support the integrity management 
program, two are integrity support technical specialists and 
five are community assistance positions. The Committee notes 
that of the twenty-six pipeline safety related positions 
provided in fiscal year 2002, just over half have been filled. 
Therefore, the Committee has provided a total of three new 
positions--two specialists/inspectors to support the integrity 
assessment validation and enforcement and security preparedness 
work and one integrity support technical specialist.
    Research and development.--RSPA requested a total increase 
of $4,008,000 over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level for 
research and development programs. This increase is due to the 
transfer of the Department of Energy's pipeline infrastructure 
research and development program into RSPA. The DOE's research 
program differs significantly from RSPA's as it focuses on 
pipeline materials and structure research. The Committee does 
not support this transfer and deletes funding for this purpose.
    Further, the Committee questions the dramatic increase in 
the R&D; budget since fiscal year 2001, noting that the 2003 
request would represent a 70 percent increase in the R&D; budget 
in a span of two years. The Committee is concerned that these 
increases will not be effectively managed and utilized. The GAO 
is directed to provide a report to both the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by January 15, 2003, on the 
effectiveness of RSPA's pipeline safety research and 
development program.
    FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced 
funding by $15,000 from the budget request for workers 
compensation administrative costs as explained in this report.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................            $200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003....................             200,000
Recommended in the bill.............................             200,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................  ..................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................  ..................

    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 as requested, 
for activities related to emergency response training 
curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 
117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided an 
obligation limitation of $14,300,000 for the emergency 
preparedness grant program.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


                         Salaries and Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\...................       $51,914,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003......................        57,421,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        57,421,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................        +5,507,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................  ................
\1\ Includes $1,300,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations.

    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 fully 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 $57,421,000 for 
activities of the Office of Inspector General, an increase of 
$5,507,000 (10.6 percent) above the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
level and the same as the administration's request. The 
Committee continues to value highly the work of the Office of 
Inspector General in oversight of departmental programs and 
activities. In addition, the OIG will receive $7,624,000 from 
other agencies in this bill, as noted below:

Federal Highway Administration........................        $3,524,000
Federal Transit Administration........................         2,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration.......................         2,000,000
National Transportation Safety Board..................           100,000

    The OIG's total funding of $65,045,000 represents an 
increase of 9.2 percent above the fiscal year 2002 level.
    Backlog in criminal investigative cases.--Since the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, approximately 45 
percent of OIG's criminal investigative resources have been 
diverted from other transportation investigations to perform 
aviation security requirements. As a result, important fraud 
investigations have suffered, particularly in the aviation 
safety, highway, and transit program areas. Since the increased 
funding provided in TEA-21 and AIR-21, the OIG has seen a sharp 
spike in investigations of contract and grant fraud. For 
example, in fiscal year 2001, OIG fraud investigations resulted 
in 72 indictments and 51 convictions. This was an increase of 
33 percent in indictments and 42 percent in convictions over 
fiscal year 2000. While the additional resources for security 
activities has been important, over 250 investigations are 
currently either in a suspended status, not yet assigned, or 
have been delayed, impacting the statute of limitations in many 
cases. There are over 90 backlogged criminal contract and grant 
fraud cases involving bribery, collusion, kickback, or criminal 
conspiracy. The Committee believes it is crucial for the OIG to 
begin address these backlogged cases without further delay.
    Support for homeland security agencies and activities.--The 
Committee understands that OIG audit and investigative costs in 
support of those agencies proposed for transfer to the 
Department of Homeland Security may be proposed for transfer to 
the new OIG for the Department of Homeland Security. The 
Committee notes that the recent workload of the Department of 
Transportation OIG for the Coast Guard and TSA is not 
indicative of a reasonable recurring level of effort. The high 
level of resources in these program areas is due to special 
Congressional requests in the area of Coast Guard search and 
rescue and the need for additional oversight during the start-
up period for TSA. A large portion of these resources have been 
diverted from other critical audit and investigative 
activities, and cannot simply be transferred to a new 
department without serious impact on DOT operations. The 
Committee expects the administration to consider long-term 
resource trends, as well as the need to maintain a viable audit 
and investigative presence in DOT, as a part of internal 
planning for the new homeland security department.
    Disadvantaged business enterprise program audit, New 
Orleans area, LA.--The Committee is aware of, and strongly 
concerned about, disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) abuses 
that may have occurred under the administration of current DOT 
DBE programs at the Louis Armstrong International Airport, the 
New Orleans Regional Transit Authority, and the Orleans Levee 
Board. In August 2001, the Committee requested a thorough 
report on all instances in which federal DBE regulations may 
have been violated. The Committee requested that the IG 
specifically examine all firms certified under these programs 
and report any specific cases of improper certification. The 
Committee has not received the IG report, and requests its 
submission no later than June 1, 2003.
    Unfair business practices.--The bill maintains language 
first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to 
investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive 
practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and 
ticket agents.
    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 of, or modification to, any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from 
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or 
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\...................       $18,457,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\..................        19,459,000
Recommended in the bill \3\...........................        19,450,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002...................          +993,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................            -9,000
\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $5,000 pursuant to section 349 of
  Public Law 107-87 and a reduction of $4,000 pursuant to section 1106
  of Public Law 107-117. Of this total, $950,000 is offset through the
  collection of user fees.
\2\ Does not reflect accruals of $1,192,200 for the for the Civil
  Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Health
  Benefits (FEHB) in the FY 2003 request.
\3\ Assumes collection of $1,000,000 in user fees, to offset the
  appropriation as the fees are 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 transferred 
certain other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway 
Administration (now under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
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 
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 made by the 
Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$19,450,000. Included in the recommended amount is an estimated 
$1,000,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding. 
At this funding level, the Board will be able to accommodate 
145 full-time equivalent positions.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:

Deny FECA administrative costs.......................            -$9,100

    FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced 
funding by $9,100 from the budget request for workers 
compensation administrative costs as explained elsewhere in 
this report.
    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. The Committee 
agrees with the budget request that $1,000,000 in user fees is 
reasonable.
    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. This language, 
continued from last year, simplifies the tracking of the 
collections and provides the Board with more flexibility in 
spending its appropriated funds.
    Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.--On December 12, 
1997, the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific 
Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, 
KS (Wichita/Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study 
pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated 
that at such time as the parties reach agreement or discontinue 
negotiations, the Board would take appropriate action.
    By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP 
indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly 
petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of 
the Board's approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated 
July 8, 1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a 
condition to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated 
agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or 
subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the 
assumptions on which the Board based its final environmental 
mitigation measures, then the Board should reopen Finance 
Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe 
additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if 
shown to be appropriate.

                                TITLE II


                            RELATED AGENCIES


               ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS


                            COMPLIANCE BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.....................          $5,015,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1..................           5,194,000
Recommended in the bill 2...........................           5,194,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................            +179,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................  ..................
\1\ Does not reflect $146,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.
\2\ Does not reflect reduction of $146,000 pursuant to Section 301 of
  Public Law 106-113.

    A total of $5,194,000 has been allocated for the operations 
of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board, the funding level requested by the administration. The 
recommended appropriation total provides adequate funding to 
support two additional full time equivalent (FTE) positions as 
requested for a total of 32 FTEs.
    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting 
accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was 
reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, 
Public Law 102-569. Under this authorization, the Access 
Board's functions are to ensure compliance with the 
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to develop guidelines 
for and technical assistance to individuals and entities with 
rights or duties under titles II and III of the American with 
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum 
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public 
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities 
and vehicles, state and local government facilities, children's 
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board 
also provides technical assistance to Government agencies, 
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses 
on the removal of accessibility barriers.
    Electronic Resources.--Through the use of Internet and 
other electronic media, the Access Board has significantly 
expanded the dissemination of accessibility guidelines. The 
Committee commends this efficient use of electronic resources 
and encourages such innovative efforts to further promote 
accessibility for all persons with unique and special needs.
    FECA administrative costs.--No funding has been provided 
for FECA administrative costs, as discussed earlier in the 
report.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.................         $68,650,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\................          70,480,000
Recommended in the bill.............................          71,270,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................          +2,620,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2003................           +790,000
\1\ Includes $650,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations.
\2\ Excludes $3,400,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

    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 $71,270,000 for 
salaries and expenses, an increase of $2,620,000 (4 percent) 
above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and $790,000 above the 
request. The additional funds shall be used to cover the safety 
academy's rental costs and necessary academy staffing in 2003. 
Of the funds provided, up to $2,000 may be used for official 
reception and representation expenses as requested. 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 described in the 
budget justifications.
    FECA administrative costs.--No funding has been provided 
for FECA administrative costs, as discussed earlier in the 
report.

                               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 2002 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers may be different):
    Section 320 prohibits funds in this Act unless the 
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business 
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or 
full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is 
announced by the department or its modal administrations.
    Section 321 prohibits funds for design or construction of a 
light rail system in Houston, Texas, without meeting the 
conditions listed.
    Section 322 prohibits funds in this Act for engineering 
work related to an additional runway at New Orleans 
International Airport.
    Section 326 prohibits funds for the Office of the Secretary 
of Transportation to approve assessments or reimbursable 
agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal 
administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or 
agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for 
Congressional notification.
    The Committee included the following general provisions as 
requested with modifications:
    Section 304 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and 
expenses of more than 107 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 or any independent agency funded in this Act.
    Section 315 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 350 
technical staff years under the federally funded research and 
development center contract between the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems 
Development.
    Section 323 prohibits funds in this Act to be used to adopt 
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide 
the Federal Aviation Administration or the Transportation 
Security Administration ``without cost'' buildings, maintenance 
or space for FAA or TSA services, including air traffic 
control, air navigation, aviation security or weather 
reporting. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations 
between FAA or TSA and airport sponsors concerning ``below 
market'' rates for such services or to grant assurances that 
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the 
FAA for air traffic control facilities or to the TSA for 
security checkpoints.
    Section 324 amends the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century (112 Stat. 272) to increase the percentage take-
down for FHWA administrative funds.
    Section 325 allows States to use funds provided under 
section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., to produce and place highway 
safety public service messages.
    The Committee included the following new provisions:
    Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to 
issue, implement, or enforce a regulation that diminishes or 
revokes an exemption authorized under 345 of the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
    Section 328 requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
make a grant from the Local Rail Freight Assistance program in 
the amount of $690,287 to the State of Iowa for a rail 
infrastructure rehabilitation project on the Iowa Northern 
Railway.
    Section 329 requires payments into the Department of 
Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund for fiscal 
year 2003 to be from funds available in the Coast Guard 
Operating Expenses account.
    Section 330 reallocates funds for the Wilmington, Delaware, 
downtown transit connector and for the Wilmington downtown 
corridor project.
    Section 331 amends section 1602 of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 272) to allow 
changes to projects in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, New York, and 
Texas; authorizes an eligibility change for Alaska under FTA's 
section 5309 program; transfers funds in California contained 
in P.L. 103-331; and includes the city of Norman, OK to be 
considered as part of the Oklahoma City Transportation 
Management Area.
    Section 332 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for DOT 
to finalize or implement ``Statewide Planning, Metropolitan 
Transportation Planning'' rule published on June 19, 2002.
    Section 333 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for DOT 
to develop or implement a pilot program allowing commercial 
drivers 18 to 20 years of age to operate commercial motor 
carriers in interstate commerce.
    Section 334 amends the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 to extend the exemption from the federal 
axle weight restrictions to include over-the-road buses.
    Section 335 subjects funds provided in this Act to the 
stipulations in Section 350 of Public Law 107-87, including the 
annual report on the safety and security of Mexico-domicited 
motor carriers operating in the United States.
    Section 336 amends Section 11123 of title 49, United States 
Code, to ensure that emergency rail service is continued if 
Amtrak should cease operation.
    Section 337 encourages the Secretary of Transportation and 
the FAA to implement a plan between the State of Illinois, the 
City of Chicago, and other parties for the purpose of 
modernizing O'Hare International Airport, continuing operation 
of Meigs Field, and utilizing existing airports to help relieve 
congestion.
    Section 338 amends the Air Transportation Safety and System 
Stabilization Act by inserting into section 402 the definition 
of the term ``air carrier.''
    Section 339 requires the FAA to report to Congress on the 
safety implications of allowing small airports to use AIP funds 
to build or equip a visual flight rule air traffic control 
tower that would be operated under the contract tower program 
and on whether small airports that have already built towers 
should be eligible for reimbursement from the AIP funds.
    Section 340 prohibits funds provided in this Act to be 
transferred without expressed authority.
    Section 341 requires Amtrak to submit an annual report to 
the appropriate Congressional Committees detailing their per 
passenger operating loss for each rail line.
    Section 342 requires that any explosive detection system 
purchased pursuant to 49 U.S.C 44901(d) will be purchased by 
the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security.
    Section 343 amends language in the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act, so as to only require the use of 
law enforcement officers at airports, instead of designating 
the use of federal officers.
    Section 344 limits the use of funds to terminate or limit 
restrictions imposed under Federal Aviation Administration 
Notices to Airmen FDC 1/3353 or 2/9583.
    Section 345 restricts procurement of Coast Guard ships 
unless they are in compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 346 amends section 13703, of title 49, United 
States Code, by allowing the STB to approve applications from 
truck rate bureaus seeking to publish national rates.
    Section 347 restricts funds to apply or enforce a 
regulatory requirement for strengthening flight deck doors 
until further review by the TSA.
    The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the 
budget: (1) limiting federal funds for new fixed guideway 
projects to no more than 50 percent; (2) allowing funds for 
construction of state border safety inspection facilities in 
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas; (3) allowing 
Federal Highway Administration funds to purchase promotional 
items for employment recruiting and safety programs; (4) 
increasing fees charged for hazardous material registration and 
inspection and crediting such fees to the Research and Special 
Programs account; (5) authorizing collection of fees for 
railroad safety and crediting such fees to the Federal Railroad 
Administration account; (6) restricting eligibility for 
essential air service subsidies; and (7) authorizing the 
waiving of the matching requirements of the emergency fund 
under section 125 and the federal share of section 123, United 
States Code.

              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 3(d)(1) of rule XIII 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.

                           Transfers of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 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 Federal Transit Administration, Formula grants: 
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3008 of Public 
Law 105-178, the $50,000,000 to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall 
be transferred to and merged with funding provided for the 
replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and related 
equipment and the construction of bus-related facilities under 
``Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants''.
    Under Federal Railroad Administration, under Grants to the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Provided that up to 
$100,000,000 from capital grants shall be transferred to 
operating expenses if approved by the Secretary of the 
Department of Transportation.
    Under the general provisions:
    Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
Capital investment grants'' for projects specified in this Act 
or identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by 
September 30, 2005, and other recoveries, shall be available 
for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
    Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
funds appropriated before October 1, 2002, under any section of 
chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
available for expenditure may be transferred to and 
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
any such section.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations strongly considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations. This includes a review of agency and 
departmental performance plans, audits, and investigations of 
the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Department of 
Transportation Office of Inspector General, and other 
performance-related information. The Committee's goal is to 
provide adequate, but not excessive, resources for the programs 
covered by this Act, consistent with funding allocations 
provided by the Congressional budget process.

         Compliance With Rule XIII, Clause 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) 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 FOR THE 21st CENTURY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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.........
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
  75. New York                        [Construct Edgewater           9
                                       Road Dedicated Truck
                                       Route] Bronx, NY
                                       River Greenway......
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
 230. New York                        [Construct new exit            6
                                       46A on I-90 at Route
                                       170 in North Chili]
                                       Monroe County
                                       transportation
                                       improvements on Long
                                       Pond Road,
                                       Pattonwood Road, and
                                       Leyll road..........
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
 426. Louisiana                       Conduct feasibility         3.75
                                       study, design and
                                       construction of
                                       connector between
                                       Louisiana Highway
                                       [16] 1026 to I-12 in
                                       Livingston Parish...
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
 696. Pennsylvania                    Gettysburg                     3
                                       comprehensive road
                                       improvement study
                                       and construction of
                                       projects identified
                                       in the study........
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
 933. New York                        [Redesign Grand             9.75
                                       Concourse to enhance
                                       traffic flow and
                                       related enhancements
                                       between E. 161st
                                       Street and Fordham
                                       Road, New York City]
                                       Design,
                                       construction, and
                                       related enhancement
                                       of the Grand
                                       Concourse between E.
                                       161st St. and E.
                                       166th St., New York
                                       City................
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
1108. Texas                           [Construct 6th and         0.375
                                       7th Street overpass
                                       over railroad yard,
                                       Brownsville]
                                       Construct west Rail
                                       Project in or near
                                       Brownsville,
                                       including a new
                                       railroad
                                       international bridge
                                       crossing over the
                                       Rio Grande River....
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
1269. New York                        [Implement Melrose          0.75
                                       Commons geographic
                                       information system]
                                       Bronx, NY Center
                                       Transportation
                                       Project.............
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
1344. New York                        [Upgrade Frederick             9
                                       Douglas Circle, New
                                       York City] Upgrade
                                       Frederic Douglas
                                       Circle and
                                       Manahattan Avenue
                                       from West 110th
                                       Street to West 125th
                                       Street, New York
                                       City................
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
1735. Pennsylvania                    Construct new                  5
                                       interchange at I-95
                                       and PA Turnpike and
                                       related
                                       improvements,
                                       including Type II
                                       noise abatement
                                       projects along
                                       Interstate 95 in
                                       Bensalem Township
                                       between Exit 25 and
                                       26, Bucks County....
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE III--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Effect of Authorization.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Intermodal center authorizations.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each of the 
        following projects are eligible for funding under 
        section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code:
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  [(D)] (E) Alabama State Docks intermodal 
                passenger and freight facility.
                  (F) Port of Anchorage Intermodal passenger 
                and freight facility.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  ALASKA RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT OF 1982

                    (Title VI of Public Law 97-468)

TITLE VI--ALASKA RAILROAD TRANSFER

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION

  Sec. 604. (a) * * *
  (b)(1) On the date of transfer, the Secretary shall 
simultaneously:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Prior to taking the action specified in subparagraphs (A) 
through (D) of this paragraph, the Secretary shall consult with 
the Secretary of the Interior. The exclusive-use easement 
granted pursuant to subparagraph (D) of this paragraph and all 
rights afforded by such easement shall be exercised only for 
railroad purposes, and for such other transportation, 
transmission, or communication purposes for which lands subject 
to such easement were utilized as of the date of enactment of 
this Act. [In the event of reversion to the United States, 
pursuant to section 610 of this title, of the State's interests 
in all or part of the lands subject to such easement, such 
easement shall terminate with respect to the lands subject to 
such reversion, and no new exclusive-use easement with respect 
to such reverted lands shall be granted except by Act of 
Congress.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          FUTURE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

  Sec. 609. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Reversion to the United States of any portion of any 
right-of-way or exclusive-use easement granted to the State or 
State-owned railroad shall occur only as provided in section 
610 of this title. For purposes of such section, the date of 
the approval of any such right-of-way shall be deemed the 
``date of transfer''.

                               [REVERSION

  [Sec. 610. (a) If, within ten years after the date of 
transfer to the State authorized by section 604 of this title, 
the Secretary finds that all or part of the real property 
transferred to the State under this title, except that portion 
of real property which lies within the boundaries of the Denali 
National Park and Preserve, is converted to a use that would 
prevent the State-owned railroad from continuing to operate, 
that real property (including permanent improvements to the 
property) shall revert to the United States Government, or (at 
the option of the State) the State shall pay to the United 
States Government an amount determined to be the fair market 
value of that property at the time its conversion prevents 
continued operation of the railroad.
  [(b) If, after the date of transfer pursuant to section 604 
of this title, the State discontinues use of any land within 
the right-of-way, the State's interest in such land shall 
revert to the United States. The State shall be considered to 
have discontinued use within the meaning of this subsection and 
subsection (d) of this section when:
          [(1) the Governor of the State of Alaska delivers to 
        the Secretary of the Interior a notice of such 
        discontinuance, including a legal description of the 
        property subject to the notice, and a quitclaim deed 
        thereto; or
          [(2) the State has made no use of the land for a 
        continuous period of eighteen years for transportation, 
        communication, or transmission purposes. Notice of such 
        discontinuance shall promptly be published in the 
        Federal Register by the Secretary, the Secretary of the 
        Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture, and 
        reversion shall be effected one year after such notice, 
        unless within such one-year period the State brings an 
        appropriate action in the United States District Court 
        for the District of Alaska to establish that the use 
        has been continuing without an eighteen-year lapse. Any 
        such action shall have the effect of staying reversion 
        until exhaustion of appellate review from the final 
        judgment in that action or termination of the right to 
        seek such review, whichever first occurs.
  [(c) Upon such reversion pursuant to subsection (b) of this 
section, the Secretary of the Interior shall immediately convey 
by patent to abutting landowners all right, title and interest 
of the United States. Where land abutting the reverted right-
of-way is owned by different persons or entities, the 
conveyance made pursuant to this subsection shall extend the 
property of each abutting owner to the centerline of the right-
of-way.
  [(d) If use is discontinued (as that term is used in 
subsection (b) of this section) of all or part of those 
properties of the Alaska Railroad transferred to the State 
pursuant to this title which lie within the boundaries of the 
Denali National Park and Preserve or the Chugach National 
Forest, such properties or part thereof (including permanent 
improvements to the property) shall revert to the United States 
and shall not be subject to subsection (c) of this section. 
Upon such reversion, jurisdiction over that property shall be 
transferred to the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary 
of Agriculture, as appropriate, for administration as part of 
the Denali National Park and Preserve or the Chugach National 
Forest.
  [(e) Except as provided in subsections (a) through (d) of 
this section, if, within five years after the date of transfer 
to the State pursuant to section 604 of this title, the State 
sells or transfers all or substantially all of the State-owned 
railroad to an entity other than an instrumentality of the 
State, the proceeds from the sale or transfer that exceed the 
cost of any rehabilitation and improvement made by the State 
for the State-owned railroad and any net liabilities incurred 
by the State for the State-owned railroad shall be paid into 
the general fund of the Treasury of the United States.
  [(f) The Attorney General, upon the request of the Secretary, 
the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture, 
shall institute appropriate proceedings to enforce this section 
in the United States District Court for the District of 
Alaska.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


SECTION 1023 OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 
                                  1991

SEC. 1023. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RESTRICTION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Over-the-Road Buses and Public Transit Vehicles.--
          (1) Temporary exemption.--The second sentence of 
        section 127 of title 23, United States Code, relating 
        to axle weight limitations for vehicles using the 
        Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense 
        Highways, shall not apply, for the period beginning on 
        October 6, 1992, and ending on October 1, 2003, [to any 
        vehicle which] to--
                  (A) any over-the-road bus (as defined in 
                section 301 of the Americans with Disabilities 
                Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181)); or
                  (B) any vehicle that is regularly and 
                exclusively used as an intrastate public agency 
                transit passenger bus.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE IV--INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART A--RAIL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 111--OPERATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER II--CAR SERVICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 11123. Situations requiring immediate action to serve the public

  (a) When the Board determines that shortage of equipment, 
congestion of traffic, unauthorized cessation of operations, 
failure of existing commuter passenger transportation 
operations caused by a cessation of service by the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation, or other failure of traffic 
movement exists which creates an emergency situation of such 
magnitude as to have substantial adverse effects on shippers, 
or on rail service in a region of the United States, or that a 
rail carrier providing transportation subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Board under this part cannot transport the 
traffic offered to it in a manner that properly serves the 
public, the Board may, to promote commerce and service to the 
public, for a period not to exceed 30 days--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) prescribe temporary through routes; [or]
          (4) give directions for--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) movement of traffic under permits[.]; or
          (5) in the case of a failure of existing freight or 
        commuter rail passenger transportation operations 
        caused by a cessation of service by the National 
        Railroad Passenger Corporation, direct the continuation 
        of the operations and dispatching, maintenance, and 
        other necessary infrastructure functions related to the 
        operations.
  (b)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) [When] (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), when a 
rail carrier is directed under this section to operate the 
lines of another rail carrier due to that carrier's cessation 
of operations, compensation for the directed operations shall 
derive only from revenues generated by the directed operations.
  (B) In the case of a failure of existing freight or commuter 
rail passenger transportation operations caused by a cessation 
of service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the 
Board may provide funding, to the extent provided in advance in 
appropriations acts, to support activities directed under 
subsection (a), including the payment of increased insurance 
premiums. The Board may order complete indemnification against 
any and all claims associated with the provision of service to 
which the directed rail carrier may be exposed.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) For purposes of this section, the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation and any entity providing commuter rail 
passenger transportation shall be considered rail carriers 
subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
  (f) For purposes of this section, the term ``commuter rail 
passenger transportation'' has the meaning given that term in 
section 24102(4).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE V--RAIL PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART C--PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 243--AMTRAK

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 24301. Status and applicable laws

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Application of Subtitle IV.--Subtitle IV of this title 
shall not apply to Amtrak, except for sections 11123, 11301, 
11322(a), 11502, and 11706. Notwithstanding the preceding 
sentence, Amtrak shall continue to be considered an employer 
under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, the Railroad 
Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Railroad Retirement Tax 
Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBPART III--SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 449--SECURITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER I--REQUIREMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 44920. Security screening opt-out program

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Supervision of Screened Personnel.--The Under Secretary 
shall provide Federal Government supervisors to oversee all 
screening at each airport at which screening services are 
provided under this section and provide [Federal Government] 
law enforcement officers at the airport pursuant to this 
chapter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


AIR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND SYSTEM STABILIZATION ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--VICTIM COMPENSATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

  In this title, the following definitions apply:
          [(1) Air carrier.--The term ``air carrier'' means a 
        citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, 
        directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation 
        and includes employees and agents of such citizen. The 
        term ``air carrier'' does not include a person, other 
        than an air carrier, engaged in the business of 
        providing air transportation security.]
          (1) Air carrier.--The term ``air carrier'' means a 
        citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, 
        directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation 
        and includes employees and agents (including persons 
        engaged in the business of providing air transportation 
        security and their affiliates) of such citizen. For 
        purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ``agent'', 
        as applied to persons engaged in the business of 
        providing air transportation security, shall only 
        include persons that have contracted directly with the 
        Federal Aviation Administration and commenced services 
        no later than February 17, 2002, to provide such 
        security, and had not been debarred for any period 
        within 6 months from that date.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 408. LIMITATION ON AIR CARRIER LIABILITY.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Exclusion.--Nothing in this section shall in any way 
limit any liability of any person who is a knowing participant 
in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any 
terrorist act. Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to civil 
actions to recover collateral source obligations. [Nothing in 
this section shall in any way limit any liability of any person 
who is engaged in the business of providing air transportation 
security and who is not an airline or airport sponsor or 
director, officer, or employee of an airline or airport 
sponsor.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


      SECTION 110 OF THE AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT

SEC. 110. SCREENING.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Deadline for Deployment of Federal Screeners.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of 
        Transportation for Security shall deploy at all 
        airports in the United States where screening is 
        required under section 44901 of title 49, United States 
        Code, a sufficient number of Federal screeners, Federal 
        Security Managers, Federal security personnel, and 
        [Federal] law enforcement officers to conduct the 
        screening of all passengers and property under section 
        44901 of such title at such airports.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE IV--INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 137--RATES AND THROUGH ROUTES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 13703. Certain collective activities; exemption from antitrust 
                    laws

    (a) *  *  *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(d) Limitation.--The Board shall not take any action that 
would permit the establishment of nationwide collective rate-
making authority.]
    [(e)] (d) Existing Agreements.--
          (1) *  *  *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(f)] (e) Limitations on Statutory Construction.--
          (1) *  *  *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(g)] (f) Industry Standard Guides.--
          (1) *  *  *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(h)] (g) Single Line Rate Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``single line rate'' means a rate, charge, or allowance 
proposed by a single motor carrier that is applicable only over 
its line and for which the transportation can be provided by 
that carrier.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change 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 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 $2,500,000 in user fees.
    Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, 
``Salaries and expenses'' limiting the use of funds available 
for the position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
    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 Committees.
    Language is included under the Transportation Security 
Administration, ``Aviation security'' which would allow 
crediting the account with security service fees, estimated at 
not more than $1,712,726,000.
    Language is included under the Transportation Security 
Administration, ``Aviation security'' limiting the full-time 
staffing level to 45,000.
    Language is included under the Transportation Security 
Administration, ``Aviation security'' requiring funds spent on 
TSA's Credentialing Project to include pilot projects at 
locations on both the East and West Coasts and requiring that 
those projects should include a variety of technologies.
    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 limits the funds spent for increased staffing, 
training, revising of policies and modernizing equipment.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating 
expenses'' that instructs the Inspector General to report to 
the House and Senate Appropriations Committee on the above 
funding.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds from the 
disposal of surplus real property by sale or lease.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, 
construction, and improvements'' requiring the Secretary to 
submit to Congress a comprehensive capital investment plan for 
the Coast Guard with the submission of their fiscal year 2004 
budget.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition 
construction, and improvements'' requiring the OMB director to 
submit to the Congress the budget request for certain 
subheadings of the IDS integration contract.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Alteration of 
bridges'' requiring that certain projects must use steel, iron, 
and manufactured products produced only in the United States.
    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 Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' limiting funds for certain 
aviation program activities.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds to plan, 
finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new 
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that credits funds received from 
States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other 
public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred 
in the provision of agency services.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides $6,000,000 for the 
contract tower cost-sharing program.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``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 Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds 
for Sunday premium pay unless an employee actually performed 
work during the time corresponding to the premium pay.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``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 Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds for 
conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting 
and cartography through the Transportation Administrative 
Service Center.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``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 Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment 
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``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 under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that limits funds available for 
the planning or execution of programs with delegations in 
excess of $3,400,000,000.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides not more than 
$62,820,000 for administration.
    The bill includes limitations on administrative expenses of 
the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration. The bill also includes a 
limitation on 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 the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' 
prohibiting the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation 
or remodeling costs or for office furniture for state, local, 
or private buildings.
    Language is included under the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' 
limiting the amount of funds available for technical assistance 
to the states under section 410.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' 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, 
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' that 
prohibits new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using 
federal funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the 
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that 
provides quarterly apportionment for capital funding and 
requires non-federal entities to provide payments on lines that 
have a greater than $200 passenger loss based on procedures 
developed by the Secretary of Transportation.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Administrative expenses'' that reimburses $2,000,000 to the 
Department of Transportation's Inspector General for costs 
associated with the audit and review of new fixed guideway 
systems.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Administrative expenses'' that allows funds to remain 
available until expended for the National transit database.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Administrative expenses'' that the Secretary of 
Transportation will transmit to Congress the annual report on 
new starts.
    Language is included under the Federal Transit 
Administration, ``Formula grants'' reducing funds for each day 
that the annual report on new starts is not submitted to 
Congress.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Formula grants'' that transfers $50,000,000 to be transferred 
to ``Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment 
grants''.
    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, ``Emergency preparedness grants'' specifying 
the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate 
funds provided under this head.
    Language is included under Office of Inspector General, 
``Salaries and expenses'' that provides the Inspector General 
with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of 
fraud by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by 
the Department of Transportation.
    Language is also included under Office of Inspector 
General, ``Salaries and expenses'' that authorizes the office 
of Inspector General to investigate unfair or deceptive 
practices and unfair methods of competition by domestic and 
foreign air carriers and ticket agents.
    Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, 
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $1,000,000 
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated 
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis as such fees are received.
    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.
    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 304 prohibits political and Presidential appointees 
in the Department of Transportation and independent agencies 
funded in this Act from being assigned on temporary detail 
outside the Department or such independent agency.
    Section 312 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 316 provides that funds received for training from 
States, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
private sources by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Transit Administration, and Federal Railroad Administration to 
be credited to each respective agency except for State rail 
safety inspectors participating in training pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 20105.
    Section 317 allows funds received by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products to be 
credited to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of 
reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses.
    Section 319 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
allow issuers to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to 
the Department of Transportation.
    Section 320 prohibits funds in this Act unless the 
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business 
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or 
full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is 
announced by the department or its modal administrations.
    Section 325 allows States to use funds provided in this Act 
under section 402 of title 23, United States Code, to produce 
and place highway safety public service messages in accordance 
with guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation, and 
requires such States to submit a report describing and 
assessing the effectiveness of the messages. It also allows 
States to use section 157 and 163 grants to purchase 
advertising to be used during seat belt and alcohol 
mobilizations and permits the Administrator to evaluate the 
effectiveness of purchased advertising on seat belt and 
alcohol-impaired driving programs.
    Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to 
issue, implement, or enforce a regulation that diminishes or 
revokes an exemption authorized under 345 of the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
    Section 329 requires payments into the Department of 
Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to come from 
funds in Coast Guard, ``Operating expense''.
    Section 331 allows changes to be made to the table in 
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century with regard to plans in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New 
York, and Texas; allows changes to be made to section 
3030(d)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (P.L. 105-78) with regard to plans in Alaska; allows 
changes to be made under ``Surface Transportation Projects'' 
(P.L. 103-331) with regard to California; allows changes to be 
made under ``Surface Transportation Projects'' (P.L. 103-331) 
with regard to Texas; and includes the city of Norman, OK to be 
considered as part of the Oklahoma City Transportation 
Management Area.
    Section 334 permits over-the-road buses to be included 
under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991.
    Section 336 permits continued operation of freight and 
commuter rail services if a cessation of service by the 
National Railroad Corporation should occur.
    Section 338 amends the Air Transportation Safety and System 
Stabilization Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) by inserting into 
section 402 the definition of the term ``air carrier.''
    Section 342 requires that any explosive detection system 
purchase must be made by the Under Secretary of Transportation 
for Security.
    Section 343 amends language in the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act, so as to only require the use of 
law enforcement officers at airports, instead of designating 
the use of federal officers.
    Section 344 prohibits funds in this Act from terminating or 
limiting restrictions imposed under FAA Notices to Airmen FDC 
2/0199, issued on September 27, 2002.
    Section 345 prohibits the procurement of Coast Guard ships, 
including main diesel engines, unless such procurement is in 
compliance with the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. 10(a)-10(d). 
The Committee does not seek to amend the Act to apply content 
standards to individual components of vessels.
    Section 346 amends section 13703, of title 49, United 
States Code, by allowing the STB to approve applications from 
truck rate bureaus seeking to publish national rates.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill that are not authorized 
by law:

                                      APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Appropriations
                                                   Last year of    Authorization   in last year   Appropriations
            Agency and Appropriation               authorization       level            of        recommended in
                                                                                   authorization     this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard:
    Operating Expenses..........................            1999   \1\ 3,006,200       3,013,506       4,305,456
    Acquisition, Construction and Improvement...            1999   \2\ 1,140,600         625,465         725,000
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.            1999          18,300          17,000          21,000
    Environmental Compliance and Restoration....            1999          26,000          21,000          17,000
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Research, Engineering and Development.......            2002         249,000         195,000         138,000
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
    Operations & Research.......................            2001         116,976         126,445         131,433
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Safety and Operations \3\ Railroad Safety...            1998          90,739          57,050         117,363
    Grants to Amtrak--Capital...................            2002         955,000     \4\ 826,476         762,476
Research & Special Programs Administration:
    Pipeline Safety.............................            2000          37,718          30,447          58,697
    Hazardous Materials.........................            1997          19,670          15,472          22,998
Surface Transportation Board:
    Salaries and Expenses.......................            1998          12,000          13,850          19,450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $151.5 million authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through FY 2001.
\2\ Includes $630.3 million authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through FY 1999.
\3\ Was formerly the Office of the Administrator and Railroad Safety Accounts. The Office of the Administrator
  had general authority under 49 U.S.C. Section 103, however, no specific amount was authorized.
\4\ Includes $205,000,000 is FY 2002 emergency supplemental funding.

                 Comparison With the Budget Resolution

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  302(b) allocation             This bill
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                     Full committee data                         Budget                    Budget
                                                               authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
    Discretionary \1\.......................................       19,411       60,369       19,413       62,358
    Mandatory...............................................          889          914          889          914
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total \2\.............................................       20,300       61,283       20,302      63,272
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Budget authority in this bill excludes $1,445,000 for the mass transit category.
\2\ Prior to House consideration of the bill, the Committee intends to adjust the 302(b) allocations to
  eliminate any breach.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority 
provided in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee 
by the Congressional Budget Office:
                                                  In millions of dollars
Budget authority........................................          21,727
Outlays \1\:
    2003................................................          24,313
    2004................................................          19,482
    2005................................................           7,820
    2006................................................           3,531
    2007 and future years...............................           4,160

\1\ Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget 
Office has provided the following estimates of new budget 
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for 
financial assistance to state and local governments:
                                                  In millions of dollars
Budget Authority........................................           1,618
Fiscal year 2003 outlays................................           8,795

                               Recissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:

Federal Highway Administration..........................   $5,609,337.46

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:
                             ROLLCALL NO. 1

    Date: September 26, 2002.
    Measure: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill, FY 2003.
    Motion by: Mr. Sabo.
    Description of motion: To raise funding for the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation from $762,476,000 to 
$1,200,000,000 and change the distribution of those funds.
    Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 35 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Cunningham
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. DeLay
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Edwards                         Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Fattah                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Goode
Mr. Hoyer                           Ms. Granger
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Hobson
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Istook
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Meek                            Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Moran                           Mr. LaHood
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Latham
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Miller
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Price                           Mrs. Northup
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Peterson
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Regula
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Rogers
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Sweeney
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Vitter
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                             ROLLCALL NO. 2

    Date: October 1, 2002.
    Measure: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill, FY 2003.
    Motion by: Mr. Edwards.
    Description of motion: To increase the obligation 
limitation under ``Federal-aid highways'' from $27,653,143,000 
to $31,800,000,000.
    Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 29 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Farr                            Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Goode
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Granger
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Kennedy                         Mr. Istook
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Miller
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Regula
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Rogers
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Price                           Mr. Skeen
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Sweeney
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Vitter
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Walsh
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    

    ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY AND HON. MARTIN OLAV SABO

    The creation of the Transportation Security Administration 
(TSA), requiring billions of general taxpayer dollars, has put 
a strain on funding for traditional transportation 
infrastructure programs. The Amtrak funding proposed in the 
bill is a prime example of this strain. Both Amtrak and TSA 
should be adequately funded. Unfortunately, Amtrak is 
shortchanged.
    Amtrak is funded at $762 million--$438 million, or 36%, 
less than the $1.2 billion both Amtrak and the DOT Inspector 
General say that Amtrak needs in fiscal year 2003. Amtrak 
President David Gunn has said ``. . . that should $762 million 
be the final amount enacted. Amtrak will run out of money early 
in 2003, and we will again be faced with another shutdown 
crisis.''
    The DOT Inspector General has written. ``Without changes to 
the structure of the system or additional capital funding from 
other sources, the reliability of Amtrak service in 2003 is 
likely at risk, and this risk will rise as the level of Federal 
or other funding declines [below the $1.2 billion].
    In 2002, Amtrak's appropriations totaled $831 million from 
the Federal Government (the regular appropriation of $521 
million, a $100 million loan from DOT that must be paid back, 
and $205 million and $5 million in the emergency supplemental). 
Amtrak also had use of $313 million, appropriated in 2001, but 
not available until 2002.
    The funding that is provided to Amtrak in 2003 in the 
committee bill is 8% less than what was appropriated in 2002 
and 25% less than what was available to Amtrak from the Federal 
government in 2002. And Amtrak's maintenance needs have grown.
    Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not shown 
leadership on Amtrak. The Administration has asked for 
meaningful reforms for Amtrak, but has yet to submit any 
specific legislative proposals to the Congress. The President's 
appointees in the Department of Transportation have also 
admitted that if the President's Budget request of $521 million 
were enacted Amtrak would cease to exist.
    At the $762 million funding level contained in the 
committee bill, the Congress will be back next February needing 
to provide more funding to Amtrak to get it through the year, 
just as it did last July when the emergency supplemental was 
enacted.
    A manager's amendment adopted in full committee deleted a 
provision in the bill that would have provided no federal 
funding, beginning in July, to all routes where the per 
passenger subsidy is over $200. Instead, the bill now caps the 
federal funding that can be provided for long distance trains 
at $150 million. As the old saying goes, a hose of another 
color is still a horse.
    The fact is that Amtrak cannot run all existing long 
distance trains on $150 million. So some, if not all, long 
distance trains will have to be discontinued. Some have 
estimated that this will impact 13 of the 18 long distance 
Amtrak trains, including:
          The Sunset Limited from Orlando to Los Angeles via 
        Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Pensacola, Mobile, New 
        Orleans, Houston, San Antonio and Tucson;
          The Pennsylvania from Philadelphia to Chicago via 
        Harrisburg, Cleveland, Toledo, and Pittsburgh;
          The Texas Eagle from Chicago to Los Angeles via 
        Springfield, St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Austin, 
        San Antonio, and Tucson;
          The Three Rivers from New York to Chicago via 
        Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh;
          The Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles via 
        Kansas City, Topeka, Albuquerque, and Flagstaff;
          The Kentucky Cardinal from Chicago to Louisville via 
        Indianapolis;
          The Cardinal from Washington to Chicago via 
        Charleston, WV, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis;
          The Capitol Limited from Washington to Chicago via 
        Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo;
          The California Zephyr from Chicago to Oakland via 
        Omaha, Lincoln, Denver, Salt Lake City, Reno, and 
        Sacramento;
          The Lake Shore Limited from New York to Chicago via 
        Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo;
          The Crescent from New York to New Orelans via 
        Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., 
        Greensboro, Charlotte, Greenville, Atlanta, and 
        Birmingham;
          The Silver Palm from New York to Miami via 
        Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., 
        Richmond, Charleston, SC, Savannah, Jacksonville, 
        Tampa, and Ft. Lauderdale; and
          The City of New Orleans from Chicago to New Orleans 
        via Memphis.
    It is also a fact that a $762 million funding level could 
negatively impact other Amtrak service. Amtrak's maintenance 
backlog will grow, more trains will be put out of service and 
scheduled service will be delayed or canceled.
    This is not the kind of train service that the American 
people expect and deserve, and such a prospect flies in the 
face of the ridership gains that Amtrak has made over the past 
five years.
    It also ignores the critical role that Amtrak played 
following the September 11 attacks. After September 11, 
travelers turned to Amtrak as an alternative to flying. If 
Amtrak had not existed on September 11, just think of the 
transportation nightmare we would have experienced. Further, 
many of the travelers on the Northeast Corridor who used Amtrak 
after September 11 continue to do so.
    Congress is now faced with the decision of whether to fund 
Amtrak properly or eliminate it. It's really as simple as that. 
We think that the choice is clear: Amtrak should be funded at 
$1.2 billion.

                                   David Obey.
                                   Martin O. Sabo.

             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE CHET EDWARDS

    The Administration's 2003 budget request for highways 
totaled $23.2 billion, as $8.6 billion reduction from 2002. 
This committee was able to raise the guaranteed funding level--
the budget floor, not the budget limit--for highways to $27.7 
billion in the supplemental by waiving the automatic funding 
adjustment in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA21) called ``revenue aligned budget authority.'' 
However, the committee voted against an amendment I offered to 
raise 2003 highway funding to the 2002 level of $31.8 billion.
    This $4.1 billion highway funding reduction will result in 
job loss and increased congestion. It will affect the quality 
of life of our people and the profitability of our businesses.
    In years like this one, when the economy is troubled, we 
should be debating how the federal government can spur economic 
growth and put more people to work. The Republicans would do 
this all with tax cuts. However, since the days of Roosevelt, 
and even before, construction programs have been excellent 
vehicles for job creation. In fact, the states and the highway 
construction industry estimate that for every $1 billion put 
into highway construction and reconstruction, over 47,500 jobs 
are created.
    Not continuing highway funding at the fiscal 2002 level, 
will result in the loss of almost 200,000 jobs over a seven-
year period, as is seen in the table that follows. It will also 
hamper improvements to the conditions of our nation's highways 
and bridges; 21% of the bridges on our National Highway System 
are below standard. It will also increase highway congestion, 
where now in urban areas travelers spend an average of 32 hours 
a year, or a total of 4 working days, in traffic.
    Highway congestion not only affects our personal lives, it 
affects our businesses by making products more expensive. The 
Texas Transportation Institute found that traffic congestion 
costs America $75 billion annually in wasted time and fuel. 
Investment in our highway infrastructure is also an investment 
in safety of our roads, on which 42,000 people die annually in 
traffic accidents.
    It is unfortunate the Committee defeated the amendment to 
maintain highway funding at the 2002 level to meet the needs of 
our nation's highway system. This was an opportunity missed, 
and the American people will pay the price.
                                                      Chet Edwards.
(GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT)