Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                        Calendar No. 88
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     107-38

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



 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  2002
                                _______
                                

                 June 13, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

  Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2001

                                _______
                                

          Mrs. Murray, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1178]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1178) 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, 
and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the bill do pass.



Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2002

Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $17,885,293,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2002........................  17,163,605,000
Fiscal year 2001 enacted................................  18,494,505,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                    SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                        Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses............................................
Office of Civil Rights...........................................    10
Transportation planning, research, and development...............    10
Transportation Administrative Service Center.....................    11
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund.........    12
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................    14
Minority business outreach.......................................    15

                            U.S. Coast Guard

Operating expenses...............................................    18
Acquisition, construction, and improvements......................    23
Environmental compliance and restoration.........................    31
Alteration of bridges............................................    32
Retired pay......................................................    33
Reserve training.................................................    33
Research, development, test, and evaluation......................    33
Boat safety......................................................    34

                    Federal Aviation Administration

Operations.......................................................    36
Facilities and equipment.........................................    41
Research, engineering, and development...........................    52
Grants-in-aid for airports.......................................    56
Small community air service development pilot program............    63

                     Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses............................    65
Federal-aid highways.............................................    67
Appalachian development highway system...........................    77
Limitation on Transportation Research............................    78
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System................    81
Bureau of Transportation Statistics..............................    82
Liquidation of Contract Authorization............................    82

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety: Limitation on administrative expense.......    83
National motor carrier safety program............................    90

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research..........................................    91
Highway traffic safety grants....................................    96

                    Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations............................................    99
Railroad research and development................................    99
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program........   101
Next generation high-speed rail..................................   101
Alaska railroad rehabilitation...................................   102
National Rail Development and Rehabilitation.....................   103
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
  (Amtrak).......................................................   103
    Amtrak Reform Council........................................   105
    Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project...................   106

                     Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses..........................................   107
Formula grants...................................................   107
University transportation research...............................   110
Transit planning and research....................................   110
Trust fund share of expenses.....................................   111
Capital investment grants........................................   112
Job access and reverse commute grants............................   149

              St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance.......................................   150

              Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs....................................   151
Pipeline safety..................................................   154
Emergency preparedness grants....................................   155

                      Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses............................................   156

                      Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses............................................   157

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: 
  Salaries and expenses..........................................   158
National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses......   158

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions...............................................   160
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   163
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   163
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   170

  Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds

    In addition to the appropriation of $17,885,293,000 in new 
budget authority for fiscal year 2002, large amounts of 
contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits 
for which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The 
principal items in this category are the trust funded programs 
for Federal-aid highways, for mass transit, and for airport 
development grants. For fiscal year 2002, estimated obligation 
limitations total $41,222,799,000.

                     program, project, and activity

    During fiscal year 2002, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions 
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or 
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory 
statements of the committee of conference. This definition 
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) 
authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants and 
discretionary grant allocations made through either bill or 
report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made 
pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for 
facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and 
for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard, 
shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed 
under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified 
by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee 
reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of 
the committee of conference.

             transportation equity act for the 21st century

    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the 
previous authorization for most Federal highway, transit, and 
highway safety programs, expired on September 30, 1997. On May 
22, 1998, the Congress passed a new authorization bill, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], which 
the President signed into law on June 9, 1998. Under this law, 
most of the authorizations are contract authority; that is, 
they are available for obligation without appropriation. The 
role of the appropriations process with respect to contract 
authority programs generally is to set obligation limitations 
so that overall Federal spending stays within legislated 
targets and to appropriate liquidating cash to cover the 
outlays associated with obligations that have been made.
    In March 2000, the Congress passed the Wendell H. Ford 
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, which 
the President signed into law on April 5, 2000. The Committee 
recommendation, within budgetary realities, attempts to honor 
the priorities articulated in that legislation.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $63,245,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      69,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      67,349,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $139,139 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of 
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment 
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The 
Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the 
Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General 
Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for 
transportation policy, aviation and international affairs, 
budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration. 
These secretarial offices have policy development and central 
supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall 
planning and direction of the Department of Transportation, 
including staff assistance and general management supervision 
of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of 
the Department.
    Unlike the Transportation Appropriations Bill for fiscal 
year 2001 as passed by the Senate, the bill does not provide 
separate appropriations for each of the offices within the 
Office of the Secretary. However, the Committee expects the 
Secretary to adhere to all the reprogramming requirements 
governing his office. The Committee understands that the 
Secretary is giving consideration to reorganizing his office. 
The Committee will give careful consideration to such a 
reprogramming request once it is submitted.
    The Committee recommends a total of $67,349,000 for the 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $60,000 for 
reception and representation expenses.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:

                        (In thousands of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--
                               --------------------------    Committee
                                    2001         2002     recommendation
                                enacted \1\    estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the               1,823        1,989          1,929
 Secretary....................
Immediate Office of the Deputy          586          638            619
 Secretary....................
Office of the Executive               1,178        1,241          1,204
 Secretariat..................
Board of Contract Appeals.....          495          523            507
Office of Small and                   1,189        1,251          1,213
 Disadvantaged Business
 Utilization..................
Office of Intelligence and            1,259        1,321          1,281
 Security.....................
Office of the Chief                   6,208        6,331          6,141
 Information Officer..........
Office of the Assistant               2,145        2,282          2,214
 Secretary for Governmental
 Affairs......................
Office of the General Counsel.        9,950       13,355         14,075
Office of the Assistant               7,273        7,650          7,421
 Secretary for Aviation and
 International Affairs........
Office of the Assistant               3,004        3,153          3,058
 Secretary for Transportation
 Policy.......................
Office of the Assistant               7,346        7,728          7,728
 Secretary for Budget and
 Programs.....................
Office of the Assistant              18,978       20,262         18,236
 Secretary for Administration.
Assistant to the Secretary and        1,670        1,776          1,723
 Director of Public Affairs...
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................       63,106       69,500         67,349
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $139,139 (0.22 percent) pursuant to section
  1403 of Public Law 106-554.

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,929,000 for 
fiscal year 2002 for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The 
Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary 
responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 
control of departmental affairs.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

    The Committee has recommended a total of $619,000 for the 
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary which has the primary 
responsibility of assisting the Secretary in the overall 
planning and direction of the Department.

                     Office of the General Counsel

    The Committee recommends $14,075,000 for fiscal year 2002 
for the Office of the General Counsel. The Office of the 
General Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the 
Secretary and coordinates and reviews the legal work in the 
chief counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The 
General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department of 
Transportation and the final authority within the Department on 
all legal questions. The Committee approves the agency's 
request for an increase of $2,494,000 to be used for the 
Department's ``Accessibility of All America'' initiative. These 
resources will assist the Department in carrying out the 
requirements in the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA) and 
Section 707 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and 
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21). The Committee notes 
that the DOT Inspector General's final report on airline 
customer service (Report AV-2001-020) stated that complaints 
regarding the treatment of disabled passengers in 2000 
increased by 14.8 percent over 1999. The Committee expects the 
Office of the General Counsel to move expeditiously in 
implementing the disability and consumer related provisions in 
AIR-21. The Committee further expects the Office of the General 
Counsel to take immediate steps to implement the ACAA technical 
assistance and information activities to include the following: 
updating all ACAA-related publications and preparing a 
quarterly newsletter; translating all ACAA publications into 
Braille and creating large-print and audiotape versions; 
establishing a 1-800 disability inquiry line staffed from 7 
a.m. until 11 p.m. each day; creating a fax on-demand system 
for publications; conducting reviews of major airline ACAA 
training programs and providing relevant assistance; developing 
a plain language technical assistance manual for ACAA 
compliance. The Committee also includes $720,000 to establish a 
toll-free number for the aviation consumer protection division. 
This toll-free line will provide a centralized place for 
consumers to go to file aviation complaints.

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee provides $3,058,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy which is the 
primary policy office of the Department and is responsible to 
the Secretary for analysis, development, articulation, and 
review of policies and plans for domestic transportation.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

    The Committee recommends $7,421,000 for the Assistant 
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs which is 
responsible for administering the economic regulatory functions 
regarding the airline industry. In addition, the Assistant 
Secretary provides departmental leadership and coordination on 
international transportation policy issues relating to 
maritime, trade, technical assistance, and cooperation 
programs. As overseer of airline economic regulation, the 
Assistant Secretary is responsible for international aviation 
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness 
and licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, and 
special investigations such as airline delays and computer 
reservations systems (CRS).

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

    The Committee recommends a total of $7,728,000 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the principal 
staff advisor to the Secretary on the development, review, 
presentation, and execution of the Department's budget resource 
requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of the 
Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this 
office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation 
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to 
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution 
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of 
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for 
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to 
advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes 
necessary to improve program effectiveness.
    The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary to report 
monthly on the status of all outstanding report and reporting 
requirements, including how delinquent congressionally mandated 
or requested reports are and an estimated date for delivery. 
The Committee expects that the Department will constitute this 
responsibility in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Budget and Programs.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

    The Committee recommends $2,214,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs which advises the 
Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities 
and on all departmental legislative initiatives and other 
relationships with Members of Congress. The Assistant Secretary 
promotes effective communication with other Federal agencies 
and regional Department officials, and with State and local 
governments and national organizations for development of 
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences, 
awareness, and needs are brought into the decision-making 
process.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

    The Committee recommends $18,236,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration which includes the 
Office of the Secretary portion of rent. The Assistant 
Secretary for Administration is the principal advisor to the 
Secretary on departmental administrative management matters, 
and is responsible for personnel and training, management 
policy, employment ceiling control systems, automated systems 
policy, administrative operations, real and personal property 
management, acquisition management, and grants management.

                        Office of Public Affairs

    The Committee recommends $1,723,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs which is the principal advisor to the Secretary 
and other senior departmental officials and news media on 
public affairs questions. The Office issues news releases, 
articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, publications, and 
audiovisual materials. It also provides information to the 
Secretary on opinions and reactions of the public and new media 
on transportation programs and issues.

                         Executive Secretariat

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,204,000 of 
the expenses of the Executive Secretariat. The Executive 
Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in 
carrying out their management functions and responsibilities by 
controlling and coordinating internal and external written 
materials.

                       Board of Contract Appeals

    The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals 
is to provide an independent forum for the trial and 
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor 
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as 
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601. 
The Committee has provided $507,000 for the Board of Contract 
Appeals Board.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for 
small and disadvantaged business participation in the 
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective 
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15 
of the Small Business Act, as amended. The Committee recommends 
$1,213,000.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

    The Committee recommends $1,281,000 for the Office of 
Intelligence and Security which coordinates security and 
intelligence policies and strategies among the modes of 
transportation and serves as liaison with other Government 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

    The Committee recommends $6,141,000 for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer which serves as the principal adviser 
to the Secretary on matters involving information resources and 
information systems management.

                        Office of Intermodalism

    The Committee recommends $1,222,000 for the Office of 
Intermodalism to be funded within the Federal Highway 
Administration's limitation on administrative expenses. The 
Committee does not recommend funding for the Office of 
Intermodalism in the Office of the Secretary accounts.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................      $8,140,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       8,500,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,500,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $17,908 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity 
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for 
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small 
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as 
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the 
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and 
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In 
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing 
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally 
operated and federally assisted transportation programs. The 
Committee has provided a funding level of $8,500,000 for the 
Office of Civil Rights.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $11,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       5,193,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,592,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $24,200 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    The Office of the Secretary performs those research 
activities and studies which can more effectively or 
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This 
research effort supports the planning, research and development 
activities, and systems development needed to assist the 
Secretary in the formulation of national transportation 
policies. The program is carried out primarily through 
contracts with other Federal agencies, educational 
institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private 
firms. The Committee recommends $15,592,000 for transportation 
planning, research, and development, $4,592,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $10,399,000 more than the 
President's budget request. Within the funds provided, the 
Committee includes $4,000,000 for the Northeast Advanced 
Vehicle Consortium for the development of a zero emission, 
hydrogen powered, ambient pressure, high efficiency fuel cell 
bus. The Committee also includes $1,000,000 for WestStart's 
development and demonstration of the Vehicular Flywheel Project 
in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, the Committee includes 
$200,000 for the design and analysis to establish a new 
international ferry service from Blaine, Washington to White 
Rock, British Columbia. Within the funds provided, the 
Committee has also included $3,000,000 to enable the Secretary 
to work with officials at Missoula International Airport in 
Missoula, Montana on a runway relocation study. In addition, 
the Committee has included $2,000,000 for capacity and safety 
improvements at the Richmond International Airport in Richmond, 
Virginia.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, 2001........................................  ($126,887,000)
Budget estimate, 2002 \1\...............................   (125,323,000)
Committee recommendation................................   (125,323,000)

\1\ Proposed without limitations. Includes DOT only.

    The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC] 
provides a business operation fund for DOT to provide a wide 
range of administrative services to the Department and other 
customers. TASC functions as an entrepreneurial and self-
sufficient entity and provides competitive quality services 
responsive to customer needs. The TASC is governed by a Board 
of Directors composed of customer agencies operating in a 
competitive business-like environment. The TASC presents 
proposed operating and financial plans to the Board at the 
beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board has approved 
those plans the TASC provides products and services to its full 
customer base. The Director of TASC provides quarterly 
performance and financial reports to the Board, makes 
recommendations for changes to the approved plans and is 
responsible for the day-to-day management of the TASC. DOT 
administrations must procure consolidated administrative 
services from the TASC unless a financial analysis of the 
services demonstrates that it is more cost beneficial to the 
Department as a whole--not to an individual operating entity 
alone--to change the nature of the service delivery (to 
consolidate a service or to decentralize a service). TASC 
services are being marketed to customers outside DOT to provide 
greater economies of scale, thus reducing costs to individual 
customers. TASC services include:
  --Functions formerly in DOT's working capital fund [WCF];
  --Office of the Secretary [OST] personnel, procurement and 
        information technology support operations;
  --Systems development staff;
  --Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets 
        facilities; and
  --Certain departmental services and administrative 
        operations, such as human resources management 
        programs, transit fare subsidy payments, and employee 
        wellness including substance awareness and testing.
    All of the services of the TASC will be financed through 
customer reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for-
service basis.

        Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Approriations   Mandatory \2\       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001............................................  \1\ $14,000,00     $36,000,000     $50,000,000
                                                                               0
Budget estimate 2002............................................  \3\ 10,000,000      40,000,000      50,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................  ..............      50,000,000      50,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transfer from FAA operations general fund.
\2\ From overflight fees.
\3\ From FAA Grants-in-aid for airports.

    The Essential Air Service [EAS] and Rural Airport 
Improvement Program provides funds directly to commuter/
regional airlines to provide air service to small communities 
that otherwise would not receive air service and for rural 
airport improvement as provided by the 1996 Federal Aviation 
Reauthorization Act.
    The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorizes 
user fees for flights that fly over, but do not land in, the 
United States. The first $50,000,000 of each year's fees were 
to go directly to carry out the Essential Air Service Program 
and, to the extent not used for essential air service, to 
improve rural airport safety. If $50,000,000 in fees is not 
available, the Committee has included bill language permitting 
the FAA Administrator to transfer up to $10,000,000 from the 
grants-in-aid for airports program in order to bring funding 
for the EAS program to the $50,000,000 level.
    The administration is proposing to tighten the eligibility 
criteria for communities to receive EAS subsidies. 
Specifically, no EAS subsidy would be provided to communities 
in the United States (except Alaska) that are located fewer 
than 100 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub 
airport, or fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest small 
hub airport, or fewer than 50 miles from the nearest airport 
providing scheduled service with jet aircraft.
    Many EAS points are located in remote rural areas: over 70 
percent of the communities receiving subsidized service under 
the program are more than 100 highway miles from the nearest 
small, medium, or large hub airport. Thirty more communities 
are located in Alaska, where, in all but two cases, year-round 
road access does not exist, and in many instances does not 
exist at all. Without air service, such communities would be 
further isolated from the Nation's economic centers. The 
funding provided is adequate to maintain existing levels of 
service in Alaska.
    Moreover, businesses are typically interested in locating 
in areas that have convenient access to scheduled air service. 
Loss of service would seriously hamper small communities' 
ability to attract new business or even to retain those they 
now have, resulting in further strain on local economies and 
loss of jobs.
    The following table reflects the points currently receiving 
service and the annual rates as of April 1, 2001 in the 
continental United States and Hawaii based on the President's 
new eligibility criteria.

                                      EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF APRIL 1, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Average daily
                                  Estimated     enplanements at                                       Total
                                  mileage to    EAS point (year  Annual subsidy    Subsidy per      passengers
      States/communities         nearest hub         ending       rates (April      passenger      (year ending
                               (small, medium,   September 30,      1, 2001)                      September 30,
                                or large) \1\        2000)                                            2000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA:
    Kingman..................              101              7.6        $542,353         $114.69            4,729
    Page.....................              280             13.4       1,251,977          149.54            8,372
    Prescott.................              102             22.9         542,353           37.81           14,343
    Show Low.................              168             12.7         410,080           51.60            7,947
ARKANSAS:
    El Dorado/Camden.........              108              4.9         825,569          271.66            3,039
    Harrison.................               77              7.1       1,125,591          255.00            4,414
CALIFORNIA:
    Crescent City............              234             37.4         314,865           13.43           23,443
    Merced...................              114             15.0       1,022,712          109.07            9,377
COLORADO:
    Alamosa..................              162             15.2         925,045           97.42            9,495
    Cortez...................              258             28.0         403,311           23.02           17,519
HAWAII: Kalaupapa............          ( \2\ )              6.8         272,807           64.48            4,231
ILLINOIS: Marion/Herrin......              126             28.8         794,031           44.05           18,027
IOWA:
    Burlington...............              163             37.3         600,000           25.70           23,345
    Ottumwa..................               85              2.6         380,039          233.73            1,626
KANSAS:
    Dodge City...............              149             16.5         760,384           73.68           10,320
    Garden City..............              201             29.8         829,665           44.52           18,634
    Great Bend...............              120             10.2         168,347           26.39            6,379
    Hays.....................              180             23.7         907,791           61.14           14,848
    Liberal/Guymon...........              141             12.1         625,831           82.43            7,592
MAINE:
    Bar Harbor...............              157             42.4         634,145           23.88           26,556
    Presque Isle.............              276             83.6       1,082,408           20.69           52,321
    Rockland.................               80             23.9         634,145           42.33           14,982
MICHIGAN:
    Ironwood/Ashland.........              218              6.7         544,269          128.94            4,221
    Iron Mountain/Kingsford..              101             29.8         473,599           25.42           18,634
    Manistee.................              110              3.8         361,808          153.18            2,362
MISSOURI:
    Cape Girardeau...........              123             24.1        $430,925          $28.51           15,117
    Fort Leonard Wood........              130             23.6         573,725           38.87           14,761
    Kirksville...............              137              3.4         732,363          342.55            2,138
MONTANA:
    Glasgow..................              763              6.4         707,462          177.40            3,988
    Glendive.................              624              3.5         707,462          319.97            2,211
    Havre....................              674              3.8         707,462          298.51            2,370
    Lewistown................              558              3.2         707,462          357.85            1,977
    Miles City...............              529              4.4         707,462          256.05            2,763
    Sidney...................              653              8.6         707,462          131.33            5,387
    Wolf Point...............              698              5.4         707,462          208.26            3,397
NEBRASKA:
    Alliance.................              256              4.4         785,175          282.23            2,782
    Chadron..................              311              6.2         785,175          202.47            3,878
    Kearney..................              181             31.9         839,487           42.10           19,941
    McCook...................              271              7.7       1,325,289          275.07            4,818
    Norfolk..................              109              6.1         531,735          139.97            3,799
    North Platte.............              277             25.6         106,006            6.61           16,035
NEVADA: Ely..................              237              8.3       1,087,340          208.98            5,203
NEW MEXICO:
    Clovis...................              103             12.3       1,126,523          146.38            7,696
    Gallup...................              143              4.5         691,080          245.50            2,815
    Silver City/Hurley/Deming              133             10.5         938,297          143.14            6,555
NEW YORK:
    Massena..................              159              8.7         371,835           68.38            5,438
    Ogdensburg...............              123              7.4         371,835           80.68            4,609
    Saranac Lake.............              141             13.6         631,353           74.42            8,484
NORTH DAKOTA:
    Devils Lake..............              405              8.2         613,389          119.90            5,116
    Dickinson................              490             12.2         590,153           77.39            7,626
    Jamestown................              332              8.3         613,389          117.96            5,200
OKLAHOMA: Ponca City.........               81             11.5         972,122          135.43            7,178
SOUTH DAKOTA: Huron..........              121             10.3        $394,585          $61.44            6,422
TEXAS: Brownwood.............              145              6.7         865,886          206.80            4,187
UTAH:
    Cedar City...............              178             28.3         679,450           38.35           17,718
    Moab.....................              240              5.6         971,444          277.87            3,496
    Vernal...................              174             11.4       1,102,967          154.63            7,133
VERMONT: Rutland.............               90             12.7         634,145           79.83            7,944
WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses                  101             33.0         514,311           24.93           20,630
 Lake........................
WEST VIRGINIA:
    Beckley..................              181              9.7         857,530          140.88            6,087
    Princeton/Bluefield......              145              8.0         857,530          171.71            4,994
WYOMING:
    Laramie..................              144             36.7         297,633           12.94           23,003
    Rock Springs.............              184             29.7         465,023           25.04           18,573
    Worland..................              398              8.9         353,345           63.76            5,542
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activity Statistics. The
  above distances are based on the 1999 Airport Activity Statistics, which is based on CY 1999 passenger data.
\2\ There is no FAA-designated small, medium or large hub on the island of Molokai.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................      $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................         900,000
Committee recommendation................................         900,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $4,180 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
[OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC].--The OSDBU/
MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working 
capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-
owned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE's]. In fiscal year 2001, the 
short-term lending program was converted from a direct loan 
program to a guaranteed loan program. In fiscal year 2002, the 
program will continue to focus on providing working capital to 
DBE/MBE/WBE's for transportation-related projects in order to 
strengthen their competitive and productive capabilities.
    Since fiscal year 1993, the loan program has been a 
separate line item appropriation, which segregated such 
activities in response to changes made by the Federal Credit 
Reform Act of 1990. The limitation on guaranteed loans under 
the Minority Business Resource Center is at the 
administration's requested level of $18,367,000.
    Of the funds appropriated, $500,000 covers the subsidy 
costs for loans not to exceed $18,367,000; and, $400,000 is for 
administrative expenses to carry out the Guaranteed Loan 
Program. The subsidy costs in fiscal year 2002 are $1,000,000 
less than fiscal year 2001 due to the revised OMB credit 
subsidy rate.

                       Minority Business Outreach

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................      $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $6,600 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

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

                           General Provisions

    Rebates, refunds, and incentive payments.--The Department 
receives funds from various Government programs at different 
time intervals (that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly). For 
example, under the General Services Administration's Travel 
Management Center [TMC] Program, rebate checks received from 
the travel contractor are distributed monthly to each element 
of the Department in proportion to net domestic airline sales 
arranged by the contractor. Past expenditures have to be 
analyzed to determine the proper sources to refund which can be 
a time-consuming process. The staff time and cost associated 
with the precise accounting for each such refund is 
prohibitive. To alleviate the need to specifically identify the 
source for each repayment the Committee has included language 
(sec. 329), as requested, that allows a fair and sensible 
allocation of the rebates and miscellaneous and other funds.

                                 Other

    Reductions and supplementals in fiscal year 2001 
appropriations.--In fiscal year 2001, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-554 rescinded 0.22 percent 
of discretionary budget authority and obligation limitations 
provided for fiscal year 2001. In the Senate Committee report, 
each account head shows the amount appropriated in Public Law 
106-346 before the various reductions were made. The table 
below depicts the amount of funds appropriated for each of the 
accounts in Public Law 106-346, and the reductions and changes 
thereto.

                     CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Public Laws
                                                                   106-346, 106-
                                                                   554, 106-259   Public Law 106-       Net
                                                                    and 106-113    554 Sec. 1403   appropriation
                             Account                              appropriations   0.22 percent   and obligation
                                                                  and obligation        cut         limitation
                                                                    limitation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
    Salaries and expenses.......................................         63,245            -139          63,106
    Transportation planning, research, and development..........         11,000             -24          10,976
    Minority Business Resources Center..........................          1,900              -4           1,896
    Minority business outreach..................................          3,000              -7           2,993
    Office of Civil Rights......................................          8,140             -18           8,122
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................         87,285            -192          87,093
                                                                 ===============================================
U.S. Coast Guard:
    Operating Expenses..........................................      3,192,000          -7,022       3,184,978
    Acquisition, construction, and improvements.................        415,000            -913         414,087
    Environmental compliance and restoration....................         16,700             -37          16,663
    Alteration of bridges.......................................         15,500             -34          15,466
    Retired pay.................................................        778,000   ..............        778,000
    Reserve training............................................         80,375            -177          80,198
    Research, development, test, and evaluation.................         21,320             -47          21,273
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................      4,518,895          -8,230       4,510,665
                                                                 ===============================================
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Operations \1\..............................................      6,544,235         -14,397       6,529,838
    Facilities and equipment....................................      2,656,765          -5,845       2,650,920
    Research, engineering, and development......................        187,000            -411         186,589
    Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitation)..........      3,200,000          -7,040       3,192,960
    Grants-in-aid for airports (rescission of contracts                -579,000   ..............       -579,000
     authority).................................................
    Grants-in-aid for airports (TF appropriation)...............          2,500              -6           2,495
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................     12,011,500         -27,699      11,983,801
                                                                 ===============================================
Federal Highway Administration:
    Limitation on administrative expenses.......................       [295,119]          [-649]       [294,470]
    Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation)................     29,661,806         -65,256      29,596,550
    Emergency relief............................................        720,000          -1,584         718,416
    Exempt obligations..........................................      1,068,926   ..............      1,068,926
    Appalachian Development Highway System......................        254,963            -561         254,402
    Miscellaneous appropriations (GF)...........................        606,000          -1,333         604,667
    Miscellaneous highway projects (TF).........................      1,185,100          -2,607       1,182,493
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................     33,496,795         -71,341      33,425,454
                                                                 ===============================================
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
    National motor carrier safety program (obligation                   177,000            -389         176,611
     limitation)................................................
    Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses)         92,194            -203          91,991
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................        269,194            -592         268,602
                                                                 ===============================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
    Operations and Research, General Fund.......................        116,876            -257         116,619
    Operations and Research, Trust Fund (obligation limitation).         72,000            -158          71,842
    National driver registration................................          2,000              -4           1,996
    Highway safety grants.......................................        213,000            -469         212,531
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................        403,876            -889         402,987
                                                                 ===============================================
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Safety and operations.......................................        101,717            -224         101,493
    Research and development....................................         25,325             -56          25,269
    Next generation high speed rail.............................         25,100             -55          25,045
    Alaska railroad rehabilitation..............................         30,000             -44          29,956
    Rhode Island rail development...............................         17,000             -37          16,963
    Grants to Nat'l RR Passenger Corp...........................        521,476          -1,147         520,329
    West Virginia rail development..............................         15,000             -33          14,967
    Pennsylvania Station redevelopment..........................         20,000             -44          19,956
    Amtrak reform council.......................................            750              -2             748
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................        756,368          -1,642         754,726
                                                                 ===============================================
Federal Transit Administration:
    Administrative expenses (approps and oblig limitation)......         64,000            -141          63,859
    Formula grants (approps and oblig limitation) \2\...........      3,294,000          -7,247       3,286,753
    Univ. transportation research (approps and oblig limitation)          6,000             -13           5,987
    Transit planning and research (approps and oblig limitation)        110,000            -242         109,758
    Capital investment grants (approps and oblig limitation)....      2,696,000          -5,931       2,690,069
    Capital investment grants (Trust Fund approps)..............          4,500             -10           4,490
    Job access (approps and oblig limitation)...................        100,000            -220          99,780
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................      6,274,500         -13,804       6,260,696
                                                                 ===============================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp: Operations and mainte-           13,004             -29          12,975
 nance..........................................................
                                                                 ===============================================
Research and Special Programs Administration:
    Research and special programs...............................         36,373             -80          36,293
    Pipeline safety.............................................         47,044            -103          46,941
    Emergency preparedness grants...............................         14,300             -31          14,269
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................         97,717            -215          97,502
                                                                 ===============================================
Bureau of Transportation Statistics \3\.........................        [31,000]           [-68]        [30,932]
                                                                 ===============================================
Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and expenses \4\......         49,450            -109          49,341
                                                                 ===============================================
Surface Transportation Board: Salaries and expenses.............         17,954             -38          17,916
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, Department of Transportation--Excluding Maritime        57,996,538        -124,779      57,871,759
       Administration...........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect BA transfer to Essential Air Service.
\2\ Reflects BA transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital discretionary; and $1,000,000 to OIG.
\3\ BTS funding included within Federal-aid highways.
\4\ Includes $1,000,000 BA transfer from FTA formula program.

                            U.S. COAST GUARD


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

    The U.S. Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established 
on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter 
Service and the Lifesaving Service. In 1939, the U.S. 
Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed 
by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The 
Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities the enforcement 
of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of 
safety of life and property at sea; assistance to navigation; 
protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a 
state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the 
Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2).
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$5,174,566,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal 
year 2002. This represents an increase of $591,671,000 (13 
percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The 
following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                           Program                               2001 enacted                    recommendations
                                                                     \1\         2002 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses \2\.......................................       3,192,000        3,382,838        3,427,588
Acquisition, construction, and improvements..................         415,000          659,323          669,323
Environmental compliance and restoration.....................          16,700           16,927           16,927
Alteration of bridges........................................          15,500           15,466           15,466
Retired pay (mandatory)......................................         778,000          876,346          876,346
Reserve training.............................................          80,375           83,194           83,194
Research, development, test, and evaluation..................          21,320           21,722           21,722
Boat safety (mandatory)......................................          64,000           64,000           64,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       4,582,895        5,119,816        5,174,566
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $8,230,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-
  554.
\2\ Includes funding for national security activities of the Coast Guard scored against budget function 050
  (defense discretionary) as follows: fiscal year 2001 enacted amount includes $341,000,000 in defense
  discretionary funding; fiscal year 2002 estimate includes $340,250,000 and fiscal year 2002 Committee
  recommendation includes $695,000,000.

                           Operating Expenses


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 General            Trust             Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\ \2\..............................    $3,167,000,000       $25,000,000    $3,192,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \3\.................................     3,357,893,000        24,945,000     3,382,838,000
Committee recommendation \4\..............................     3,402,588,000        25,000,000     3,427,588,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $341,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\2\ Excludes reduction of $6,967,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-
  554.
\3\ Includes $340,250,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\4\ Includes $695,000,000 for national security activities including drug interdiction scored against budget
  function 050 (defense).

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating 
expenses is $3,427,588,000, including $25,000,000 from the oil 
spill liability trust fund and $695,000,000 from function 050 
for the Coast Guard's defense-related activities including drug 
interdiction. This is $44,750,000 above the budget request and 
$235,588,000 (7.4 percent) more than the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level.
    Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are listed 
below:

                                                               Change to
        Item                                             budget estimate

Search and rescue program readiness.....................     +$8,000,000
Pay and benefits shortfalls.............................     +36,750,000

    Service reductions.--The President's budget proposes a 
number of reductions in Coast Guard activities, including the 
decommissioning and retiring of aging surface and aviation 
assets, closure of air facilities, and reductions in some 
marine safety activities. In his June 13, 2001 testimony before 
this Committee, the Commandant of the Coast Guard stated that 
``we need to break the downward spiral of spending ever 
increasing amounts of money on older assets.'' The Committee 
agrees with this assessment and, therefore, has provided 
substantial funding for the Integrated Deepwater Systems 
program in order to equip the Coast Guard with modern and 
efficient assets.
    Pay and benefits shortfalls.--The Committee has included 
$36,750,000 to fund the additional costs of pay and benefits, 
including military compensation, housing and subsistence 
allowances, and health care, resulting from passage of the 
Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act and other 
Department of Defense policies.
    C-130 programmed depot maintenance.--During the past 
several fiscal years, the Coast Guard has diverted funds from 
the aircraft maintenance account to other operating expenses 
and then used funding shortages in aircraft maintenance as 
justification for supplemental appropriations. This pattern has 
been especially detrimental to the programmed depot maintenance 
of the long range maritime patrol aircraft. Due to the 
diversion of funds, the average interval in which C-130 
aircraft undergo depot maintenance has increased from 48 months 
to as long as 59 months. In addition, the Coast Guard recently 
entered into a contract, that was issued on a sole-source basis 
through a military interdepartmental purchase request, in which 
the depot maintenance on the initial aircraft is estimated to 
cost nearly five times as much. The Committee is concerned 
about the Coast Guard's management of the funds provided for 
aircraft maintenance as well as the sole-source basis of the 
new contract. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Coast 
Guard not to reprogram or divert funds from the aircraft 
maintenance account. The Committee further directs the Coast 
Guard to procure depot maintenance through full and open 
competitive bid process.
    AMSEA.--The Committee recommends $350,000 to be available 
only to continue this marine safety training program that 
trains fishermen and children in cold water safety techniques.
    Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The Committee remains 
supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association 
(MFSA) to provide specialized firefighting training and 
maintain an oil spill response contingency plan for the 
Columbia River. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
provide funding for MFSA consistent with the authorization and 
directs the Secretary to provide $255,000 to continue efforts 
by the nonprofit organization comprised of numerous fire 
departments on both sides of the Columbia River. The funding 
will be utilized to provide specialized communications, 
firefighting training and equipment, and to implement the oil 
spill response contingency plan for the Columbia River.

                  SEARCH AND RESCUE PROGRAM READINESS

    In fiscal year 2000 the Coast Guard failed to meet its 
safety goal of saving at least 85 percent of all mariners in 
distress--only 82.7 percent were saved, which is the lowest 
result the Coast Guard has seen since 1993. The Committee is 
deeply concerned by this unmet safety goal and the serious 
staffing, training, and equipment shortfalls at the Coast 
Guard's Search and Rescue stations. In his June 13, 2001 
testimony before the Committee, the Department of 
Transportation's Inspector General stated that a ``21 percent 
decline in the number of experienced station personnel, an 
aging small boat fleet that is failing Coast Guard readiness 
inspections, and a 225 percent increase in mishaps involving 
Coast Guard small boats are indicative of a program with 
significant problems.'' The Inspector General also stated that 
``readiness levels at Coast Guard SAR stations have been 
deteriorating for more than 20 years''.
    Coast Guard data shows that today, 90 percent of the Coast 
Guard's 188 SAR stations operate with staffing levels so low 
that boat crews must work an average of 84 hours of duty weekly 
to maintain station readiness. This exceeds the Coast Guard's 
own 68-hour work week standard. In his Regional Strategic 
Assessment dated May 2001, the Coast Guard's Pacific Area 
Commander stated that, in the Thirteenth Coast Guard District, 
``we don't have enough personnel to safely man the watch or 
perform full multi-mission responsibilities . . . District 13 
needs an additional 250 billets to staff our 10 surf stations 
and our other 4 stations . . . units are never fully manned 
with qualified personnel . . . the status quo is unsafe, 
inequitable, reduces readiness and is not sustainable.''
    In addition to staffing shortages, SAR stations are 
experiencing critical shortfalls in the number of experienced 
personnel. As the chart below shows, since January 1996, the 
number of senior level Coast Guard personnel (E-4 through E-9) 
at SAR stations has decreased by 21 percent while the number of 
inexperienced Coast Guard personnel (E-1 through E-3) has 
increased by 194 percent.


    Given these serious staffing and training shortfalls, it is 
not surprising to see an increase in the number of accidents 
involving Coast Guard rescue boats. Coast Guard data shows 
that, in fiscal year 2000, there were 130 rescue boat 
accidents, which represents a 225 percent increase over the 40 
accidents that occurred during fiscal year 1998. The Coast 
Guard found that over half of these accidents were caused by 
navigational and operational errors or poor judgement, as shown 
in the following chart.


    During fiscal year 2000, 84 percent of the rescue boat 
fleet inspected by the Coast Guard was found ``not ready for 
sea''. This evaluation essentially means that Coast Guard 
inspectors identified mechanical or structural deficiencies 
that render the rescue boats not fully capable of performing 
SAR missions. The following table shows the breakdown of Coast 
Guard rescue boats found ``not ready for sea'' based on the 
Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 boat-specific data.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage
                                                               of boats
                                              Average age of     found
                  Boat type                    boat (years)      ``Not
                                                               Ready For
                                                                 Sea''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
47-Foot Motor Lifeboat......................          0 to 4          90
44-Foot Motor Lifeboat......................              28         100
41-Foot Motor Lifeboat......................        18 to 28          99
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to standard motor lifeboats and utility boats, 
SAR stations maintain non-standard rescue boats, including 
rigid-hull inflatable boats, that comprise 53 percent of the 
boats operated by SAR station boat crews and execute over 30 
percent of SAR missions. Coast Guard data shows that, during 
the past 3 years, over 50 Coast Guard members either fell 
overboard or were ejected from rigid-hull inflatable boats. As 
recently as March 2001, two Coast Guard members from Station 
Niagara lost their lives when their rigid-hull inflatable boat 
capsized and ejected its four-member crew into Lake Ontario. 
Despite their potential hazards, these non-standard rescue 
boats are not subject to formal readiness inspections. In 
addition, boat coxswains may not have adequate training on how 
to safely operate these boats. In July 2000, in response to a 
rise in accidents involving these boats, the Coast Guard 
conducted an internal study on non-standard rescue boat 
operations. To date, the Coast Guard has made little progress 
in implementing the majority of the study's recommendations.
    The Committee is further disturbed to hear reports that 
small boat station personnel may not have adequate or enough 
personal safety equipment, including survival suits and 
equipment, to protect themselves fully while performing these 
dangerous SAR missions.
    The Committee has included $8,000,000 above the fiscal year 
2002 budget estimate for the Coast Guard to address the serious 
staffing, training, and equipment problems in its SAR program. 
These funds are in addition to the $5,541,000 in the fiscal 
year 2002 budget request for SAR system enhancements. 
Therefore, the Committee is recommending a total of $13,541,000 
for SAR program enhancements for fiscal year 2002. As part of 
this initiative, the Committee authorizes up to a total of 450 
new positions, including 194 positions that were requested in 
the fiscal year 2002 budget estimate.
    The Committee directs the Commandant to develop and submit 
a strategic plan for improving SAR program readiness to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 3 months 
after the date of the enactment of this bill. The Committee 
expects that the Coast Guard's strategic plan will address, at 
a minimum:
    Increasing the staffing levels at SAR stations in order to 
meet the Coast Guard's 68-hour work week standard, including 
increasing the staffing at Coast Guard surf stations to 
maintain the Coast Guard's two-boat safety standard (two 
``Bravo zero'' ready-to-go boat crews);
    Increasing the staffing levels at SAR command centers to 
allow all watchstanders to stand 12-hour vice 24-hour ``live'' 
watches;
    Increasing the training and experience level of SAR station 
personnel through targeted retention efforts, revised personnel 
policies, and expanded training programs; and
    Modernizing and improving the quantity and quality of 
personal safety equipment, including survival suits and 
equipment, for all personnel assigned to SAR and surf stations.
    The Committtee has included bill language that directs that 
the $13,541,000 in funds provided for fiscal year 2002 shall be 
used only for improving staffing, training and experience 
levels, and personal safety equipment in the SAR program. The 
bill also directs the Department of Transportation Inspector 
General to audit and certify to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations that the funding provided is being used to 
supplement rather than supplant the Coast Guard's level of 
effort in this area in fiscal year 2001.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\........................................    $395,000,000     $20,000,000   $415,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...........................................     639,367,000      19,956,000    659,323,000
Committee recommendation........................................     649,323,000      20,000,000    669,323,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $913,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-
  554.

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

                        committee recommendation

    The recommended bill provides $669,323,000 for acquisition, 
construction, and improvements, including $20,000,000 from the 
oil spill liability trust fund. This represents a significant 
increase of $254,323,000 (61 percent) above last year's enacted 
level and $10,000,000 more than the budget request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal year 2001  Fiscal year 2002     Committee
                                                                enacted \1\        estimate       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels....................................................     $156,450,000       $79,390,000       $79,640,000
Integrated Deepwater Systems Program.......................       42,300,000       338,000,000       325,200,000
Aircraft...................................................       37,650,000           500,000        12,500,000
Other equipment............................................       60,113,000        95,471,000        97,921,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation....................       63,336,000        79,262,000        88,862,000
Personnel and related support..............................       55,151,000        66,700,000        65,200,000
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................      415,000,000       659,323,000       669,323,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $913,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-
  554.

    The following table compares the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 2002 estimate, and the recommended level 
by program, project, and activity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year
                          Program name                           --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2001 enacted    2002 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels:
    Survey and design--cutters and boats........................        $500,000        $500,000        $500,000
    Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement......................     118,000,000      70,000,000      70,000,000
    Polar icebreaker--USCGC Healy...............................       1,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Configuration management....................................       3,600,000  ..............  ..............
    Surface search radar replacement project....................       1,150,000  ..............  ..............
    Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program......       4,500,000       8,890,000       4,490,000
    87-Foot patrol boat (WPB) replacement.......................      22,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Alex Haley conversion project--phase II.....................       3,200,000  ..............  ..............
    Over-the-horizon cutter boats...............................       1,500,000  ..............  ..............
    Coast Guard patrol craft (WPC) conversion project...........       1,000,000  ..............  ..............
    85-Foot fast patrol craft...................................  ..............  ..............       4,650,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Vessels..........................................     156,450,000      79,390,000      79,640,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Integrated Deepwater Systems program............................      42,300,000     338,000,000     325,200,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Aircraft:
    HH-65A helicopter mission computer replacement..............       3,650,000  ..............  ..............
    HH-65 LTS-101 engine life cycle cost reduction..............       7,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Aviation simulator modernization project....................       3,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Coast Guard cutter Healy aviation support...................      24,000,000  ..............  ..............
    C-130J system provisioning/training support analyses........  ..............         500,000         500,000
    Aviation parts and support..................................  ..............  ..............      12,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Aircraft.........................................      37,650,000         500,000      12,500,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Other Equipment:
    Fleet logistics system......................................       5,500,000  ..............  ..............
    Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS)...................       6,100,000      17,600,000      14,400,000
    Marine information for safety and law enforcement (MISLE)...       8,500,000       7,450,000       7,450,000
    Aviation logistics management information system (ALMIS)....       1,100,000  ..............  ..............
    National distress and response system modernization.........      23,800,000      42,000,000      42,000,000
    Personnel MIS/Joint uniform military pay system.............       2,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Local notice to mariners automation.........................         600,000  ..............  ..............
    Defense message system implementation.......................       2,471,000       2,000,000       2,000,000
    Commercial satellite communications.........................       5,459,000       1,500,000       1,500,000
    Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS)..........       3,083,000       2,200,000       2,200,000
    Search and rescue capabilities enhancement project..........       1,500,000       1,320,000       1,320,000
    Thirteenth district microwave modernization project.........  ..............         800,000         800,000
    Hawaii rainbow communications system modernization..........  ..............       3,100,000       3,100,000
    High frequency recapitalization and modernization...........  ..............       2,500,000       2,500,000
    Readiness management system.................................  ..............       1,675,000       1,675,000
    DOD C41 interoperability....................................  ..............       1,530,000       1,530,000
    Command center readiness/infrastructure recapitalization....  ..............         727,000         727,000
    P-250 pump replacement......................................  ..............       2,046,000       2,046,000
    Configuration management--phase II..........................  ..............       6,023,000       6,023,000
    Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement.......  ..............       1,000,000       1,000,000
    Minor information technology projects.......................  ..............       2,000,000       2,000,000
    Maritime electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for         ..............  ..............       5,000,000
     cutters and boats..........................................
    Ice detecting radar--Cordova, AK............................  ..............  ..............         650,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Other Equipment..................................      60,113,000      95,471,000      97,921,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation:
    Survey and design--shore projects...........................       7,000,000       8,000,000       7,000,000
    Minor AC&I; shore construction projects......................       5,330,000       7,262,000       7,262,000
    Housing.....................................................      10,000,000      11,000,000      11,000,000
    Waterways aids to navigation projects.......................       4,706,000       8,000,000       6,000,000
    Air Station Kodiak, AK--renovate hanger.....................       8,200,000  ..............  ..............
    Transportation improvements--Coast Guard Island, Alameda,          8,000,000  ..............  ..............
     CA.........................................................
    Coast Guard MEC waterfront improvements--Portsmouth, VA.....       2,400,000  ..............  ..............
    Modernize Coast Guard facilities--phase 1--Cape May, NJ.....       5,800,000  ..............  ..............
    Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI.................       1,300,000       3,100,000       3,100,000
    Modernize Air Station Port Angeles hangar, Port Angeles, WA.       3,800,000  ..............  ..............
    Homeporting pier construction--Homer, AK....................       5,800,000  ..............  ..............
    Helipad modernization--Craig, AK............................       1,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Consolidate facilities--Elizabeth City, NC..................  ..............       6,300,000       6,300,000
    Consolidate warehouse--Coast Guard Yard, MD.................  ..............      12,600,000      12,600,000
    Rebuild Group/MSO--Long Island Sound, NY....................  ..............       4,900,000       4,900,000
    Construct new station--Brunswick, GA........................  ..............       3,600,000       3,600,000
    Replace utilities, ISC building number 8--Boston, MA........  ..............       1,600,000       1,600,000
    Construct engineering building--ISC Honolulu, HI............  ..............       7,200,000       7,200,000
    Consolidate Kodiak aviation support--Kodiak, AK.............  ..............       5,700,000       5,700,000
    Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36--Phase I........................  ..............  ..............      12,600,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation..........      63,336,000      79,262,000      88,862,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Personnel and Related Support:
    Direct personnel costs......................................      54,151,000      65,700,000      64,500,000
    Core acquisition costs......................................       1,000,000       1,000,000         700,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Personnel and Related Support....................      55,151,000      66,700,000      65,200,000
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total appropriation.......................................     415,000,000     659,323,000     669,323,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                vessels

    85-Foot fast patrol craft.--The Committee recognizes that 
the Coast Guard currently lacks multi-operational patrol craft 
capable of operating at high speeds and achieving sustained 
success against drug runners. The Committee recommendation 
includes $4,650,000 to test and evaluate a currently-developed 
85-foot fast patrol craft that is manufactured in the United 
States and has a top speed of 40 knots. This appropriation is 
for purchase and delivery of such vessel. The Committee expects 
the Coast Guard to use funding made available in Operating 
Expenses to operate and maintain such vessel.
    Polar class icebreaker reliability program.--Due to budget 
constraints, the Committee recommends $4,490,000, which is 
$10,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The 
Committee anticipates that this funding level will be 
sufficient for this program.

                  INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEMS PROGRAM

    The Committee has provided $325,200,000 for the Integrated 
Deepwater Systems (IDS) program, which is $282,900,000 or 669 
percent more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and 
$12,800,000 less than the budget request.
    The Integrated Deepwater Systems program represents the 
largest and most costly procurement in the 35 year history of 
the Department of Transportation. As such, the Committee is 
greatly concerned that the program be executed in an efficient 
and affordable manner. The Federal Aviation Administration's 
delays in modernizing the Nation's air traffic control system 
is attributable in part to the billions of dollars wasted as 
part of that agency's failed Advanced Automation System (AAS) 
procurement. Similarly, the Coast Guard's delay in modernizing 
its deepwater assets, both ships and aircraft, is attributable 
in part to the millions of dollars of cost overruns that were 
encountered several years ago in the agency's effort to extend 
the service life of just 12 cutters through the Fleet 
Renovation and Modernization (FRAM) program. Neither the Coast 
Guard nor the taxpayers that depend on it can afford another 
failed modernization effort.
    The Committee does not question the need to modernize the 
Coast Guard's deepwater assets. The service regularly operates 
both ships and aircraft well beyond their expected service 
lives. But the heavy maintenance costs attributable to 
operating these older assets are extraordinarily burdensome on 
the Coast Guard's operating budget. They undermine the 
service's ability to operate at maximum capacity and 
efficiency. In his testimony before the Committee, the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard stated that ``we need to break 
the downward spiral of spending ever increasing amounts of 
money on older assets.'' The Committee agrees with this 
assessment and has concurred with the Commandant's request to 
decommission several older aircraft and cutters. This action, 
though painful, is necessary to free up the resources required 
to run existing assets at a sustainable rate and allow the 
Coast Guard to carry out all of its missions without the 
constant drag of punishingly high maintenance costs. This 
requested action by the Administration will also free up 
resources to modernize the Coast Guard's aviation and surface 
fleet.
    Despite the widespread recognition of the need to modernize 
these deepwater assets, the Committee remains deeply concerned 
about the expected cost and complexity of the deepwater 
procurement. As stated earlier, the Committee provided almost a 
700 percent increase in overall funding for this initiative, 
but the Committee still fell short of the President's budget 
request by almost $13,000,000 due to budget constraints. For 
fiscal year 2003 the cost of this program could grow to as much 
as $500,000,000 and remain at that level for the next two 
decades. At the same time, there are several other urgent 
procurements that threaten to push the total cost of the Coast 
Guard's annual acquisition budget to a level in excess of 
$1,000,000,000 per year. This funding dynamic is made clear in 
the chart below that was presented to the Committee in 
testimony by the Department of Transportation's Inspector 
General.




    It is important to note in the context of this discussion 
that the Administration has taken a new position regarding the 
use of emergency appropriations to fund ongoing Government 
activities. Excluding the Coast Guard's acquisition funding 
that was provided in recent years as an emergency 
appropriation, the average annual appropriation over the last 
decade for Coast Guard acquisitions was $376,000,000. That 
amount by itself will not cover the Coast Guard's requirements 
just for the deepwater program in fiscal year 2003. The 
Inspector General testified that the significant cost 
associated with the deepwater program holds the potential to 
``crowd out'' other critical acquisitions that will be 
necessary for the Coast Guard to perform some of its most 
important missions, including Search and Rescue. One such 
procurement is the urgently needed modernization of the 
National Distress and Response System (NDRS). The Committee is 
concerned about potential escalating costs and the 
affordability of the NDRS modernization program, which is 
discussed later in this report.
    In order to address these concerns, the Committee has 
included bill language that prohibits the obligation of funds 
for the deepwater system integration contract until the 
Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly 
certify in writing to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations that funding for the IDS program for fiscal 
years 2003 through 2007, funding for the NDRS modernization 
program to allow for full deployment of the system by 2006, and 
funding for other essential Search and Rescue procurements are 
fully funded in the Coast Guard's Capital Investment Plan and 
within the OMB's budgetary projections for the Coast Guard for 
those years.
    The Committee remains concerned over the inherent risks of 
the acquisition strategy that the Coast Guard is pursuing. 
Reliance on a single contractor--over a planned period of 20 
years--to develop, construct, and deliver a wide range of 
ships, aircraft, equipment, and communications systems presents 
a significant risk of cost overruns and schedule delays. In 
addition, the Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard may 
not have the management controls in place to control costs or 
ensure contractor performance. In light of these concerns, the 
Committee has included bill language that prohibits the 
obligation of funding provided for the Deepwater program until 
the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the 
Director, Office of Management and Budget jointly approve a 
contingency procurement strategy, developed by the Commandant, 
for the recapitalization of Coast Guard deepwater assets.
    Finally, the accompanying bill directs the Coast Guard to 
identify in their fiscal year 2003 budget justification the 
following sub-headings within the request for the Deepwater 
procurement: systems integrator, ship construction, aircraft, 
equipment, and communications and provides that specific 
assets, quantity requested, and associated costs be identified 
within each sub-heading.

                                AIRCRAFT

    Aviation parts and support.--The Committee has included 
$12,000,000 for aviation spare parts and support to improve the 
readiness of the Coast Guard's aviation assets. This funding 
shall be available for overall support of the Coast Guard's 
aviation infrastructure at the discretion of the Commandant.

      NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends the full $42,000,000 requested for 
the modernization of the National Distress and Response System 
(NDRS), which is effectively the maritime 911 system for 
mariners in distress. At present, according to the Department 
of Transportation Inspector General, there are a total of 88 
significant gaps ranging in size from 6 to more than 800 square 
nautical miles in which mayday calls are simply not detected by 
the Coast Guard's principle maritime distress radio system. The 
tragic case of the Morning Dew, which resulted in the loss of 
four lives, highlights the extreme urgency of modernizing the 
system as soon as possible.
    The Inspector General testified to the Committee that the 
contractor bids for the modernization of the NDRS have been 
submitted at levels several hundred million dollars over the 
Coast Guard's current cost projection for this program. This 
only increases the Committee's concern about the affordability 
of the Coast Guard's overall acquisition program. The Committee 
is also concerned that the schedule for modernizing the NDRS 
may already have begun to slip. The Committee has received 
communications from the Coast Guard's Pacific Area Commander 
articulating his expectation that the modernized NDRS will be 
fully deployed in fiscal year 2005, while the Commandant 
testified separately to the Committee that he expects 
deployment to be in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is further 
concerned about statements by the Commandant that the NDRS 
modernization program may be ``scalable''. This statement can 
be taken to imply that the NDRS modernization can be deployed 
on a slower schedule so that funds remain available for the 
deepwater procurement. This approach will not be acceptable to 
the Committee, which expects the NDRS modernization to be fully 
deployed no later than fiscal year 2006.
    In order to address these concerns, the Committee has 
included bill language that prohibits the obligation of funds 
for the deepwater system integration contract until the 
Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly 
certify in writing to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations that funding for the IDS program for fiscal 
years 2003 through 2007, funding for the NDRS modernization 
program to allow for full deployment of the system by fiscal 
year 2006, and funding for other essential Search and Rescue 
procurements are fully funded in the Coast Guard's Capital 
Investment Plan and within the OMB's budgetary projections for 
the Coast Guard for those years.
    The Committee believes that the Secretary or Deputy 
Secretary of Transportation and the OMB Director should be 
attendant to the following milestones in assessing whether the 
NDRS modernization will be fully deployed by fiscal year 2006:
    Not later than December 31, 2002, the Coast Guard should 
fill all voice communications and recording gaps in areas of 
the U.S. marine coastline at high risk for vessel accidents or 
fatalities;
    Not later than fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard should 
have the capability to locate distressed vessels by identifying 
the origin of the communications signal over 60 percent of the 
U.S. marine coastline; and by fiscal year 2006, over 100 
percent of the U.S. marine coastline;
    Not later than fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard should 
have the capability of sending and receiving data among Coast 
Guard and other Federal and State search and rescue assets;
    Not later than fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard should 
ensure compatibility of the system with international 
communications standards under the Convention for the Safety of 
Life at Sea over 50 percent of the U.S. marine coastline; and 
by fiscal year 2006, over 100 percent of the U.S. marine 
coastline.
    Boatracs communications and positions systems.--The 
Committee understands that in 1998 the Coast Guard evaluated 
and reported on the operational effectiveness of the Boatracs 
communications and positioning system. The conclusions from 
that evaluation and continued use of the Boatracs system in the 
Eighth Coast Guard district clearly indicate the system 
provides immediate and effective coverage of dead zones in the 
existing command and control communications system. Further, 
this off-the-shelf system has proven easy to use, secure, and 
substantially less expensive than cellular telephone 
alternatives. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit a 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not 
later than August 31, 2001 on its strategy regarding the use of 
this system. The report should explain why no effort has been 
initiated to procure, or allow the procurement of, additional 
units; install already purchased units; or facilitate the 
integration of those current in-service units into current 
command and control communications systems.

                            other equipment

    Maritime electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for 
cutters and boats.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for the Coast Guard to procure maritime handheld and 
fixed mounted electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for the 
Coast Guard's cutters and patrol boats. In its fiscal year 2002 
Capital Investment Plan, the Coast Guard has identified the 
procurement of these sensors as a capital investment that 
supports its maritime safety and security goals. The addition 
of these thermal imaging systems will enable Coast Guard 
personnel to conduct maritime operations safely and effectively 
at night and in adverse weather conditions.
    Ice detecting radar--Cordova, Alaska.--The Committee 
recommends $650,000 for the acquisition and installation of an 
ice detecting radar to increase awareness of hazards to 
maritime navigation and prevent oil spills in Prince William 
Sound. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to coordinate with 
the local community to procure and site this equipment 
expeditiously.
    Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS).--The Committee 
recommends $14,400,000, a reduction of $3,200,000 below the 
budget estimate but $8,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level. The Committee anticipates that this funding 
level will be sufficient to implement and upgrade vessel 
traffic service systems in select ports. The Committee 
encourages the Coast Guard to expand this maritime safety 
initiative to include additional ports.

                shore facilities and aids to navigation

    Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36--Phase I.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $12,600,000 for costs associated with 
repairing and rebuilding the Coast Guard's Integrated Support 
Center at Pier 36 in Seattle. The Committee understands that 
discussions are underway that could result in the Coast Guard 
moving its activities from Pier 36 to an alternative site 
within the City of Seattle. As such, the funds provided may be 
used either to repair and rebuild the existing facility or to 
cover costs associated with a move to an alternative site, 
pending the outcome of these discussions.
    Waterways aids to navigation projects.--The Committee 
recommends $6,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the 
budget estimate, due to budget constraints. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee directs $250,000 to be available only 
for the construction and installation of two aids to navigation 
on the Burlington, Vermont Breakwater to replace the existing 
dated equipment.
    Survey and design--shore projects.--The Committee 
recommends $7,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level. The reduction of $1,000,000 is due to budget 
constraints.

                             bill language

    Capital investment plan.--The bill maintains the 
requirement for the Coast Guard to submit a 5-year capital 
investment plan with initial submission of the President's 
budget request. This requirement was first established in 
fiscal year 2001.
    Disposal of real property.--The bill maintains the 
provision enacted in fiscal year 2001 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 only for the national distress and 
response system modernization program.
    Rescissions.--The bill rescinds a total of $8,700,000 of 
Coast Guard acquisition, construction, and improvements 
appropriations made available in Public Laws 105-277, 106-69, 
and 106-346 as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
          Public Law No.                Project title        rescinded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 105-277................  HH-65A Helo Kapton        $1,526,000
                                     Wiring.
Public Law 106-69.................  HH-65A Helo Kapton         2,856,000
                                     Wiring.
Public Law 106-69.................  HU-25 Reengineering.       3,468,000
Public Law 106-346................  PC-170..............         850,000
                                                         ---------------
      Total.......................  ....................       8,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $16,700,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      16,927,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,927,000

\1\Excludes reduction of $37,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide 
rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

    The Environmental Compliance and Restoration account 
provides funds to address environmental problems at former and 
current Coast Guard units as required by applicable Federal, 
State, and local environmental laws and regulations. Planned 
expenditures for these funds include major upgrades to 
petroleum and regulated-substance storage tanks, restoration of 
contaminated ground water and soils, remediation efforts at 
hazardous substance disposal sites, and initial site surveys 
and actions necessary to bring Coast Guard shore facilities and 
vessels into compliance with environmental laws and 
regulations.
    The recommended bill provides $16,927,000 for environmental 
compliance and restoration. The recommendation is the same as 
the budget request and $227,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level.

                         Alteration of Bridges


                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $15,500,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      15,466,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,466,000

\1\/ Excludes reduction of $34,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide 
rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

    The ``Alteration of bridges'' appropriation provides funds 
for the Coast Guard's share of the cost of altering or removing 
bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the 
Truman-Hobbs Act of June 21, 1940, as amended (33 U.S.C. 511 et 
seq.), the Coast Guard, as the Federal Government's agent, is 
required to share with owners the cost of altering railroad and 
publicly owned highway bridges which obstruct the free movement 
of navigation on navigable waters of the United States in 
accordance with the formula established in 33 U.S.C. 516. 
Alteration of obstructive highway bridges is eligible for 
funding from the Federal-Aid Highways program.
    The Committee has provided an appropriation from the 
highway trust fund of $15,466,000 for the alteration of 
bridges, which is the same as the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation is to be distributed as 
follows:

                                                               Committee
                                                          recommendation

Fourteen Mile Bridge, Mobile, AL........................      $5,766,000
Florida Avenue Railroad/Highway Bridge, New Orleans, LA.       3,500,000
John F. Limehouse Bridge in Charleston, SC..............       2,200,000
Chelsea Street Bridge, Boston, MA.......................       2,000,000
EJ&E; Railroad Bridge, Morris, IL........................       2,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      15,466,000

    EJ&E; Railroad Bridge, Morris, Illinois.--The Committee is 
concerned about the alteration of the EJ&E; railroad bridge near 
Morris, Illinois. To date, the Committee has provided 
$5,000,000 for this important bridge project in fiscal years 
2000 and 2001. It is the Committee's understanding that design 
and engineering work has begun and should be completed in 
February 2002. In fiscal year 2002, the Committee provides 
$2,000,000 for this bridge project and expects construction to 
commence in fiscal year 2002.
    Millennium Port selection.--In an effort to expand United 
States trade with Latin America and South America, the State of 
Louisiana has developed the Millennium Port Commission. Funds 
were provided in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for federal support 
of this Commission's activities. The Committee encourages the 
Millennium Port Commission to complete its analysis and release 
its final site selection study, with recommendations for a 
Millennium Port, by January 1, 2002.

                              Retired Pay

Appropriations, 2001 (mandatory)........................    $778,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002 (mandatory).......................     876,346,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory)....................     876,346,000

    The ``Retired pay'' appropriation provides for retired pay 
of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard 
Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse Service, and for 
annuities payable to beneficiaries of retired military 
personnel under the retired serviceman's family protection plan 
(10 U.S.C. 1431-1446) and survivor benefit plan (10 U.S.C. 
1447-1455), payments for career status bonuses under the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, and 
for payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. The average 
number of personnel on the retired rolls is estimated to be 
34,311 in fiscal year 2002, as compared with an estimated 
33,499 in fiscal year 2001 and 32,684 in fiscal year 2000. The 
recommended bill provides $876,346,000, the same as the budget 
estimate and $98,346,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level.

                            Reserve Training

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $80,375,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      83,194,000
Committee recommendation................................      83,194,000

\1\/ Excludes reduction of $177,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide 
rescission pursuant Public Law 106-554.

    Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 145, the Secretary of 
Transportation is required to adequately support the 
development and training of a Reserve force to ensure that the 
Coast Guard will be sufficiently organized, manned, and 
equipped to fully perform its wartime missions. The purpose of 
the Reserve training program is to provide trained units and 
qualified persons for active duty in the Coast Guard in time of 
war or national emergency, or at such other times as the 
national security requires. Coast Guard reservists must also 
train for mobilization assignments that are unique to the Coast 
Guard in times of war, such as port security operations 
associated with the Coast Guard's Maritime Defense Zone [MDZ] 
mission and include deployable port security units.
    The recommended bill includes $83,194,000 for reserve 
training. This is the same as the budget request and $2,819,000 
(3.5 percent) more than last year's enacted level. The 
Committee recommendation provides funds to fully train, 
support, and sustain a Selected Reserve level of 8,000. The 
Committee has included $25,800,000 as the limitation on 
allowable reimbursements of the Coast Guard operating expenses 
appropriation from the Coast Guard Reserve training 
appropriation.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General          Trust           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\........................................     $17,820,000      $3,500,000     $21,320,000
Budget estimate, 2002...........................................      18,230,000       3,492,000      21,722,000
Committee recommendation........................................      18,230,000       3,492,000      21,722,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $47,000 for the 0.22 percent governement-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-
  554.

    The Coast Guard's Research and Development Program seeks to 
improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries 
out its varied operational missions and to increase the 
knowledge base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory 
responsibilities.
    The recommended bill provides a funding level of 
$21,722,000 for research and development projects, which is 
consistent with the budget request. Of this amount $3,492,000 
is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund. This 
recommendation is consistent with the budget request.
    Columbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Initiative 
(CRANSI) Center.--The Committee is concerned about the threat 
that invasive, nonindigenous plants and animals pose to United 
States waterways and the economy. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee provides $500,000 for the Columbia River Aquatic 
Nonindigenous Species Initiative (CRANSI) Center at Portland 
State University to support surveys of nonindigenous aquatic 
species in the Columbia River.
    Environmentally sound synthetic lubricants evaluation.--The 
Committee directs the Coast Guard to evaluate Planet Green 
hydraulic fluid and Eagle G-4 synthetic engine lubricant for 
application on its ships. The Committee understands that less 
environmentally disruptive lubricants and fluids may cost 
slightly more initially, but is informed that lower life-cycle 
costs, improved efficiency, and maintenance benefits may 
justify the higher initial investment. The Coast Guard is 
directed to evaluate the applicability of these environmentally 
sound synthetic lubricants and the life cycle cost and 
performance considerations of introducing this class of 
products to the operation of Coast Guard vessels. The Committee 
anticipates the results of this evaluation to be completed in 
time for these products to be integrated into the fiscal year 
2003 Coast Guard justification.
    Demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood 
composites.--The Committee is aware of research on engineered 
wood composites sponsored by the U.S. Navy at the University of 
Maine Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center. Engineered 
wood composites are designed to reduce the cost of maintenance 
and extend the useful life of waterfront structures. Within the 
funds provided, the Committee provides $1,000,000 to support 
the demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood composites 
at Coast Guard facilities.

                              Boat Safety


                     (aquatic resources trust fund)

Appropriations, 2001 (mandatory)........................     $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002 (mandatory).......................      64,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory)....................      64,000,000

    This account provides financial assistance for a 
coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for 
the several States. Title 46, United States Code, section 
13106, establishes a ``Boat safety'' account from which the 
Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist 
in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying 
State programs. The ``Boat safety'' account consists of amounts 
transferred from the highway trust fund which are derived from 
the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon).
    The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century 
provides $64,000,000 of mandatory funding from the ``Aquatic 
Resources Trust fund'' annually for this program. Of this 
amount, $59,000,000 is provided for grants to States and 
$5,000,000 for Coast Guard administration. The President's 
budget requests no discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 
2002.

                           general provisions

    Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San 
Francisco.--The bill retains a general provision (sec. 312) 
that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement 
regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety 
fairway less than 5 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 5-mile-wide fairway to two 1-mile-wide 
fairways separated by a 2-mile-wide area where off-shore 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 2-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.
    Quarterly acquisition reports.--The bill retains a general 
provision (sec. 341) requiring that the Coast Guard submit a 
quarterly report regarding the status of major acquisition 
programs.
    Coast Guard Yard.--The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard 
Yard at Curtis Bay, Maryland is a critical component of the 
Coast Guard's core logistics capability that directly supports 
fleet readiness. The Committee further recognizes that the Yard 
has been a vital part of the Coast Guard's readiness 
infrastructure for more than 100 years and believes that 
sufficient industrial work should be assigned to the Yard to 
maintain this capability. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Secretary of Transportation to submit a 5-year business plan 
for the Coast Guard Yard to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations within 18 months after the date of the enactment 
of this bill.
    The bill includes a general provision (sec. 332) that 
amends section 648 of title 14 of the U.S. Code. This bill 
language affords the Coast Guard Yard and other Coast Guard 
specialized facilities to qualify as components of the 
Department of Defense for competition and workload assignment 
purposes and to enter into public-private partnerships for the 
performance of work.
    The bill also includes a general provision (sec. 328) 
requiring the Commandant of the Coast Guard to maintain an 
onboard staffing level at the Coast Guard Yard of not less than 
530 full time equivalent civilian employees.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

    The Federal Aviation Administration traces its origins to 
the Air Commerce Act of 1926, but more recently to the Federal 
Aviation Act of 1958 which established the independent Federal 
Aviation Agency from functions which had resided in the Airways 
Modernization Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and 
parts of the Civil Aeronautics Board. FAA became an 
administration of the Department of Transportation on April 1, 
1967, pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act (October 
15, 1966).
    The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 2002 amounts to $13,325,808,000, $38,027,000 more than the 
President's budget request. The following table summarizes the 
Committee's recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                           Program                               2001 enacted     2002 budget     recommendation
                                                                     \1\            estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations...................................................        6,544,235        6,886,000        6,916,000
    General fund appropriation...............................    \2\ 2,129,366        1,108,781        1,138,781
    Trust fund appropriation.................................        4,414,869        5,777,219        5,777,219
Facilities and equipment.....................................        2,656,765        2,914,000        2,914,000
Research, engineering, and development.......................          187,000          187,781          195,808
Airport improvement program..................................        3,200,500        3,300,000        3,300,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total available budget resources.......................       12,588,500       13,287,781       13,325,808
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes fiscal year 2001 rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Does not reflect transfer of $14,000,000 to the Essential Air Service program.

                               Operations

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................  $6,544,235,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   6,886,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,916,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

    FAA's ``Operations'' appropriation provides funds for the 
operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of 
the air traffic control and navigation systems and activities. 
It also covers the administration and management of the 
regulatory, commercial space, medical, engineering, and 
development programs.
    The bill includes $6,916,000,000 for the operations 
activities of the Federal Aviation Administration from the 
airport and airway trust fund. The balance of the operations 
appropriation will come from the general fund.
    As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to 
the Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are 
insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic 
control system.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2001 program        2002 budget         Committee
                                                            level \1\           estimate        recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services..................................          5,160,833          5,447,421           5,447,421
Aviation regulation and certification.................            693,450            744,744             783,994
Civil aviation security...............................            138,995            150,154             150,154
Research and acquisitions.............................            189,570            196,674             196,674
Commercial space transportation.......................             11,974             14,706              14,456
Regional coordination.................................             99,128             90,893              90,893
Human resources.......................................             54,743             74,516              74,516
Financial services....................................             48,337             50,684              50,684
Staff offices.........................................            104,807            116,208             116,208
Essential air service.................................             14,000             ( \2\ )            ( \3\ )
Account-wide adjustments..............................  .................  ..................             -9,000
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................................          6,515,838          6,886,000           6,916,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Proposes that the Essential air service (EAS) payment be paid out of the Airport Improvement Program in
  fiscal year 2002.
\3\ Proposes that up to $10,000,000 of funds provided for the Airport Improvement Program may be used for the
  Essential Air Service (EAS) program.

    Controller Staffing.--The President's budget requests 
funding to hire 600 additional air traffic controllers. This 
request is consistent with the labor agreement that the FAA 
negotiated with the National Air Traffic Controllers 
Association. These additional controllers will allow the FAA to 
address increased traffic demand as well as assist in the 
implementation of the agency's new choke point sectors. The 
Committee approves the agency's request for 300 FTE's and 600 
FTP's and includes $23,814,000 for these additional air traffic 
controllers. The Committee expects the FAA to move 
expeditiously in filling these important positions.
    Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center.--The 
northeastern corridor of the Nation's airspace is one of the 
busiest air traffic areas in the country. As air traffic 
continues to increase in the northeast, it is important that 
the FAA keep air traffic controller staffing at an appropriate 
level to manage the traffic. The controller workforce at the 
Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center is reportedly below 
the level that was determined in a staffing study that was 
conducted by the FAA. The Committee expects the Administrator 
to review the staffing levels at the Washington Air Route 
Traffic Control Center while taking into consideration the 
number of managers and staff that are eligible to retire. Once 
the review is completed, the Committee further expects the 
Administrator to take the appropriate steps to fill the 
vacancies as soon as possible.
    Airway Facility technician levels.--The Committee is 
concerned over reports that there are Airway Facility 
technician positions that are authorized but remain vacant. The 
Committee is also concerned that the on-board strength of 
technicians is at dangerously low levels. The Committee expects 
the Administrator to review the technician staffing levels and 
to aggressively recruit to fill any vacancies as soon as 
possible.
    Contract tower program.--The Committee continues to support 
the contract tower program and the cost-sharing program as a 
cost-effective way to enhance air traffic safety at smaller 
airports. The Committee's recommendation includes $70,500,000 
to fund the existing contract tower program, the remaining 
eligible non-Federal towers not currently operated by the FAA, 
and other non-towered airports eligible for the program. In 
addition to these resources, $6,000,000 is provided for the 
contract tower cost-sharing program. The Committee has been 
informed that the St. Cloud, Minnesota Airport and the 
Tuscaloosa Airport qualify for inclusion in the contract tower 
cost-sharing program and the Committee recommendation includes 
funding for their participation.
    National airspace redesign.--Of the funds appropriated for 
this activity, $12,500,000 shall be for the NY/NJ Airspace 
Redesign effort and shall not be reprogrammed by the FAA for 
other activities, including airspace redesign activities 
outside the NY/NJ metro area.
    Safety Personnel.--The Committee has approved 221 full time 
positions (FTPs) and 110.5 full time equivalent staff years 
(FTEs) for new Flight Standards, Aircraft Certification and 
Aviation Medical personnel. Following the ValuJet crash in 
1996, the FAA Administrator tasked the agency's Deputy 
Administrator to lead a 90-day review of the FAA's safety 
oversight functions. The report generated by the agency's 
review team concluded that the FAA needed to improve its 
surveillance of newly certificated air carriers and increase 
its aviation inspector workforce to 3,297. In addition, the 
final report of National Civil Aviation Review Commission (the 
``Mineta Commission'') in December, 1997 assumed that the FAA 
would exceed the inspector workforce levels that were 
established following the ValuJet crash.
    The Committee notes that even with the funds provided in 
the fiscal year 2000 supplemental, the safety inspector 
workforce remains well below the employment levels recommended 
and achieved following the ValuJet crash. At the same time, the 
Department of Transportation's fiscal year 2002 performance 
plan has set an aggressive goal of an 80 percent reduction in 
the rate of fatal accidents in commercial aviation. Since the 
90-day review and Mineta Commission reports, the Committee has 
been making steady progress toward growing the inspector 
workforce to reach the level of 3,297. However, the President's 
budget proposed freezing the number of inspectors at 3,229. The 
Committee believes that the safety inspection workforce plays a 
critical role in the FAA's efforts to meet its stated safety 
goals. The Committee expects the FAA to utilize the increased 
funding to reach the inspector level of 3,299. The Committee 
also expects the Administrator to aggressively recruit to 
achieve this level as soon as possible. The Committee includes 
$12,200,000 for these safety personnel.
    Aircraft certification activities.--The Committee has 
provided additional resources for continued operational safety 
monitoring activities that are necessary as more aircraft and 
aircraft components are entered into service. Specifically, the 
Committee intends the funds to support safety enhancement 
activities resulting from accident investigations; the 
evaluation of new inspection techniques that require 
engineering support; the airworthiness certification reviews of 
new aircraft and components; and, the development and 
implementation of improved, data driven, and systemic 
approaches to monitoring the continued safety performance of 
certificated products. The Committee includes $3,600,000 for 
these aircraft certification activities which represents 52 
FTP's and 26 additional FTE's. As the FAA begins to hire staff 
for these activities, the Committee requests that the 
Administrator review the staffing levels in the Northwest 
Mountain region. The Committee is concerned about reports that 
the Aircraft Certification Office in Seattle is understaffed 
and expects that the agency will take immediate corrective 
steps to fill any critical certification-related vacancies.
    Safer Skies Agenda.--In 1998, the FAA unveiled its Safer 
Skies Agenda which was designed to develop, implement and 
monitor intervention strategies in nine accident cause 
categories. The agenda includes commercial aviation, general 
aviation and cabin safety initiatives. The Committee has 
provided $22,700,000 more than the President's request to 
enhance and expedite this initiative. The Committee includes 
resources for the development of operational and airworthiness 
criteria and guidance for instrument approach procedures; pilot 
training guidelines for advanced maneuvers; enhanced crew 
resource management training to include flight crew member 
situational awareness and use of automation to mitigate loss of 
control accidents. The Committee recognizes that severe weather 
conditions contribute heavily to aviation delays and if 
undetected, can present a significant safety risk. The 
Committee expects the FAA to expedite the curriculum 
development and implementation of advanced weather training for 
air traffic controllers and flight service specialists. The 
Committee also includes resources to implement the installation 
of the Aviation Digital Data System and to study the review 
facts surrounding aeronautical decision making. In addition, 
resources are included to open up additional Operational and 
Supportability Implementation System (OASIS) sites and to 
provide scenario-based weather training and testing. The 
Committee expects the FAA to provide a progress report to the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committee by February 1, 2002, 
on the major Safer Skies initiatives, especially in the area of 
cabin safety. The Committee includes 28 additional FTP's and 14 
additional FTE's for these activities.
    Human Intervention and Motivation Study.--Since 1974, the 
Human Intervention and Motivation Study (HIMS) has served as a 
comprehensive education and training program for alcohol and 
drug abuse prevention in the air transportation workplace. One 
of the successful components of the HIMS program has been its 
emphasis on peer identification and intervention. The 90 
percent long term recovery rate is further evidence of the 
program's effectiveness. The Committee provides $500,000 out of 
available funds to continue the Human Intervention and 
Motivation Study.
    Drug and Alcohol Validity Testing Study.--The Department of 
Transportation (DOT) revised its drug and alcohol regulations 
in December, 2000. The regulations address the use of validity 
testing which is designed to deter and detect attempts to 
adulterate or substitute specimens. The Committee is concerned 
over reports that some categories of transportation employees 
could inadvertently fail to meet the current validity standards 
due to treatments for certain health related issues, working 
conditions or dietary habits. The Committee is aware that the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is in the process 
of finalizing its rules on validity testing standards. The 
Committee is also aware that once the HHS rule is finalized 
that the DOT will publish a notice requiring validity testing 
in the transportation industry. The Committee recommendation 
provides $250,000 for a comprehensive study of validity testing 
to ensure the highest level of accuracy.
    Airport Security Improvements.--With the passage last year 
of the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000, the FAA is 
required to implement a fingerprint based criminal history 
background check at all commercial service airports within 24 
months for all employees with unescorted privileges to secure 
airport areas. This act will significantly increase the number 
of aviation related employees that will be subject to 
fingerprint based criminal history checks from a few thousand 
to 100,000 or more annually for an indefinite period. Given 
that consideration and the importance of processing electronic 
fingerprints in a timely fashion to both strengthen airport 
security and prevent an unnecessary burden on potential 
employees, the Committee urges the FAA to work cooperatively 
with airports and the aviation industry to develop and 
implement a streamlined electronic process for transmitting 
fingerprints from airports and airlines directly to the FBI.
    Medallion Program.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$3,000,000 for the government and industry cooperative program 
to improve rural air safety in Alaska. This program recognizes 
that aviation safety is the responsibility of all in the 
aviation industry as well as the regulatory responsibility of 
the FAA. This program focuses the effort to improve rural 
aviation safety in Alaska beyond the regulatory environment and 
provides proactive tools for industry participants to prevent 
accidents and to improve and measure safety management by air 
carriers.
    Personnel Reform.--In April 1996, at the request of the 
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation 
Administration, Congress directed the FAA to develop its own 
personnel and compensation systems to give the agency more 
flexibility in hiring, training, compensating and retaining a 
highly technical and experienced workforce. Under congressional 
mandate and in consultation with experts in personnel 
management, FAA commenced negotiating with its employees. Four 
employee groups have completed negotiations with FAA thus far. 
Three of these negotiated agreements, two with the National Air 
Traffic Controllers Association and one with the Professional 
Airways Systems Specialists, were implemented immediately upon 
ratification by the employees. The fourth agreement, between 
the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 
Employees and the FAA, covering employees in FAA's 
headquarters, was ratified in late February 2001 but has not 
been implemented by the agency. The Committee is concerned that 
the failure to implement this contract has resulted in lost 
opportunities to obtain important productivity gains and a 
deterioration in the relationship between the agency and its 
employees. The Committee expects the agency to implement the 
ratified agreement immediately so that improved productivity 
can be achieved and employee morale can be improved.
    Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP).--The Committee provides 
$3,000,000 out of available funds for implementation of the 
Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP) which was adopted by the 
Federal Aviation Administration as part of its August 26, 1998 
Record of Decision approving certain improvements at Kahului 
Airport on the Island of Maui. These funds shall be used to 
reimburse the State of Hawaii for costs arising from the 
requirements of the ASAP mandated by the FAA.
    Air Traffic Services Subcommittee.--Section 302(c) of the 
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century established the Air Traffic Services Subcommittee. The 
Subcommittee is responsible for oversight of the 
administration, management, conduct, direction and supervision 
of the air traffic control system. In addition, the 
Subcommittee is expected to review and approve the strategic 
plan for the air traffic control system and all procurements of 
air traffic control equipment in excess of $100,000,000. While 
the Subcommittee members were appointed in December, 2000, the 
Subcommittee lacks specific resources to hire the staff 
necessary to support the Subcommittee's mission. Within the 
funds provided, the Committee includes $862,000 for the 
necessary staff and operational costs.
    Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).--Last summer, the 
Administrator appointed an Independent Review Board to review 
and provide recommendations on the Wide Area Augmentation 
System (WAAS). The Review Board's final report in January found 
that the WAAS concept is sound and that the system's value will 
continue to grow once it is fully operational. The Board's 
report included recommendations for near term, mid-term and 
long-term actions that the FAA should take in order to achieve 
the maximum capability from WAAS. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee includes $5,000,000 to increase the number of 
non-precision GPS instrument approaches developed and published 
for airports that are not Part 139 certificated and to develop 
GPS routes to help supplement the current airway route system. 
These routes will allow general aviation pilots to safely 
transition through congested and special use airspace, to avoid 
weather conditions that may threaten flight safety and will 
permit increased access to airports currently inaccessible by 
instrument flight.
    Account-wide adjustments.--The Committee recommends 
reductions totaling $9,000,000 in the following areas: travel 
and transportation of persons; communications, utilities, and 
miscellaneous charges; and, supplies and materials. These 
reductions are intended to maintain spending in these areas at 
the fiscal year 2001 levels and are necessary due to budget 
constraints.

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................  $2,656,765,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   2,914,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,914,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $5,844,883 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    Under the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation, 
safety, capacity and efficiency of the Federal airway system 
are improved by the procurement and installation of new 
equipment and the construction and modernization of facilities 
to keep pace with aeronautical activity and in accordance with 
the Federal Aviation Administration's comprehensive capital 
investment plan [CIP], formerly called the national airspace 
system [NAS] plan.
    The Federal Aviation Administration's most recent estimate 
is that it will spend approximately $41,000,000,000 on the Air 
Traffic Control Modernization effort from 1981 through 2004.
    The bill includes an appropriation of $2,914,000,000 for 
the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. This appropriation represents an increase of 10 
percent above the level provided for fiscal year 2001. The bill 
does not provide the advanced appropriations requested by the 
administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of 
the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows:

                                            FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee
                         Program name                            2001 enacted    2002 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING................      $56,480,000      $36,634,000      $36,834,000
SAFE FLIGHT 21...............................................       35,000,000       26,500,000       39,300,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--ADV DEV/PROTOTYPING..........................       91,480,000       63,134,000       76,134,000
                                                              ==================================================
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS.......................       18,400,000  ...............  ...............
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION..........................................       14,600,000       72,200,000       46,200,000
OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM....................................       51,970,000       84,400,000       84,400,000
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS....................       30,200,000       35,813,200       35,813,200
NEXT GENERATION VHF A/G COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.................       12,300,000       15,950,000       15,950,000
FREE FLIGHT PHASE ONE........................................      177,800,000      122,570,000      122,570,000
FREE FLIGHT PHASE TWO........................................       15,000,000      114,900,000       69,900,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS............................      320,270,000      445,833,200      374,833,200
                                                              ==================================================
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS)..................................      117,000,000      104,700,000      104,700,000
                                                              ==================================================
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM FOR GPS (LAAS)................       37,000,000       16,660,000       16,660,000
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS).........................       74,800,000       49,000,000       49,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--LANDING/NAVAIDS..............................      111,800,000       65,660,000       65,660,000
                                                              ==================================================
NAS IMPROVEMENT OF SYSTEM SUPPORT LABORATORY.................        2,162,000        2,300,000        2,300,000
TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITIES..................................        8,795,000       11,000,000       11,000,000
TECHNICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINMENT..................        2,726,000        2,900,000        2,900,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, RDT&E; EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES...............       13,683,000       16,200,000       16,200,000
                                                              ==================================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 1.......................................      654,233,000      695,527,200      637,527,200
                                                              ==================================================
         AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

EN ROUTE AUTOMATION..........................................      122,200,000      162,763,000      155,863,000
NEXT GENERATION WEATHER RADAR (NEXRAD).......................        4,100,000        6,300,000        6,300,000
AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT............................          940,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
WEATHER AND RADAR PROCESSOR (WARP)...........................       20,000,000       24,171,000       24,171,000
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS....................        1,200,000        2,300,000        2,300,000
ARTCC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS/PLANT IMPROVEMENTS...............       58,950,000       44,000,000       44,000,000
VOICE SWITCHING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (VSCS)....................        2,700,000       13,100,000       16,000,000
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.......................................       25,944,000       43,300,000       49,300,000
CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT..............................        1,880,000        1,900,000        1,900,000
AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE......................       16,074,000       24,400,000       30,700,000
VOLCANO MONITOR..............................................        2,000,000  ...............        2,000,000
ATC BEACON INTERROGATOR (ATCBI) REPLACEMENT..................       75,612,000       65,927,500       66,412,500
ATC EN ROUTE RADAR FACILITIES................................        2,844,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
EN ROUTE COMMS AND CONTROL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT............        7,631,000        1,540,280        1,540,280
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS.......................        8,218,000       15,720,000       22,520,000
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS--CORRIDOR INFORMATION   ...............  ...............        5,000,000
 WEATHER SYSTEM (CIWS).......................................
FAA TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE (FTI)..................       29,400,000       39,000,000       39,000,000
NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GPS..................................        6,000,000  ...............  ...............
NEXT GENERATION VHF AIR-GROUND COMMS SYSTEM (NEXCOMM)........  ...............       19,000,000       19,000,000
GUAM CERAP--RELOCATE.........................................  ...............        6,400,000        6,400,000
OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM....................................  ...............        3,700,000        3,700,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS............................      385,693,000      477,521,780      500,106,780
                                                              ==================================================
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE)...................        4,000,000        5,000,000        5,000,000
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE-X).................        8,400,000       24,800,000       24,800,000
TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR (TDWR)--PROVIDE...............        5,100,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
TERMINAL AUTOMATION..........................................       75,550,000       98,500,000       87,500,000
TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES REPLACEMENT..........      145,492,606      100,700,000      117,700,000
CONTROL TOWER/TRACON FACILITIES--IMPROVE.....................       41,759,672       54,558,059       57,558,059
TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT (TVSR)/ETVS................       14,000,000       11,947,500       21,947,500
EMPLOYEE SAFETY/OSHA AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STDS.......       28,400,000       28,400,000       28,400,000
HOUSTON AREA AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM..............................       12,000,000       11,000,000       11,000,000
NEW AUSTIN AIRPORT AT BERGSTROM..............................        2,500,000  ...............  ...............
POTOMAC METROPLEX............................................       25,800,000        6,300,000        6,300,000
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPLEX................................        6,000,000        5,000,000        5,000,000
ATLANTA METROPLEX............................................        3,400,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
NAS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS)..................       13,100,000       30,325,100       18,000,000
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR-9)...........................       11,122,000       12,800,000       22,800,000
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS)..................       20,650,000       12,627,500       13,127,500
VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM...........................        3,632,000        3,600,000        3,600,000
TERMINAL DIGITAL RADAR (ASR-11)..............................       69,690,000      156,377,500      108,530,600
WEATHER SYSTEMS PROCESSOR....................................       22,400,000        3,927,500        3,927,500
DOD/FAA ATC FACILITIES TRANSFER..............................        2,600,000        1,100,000        2,800,000
PRECISION RUNWAY MONITORS....................................        2,000,000        3,927,500        3,927,500
TERMINAL RADAR (ASR)--IMPROVE................................        3,233,000        3,837,500        3,837,500
TERMINAL COMMUNICATIONS IMPROVEMENTS.........................        1,550,700          936,700          936,700
MODE S--PROVIDE..............................................        1,974,000        2,100,000        2,100,000
TERMINAL APPLIED ENGINEERING.................................        6,700,000        6,500,000        6,500,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--TERMINAL PROGRAMS............................      531,053,978      588,264,859      559,292,859
                                                              ==================================================
AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS)....................       11,500,000       12,300,000       13,280,000
OASIS........................................................       23,100,000       33,943,000       33,943,000
WEATHER MESSAGE SWITCHING CENTER REPLACEMENT.................        2,500,000        2,500,000        2,500,000
FLIGHT SERVICE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT........................        1,277,500        1,202,100        1,202,100
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION SWITCH MODERNIZATION..................        6,000,000       10,000,000       10,000,000
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION.........................        4,000,000        4,700,000        4,700,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS......................       48,377,500       64,645,100       65,625,100
                                                              ==================================================
VOR..........................................................        2,632,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)--ESTABLISH/UPGRADE...........       85,000,000       18,753,000       30,753,000
ILS--REPLACE MARK 1A, 1B, AND 1C.............................        1,000,000  ...............  ...............
TRANSPONDER LANDING SYSTEM (TLS).............................        3,000,000  ...............        6,000,000
LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT SYSTEM (LLWAS).....................        5,734,000        1,533,000        1,533,000
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR)....................................        8,000,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
NDB SUSTAIN..................................................          940,000        1,013,000        1,013,000
NAVIGATIONAL AND LANDING AIDS--IMPROVE.......................        2,955,922        2,525,361        2,525,361
ILS--REPLACE GRN-27..........................................        1,000,000  ...............  ...............
APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (ALSIP).................       30,000,000        5,367,000       33,331,000
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATORS (PAPI)....................        6,000,000       13,500,000       13,500,000
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME)...........................        1,428,000        2,800,000        4,800,000
VISUAL NAVAIDS...............................................        2,820,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
GULF OF MEXICO OFFSHORE PROGRAM..............................        1,900,000        6,900,000        6,900,000
LORAN-C UPGRADE/MODERNIZATION................................       25,000,000       13,000,000       21,000,000
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS) FOR GPS.................  ...............       26,900,000       26,900,000
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (LAAS) FOR GPS................  ...............       17,449,700       27,449,700
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES AUTOMATION (IAPA).............  ...............        3,700,000        3,700,000
NAVIGATION AND LANDING AIDS--SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM    ...............        3,000,000        3,000,000
 (SLEP)......................................................
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS................      177,409,922      124,441,061      190,405,061
                                                              ==================================================
ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMM SYSTEM (ANICS)................        6,000,000        2,500,000        4,000,000
FUEL STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT AND MONITORING.................       10,500,000        9,300,000        9,300,000
FAA BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT--IMPROVE/MODERNIZE...............       10,000,000       11,700,000       11,700,000
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS--SUSTAIN/SUPPORT....................       28,200,000       54,200,000       54,200,000
AIR NAVAIDS AND ATC FACILITIES (LOCAL PROJECTS)..............        1,880,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
AIRCRAFT RELATED EQUIPMENT PROGRAM...........................        6,000,000       14,700,000        7,500,000
COMPUTER AIDED ENG GRAPHICS (CAEG) REPLACEMENT...............        2,600,000        2,600,000        2,600,000
CABLE LOOP SYSTEMS...........................................        5,400,000        4,000,000        4,000,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION...........................  ...............        1,500,000        1,500,000
AIRCRAFT FLEET MODERNIZATION.................................  ...............        1,500,000        1,500,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--OTHER ATC FACILITIES.........................       70,580,000      104,000,000       98,300,000
                                                              ==================================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 2.......................................    1,213,114,400    1,358,872,800    1,413,729,800
                                                              ==================================================
               NON-ATC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

NAS MANAGEMENT AUTOMATION PROGRAM (NASMAP)...................        1,034,000        1,100,000        1,100,000
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT...............................       22,600,000       21,700,000       21,700,000
AVIATION SAFETY ANALYSIS SYSTEM (ASAS).......................       15,980,000       22,100,000       22,100,000
OPERATIONAL DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ODMS)....................        1,000,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEM AND FACILITIES......................        7,500,000        5,000,000        5,000,000
TEST EQUIPMENT--MAINTENANCE SUPPORT..........................          940,000          900,000          900,000
INTEGRATED FLIGHT QUALITY ASSURANCE..........................        2,200,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
SAFETY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SUBSYSTEM (SPAS).................        2,400,000        2,100,000        2,100,000
NATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY DATA CENTER.........................        1,800,000        1,800,000        1,800,000
NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS (RCOM)...........................        4,700,000        4,800,000        4,800,000
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM...............................        2,500,000        2,500,000        2,500,000
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION TECHNOLOGY...............................       99,500,000       97,500,000       97,500,000
FACILITY SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT............................       19,339,000       22,400,000       22,400,000
INFORMATION SECURITY.........................................       11,200,000       13,600,000       13,600,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--SUPPORT EQUIPMENT............................      192,693,000      200,500,000      200,500,000
                                                              ==================================================
AERONAUTICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION.............        7,200,000       12,000,000       12,000,000
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) TRAINING FACILITIES...........        1,880,000        2,000,000  ...............
DISTANCE LEARNING............................................        2,162,000        1,300,000        1,300,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL--TRAINING EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES..............       11,242,000       15,300,000       13,300,000
                                                              ==================================================
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 3.......................................      203,935,000      215,800,000      213,800,000
                                                              ==================================================
                       MISSION SUPPORT

SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT...................       24,711,000       26,300,000       26,300,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT LEASES.......................................       33,800,000       35,500,000       35,500,000
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES...................................        6,300,000        7,200,000        7,200,000
MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL CENTER--LEASE.....................       14,000,000       14,600,000       14,600,000
IN-PLANT NAS CONTRACT SUPPORT SERVICES.......................        2,619,000        2,800,000        2,800,000
TRANSITION ENGINEERING SUPPORT...............................       37,539,000       38,300,000       38,300,000
FREQUENCY AND SPECTRUM ENGINEERING--PROVIDE..................        2,900,000        3,000,000        3,000,000
PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MOVES............................       26,400,000       11,800,000       11,800,000
FAA SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE......................................        1,000,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPPORT CONTRACT (TSSC)...................       44,911,000       45,800,000       45,800,000
RESOURCE TRACKING PROGRAM....................................        3,450,000        4,000,000        4,000,000
CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEV. (MITRE).............       65,200,000       76,400,000       81,543,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL ACTIVITY 4.......................................      262,830,000      266,700,000      271,843,000
                                                              ==================================================
                PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES...............................      322,652,600      377,100,000      377,100,000
                                                              ==================================================
      TOTAL..................................................    2,656,765,000    2,914,000,000    2,914,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             engineering, development, test, and evaluation

    The Committee recommends $637,527,200 for engineering, 
development, test and evaluation. Adjustments to the budget 
request are explained below.
    Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.--The 
recommendation includes $6,700,000 for the wind profiling and 
weather research activities at Juneau, Alaska, transfers the 
ADS-B surveillance funding ($2,800,000) to the Safe Flight 21 
line, and denies the funding for Navigation ($5,700,000) 
included in this line. Also included in the recommendation is 
$2,000,000 for the airfield pavement improvement program 
authorized under section 905 of Public Law 106-181.
    Safe Flight 21.--The Committee recommendation includes full 
funding of the President's budget request for Safe Flight 21. 
The funding in excess of the request is for additional 
activities associated with the Capstone initiative including 
funding to install a Capstone display in the Bethel, Alaska 
tower. In addition, the Committee believes that ADS-B 
technologies hold promise for addressing the growing problem of 
runway incursions, particularly at airports with the most 
complicated ground traffic patterns. As the Safe Flight 21 
program proceeds, attention should be given to how this program 
might contribute to greater safety on the airport and how Safe 
Flight technologies could be applied to the runway incursion 
challenge. The Committee notes that the additional resources 
provided for the Capstone program include resources to be used 
for the development of additional cockpit weather software and 
continuation of the ground station and avionics installed in 
Frederick, Maryland. In addition, the Committee supports the 
continuation of survey data collection, validation and 
dissemination in pursuit of the goal to place maps of general 
aviation airports on moving map equipment in the cockpit. The 
Committee believes that this process is the first step to 
determine whether ADS-B technology can play a constructive and 
meaningful role in reducing runway incursions and further 
enhancing aviation safety. Accordingly, the Committee 
encourages the FAA to disseminate the database of airport 
diagrams at no cost to manufacturers.
    En Route Automation.--The Committee is aware of the recent 
Board of Contract Appeals decision that prohibited a single 
source award in the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) 
procurement. While the Committee remains hopeful that the 
procurement flexibility that Congress allowed the FAA will 
expedite modernization and the pace of procurements, 
unfortunately, the ERAM program would seem to have resulted in 
a delay of this modernization initiative. The Committee 
encourages the FAA to proceed with this procurement consistent 
with the order issued by the Special Master. The funding in 
this account has been reduced to reflect the delay in the 
procurement as a result of the FAA sole source procurement 
approach which resulted in the Special Master's decision.
    Free Flight Phase Two.--The Committee recommendation denies 
$45,000,000 of the budget request for this activity in order to 
fund higher priority activities. The Committee recommendation 
includes $69,900,000 for Free Flight Phase Two activities, an 
increase of $44,900,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated 
level.
    Air Traffic Simulation Equipment.--The Committee 
understands that FAA plans to provide new air traffic 
simulation capabilities for air traffic controller training as 
part of its program to modernize the en route ATC automation 
system. Given the major changes anticipated in the future en 
route ATC environment coupled with controller retirements, air 
traffic controller training requirements are expected to grow 
and new traffic simulation capabilities will play a vital role 
in the training program. Further, a major lesson learned from 
the upgrade of the terminal part of the ATC system is that 
early involvement of the controller workforce in development of 
the system is critical to timely acceptance and implementation 
of any significant changes. Therefore, the Committee expects 
the FAA to proceed with the acquisition of any new simulation 
capabilities carefully and follow a procurement plan that 
protects the best interests of the government. At a minimum, 
the plan should assure the timely input of the controller 
workforce and that the best available technology at the lowest 
life-cycle costs is acquired through an approach that 
encourages participation by experienced commercial suppliers of 
simulation technology.

Subtotal--Terminal Programs

    Local Area Augmentation System for GPS (LAAS).--The 
Committee recommendation for LAAS activity I and activity II 
provides an increase of $10,000,000 more than the budget 
request for certification support and additional implementation 
activities. The Committee believes that LAAS can provide 
significant safety, operational, and capacity enhancing 
benefits in the terminal and airport environment. The Committee 
supports the industry efforts to facilitate the realization of 
the system benefits envisioned by this program and recommends 
the following program distribution: development of minimum 
operational performance standards (MOPS) and Standards and 
Recommended Practices (SARPS) for LAAS Category II/III, 
$6,000,000; complete development of competitive LAAS Category I 
RFP for fiscal year 2002 award, $4,000,000; Terminal Procedures 
(TERPS) development, data collection, procedures, and flight 
inspection for Category I at Government/Industry Partnership 
(GIP) sites, $6,000,000; completion of receiver development and 
certification, $3,000,000; Area Navigation (RNAV) Instrument 
Flight Procedures, $1,000,000; Category I LAAS full scale 
development contract, $3,209,700; Category I LAAS system 
acquisition, $15,000,000; and FAA-Industry Cooperative 
Agreement, $5,900,000. Under the recommendation, funding is 
provided for the procurement and installation of a LAAS system 
at Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport. In addition, the 
Committee recommendation includes funds within the various 
distributions to resolve the integrity issues to be addressed 
consistent with the FAA certification process.
    Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).--The Committee 
recommendation fully funds the WAAS budget requests for both 
Activity I and Activity II. The Committee encourages the FAA to 
aggressively pursue resolution of the integrity challenges 
facing the program and to expeditiously seek certification of 
procedures consistent with the current program decision 
altitudes. The FAA Administrator has advocated ``build a 
little, test a little'' concepts for NAS modernization and the 
Committee believes that this program provides an opportunity 
for implementation of that strategy.
    In addition, the Committee notes that the recommendation 
includes $10,000,000 for the development of standards and 
procedures, including surveys. The Committee directs the FAA to 
focus on increasing the number of non-precision GPS instruments 
approaches developed and published for airports that are not 
Part 139 certificated. In addition, should this program 
continue to experience the programmatic slippages that have 
plagued it since its inception, the Committee would look 
favorably on a reprogramming to commit additional resources to 
this immediately beneficial activity.
    Technical Center Facilities.--The Committee recommendation 
provides for the full request for technical center facilities.

              Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

    En Route Automation.--The Committee recommendation deletes 
$6,900,000 in NAS handoff costs not appropriately budgeted in 
facilities and equipment.
    Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $16,000,000 for this program to 
facilitate the FAA creation of additional sectors to address 
aviation traffic choke points.
    Air Traffic Management.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $49,300,000 for Air Traffic Management delay reduction 
efforts to permit greater realization of departure sequencing 
program initiatives providing fast, graphical interface 
communications among and between controllers and traffic 
managers.
    Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $30,700,000, an increase of $6,300,000. 
The additional resources are in support of the Choke Point 
program to alleviate delays reflected in the Committee's 
recommended increases in other lines in this account. The 
Committee anticipates regular communication from the 
Administrator related to the execution of the Choke Point 
program consistent with the program justification provided with 
the budget request.
    Volcano Monitor.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000, the same level provided in the fiscal year 2001 
bill.
    ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)--Replacement.--The 
Committee recommendation includes an increase of $485,000 to 
the budget request for an air traffic control beacon 
interrogator 5 (ATCBI-5) at Keahole-Kona Airport.
    Aviation Weather Services Improvements.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $22,500,000, an increase of $6,800,000 
from the budget request. The increase is for increased 
deployment of Integrated Terminal Weather Systems (ITWS) beyond 
the four prototype systems. Weather is the largest contributor 
to air traffic delays and ITWS technologies integrate weather 
data from various weather sensors and will provide increased 
forecasts of anticipated weather conditions.
    Aviation Weather Services Improvements--Corridor 
Information Weather System (CIWS).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $5,000,000 for the Corridor Information 
Weather System (CIWS). CWIS is a multi-phase program that will 
utilize terminal and enroute real time weather sensors to 
provide a convective weather forecast for congested enroute 
corridors.

Terminal programs

    Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $117,700,000 for this 
program. The recommendation provides funding for the following 
projects:

Newburgh, NY............................................      $2,200,000
Portland (TRACON), OR...................................          75,000
Deer Valley, AZ.........................................         805,000
Seattle (TRACON), WA....................................      26,084,000
Bedford, MA.............................................         468,000
Newport News, VA........................................       1,300,000
Louisville, KY..........................................       1,600,000
Corpus Christi, TX......................................         650,000
Vero Beach, FL..........................................         592,000
Spokane, WA.............................................       3,120,000
Reno--Tahoe (Relocation of tower and TRACON), NV........      11,080,000
Indianapolis, IN........................................         820,000
Swanton, OH.............................................         824,000
Oshkosh, WI.............................................         365,000
Chantilly, VA...........................................         970,000
Manchester, NH..........................................       5,840,000
Wilmington, DE..........................................          55,000
Albuquerque, NM.........................................         593,000
Battle Creek, MI........................................       2,125,000
Savannah, GA............................................         500,000
Newark, NJ..............................................       1,407,000
Everett, WA.............................................       1,064,000
Rogers, AR..............................................         750,000
Billings, MT............................................       2,725,000
Baltimore (ATCT), MD....................................         175,000
Houston (TRACON), TX....................................          75,000
Islip, NY...............................................         550,000
Phoenix, AZ.............................................      18,330,000
St. Louis (TRACON), MO..................................       2,400,000
Boston, MA..............................................       7,066,000
Port Columbus, OH.......................................       1,229,000
Salina, KS..............................................         560,000
Richmond, VA............................................       2,500,000
N. Las Vegas, NV........................................         550,000
East Saint Louis, IL....................................         572,000
Fort Lauderdale(Exec), FL...............................         638,000
Seattle (ATCT), WA......................................       2,922,000
Abilene, TX.............................................       1,045,000
LaGuardia, NY...........................................       2,000,000
Pascagoula, MS..........................................       2,125,000
West Palm Beach (ATCT), FL..............................         175,000
Beaumont, TX............................................         800,000
Roanoke, VA.............................................       2,140,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................       1,500,000
Topeka, KS..............................................       2,875,000
Reno, NV................................................       1,461,000

    Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)--Provide.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000 for this activity 
and is supportive of siting a TDWR at Baton Rouge Metropolitan 
Airport, but is mindful that the procurement of TDWR equipment 
is virtually completed. As additional technologies are fielded 
and TDWR units become available, or as the Low Level Windshear 
Alert System (LLWAS) procurement matures, the Committee expects 
the FAA to fully explore siting a LLWAS or TDWR system at Baton 
Rouge Metropolitan Airport.
    Terminal Automation.--The Committee recommendation deletes 
$11,100,000 from the budget request for activity 2 terminal 
sustainment support for ARTS IIIA and ARTS IIE/IIIE. Further, 
the Committee recommendation denies $11,000,000 of the STARS 
deployment funding due to anticipated schedule slippages in 
installation of the new equipment and the need to fund higher 
priority activities. The Committee is aware of the concern 
about potential delays in the STARS ``waterfall'' related to 
facilities not being ready for deployment of the new Stars 
equipment. The Committee directs the FAA to aggressively manage 
facility preparation to allow the introduction of this 
modernized equipment and to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations if delays in the deployment 
schedule become inevitable. In addition, the Committee directs 
the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the status of the cost and deployment 
baseline for the STARS procurement. Failure to provide such a 
baseline will jeopardize the Committee's support for future 
deployment funding for STARS.
    Control Tower/tracon Facilities--Improve.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $3,000,000 to continue 
the cable loop relocation project at Lambert-St. Louis 
International Airport. In addition, the Committee directs the 
FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriation on the cost, feasibility, and schedule to the 
acquisition of an air traffic control tower simulation facility 
sited in the new Newark Traffic Control Tower.
    Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/ETVS.--The 
Committee recommendation provides an increase of $10,000,000 to 
$21,947,500 to expedite the replacement of electromechanical 
and non-supportable electronic voice switching systems to 
continue reliable voice communications in support of air 
traffic terminal operations.
    NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS).--The Committee 
recommends $18,000,000 for the NAS infrastructure management 
system (NIMS), an increase of $4,900,000 from the fiscal year 
2001 appropriated level.
    Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $22,800,000, an increase of $10,000,000 
above the budget request. The additional funds are to expedite 
the ASR-9 service life extension program.
    Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $13,127,500, an increase of $500,000 
above the budget request. Within the funds provided, $500,000 
is to procure and deploy an AMASS unit at the North Las Vegas 
Airport.
    Voice Recorder Replacement Program.--The Committee 
recommendation fully funds the Administration request. The 
Committee notes that the FAA is delinquent in reporting to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations evaluating the 
benefits and advisability of deployable flight data recorders 
to complement current voice and data recorders. The FAA is 
directed to complete and transmit the report as soon as 
possible to permit consideration before the conclusion of 
congressional consideration of the fiscal year 2002 
appropriations act.
    Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $108,530,600 for the ASR-11 
procurement, a reduction of $47,846,900 from the budget 
request, but an increase of almost $40,000,000 from the fiscal 
year 2001 appropriation. The Committee is aware of the 
persistent delays in this procurement and the testing 
difficulties that the FAA and the Department of Defense have 
encountered. Accordingly, the FAA schedule to procure ASR-11 
radars under this program will continue to slip, obviating the 
need for the requested funding in fiscal year 2002. Within the 
funds provided, the Committee directs the FAA to complete 
surveys for the following siting of ASR-11 or ASR-9 radars, 
which may become available as the FAA ASR-9 SLEP proceeds: 
Eagle County Airport, Colorado (site survey and study 
anticipated to be completed in September 2001); Yakutat ASR-11; 
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (or southern coast of 
Lake Erie) ASR-11; Jackson Hole, WY ASR-11 (site survey and 
study anticipated to be completed by September 2001); and 
Central Oregon ASR-11.
    The Committee notes that a temporary ASR-9 is anticipated 
to be sited between Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah in time for 
the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Committee directs the FAA to plan 
for leaving the ASR-9 radar at the Utah location after the 
Olympics until an ASR-11 is available to replace the temporary 
ASR-9. The Committee understands that this may require 
acquisition of another temporary air surveillance radar to meet 
other temporary surveillance radar requirements.
    DOD/FAA ATC Facilities Transfer.--The Committee recommends 
$2,800,000, including $1,700,000 for the Lawton/Fort Sill 
regional Airport ARAC (Airport Radar Approach Control). The 
Committee directs the FAA to provide a report outlining the 
costs and benefits of a permanent solution to the Fort Sill 
ARAC staffing and equipment requirement not later than 
September 5, 2001.
    Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS).--The Committee 
recommends $13,280,000 and directs the distribution of the 
funding over the budget request as follows:

Henderson Executive Airport, NV...............................  $300,000
Curry Coastal Airpark/Brookings Airport, OR...................    80,000
Mexico Municipal Airport, MO..................................   100,000
Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport, NV..................   300,000
West Memphis Airport, AR......................................   100,000
Newport Municipal Airport, AR
                                                                 100,000

    Instrument Landing System (ILS)--Establish/upgrade.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $30,753,000 and directs the 
increase above the budget request to be distributed as follows:

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, MO...................$2,000,000
Wilmington International Airport, NC.......................... 1,154,000
Edenton Northeastern regional airport, NC.....................   500,000
Reno Stead Airport, NV........................................ 2,595,250
Keokuk Airport, IA............................................   350,000
Rice Lake Regional Airport, WI................................ 1,000,000
Orlando International Airport, FL (Cat 3)..................... 2,000,000
Dalles Municipal Airport, OR.................................. 1,400,750
Klawock, AK................................................... 1,000,000

    Transponder Landing System (TLS).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $6,000,000, an increase of $3,000,000 
over the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level to acquire and 
site TLS units. The Committee directs the FAA to conduct 
surveys and cost benefit analysis for TLS deployments with the 
appropriated funding at the following locations: Brigham City 
Airport, UT; Sandpoint Airport, ID; Minden-Tahoe Airport, NV; 
Bowers Field, WA; Ellensburg Airport, WA; Friday Harbor 
Airport, WA; Omak Airport, WA; Pangborn Memorial Airport, WA; 
Prosser Airport, WA; Sunnyside Airport, WA; Elko Regional 
Airport, NV; Reno/Stead Airport, NV; La Grande/Union County 
Airport, OR; and William H. Morse Airport, VT.
    Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP).--The 
Committee recommendation provides $33,331,000 for the 
procurement and deployment of runway lighting system to 
facilitate improved and precision landing capabilities at 
various airports. The Committee directs funding to be allocated 
to the airports listed below as follows:

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport lighting 
    upgrades............................................      $4,000,000
North Bend Airport, OR (ALSIP)..........................       4,500,000
Olive Branch Airport, MS (MALSR)........................         855,000
Stennis International Airport, MS (MALSR)...............         750,000
North Las Vegas Airport, NV (MALSF).....................         750,000
Rutland Airport Lighting, VT............................       1,000,000
Reno-Tahoe International Airport, NV (MALSR)............       1,000,000
Alaska statewide rural airport lighting.................      11,000,000
Reno Stead Airport, NV (MALSR)..........................       1,462,500
Niagara Falls International Airport, NY (MALSR).........       2,400,000
Reading Airport, PA (MALSR).............................         500,000
Baton Rouge Municipal Airport, LA (MALSR)...............         500,000

    Distance Measuring Equipment (DME).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $4,800,000 for continued acquisition, 
replacement, and siting of DME systems. The additional 
$2,000,000 above the budget request is to procure and site DME 
systems, including localizers, at Batesville Municipal Airport 
and Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
    Loran-C Upgrade/Modernization.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $21,000,000 for Loran-C upgrades and 
modernizations, an increase of $8,000,000 over the budget 
request.
    Alaskan NAS Interfacility Comm System (ANICS).--The 
Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for the ANICS 
communications program, an increase of $1,500,000 over the 
budget request. The increased funding will permit the expedited 
improvement of communications capabilities for the FAA in rural 
Alaska.
    Aircraft Related Equipment Program.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $7,500,000, an increase of $1,500,000 
over fiscal year 2001 and $7,200,000 below the request. The 
reduction is made because of budgetary pressures and without 
prejudice.

Non ATC Facilities and Equipment

    Explosive Detection Technology.--The Committee 
recommendation fully funds the budget request and rejects the 
approach taken in the fiscal year 2001 statement of managers 
regarding the pairing of the purchase of explosives detection 
equipment. Under the acquisition management system used by the 
FAA, integrated product teams are established for all major 
procurements. These teams include all necessary stakeholders 
and resources to manage procurements and deployments critical 
to the FAA's mission. The Security Equipment Integrated Product 
Team (SEIPT) includes key members from the major air carriers, 
regional air carriers, airports and the FAA plus contractors. 
The SEIPT is charged with making reasoned procurement decisions 
in the best interests of the aviation security program.
    Directed contract pairing undermines the basic tenant of 
competition by assuring certain procurements regardless of 
product performance, the needs and desires of the end users or 
the regulatory standards established for utilization. The 
benefit of a competitive procurement environment is good value, 
cost effectiveness and a product that improves performance 
beyond the initial EDS certification standards. To realize a 
truly competitive environment the Committee believes that it is 
more effective to provide adequate funding to attract and 
motivate capable vendors willing to invest in the development, 
improvement and maintenance of their products.
    Competition already exists for the funding within the 
explosive detection systems line item among various initiatives 
such as bulk explosives detection, trace detection systems, 
threat imaging projection X-ray systems and systems 
integration. The Committee through the SEIPT should continue to 
provide the requirements, guidance and plans to enhance 
aviation baggage and passenger screening and security.
    National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities.--The 
Committee recommendation deletes this request due to budget 
constraints, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget 
request.

Mission Support

    Center For Advanced Aviation System Dev. (Mitre).--The 
Committee recommendation fully funds this budget request 
including a $5,143,000 transfer from elsewhere in the FAA 
account.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001....................................\1\ $187,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     187,781,000
Committee recommendation................................     195,808,000

\1\ Excludes $411,000 in across the board reduction.

    This appropriation finances research, engineering, and 
development programs to improve the national air traffic 
control system by increasing its safety, security, 
productivity, and capacity. The programs are designed to meet 
the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote 
flight safety. The major objectives are to keep the current 
system operating safely and efficiently; to protect the 
environment; and to modernize the system through improvements 
in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order 
to insure that the system will safely and efficiently handle 
the volume of aircraft traffic expected to materialize in the 
future.
    The Committee directs the FAA to include prior year 
breakout information with the budget justification. While the 
current justifications are generally informative and useful, 
greater detail on the prior and current fiscal year budget 
execution would be very useful in the Committee's annual review 
and oversight responsibilities.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommendation includes $195,808,000, an 
increase of $8,027,000 from the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request, and an increase of $8,808,000 from the fiscal year 
2001 enacted level.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2002 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                                      RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Committee
                          Program Name                             2001 enacted    2002 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure:
    System planning and resource management.....................      $1,164,000      $1,458,000      $1,458,000
    Technical laboratory facility...............................      12,250,000      12,545,000      12,545,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Develop-  ment..........       4,000,000       5,143,000  ..............
    Information security........................................  ..............       2,581,000       2,581,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................      17,414,000      21,727,000      16,584,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Weather:
    National laboratory program.................................      16,615,000  ..............  ..............
    In-house support............................................       4,391,000       1,962,000       1,962,000
    Center for Wind, Ice and Fog................................         700,000  ..............  ..............
    Inflight Icing..............................................  ..............       2,068,000       2,068,000
    Storm Growth and Decay......................................  ..............       2,964,000       2,964,000
    NEXRAD Algorithms...........................................  ..............       1,500,000       1,500,000
    Aviation Gridded Forecast System............................  ..............       1,870,000       1,870,000
    Model Development and Enhancement...........................  ..............       1,659,000       1,659,000
    Winter Weather Research.....................................  ..............       1,550,000       1,550,000
    Ceiling and Visibility......................................  ..............         750,000         750,000
    Juneau, AK..................................................       3,100,000       6,700,000  ..............
    Turbulence..................................................  ..............       2,749,000       2,749,000
    Airborne Humidity Sensor....................................  ..............         501,000         501,000
    National Ceiling and Visibility.............................  ..............       1,956,000       1,956,000
    Oceanic Convective Nowcasting...............................  ..............       1,139,000       1,139,000
    Wake Turbulence.............................................  ..............       1,000,000       5,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................      24,806,000      28,368,000      25,668,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Aircraft Safety Technology:
    Aircraft systems fire safety................................       4,750,000  ..............  ..............
    Advanced materials/structural safety........................       2,797,000       2,974,000       2,974,000
    Propulsion and fuel systems.................................       8,200,000       5,168,000       8,968,000
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research..................       4,109,000       4,150,000       6,420,000
    Aging aircraft..............................................      33,384,000      27,111,000      31,911,000
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research...........       2,782,000       2,794,000       2,794,000
    Aviation safety risk analysis...............................       6,657,000       5,784,000       5,784,000
    Fire research and safety....................................  ..............       5,242,000       5,242,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................      62,679,000      53,223,000      64,093,000
                                                                 ===============================================
System Security Technology:
    Explosives and weapons detection............................      42,606,000      38,438,000      43,438,000
    Aircraft hardening..........................................       4,307,000       4,640,000       4,640,000
    Airport security technology integration.....................       2,462,000       2,084,000       2,084,000
    Aviation security human factors.............................       5,145,000       5,163,000       5,163,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................      54,520,000      50,325,000      55,325,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Human Factors and Aviation Medicine:
    Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors....      10,100,000       9,906,000       9,906,000
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.........       8,000,000       9,900,000       9,900,000
    Aeromedical research........................................       6,000,000       6,121,000       6,121,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................      24,100,000      25,927,000      25,927,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Environment and Energy..........................................       3,481,000       7,602,000       7,602,000
Strategic Partnerships..........................................  ..............         609,000         609,000
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total appropriation.......................................     187,000,000     187,781,000     195,808,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 System Development and Infrastructure

    System Planning and Resource Management.--The Committee 
recommends $1,458,000 for System Planning and Resource. The 
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for North Dakota 
State University (NDSU) to conduct a study on the pricing 
behavior of airlines operating in small and medium-sized 
communities.
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.--The 
Committee recommendation transfers this funding consistent with 
the direction provided in the recommendation for the Facilities 
and Equipment guidance.

                                Weather

    Juneau, AK.--Consistent with the transfer to, and the 
guidance provided in the Facilities and Equipment account, no 
funding is provided in the Weather line for the Juneau, Alaska 
wind initiative.
    Wake Turbulence.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$5,000,000 for Wake turbulence research, an increase of 
$4,000,000 from the budget estimate.
    Aircraft Safety Technology Propulsion and fuel systems.--
The Committee recommendation is $8,968,000, an increase of 
$3,800,000 from the budget estimate. Within the funds provided 
in the Committee recommendation, $2,000,000 is to continue 
activities of the specialty metals processing consortium. The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for continued 
research into the performance and combustion characteristics of 
blended aviation fuels containing at least 80 percent ethanol. 
In addition, the Committee recommendation includes $800,000 for 
the General Aviation Propulsion--Compression Ignition Test and 
Evaluation Program (GAP-CITEP), a joint NASA and FAA effort to 
evaluate durability testing of alternative fuels (Jet A and 
diesel) to facilitate the transition away from leaded aviation 
fuels for general aviation.
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.--The Committee 
recommends $6,420,000, including $2,270,000 for a joint 
industry-university aviation safety initiative to conduct in-
flight simulation research at the Roswell Industrial Air Center 
for civilian aircraft pilots. The Committee recognizes the 
contribution that this research can make to civilian aviation 
safety, but is also mindful of the safety considerations 
implicit in conducting such research safely in flight. 
Accordingly, this research should only be undertaken with this 
funding upon determination by the FAA administrator that it can 
be conducted safely and consistently with the FAA's research 
mission.
    Aging aircraft.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$31,911,000 for this program, an increase of $4,800,000 from 
the budget estimate. The Committee has provided the additional 
resources to continue the strong collaboration between the 
Government, universities, and industry as represented by the 
Center for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR) initiative, the 
Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center 
(AANC), the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE) 
and the Engine Titanium Consortium (ETC). Within the 
appropriation, the recommendation includes $3,800,000, an 
increase of $2,000,000 from the budget request for the Center 
for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR); $3,000,000 for the 
Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center (AANC); 
$4,000,000 for the activities of the Engine Titanium Consortium 
(ETC) effort, $1,900,000 more than the budget estimate; and 
$5,000,000 for other activities of the Airworthiness Assurance 
Center of Excellence (AACE), an increase of $1,900,000, over 
the budget estimate.

                       System Security Technology

    Explosives and weapons detection.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue development of 
the pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) cargo inspection 
system.

                         Environment and Energy

    Aircraft Engine Noise reduction technology research.--The 
Committee is concerned about aircraft engine noise and the 
impact that it has on efforts to increase airport capacity and 
reduce airline delays. Although airports spend hundreds of 
millions of dollars per year on aircraft noise mitigation and 
abatement efforts, the FAA and the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA) spend only a few million dollars 
for aircraft engine noise reduction technology research and 
development. The Committee directs the FAA to work with NASA to 
conduct a study on aircraft engine noise reduction technology 
research. The study shall: (1) examine the goals that the two 
agencies and the National Science Technology Council have for 
aircraft engine noise reduction and abatement; (2) examine the 
research currently being conducted by FAA, NASA, academia, 
airports, airlines, as well as aircraft and aircraft engine 
manufacturers; (3) determine whether Federal goals and 
objectives for aircraft engine noise reduction are consistent 
with that research; and (4) if the study concludes that a gap 
exists between Federal goals and current research, make 
recommendations on how to coordinate aircraft engine noise 
reduction research to ensure that most efficient use of Federal 
dollars.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $3,200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,800,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,800,000,000

    Chapter 471 of title 49, U.S.C. authorizes a program of 
grants to fund airport planning and development and noise 
compatibility planning and projects for public use airports in 
all States and territories.
    The Committee recommends $1,800,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the 
Committee's obligation limitation on airport programs for 
fiscal year 2002 and for the payment of previous years' 
obligations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Obligation limitation, 2001 \1\.........................  $3,200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   3,300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,300,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $7,040,000 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2002 
for grants-in-aid to airports is $3,300,000,000 and is intended 
to be sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing 
airport and airway safety, ensuring that airport standards can 
be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing 
additional capacity. The amount provided includes $64,597,000 
for administration and airport technology research. Also, the 
Administration proposes that the grants-in-aid funds be used to 
make up for shortfalls in overflight fee collections to fund 
the essential air service program.
    The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of 
funding is available to airports in the form of passenger 
facility charges [PFC's]. The first PFC charge began for 
airlines tickets issued on June 1, 1992. DOT data shows that as 
of April 1, 2001, 322 airports have been approved for 
collection of PFC's in the amount of $29,600,000,000. During 
calendar year 2000 airports collected $1,550,000,000 in PFC 
charges and $1,900,000,000 is estimated to be collected in 
calendar year 2001. Of the airports collecting PFC's, 
approximately one-fifth collected about 90 percent of the 
total, and all of these are either large or medium hub 
airports. Prior to the authorized increase in PFC charges, the 
DOT estimated that these airports will collect more than 
$1,600,000,000 in calendar year 2001, depending on the number 
of applications received and approved and assuming current 
statutory authority. The first collections at the new $4.50 PFC 
level began on April 1, 2001 at 31 airports. Eventually, the 
funding to airports from the 50 percent nominal increase in 
authorized passenger facility charges will result in 
dramatically increased resources for airport improvements, 
expansions, and enhancements.

                       Limitation On Obligations

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$3,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as the 
President's budget request and $100,000,000 over the fiscal 
year 2001 enacted level.
    A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to 
the fiscal year 2001 levels and the President's budget request 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Fiscal year      Fiscal year         Committee
                                                              2001 enacted    2002 estimate   recommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements..............................................   $1,943,800,000   $2,070,864,521     $2,068,956,211
    Primary airports......................................    1,067,900,000    1,053,755,561      1,053,755,561
    Cargo airports (3 percent)............................       94,200,000       97,311,000         97,062,090
    Alaska supplemental...................................       21,100,000       21,057,960         21,057,960
    States (20 percent)...................................      628,000,000      648,740,000        647,080,600
    Carryover entitlement.................................      132,600,000      250,000,000        250,000,000
Small Airport Fund........................................      269,000,000      305,399,619        305,399,619
    Non hub...............................................  ...............      174,514,068        174,514,068
    Non commercial service................................  ...............       87,257,034         87,257,034
    Small hub.............................................  ...............       43,628,517         43,628,517
Discretionary Set Asides..................................      358,500,000      335,350,704        332,880,836
    Noise (34 percent of discretionary)...................      315,300,000      294,928,193        292,756,038
    Reliever (0.66 percent of discretionary)..............        6,100,000        5,725,077          5,682,911
    Military airport program (4 percent of discretionary).       37,100,000       34,697,434         34,441,887
Other Discretionary.......................................      568,800,000      532,085,156        528,166,334
    Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise........................      426,600,000      399,063,867        396,124,751
    Remaining discretionary...............................      142,200,000      133,021,289        132,041,584
Administration............................................       59,900,000       56,300,000         57,050,000
Airport Research..........................................  ...............  ...............          7,547,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total limitation on obligations.....................    3,200,000,000    3,300,000,000      3,300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes EAS will be fully supported through overflight fee collections.

                      AIRPORT DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

    Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, over 
$1,200,000,000 is available for discretionary grants to 
airports. The Committee has carefully considered a broad array 
of discretionary grant requests that can be expected in fiscal 
year 2002. Specifically, the Committee expects the FAA to give 
priority consideration to applications for the projects listed 
below in the categories of the AIP for which they are eligible. 
If funds in the remaining discretionary category are used for 
any projects in fiscal year 2002 that are not listed below, the 
Committee expects that they will be for projects for which FAA 
has issued letters of intent (including letters of intent the 
Committee recommends below that the FAA subsequently issues), 
or for projects that will produce significant aviation safety 
improvements or significant improvements in systemwide capacity 
or otherwise have a very high benefit/cost ratio.
    Within the program levels recommended, the Committee 
directs that priority be given to applications involving the 
further development of the following airports:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Airport/State                                               Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbeville Municipal Airport, AL................  Various improvements
Abilene Airport, TX............................  Apron rehab, runway improvements & taxiway extension
Abrams Municipal Airport, MI...................  Parallel taxiway & runway extension
Akutan Airport, AK.............................  Access road
Albertus Airport, IL...........................  Runway & taxiway rehabilitation
Anchorage International Airport, AK............  North/South runway expansion and maintenance facility
Andrews-Murphy Airport, NC.....................  Land acquisition & extension of runway
Ankeny Regional Airport, IA....................  Taxiways & access road improvements
Atka Airport, AK...............................  Runway extension
Baltimore-Washington International, MD.........  Expansion & rehabilitation airfield, taxiways & ramps
Barbour County Regional Airport, WV............  Various improvements
Bartlesville Municipal Airport, OK.............  Runway safety improvements
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, LA...........  Apron improvements, master plan, noise mitigation, reconstruct
                                                  runway
Baxter County Regional Airport, AR.............  Various improvements
Benedum Airport, WV............................  Various improvements
Bennington Airport, VT.........................  Runway extension
Bert Mooney Airport, MT........................  Reconstruct ramp
Bismarck Municipal Airport, ND.................  Comprehensive terminal improvement
Bowling Green-Warren County, KY................  Land acquisition
Bowman Field, KY...............................  Air ambulance facility
Braxton County Airport, WV.....................  Various improvements
Buffalo Niagara International Airport, NY......  Runway improvements & land acquisition
Burlington Municipal Airport, IA...............  Taxiway relocation
Cambridge Municipal Airport, OH................  Land acquisition, runway construction, taxiway improvements
Cartersville Airport, GA.......................  Runway & taxiway lighted signage
Central Illinois Regional, IL..................  Purchase equipment
Centre Municipal Airport, AL...................  Runway extension
Charleston International Airport, SC...........  Various improvements
Clarion County Airport, PA.....................  Runway extension
Clayton County-Tara Field, GA..................  Land acquisition & runway rehabilitation
Clayton Municipal Airport, AL..................  Runway extension
Clinton Municipal Airport, IA..................  Rehab. & resurface runway & taxiway
Columbia County Airport, NY....................  Rehabilitation of access road & taxiway
Concord Regional Airport, NC...................  Runway extension
Connellsville Airport, PA......................  Runway expansion
Council Bluffs Municipal Airport, IA...........  Various improvements
Dane County Regional Airport, WI...............  Apron reconstruction & drainage system
Davis Airport, WV..............................  Various improvements
DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, GA...................  Airport expansion & noise control
Denver International, CO.......................  Construct new runway
Des Moines International Airport, IA...........  Various improvements
Detroit Metro Airport, MI......................  Terminal redevelopment/rehabilitation
Dona Ana County Airport, NM....................  Widening & strengthening of runway & taxiway
Double Eagle II Airport, NM....................  Runway rehabilitation and runway equipment
Eastern Iowa Airport, IA.......................  Taxiway & apron reconstruction
Eastern West Virginia Regional/Shephard Field,   Various improvements
 WV.
Eau Claire-Chippewa Valley Airport, WI.........  Runway improvements
Elkins-Randolph County-Jennings Randolph Field,  Various improvements
 WV.
Erie International Airport, PA.................  Runway extension
Fairfield Municipal Airport, IA................  Construct new runway
Fairmont Municipal Airport, WV.................  Various improvements
Fayette Airport, WV............................  Various improvements
Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport, NY.............  Rehabilitation of taxiways
Ford Airport, MI...............................  Runway reconstruction, tiedown rehab & apron rehab
Fork-Quillayute, WA............................  Master plan improvements
Galveston-Scholes Field, TX....................  Taxiway reconstruction, apron rehab. & main runway overlay
Gary/Chicago Airport, IN.......................  Expansion of general use apron
General Mitchell Field, WI.....................  Taxiway relocation & expansion
Girdwood Airport, AK...........................  Miscellaneous improvements
Glynco Jetport, GA.............................  Terminal renovation
Gogebic County Airport, MI.....................  Land acquisition
Grand Forks International Airport, ND..........  Construct runway
Grant County Airport, WV.......................  Various improvements
Great Falls International, MT..................  Upgrade runways to cat IIIc status
Greater Rochester International, NY............  Terminal improvements, construct taxiway, & runway improvements
Greenbrier Valley, WV..........................  Various improvements
Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport, MS...........  Land acquisition for runway extension
Hector International Airport, ND...............  Runway extension, taxiway reconstruction & construct taxiway
Helena Regional Airport, MT....................  Terminal remodeling & expansion project
Houghton County Memorial Airport, MI...........  Runway rehabilitation
Huntsville International Airport, AL...........  Miscellaneous improvements
Indiana County Airport, PA.....................  Runway extension
Indianapolis International Airport, IN.........  Various improvements
Iowa City Municipal Airport, IA................  Land acquisition
Ivanof Bay Airport, AK.........................  Runway extension
Jackson County Airport, WV.....................  Various improvements
Jackson International Airport, MS..............  Cargo apron improvements & related projects
Jonesboro Municipal Airport, AR................  Runway extension
Juneau International Airport, AK...............  Snow removal maintenance facility
Kee Field, WV..................................  Various improvements
Kodiak Airport, AK.............................  Passenger terminal
LaCrosse Municipal Airport, WI.................  Runway & taxiway reconstruction
Lafayette Regional Airport, LA.................  Various improvements
Lake Placid Airport, NY........................  Rehabilitation of taxiway
Lambert-St. Louis International, MO............  Noise mitigation
Lancaster Airport, PA..........................  Runway extension
Lee Gilmer Memorial Airport, GA................  Construct new taxiways
Logan County Airport, WV.......................  Various improvements
Louisville International, KY...................  Reconstruction of taxiway, land acquisition & noise reduction
Madisonville Municipal, KY.....................  Extension project
Manhattan Regional Airport, KS.................  Aircraft parking expansion project
Marlinton Airport, WV..........................  Various improvements
Marshall County Airport, WV....................  Various improvements
Mason County Airport, WV.......................  Various improvements
McComas-Lee's Summit Municipal, MO.............  Runway improvement, land acquisition, hangar removal
McComb-Pike County Airport, MS.................  Lengthen runway & install taxiway
Memphis International Airport, TN..............  Taxiway extension
Mercer County Airport, WV......................  Various improvements
Mid-Delta Regional Airport, MS.................  Runway repaving
Middle Georgia Regional Airport, GA............  Runway extension
Mingo County Airport, WV.......................  Various improvements
Minot International Airport, ND................  Runway reconstruction
Missoula International Airport, MT.............  Land acquisition & runway relocation
Monroe County Airport, AL......................  Various improvements
Monroe Regional Airport, LA....................  Terminal & infrastructure improvements
Montgomery Regional Airport (Dannelly Field),    Terminal reconstruction (phase II)
 AL.
Morehead-Rowan County, KY......................  New airport
Morey Airport, WI..............................  Land acquisition
Morgantown Municipal-Walter L. Bill Hart Field,  Various improvements
 WV.
Mt. Vernon Airport, IL.........................  Runway rehabilitation & land acquisition
New Orleans International Airport, LA..........  Runway improvements & safety enhancements
Oakland-Pontiac Airport, MI....................  Land acquisition for noise reduction
Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT.....................  Runway, taxi lane, and ramp improvements
Olive Branch Airport, MS.......................  Extend runway & construct new ramp
Orlando International Airport, FL..............  Runway improvements
Otsego County Airport, MI......................  Runway reconstruction
Outagamie County Regional Airport, WI..........  Taxiway, apron, & lighting improvements
Owensboro-Daviess County, KY...................  Runway extension
Panama City-Bay County Airport, FL.............  Various improvements
Pellston Regional Airport, MI..................  Terminal construction & road relocation
Petersburg Airport, AK.........................  Runway extension
Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS.............  Various improvements
Philadelphia International Airport, PA.........  Runway lighting & visual navigation aids
Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC.......  Construct new runway
Pittsburgh International Airport, PA...........  Runway lighting & various improvements
Port Columbus International Airport, OH........  Airport renovation
Princeton-Caldwell County, KY..................  Airport expansion
Pryor Field Regional Airport (Decatur), AL.....  Runway extension, apron improvements, terminal expansion
Quad City Airport, IL..........................  Taxiway extension
Raleigh County Memorial, WV....................  Various improvements
Redmond Airport, OR............................  Terminal area expansion
Reno/Stead Airport, NV.........................  Runway & taxiway reconstruction, extension, & lighting
                                                  improvements
Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV...........  Ramp expansion, land acquisition, noise reduction, & various
                                                  improvements
Richard B. Russell Airport, GA.................  Runway, infrastructure improvements
Richmond International Airport, VA.............  Taxiway improvement
Richwood City Airport, WV......................  Various improvements
Rickenbacker International Airport, OH.........  Various improvements
Ripley Airport, MS.............................  Runway extension
Rock County Airport, WI........................  Runway & taxiway improvements
Ronald Reagan Washington National, VA..........  Various improvements
Saline County Airport, AR......................  Airport relocation
San Francisco International Airport, CA........  Site and engineering studies
Saratoga County Airport, NY....................  Construction of runway
Schroon Lake Airport, NY.......................  Construction of apron and taxiway
Shreveport Regional Airport, LA................  Runway extension
Southcentral Alaska Float Plane Facility, AK...  Master plan and preliminary engineering and design
Spencer Airport, WV............................  Various improvements
Spokane International Airport, WA..............  Various improvements
St. Paul Airport, AK...........................  Runway improvements
Stanly County Airport, NC......................  Apron improvements & airport upgrades
Stennis International Airport, MS..............  Land acquisition, apron expansion, & various improvements
Stillwater Airport, OK.........................  Runway & taxiway extension
Stockton Metropolitan Airport, CA..............  Various improvements
Sullivan County International Airport, NY......  Construction of apron & taxiway
Summersville Airport, WV.......................  Various improvements
Ticonderoga Municipal Airport, NY..............  Reconstruction of runway
Toledo Express Airport, OH.....................  Airport expansion & cargo parking apron
Tri-State/Walker-Long Field, WV................  Various improvements
Troy Municipal Airport, AL.....................  Security and safety improvements
Tulsa International Airport, OK................  Terminal & baggage claim improvements
Tunicia Municipal Airport, MS..................  Design, planning, & construction
Tyler Pounds Field, TX.........................  Terminal (phase III) & building lighting facilities
Unalaska Airport, AK...........................  Runway extension
Upper Cumberland Regional Airport, TN..........  Apron expansion
Upshur County Regional Airport, WV.............  Runway extension
Valley International Airport, TX...............  Land acquisition, road relocation
Washington Dulles International, VA............  Various improvements
Waynesboro Municipal Airport, MS...............  Runway extension
Welch Municipal Airport, WV....................  Various improvements
Westchester County Airport, NY.................  Design & construction of deicing facility
Wheeling-Ohio County Airport, WV...............  Various improvements
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, PA  Various improvements
William B Hartsfield-Atlanta International, GA.  Runway extension
Williamsport Airport, PA.......................  Runway extension
Wilmington International Airport, NC...........  Land acquisition for runway & taxiway widening
Winfield Airport, WV...........................  Various improvements
Wittman Field, WI..............................  Land acquisition
Wood County/Gill Robb Wilson Field, WV.........  Various improvements
Yeager Airport, WV.............................  Various improvements
Zanesville Municipal Airport, OH...............  Runway resurfacing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indianapolis International Airport, IN.--The Committee 
commends the FAA for technical assistance provided in the 
development of the mid-field terminal project at Indianapolis 
International Airport. The Committee urges the FAA to give full 
and fair consideration to requests for discretionary funding 
for the construction of the new passenger terminal complex, 
including taxiways, air traffic control tower, aprons, and 
associated lighting, marking and drainage improvements to 
support the relocated terminal complex.
    Charleston International Airport, SC.--The Committee urges 
the FAA to give full and fair consideration to requests for 
discretionary funding for the expansion of vehicle parking 
capacity at the airport. Continued expansion of the existing 
flat lot will result in unreasonable walking distances for 
passengers; therefore, a vertical deck is required.
    Noise mitigation.--The Committee is aware of the recent 
agreement between the FAA, the Port of Seattle, the Highline 
School District and the State of Washington to fund and 
undertake noise mitigation activities and improvements to 15 
schools in the Highline School District. Given the longstanding 
need to address the negative impact of noise on children in the 
Highline school system, the Committee commends FAA's critical 
role in helping all parties reach this agreement and expects 
the FAA to expeditiously commit funds and assistance to this 
effort.

                           LETTERS OF INTENT

    Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI's] to 
fund multiyear airport improvement projects that will 
significantly enhance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also 
to consider a project's benefits and costs in determining 
whether to approve it for AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of 
committing to LOI's no more than about 50 percent of forecasted 
discretionary funds allocated for capacity, safety, security, 
and noise projects. The Committee viewed this policy as 
reasonable because it gave FAA the flexibility to fund other 
worthy projects that do not fall under a LOI. Both FAA and 
airport authorities have found letters of intent helpful in 
planning and funding airport development.
    Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport.--Hartsfield 
Atlanta International Airport is undertaking the construction 
of a critical 5th runway in order to relieve congestion at the 
world's busiest airport which is expected to experience a 28 
percent growth rate in the next 10 years. According to the 
recently released FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark Report, 
Hartsfield exceeds its capacity for more than eight hours a day 
during bad weather. The new runway will increase capacity by 58 
(37 percent) additional operations in good weather and 45 (34 
percent) additional operations in bad weather. At a cost of 
more than $1,000,000,000, the Hartsfield 5th runway is one of 
the most expensive runways in the nation since the additional 
runway must cross an interstate. Local officials are carrying 
over 80 percent of the cost and are seeking a $171,000,000 
Letter of Intent (LOI) over 10 years from the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP) funds to cover the cost of this 
critical capacity project. Therefore, the Committee strongly 
recommends that the FAA give priority consideration to this 
important funding request.
    Piedmont Triad International Airport (Greensboro, High 
Point, Winston-Salem, North Carolina).--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to 
the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's application for a Letter 
of Intent for construction of a parallel runway (5L-23R), and 
related improvements described in the Authority's application 
which are necessary to integrate this new runway into existing 
facilities. The Committee is informed that substantial safety, 
capacity and economic benefits will accrue from the completion 
of this project.

                             ADMINISTRATION

    The bill provides that, within the overall obligation 
limitation, $64,957,000 is available for administration of the 
airports program by the FAA and airport technology research.
    The Committee recommendation includes $7,547,000 for 
Airport Technology Research. The program is included in AIP for 
fiscal year 2002 as the research directly supports improvements 
in airport safety, capacity, and efficiency. The research is 
directed at mitigation of wildlife strike hazards to aircraft, 
improvement of airport rescue and firefighting, improvement of 
airport lighting and marking, reduction in runway incursions, 
and improvement in airport pavement and design. It also 
includes funding for the 18 FTE in the Airport Technology 
Branch at the William J. Hughes Technical Center and continued 
operation of the pavement test facility at the Technical 
Center.

         Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program

Appropriations, 2001....................................................
Budget estimate, 2002...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ \1\ $20,000,000

\1\ Funded within the Federal Aviation Administration.

    The Committee bill includes $20,000,000 for the Small 
Community Air Service Development Pilot Program authorized by 
section 203 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and 
Reform Act for the 21st Century. The program is designed to 
improve air service to underutilized airports in small and 
rural communities. The total number of communities or groups of 
communities that can participate in the program is limited to 
no more than 4 from any one State and no more than 40 overall. 
The program gives priority to communities that have high air 
fares, will contribute a local share of the cost, will 
establish a public-private partnership to facilitate airline 
service, and where assistance will provide benefits to a broad 
segment of the traveling public.

                           general provisions

    Second career training program.--The Committee has included 
bill language which was included in the President's budget 
request which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the 
second career training program. This prohibition has been 
carried in annual appropriations acts for many years.
    Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision, first 
included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which 
prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those 
cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This 
provision is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal 
years 1995-2000. It was requested by the administration for 
fiscal year 2002.
    Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee 
has retained bill language which was requested by the 
administration to prohibit the use of funds for operating a 
manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous 
United States. There is no funding provided in the 
``Operations'' account for such stations in fiscal year 2002.
    Facilitating Environmental Reviews to Increase Airport 
Capacity.--The bill authorizes the Federal Aviation 
Administration (sec. 335) to use funds from airport sponsors, 
including the airport's ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports'' 
entitlement funds, for the hiring of additional staff or for 
obtaining services of consultants for the purpose of 
facilitating environmental activities related to airport 
projects that add critical airport capacity to the national air 
transportation system.
    FAA Facilities on Airport Property.--The bill includes a 
provision (sec. 340) that prohibits funds in this Act to be 
used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport 
sponsors to provide the Federal Aviation Administration 
``without cost'' buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA 
services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations 
between FAA 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.
    Southeast Louisiana Regional Airport.--The Committee notes 
that substantial Federal investments have already been made in 
the New Orleans International Airport and the Baton Rouge 
Metropolitan Airport. Accordingly, the Committee has included 
language (sec. 336) that would prohibit the use of funds made 
available in this Act from being used to further any efforts 
toward developing a new regional airport for southeast 
Louisiana until a comprehensive plan is submitted by a 
commission of stakeholders to the Administrator of the Federal 
Aviation Administration and that plan, as approved by the 
Administrator, is submitted to and approved by both the Senate 
and House Committees on Appropriations. The commission of 
stakeholders is to be comprised of one representative from each 
of the following entities: the Louisiana Airport Authority, the 
New Orleans Aviation Board, the Greater Baton Rouge Airport 
District, Orleans Parish, Jefferson Parish, St. Charles Parish, 
St. John the Baptist Parish, St. James Parish, Ascension 
Parish, Iberville Parish, and East Baton Rouge Parish. The 
comprehensive plan shall analyze the feasibility of building a 
new regional airport for southeast Louisiana. This analysis 
shall consider future demand and existing capacity of the New 
Orleans International Airport and the Baton Rouge Metropolitan 
Airport. If a new airport is recommended, the plan shall 
propose a site, estimate total project costs and benefits, and 
identify funding sources with projected contribution 
percentages from each source. Additionally, if a new airport is 
recommended, the plan shall also analyze the impact of a new 
airport on the existing New Orleans International Airport and 
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, and identify the short and 
long term roles of these existing airports and the proposed new 
airport.
    Mandatory separation for controllers.--The bill includes a 
provision (sec. 337) that allows air traffic controllers, 
covered under the Civil Service Retirement System, who reach 
the age of 56 years to work until they have completed their 20 
years of service. The Civil Service Retirement System allows 
other groups who are covered under mandatory separation 
requirements, such as firefighters and law enforcement 
officers, to continue working until they have completed their 
20 years of service unless the Secretary determines such action 
would compromise safety. This provision targets a limited 
population of air traffic control specialists that, due to 
unusual circumstances, would not qualify for an annuity upon 
mandatory separation from the air traffic controller 
profession.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                 (RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

    The bill includes a rescission of $301,720,000 in contract 
authority. This budget authority was made available in Public 
Law 106-181 for prior fiscal years. However, since such funds 
were above the obligation limitation for those years, they are 
not available for obligation and are therefore available for 
rescission. This recommendation will have no programmatic 
impact, since the funding is not currently available for use in 
the AIP program.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

    The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration 
is to, in partnership with State and local governments, foster 
the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway and 
intermodal system nationwide including access to and within 
National Forests, National Parks, Indian Lands and other public 
lands.
    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $32,873,695,000 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2002. The 
following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, 
the fiscal year 2002 program request and the Committee's 
recommendations:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                             Program                               2001 program     2002 budget   recommendation
                                                                       level         estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways limitation \1\ \2\.........................     29,661,806      31,563,157      31,919,103
    Limitation on administrative expenses \2\...................       (295,119)       (317,693)       (316,521)
Exempt Federal-aid obligations..................................      1,068,926         954,592         954,592
Emergency relief supplemental obligations.......................        729,452   ..............  ..............
Appalachian Development Highway System..........................        279,963          ( \3\ )        350,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     31,730,769      32,518,157      33,224,103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program.
\2\ Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.
\3\ Requested within Federal-aid Highway limitation on obligations.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................    $295,119,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\...............................     317,693,000
Committee recommendation \2\............................     316,521,000

\1\ Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public 
Law 106-554.
\2\ Funding for motor carrier administration expenses is included as a 
separate limitation in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

    The limitation on administrative expenses controls spending 
for virtually all the salaries and expenses of the Federal 
Highway Administration. The Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century changed the funding source for the highway 
research accounts from the administrative takedown of the 
Federal-Aid Highway Program to individual contract authority 
provisions. The Committee recommends a limitation of 
$316,521,000.
    The following table reflects the fiscal year 2001 level, 
the 2002 level requested by the administration, and the 
Committee's recommendation:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                           Program                                                2002 budget     recommendation
                                                                2001 level \1\      estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses:
    Salaries and benefits....................................          210,748          222,094          221,594
    Travel...................................................            9,473            9,473            9,473
    Transportation...........................................              465              465              465
    GSA rent.................................................           16,537           20,621           20,621
    Communications, rent, and utilities......................            9,857            9,857            9,857
    Printing.................................................            1,512            1,512            1,512
    TASC.....................................................            6,621            7,025            7,025
    Supplies.................................................            2,000            2,000            2,000
    Equipment................................................            4,736            7,265            4,736
    NDGPS....................................................        \2\ 6,000            6,000            6,000
    Other....................................................           32,521           37,381           33,238
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................          294,470          317,693          316,521
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $649,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Reflects fiscal year 2001 appropriation in FAA facilities and equipment.

    Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$316,521,000 for this appropriation. The reduction to the 
budget estimate were made for lack of adequate justification 
and are made without prejudice. The Committee recommendation 
for administrative expenses provides FHWA the flexibility to 
allocate the appropriation among such expenses as ADP, 
permanent change of station, travel, transportation, salaries 
and benefits consistent with the other recommendations in the 
report. The Committee notes that the on-board workforce is 200 
FTE below authorized levels for fiscal year 2002 which should 
provide ample flexibility to execute the program within the 
appropriated level.
    The Committee recommends the following items be funded 
under section 104(a)(1)(A): $7,000,000 for motor carrier 
research and technology to support ongoing research and 
technology efforts in the areas of driver, both commercial and 
non-commercial; carriers; and vehicle; $11,000,000 for the 
motor carrier crash data improvement program, the commercial 
driver's license program and to staff FMCSA's 24-hour toll-free 
hotline for reporting safety violations. The programs were 
requested under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's limitation on administrative expenses.
    Incidental Appurtenances For Recreational Vehicles.--The 
Committee notes that the Federal Highway Administration issued 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR 50471) for excluding 
devices from the measurement of commercial vehicle length and 
width. The Committee recognizes that recreational vehicles may 
have incidental appurtenances, such as retractable awnings, 
which may exceed the Federal width limitation when transported 
commercially from the manufacturer to the dealer or to a 
recreational vehicle show. A number of States have enacted, and 
more are working to enact, laws that allow incidental 
appurtenances on noncommercial recreational vehicles to exceed 
State width limitations. The Committee encourages the FHWA 
Administrator to include in its final rule an allowance within 
reasonable safety limitations for the commercial transport of 
these recreational vehicles with appurtenances.
    Child passenger protection education grants.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $7,500,000 to continue providing 
grants, as authorized under section 2003(b) of TEA21, that 
train safety professionals on all aspects of proper child 
restraint use and educate the public on the installation, 
selection, and placement of child safety seats. The Committee 
commends NHTSA and its private sector partners for the progress 
made in training child passenger safety technicians and the 
local law enforcement and fire and rescue departments in 
jurisdictions throughout the Nation that have embraced this 
training to prevent children from sustaining serious injuries 
or death in motor vehicle crashes that could be avoided with 
the correct use of safety seats and seat belts.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2001 \1\

                                                         $29,661,806,000

Budget estimate, 2002

                                                          31,563,157,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          31,919,103,000

\1\ Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public 
Law 106-554.

    The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 2002 Federal-aid highways obligations to $31,919,103,000, 
an increase of $2,257,297,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level and $355,946,000 over the budget request.
    The obligation limitation for the Federal-aid highways 
program included in this bill includes $4,543,000,000 in 
obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority. 
TEA21 provides for an automatic increase 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 exceeds estimates of income 
to the trust fund that were made at the time TEA21 was enacted. 
Under law, a determination of the size of this increase in so-
called ``firewall'' spending levels is made in the President's 
budget submission. TEA21 calls for any such increases in budget 
authority to be distributed proportionately among Federal-aid 
highways apportioned and allocated programs, and for the 
overall Federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an 
equal amount, and certain amounts to be distributed to the 
motor carrier safety grants program of the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration.
    The budget request proposes to allocate most of this 
additional obligation authority in fiscal year 2002 as 
prescribed in TEA21. However, under the budget request 
$45,000,000 would be for a pilot program that promotes 
innovative transportation solutions for people with 
disabilities, $100,000,000 would be available for a matching 
grant program to promote access to alternative methods of 
transportation, and $56,300,000 would be for infrastructure 
improvements and new construction of State border inspection 
facilities. As structured in the budget request, the funding 
for these three new initiatives serves to divert funds that the 
States would otherwise receive for their highway construction 
program.
    The Committee bill takes an alternative approach in funding 
the Federal Aid Highway program. Rather than allow the 
Administration's new initiatives to divert funds from critical 
construction projects, the Committee bill funds these 
initiatives while simultaneously increasing the overall highway 
obligation ceiling to a level that exceeds the President's 
request by more than $350,000,000 and exceeds the TEA21 
``guarantee'' level by more than $200,000,000. In so doing, the 
Committee has ensured that the inclusion of funding for the 
Administration's new initiatives does not cause any State to 
receive less funding than it would receive under TEA21. The 
following table shows the distribution of highway funds 
apportioned to the States under three scenarios: the 
President's budget, the TEA21 ``guarantee'' level, and the 
Committee bill.

   ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2002 DISTRIBUTIONS OF OBLIGATION AUTHORITY INCLUDING REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
                                                     (RABA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 PRESIDENT'S                        COMMITTEE
                            STATES                                  BUDGET           TEA21        RECOMMENDATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA......................................................     $566,511,257     $574,827,776     $577,421,616
ALASKA.......................................................      324,269,096      328,940,873      330,068,374
ARIZONA......................................................      476,186,349      483,272,351      485,296,910
ARKANSAS.....................................................      369,931,009      375,335,782      377,007,862
CALIFORNIA...................................................    2,575,356,363    2,613,436,166    2,625,371,789
COLORADO.....................................................      331,829,877      336,803,854      338,367,119
CONNECTICUT..................................................      418,735,856      424,857,291      426,604,579
DELAWARE.....................................................      123,731,983      125,597,446      126,156,512
DIST. OF COL.................................................      111,232,620      112,905,811      113,461,761
FLORIDA......................................................    1,315,964,047    1,335,314,821    1,340,727,168
GEORGIA......................................................      993,260,885    1,007,842,452    1,012,084,040
HAWAII.......................................................      143,636,258      145,749,736      146,396,732
IDAHO........................................................      213,144,293      216,207,782      217,132,444
ILLINOIS.....................................................      940,718,957      954,584,798      958,973,791
INDIANA......................................................      684,089,673      694,124,843      697,056,932
IOWA.........................................................      335,934,637      340,935,302      342,544,279
KANSAS.......................................................      327,546,106      332,420,255      333,998,171
KENTUCKY.....................................................      502,204,627      509,616,053      511,902,994
LOUISIANA....................................................      452,090,581      458,744,179      460,828,129
MAINE........................................................      148,115,406      150,296,194      150,965,783
MARYLAND.....................................................      450,456,522      457,141,037      459,221,107
MASSACHUSETTS................................................      521,389,676      529,010,797      531,382,806
MICHIGAN.....................................................      897,902,206      911,099,796      915,086,478
MINNESOTA....................................................      416,823,370      422,952,733      424,903,997
MISSISSIPPI..................................................      359,469,679      364,785,349      366,433,631
MISSOURI.....................................................      674,762,726      684,712,687      687,857,328
MONTANA......................................................      274,978,039      279,067,519      280,191,315
NEBRASKA.....................................................      218,374,158      221,682,069      222,730,540
NEVADA.......................................................      201,004,225      203,981,546      204,845,632
NEW HAMPSHIRE................................................      143,859,654      145,954,414      146,607,934
NEW JERSEY...................................................      744,416,758      755,388,010      758,848,367
NEW MEXICO...................................................      274,300,109      278,349,735      279,567,454
NEW YORK.....................................................    1,431,997,998    1,452,991,989    1,459,524,558
NORTH CAROLINA...............................................      784,611,105      796,163,503      799,597,222
NORTH DAKOTA.................................................      183,292,508      186,051,055      186,888,899
OHIO.........................................................      953,452,799      967,530,840      971,945,447
OKLAHOMA.....................................................      431,826,535      438,264,878      440,305,534
OREGON.......................................................      343,975,034      348,986,794      350,610,314
PENNSYLVANIA.................................................    1,402,932,188    1,423,214,880    1,429,841,991
RHODE ISLAND.................................................      166,909,740      169,397,262      170,141,877
SOUTH CAROLINA...............................................      471,171,962      478,115,699      480,130,208
SOUTH DAKOTA.................................................      202,904,761      205,868,131      206,798,300
TENNESSEE....................................................      642,143,249      651,607,025      654,553,557
TEXAS........................................................    2,129,063,307    2,160,512,571    2,169,688,601
UTAH.........................................................      218,330,009      221,562,282      222,596,372
VERMONT......................................................      127,800,270      129,716,683      130,304,157
VIRGINIA.....................................................      721,735,421      732,406,462      735,639,679
WASHINGTON...................................................      498,001,860      505,357,221      507,717,553
WEST VIRGINIA................................................      315,004,203      319,563,087      321,079,763
WISCONSIN....................................................      551,294,746      559,402,290      561,790,930
WYOMING......................................................      195,809,021      198,756,810      199,678,939
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL..................................................   28,304,483,718   28,721,408,919   28,848,877,475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

    The roads and bridges that make up our nation's highway 
infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the 
joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States 
have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best 
meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA's 
assistance and oversight.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), 
the highway, highway safety, and transit authorization through 
fiscal year 2003 makes funds available in the following major 
categories:
    National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized the 
National Highway System (NHS), which was subsequently 
established as a 163,000-mile road system by the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This system serves 
major population centers, intermodal transportation facilities, 
international border crossings, and major destinations. It is 
comprised of all interstate routes, selected urban and 
principal rural arterials, defense highways, and major highway 
connectors carrying up to 76 percent of commercial truck 
traffic and 44 percent of all vehicle traffic. A State may 
transfer up to half of its NHS funds to the Surface 
Transportation program (STP) and all NHS funds with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation. The Federal 
share of the NHS is an 80 percent match and funds remain 
available for 4 fiscal 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.
    All remaining Federal funding to complete the initial 
construction of the interstate system has been provided through 
previous highway legislation. The TEA21 provides flexibility to 
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of 
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no 
remaining work to complete the Interstate System may transfer 
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their Interstate 
Maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on 
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish 
Interstate Construction fund eligibility for the work and 
transfer the Federal share of the cost to their Interstate 
Maintenance program.
    Funds provided for the Interstate maintenance discretionary 
program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the 
following activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount

Brent Spence Bridge replacement I-75/I-71, Kentucky.....      $2,000,000
I-15 reconstruction, Utah...............................      10,000,000
I-25 Broadway & Alameda Interchanges, Colorado..........       6,000,000
I-44 Fenton industrial corridor improvements in St. 
    Louis County, Missouri..............................       5,000,000
I-470 reconstruction and removal of bridges, Missouri...       8,000,000
I-65 & Valley Dale Road interchange, Alabama............      10,000,000
I-70 improvements from CBD to northside, Missouri.......       5,000,000
I-70/MD85/MD355 intersection reconstruction, Maryland...      12,000,000
I-79 Bridgeport to Meadowbrook Road, Harrison County, 
    West Virginia.......................................      12,000,000
I-80 widening & reconstruction in Johnson County, Iowa..       8,129,000
I-81 South Martinsburg I/C Bridge, Berkeley County, West 
    Virginia............................................       8,000,000
I-95 Northern Maine.....................................       6,000,000
Pearl River Bridge--I-55 Connector, Mississippi.........      11,000,000
Woodall Rodgers Extension Bridge, Texas.................      10,000,000

    Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation 
program (STP) is a very flexible program that may be used by 
the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that 
are not functionally classified as local or rural minor 
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as 
Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are 
not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public 
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this 
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the 
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee 
funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds. 
Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used 
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety 
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50 
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and 
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of 
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an 
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts 
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor 
collectors. The Federal share for the STP program is 80 percent 
with a 4-year availability period.
    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This 
program is continued by the TEA21 to provide assistance for 
bridges on public roads, including a discretionary set-aside 
for high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges. 
Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to 
the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is 
deducted from the national bridge needs used in the program's 
apportionment formula for the following year.
    At least 15 percent, but not more than 35 percent, of a 
State's apportioned bridge funds must be spent on bridges not 
on the Federal-aid system.
    Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in 
fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following 
activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount

Antelope Valley Overpass Bridge, Nebraska...............      $1,000,000
Avis Overhead Bridge WV107, West Virginia...............       6,183,000
Cooper River Bridge, South Carolina.....................      15,000,000
Covered Bridges, Section 1224 of TEA21..................      10,000,000
Golden Gate Bridge seismic retrofit program, California.       3,500,000
Hoan Bridge rehabilitation, Wisconsin...................      15,000,000
Hood Canal Bridge replacement, Washington...............       5,967,000
I-195 Washington Bridge, Rhode Island...................       5,000,000
Missisquoi Bay Bridge, Vermont..........................       5,000,000
James Rumsey Bridge WV480, West Virginia................      11,680,000
Lafourche Parish-Leeville Bridge, Louisiana.............       3,000,000
Metro Parks Zoo Historic Bridge replacement, Ohio.......       2,000,000
Missouri River Bridge approach from Route 74, Missouri..       1,300,000
Route 13 Bridge between Route 10 & Ray County, Missouri.       2,000,000
Sand Island Bridge resurfacing, Hawaii..................       5,000,000
SR-240 Yakima Bridge replacement, Washington............       5,000,000
US-81 Missouri River Bridge PE, South Dakota............       1,000,000
Wacker Drive Disc Bridge reconstruction, Illinois.......       8,000,000
Waldo-Hancock Suspension Bridge replacement, Maine......       7,000,000

    National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Program.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for the covered 
bridge program within the funds made available for the 
discretionary bridge program.
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
program.--This program provides funds to States to improve air 
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range 
of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT, 
after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help 
meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides 
greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and 
expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to 
reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate 
matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a State 
has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be 
used as if they were STP funds.
    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 regional emissions and verifying new mobile 
source control techniques.
    Federal lands highways.--This program provides 
authorizations through three major categories--Indian 
reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands 
highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways 
category)--as well as a new category for Federally-owned public 
roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife 
Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for 
improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.
    The Committee directs that the funds allocated for this 
program in this bill and in permanent law are to be derived 
from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and not 
from funds allocated to the National Park Service's regions. 
Funds provided for the Federal lands program in fiscal year 
2002 shall be available for the following activities:

        Project                                                   Amount

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge access road, Utah......        $500,000
Blackstone River Bikeway, Rhode Island..................       1,000,000
Blueberry Lake road improvements, Green Mountain 
    National Forest, VT.................................         750,000
Broughton Bridge over USACOE Milford Lake, Kansas.......       1,500,000
Chincoteague Wildlife Refuge access roads, Virginia.....       1,000,000
Metlakatla/Walden Point Road, AK........................       2,000,000
City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Idaho.................       2,000,000
Clark Fork River Bridge replacement, Idaho..............       3,000,000
Forkland Park Access Road improvements, Alabama.........         475,000
Fort Peck Lake public access road, Montana..............       1,000,000
Glade Creek Road & Brooklyn Road, New River Gorge 
    National River, West Virginia.......................       3,500,000
Highway 26, Oregon......................................       2,000,000
Hoover Bridge Bypass, Arizona...........................       8,000,000
Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Roadway project, North Dakota       1,500,000
Lewis & Clark Interpretive Center access road, Montana..       1,200,000
Little River Bridge in Pocahontas County, WV28, West 
    Virginia............................................         800,000
Shotgun Cove Road, Alaska...............................         650,000
Ramport Road, Alaska....................................         500,000
Little River Canyon National Reserve Road Improvements, 
    Alabama.............................................         500,000
Marshall County #10 & BIA #15 through Sica Hollow State 
    Park, South Dakota..................................         500,000
Mat-Su Borough/Wasilla, Alaska..........................         500,000
Miller Creek Road preliminary design & EIA, Montana.....       5,000,000
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and parking....         850,000
New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park Sign project, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         500,000
New Highway from North Dakota to Idaho, Montana.........       1,000,000
Noxubee River Bridge replacement & access route, 
    Mississippi.........................................       1,300,000
Route 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass, New Mexico.................       1,000,000
Sand Point Road Improvement, Alaska.....................       1,500,000
SD-63 Corson County reconstruction, South Dakota........       5,000,000
SH-149 Rio Grande National Forest resurfacing, Colorado.       3,500,000
Statewide Improvements, Hawaii..........................       6,000,000
US-3 & Acadia National Park Road improvement, Maine.....       1,000,000
US-30 Morrison/Whiteside county expansion, Illinois.....       1,000,000
USA-95 Laughlin cut-off to RR Pass widening, Nevada.....       9,000,000
Wind Cave National Park Highway  resurfacing, South 
    Dakota..............................................       1,500,000
Clark's River National Wildlife, Kentucky...............       2,200,000
Wood River Road upgrades, Alaska........................         800,000
Yellowstone & Missouri Rivers, & Fort Union Trading Post 
    Bike Trail, North Dakota............................         500,000

    Revenue Aligned Budget Authority.--TEA21 provides that 
guaranteed funding levels for the Federal-aid highways and 
highway safety programs are adjusted to reflect revised receipt 
estimates for the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. In 
conjunction with this adjustment, section 110 of Title 23, 
entitled Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), authorizes 
contract authority in an amount equal to the additional 
obligation limitation. This follows through on the TEA21 
philosophy that highway program funding levels are linked to 
receipts to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund.
    In fiscal year 2002, the RABA adjustment is $4,543,000,000. 
The budget request proposes to reallocate and set-aside 
$145,000,000 for the New Freedom initiative and $56,300,000 to 
support State border infrastructure construction.
    The Committee allocation increases the Federal highway 
obligation limitation above the President's budget estimate by 
$355,946,000. This was done so the Committee allocation could 
fund the New Freedom initiative and the additional border 
infrastructure investments articulated in the budget estimate 
while still providing for all States to receive more under the 
Committee recommendation than under the budget estimate or 
under the TEA21 distribution.
    Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, 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, $2,800,000,000 nationally is available to the 
States as though they are STP funds (except that requirements 
related to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, 
and sub-State allocations do not apply), and any remaining 
amounts are distributed among core highway programs.
    Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and 
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned 
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of 
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA21 restates the 
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds 
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential 
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting 
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect 
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds 
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds 
from other highway programs.
    Emergency Relief Highways.--The Committee is aware that, 
under the Federal-aid Highway Program, the Emergency Relief 
Program will be replenished with $100,000,000 on October 1, 
2001. This replenishment will take place whether or not the 
Transportation Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2002 is 
enacted by that date. The Committee directs the Federal Highway 
Administrator to be especially attentive to the timely 
processing of applications stemming from recent Federal 
disasters including recent floods in Southern West Virginia.
    High priority projects.--TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority 
projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects 
totals $9,500,000,000 over the 6 year period with a specified 
percentage of the project funds made available each year. 
Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA21 
high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid 
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated 
with the projects does not expire.
    National corridor planning and border infrastructure 
programs.--TEA21 created a national corridor planning and 
development program that identifies funds for planning, design, 
and construction of highway 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 
outlined in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure 
program is established to improve the safe movement of people 
and goods at or across the U.S./Mexico and U.S/Canada borders.

        Project                                                   Amount

Alameda corridor east construction project, California..      $5,000,000
Border Inspection Stations..............................      56,300,000
Coalfields Expressway, West Virginia....................      16,000,000
Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel EIS, New York...............       5,000,000
East-West Highway, Maine................................       5,000,000
Everett Development, 41st Street Overpass project, 
    Washington..........................................       1,500,000
FAST Corridor, Tacoma to Everett, Washington............      20,000,000
Highway 20 Freeport bypass review, design, & 
    engineering, Illinois...............................       1,100,000
Highway 61, Ave. of the Saints interchange, Moscow 
    Mills, Missouri.....................................       3,000,000
I-29 construction from Exit 81 North to South of I-90 at 
    Sioux Falls, South Dakota...........................      14,000,000
I-49 South from Lafayette east to Westbank, Louisiana...      17,181,000
I-5 Trade Corridor, Oregon..............................       6,000,000
I-69 Great River Bridge, Arkansas.......................      10,000,000
I-69 construction Odom Road to I-55, Mississippi........      12,000,000
I-69 corridor, Louisiana................................      12,000,000
I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana................       5,000,000
I-85 extension to I-59/20, Alabama......................       5,000,000
I-90/94 new by-pass to Highway 3 EIS, Montana...........       5,000,000
I-905 Otay Mesa Border Port of Entry, California........      10,000,000
King Coal Highway, West Virginia........................      20,000,000
North/South transitway Charlotte/Mecklenburg, North 
    Carolina............................................       5,000,000
Northern Border Cascadia Program of Projects, Washington       3,500,000
Route 10, West Virginia.................................      15,000,000
Route 71 McDonald County, Missouri......................       8,000,000
SR-67 between I-110 & US-49, Mississippi................      12,000,000
State border safety inspection facilities, Texas........      15,000,000
Tuscaloosa Eastern Bypass from I-59 to Rice Mine Road, 
    Ala- 
    bama................................................      20,000,000
US-15 expansion from Pennsylvania to Presho, New York...       4,000,000
US-151 expansion Dickeyville & Dodgeville, Wisconsin....       6,000,000
US-2 planning & construction, New Hampshire.............       1,500,000
US-278 Beaufort County widening project, South Carolina.       6,000,000
US-395 North Spokane Corridor, Washington...............       7,000,000
US-49--I-55 flyover, Mississippi........................       3,000,000
US-63 improvements for Corridor 39, Arkansas............      18,000,000
US-64/87 Ports-to-Plains corridor study, New Mexico.....       1,000,000
US-95 improvements Milepost 522 to Canadian boarder, 
    Idaho...............................................      12,600,000
Yakima Grade Separation Program of Projects, Washington.       4,000,000

    Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of 
TEA21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats 
and ferry terminal facilities.
    Funds provided for the Ferry boats and ferry terminal 
facilities program under the Committee recommendation shall be 
available for the following activities in the corresponding 
amounts:
        Project                                                   Amount

Bainbridge-Seattle Ferry, dolphin replacement project, 
    Washing- 
    ton.................................................      $4,000,000
Baylink Ferry intermodal center, California.............       2,000,000
City of Brewer, Maine...................................       1,000,000
Cleveland Trans-Erie Ferry Service, Ohio................         800,000
Fishers Island Ferry District, Connecticut..............       1,000,000
Hatteras Inlet Ferry between Ocracoke Island & Outer 
    Banks, North Carolina...............................       1,500,000
High Speed Ferry & facility, New Bedford & Martha's 
    Vineyard, Massachusetts.............................       1,500,000
Inter-Island Ferry Authority, Coffman Cove, Alaska......       3,000,000
Jersey City Pier redevelopment & terminal construction, 
    New Jersey..........................................       2,000,000
Kings Point Ferry, Mississippi..........................         500,000
North Carolina State Ferry, North Carolina..............         689,000
Port of Rochester Harbor & Ferry Terminal improvements, 
    New York............................................       3,500,000
Station Square River Landing Boat Docks, Pennsylvania...       1,000,000
TEA21 Setaside..........................................      20,000,000
Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority Marina Ferry, Ohio...         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. 
The Committee recommendation provides $28,550,348 for this 
program in fiscal year 2002. Funds provided for the national 
scenic byways program shall be available for the following 
activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount

Lewis and Clark Northwest Passages--US-12 in Nez Perce 
    and Lewis Counties, Idaho...........................      $2,000,000
Program of Projects, Washington.........................       2,683,767
Program of Projects, West Virginia......................       6,599,062
Route 29 Scenic Byway improvements between I-295 to 
    Frenchtown Borough Line, New Jersey.................       4,000,000
Seward Highway Millenium Trail improvements, Alaska.....       5,000,000
Talladega Scenic Highway, Alabama.......................       5,000,000

    West Virginia Program of Projects, National Scenic Byways 
program.--The Committee provides $6,599,062 to the State of 
West Virginia for Section 1219 National Scenic Byways program. 
The Committee expects the following projects to be funded: (1) 
$20,000 for Washington Heritage Trail Seed Grant; (2) $25,000 
for Midland Trail CMP Implementation; (3) $87,160 for 
Washington Heritage Trail Map/Guide; (4) $115,280 for West 
Virginia Byways and Backways Program; (5) $19,000 for Promoting 
Treasures within the Mountains II; (6) $8,000 for Little 
Kanawha/Cedar Creek Brochure; (7) $204,000 for Beverly Byway 
Center; (8) $99,432 for Cranberry Mountain Nature Center; (9) 
$28,570 for Mountain Waters Byway Project #1; (10) $96,800 for 
Little Kanawha Byway Rathbone Phase II; (11) $145,808 for 
General Andrew Lewis Park; (12) $8,000 for improvements to 
Virginia's Chapel; (13) $22,640 for SP Turnpike Walking Tour; 
(14) $3,973,244 for Fayette Station Road Improvements; (15) 
$150,128 for Fayette Station Road Interpretation; (16) 
$1,596,000 for Booker T. Washington Institute.
    Washington State Program of Projects, National Scenic 
Byways program.--The Committee provides $2,683,767 to the State 
of Washington for Section 1219 National Scenic Byways program. 
The Committee expects the following projects to be funded : (1) 
$790,680 for North Pend Oreille Scenic Byway--Sweet Creek Falls 
interpretive trail project; (2) $112,800 to Construct Diablo 
Lake Overlook Facility; (3) $88,000 for Oakcreek Wildlife Byway 
interpretive site project; (4) $190,730 for Paden Creek visitor 
and salmon access; (5) $1,397,557 for Northeast Peninsula 
safety facility; (6) $64,000 for Byway interpretive center 
Design at Federation Forest; (7) $40,000 for SR 231 Corridor 
Management Plan.

    Transportation and community and system preservation pilot 
program.--TEA21 created 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 projects. These grants may be used to 
improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce 
transportation externalities and the need for future 
infrastructure investment, and improve transportation 
efficiency and access consistent with community character. 
Funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2002 shall be 
available for the following activities:

        Project                                                   Amount

Everett Development Project, Track Replacement, 
    Washington..........................................      $3,700,000
Alkali Creek Bike/Pedestrian Trail, Montana.............         500,000
Buffalo City inner harbor & waterfront development, New 
    York................................................       1,570,000
Casper Second Street Extension, Wyoming.................       1,000,000
Cedar Rapids Edgewood Road Project, Iowa................       3,000,000
Charles Town Streetscape improvements & welcome center, 
    West Virginia.......................................         400,000
Charleston Renaissance Project, West Virginia...........         600,000
Chester Waterfront Development Streetscape, Pennsylvania         500,000
Church Street Marketplace in Burlington, Vermont........       1,500,000
City of Elk Point bike/pedestrian trail system, South 
    Dakota..............................................         200,000
City of Tea bike/pedestrian path, South Dakota..........          50,000
Claymont Transportation Project, Delaware...............         100,000
Colombia Harden Street improvements, South Carolina.....       5,000,000
Concord 20/20 Vision Program, New Hampshire.............         500,000
Crowley Historic Parkerson Avenue redevelopment, 
    Louisiana...........................................         500,000
Cullman County pedestrian walkway, Alabama..............         100,000
East Chicago Railroad Avenue Project, Indiana...........       1,000,000
Farrington safety enhancements, Hawaii..................       2,000,000
Grand Forks Greenway trail system, North Dakota.........       1,000,000
Henderson downtown street widening, North Carolina......       1,000,000
Henderson Riverfront Project, Kentucky..................       1,000,000
Highway 61 from KY487 to Columbia PE/Design, Kentucky...       1,000,000
Kenai River Trail, Alaska...............................         500,000
Lewisburg Comprehensive Transportation Plan, West 
    Virginia............................................         125,000
Lincoln Antelope Valley 16th Street overpass, Nebraska..       1,600,000
Littleton Integrated & Networked Community, New 
    Hampshire...........................................         750,000
Littleton Main Street pedestrian improvements, New 
    Hampshire...........................................       2,000,000
Los Angeles county bike path, California................       1,000,000
Macon Community Preservation, Georgia...................         200,000
Madison State Street project, Wisconsin.................       1,000,000
Maryville Downtown revitalization, Tennessee............       4,000,000
Metrowest Community Transportation pilot project, 
    Massachu- 
    setts...............................................         500,000
Montana Highway 2 feasibility project, Montana..........       1,000,000
Phalen Boulevard Project, St. Paul, Minnesota...........       1,600,000
Museum Campus Trolleys expanded service, Illinois.......         500,000
Mystic Streetscape Projects, Connecticut................       1,000,000
National Underground Railroad Freedon Center, Ohio......       3,000,000
Olympic Discovery Trail, Washington.....................       1,600,000
Palmer Railroad right-of-way, Alaska....................       1,100,000
Payette river Greenway Project, Idaho...................         105,000
Peachtree Corridor Project, Atlanta.....................       6,000,000
Prattville-Daniel Pratt Historic District development, 
    Alabama.............................................         500,000
Riverwinds Project in West Deptford, New Jersey.........         500,000
Route 101 Corridor study for Amherst, Milford, & Wilton, 
    New Hampshire.......................................         200,000
Route 3 upgrade PE between Franklina & Boscawen, New 
    Hampshire...........................................         100,000
Route 79 relocation & Harbor enhancements, Massachusetts       1,000,000
Saddle Road Improvement Project, Hawaii.................       4,000,000
Satsop Development Park road improvements, Washington...       1,500,000
Springfield Center City streetscape improvements, 
    Missouri............................................       1,000,000
SR-520 Coverings with Communities, Washington...........       1,000,000
St. Landry Road extension in Ascension Parish & I-10 
    link study, Louisiana...............................         500,000
Stockton Miracle Mile/Pacific Avenue resurfacing, 
    California..........................................       1,000,000
Strong Avenue improvements & rail relocation in Rutland, 
    Vermont.............................................       1,500,000
Sutherland, NE viaduct to UP Tracks & US-30, Nebraska...       2,000,000
Temple Street Reopening Project, Connecticut............       1,000,000
Trunk Highway 610/10 interchange at I-94, Minnesota.....       1,600,000
Tukwila Transit Oriented Development at Long Acres, 
    Washing- 
    ton.................................................       1,500,000
Tuscaloosa City Riverwalk & Parkway development, Alabama       1,000,000
Tuscaloosa Interdisciplinary Research Improvements, 
    Alabama.............................................       5,000,000
US-61 Woodville widening project, Mississippi...........         300,000
Waterford National Historic District, Virginia..........       1,000,000

    Statewide planning rules.--The Committee is concerned that 
the Department has yet to issue final regulations implementing 
Section 1204 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century. This section was intended to strengthen statewide 
planning by ensuring that all stakeholders--in metropolitan and 
non-metropolitan areas--are involved in the long-range 
transportation planning process. The Committee is aware that 
earlier this year the FHWA and FTA notified their field offices 
that despite the fact that new planning regulations have not 
been finalized, the requirements in TEA21 are in effect. The 
Committee does not believe that this guidance should serve as a 
substitute for the issuance of a final rule for metropolitan 
and statewide planning. The Committee directs the FHWA 
Administrator to submit a letter to the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees describing what actions the agency 
has taken to ensure that transportation officials from rural 
areas are being consulted in the long-range transportation 
planning process.
    Seattle, Washington.--The Federal Highway Administration is 
expected to continue working with the I-90 Steering Committee 
in Washington State to advance the R-8A alternative through the 
environmental review process.

                 Appalachian Development Highway System

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $279,963,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................         ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................     350,000,000

\1\ The budget estimate requests funding under the Federal-Aid Highway 
obligation limitation.

    The Committee recommendation includes $350,000,000 for the 
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). The amount 
provided is $70,037,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 
comparable level. The budget request assumes funding to be 
provided for the ADHS under the Federal-aid highway obligation 
ceiling. Funding for this initiative is authorized under 
section 1069(y) of Public Law 102-240--the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act. The ADHS program provides funds 
for the construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in 
the 13 States that comprise the Appalachian region. These 
highways, in many instances, are intended to replace some of 
the most deficient and dangerous segments of rural roadway in 
America.
    The accompanying bill includes a general provision (sec. 
331) providing $20,000,000 for surface transportation projects. 
Within the funding provided, $3,000,000 shall be available for 
interstate maintenance at I-405 Renton/Port Quendall, 
Washington; $5,000,000 for improvements to Titan Road, 
Colorado; $1,000,000 for the Owensboro Riverfront redevelopment 
project, Kentucky; and $2,000,000 for the Martinsburg 
Roundhouse redevelopment project in Martinsburg, West Virginia.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research

Limitation, 2001 \1\....................................................
Budget estimate, 2002 \1\ ..............................................
Committee recommendation................................  ($447,500,000)

\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2001 and requested in fiscal year 
2002 are assumed within the Federal aid highway obligation limitation in 
the budget request for fiscal year 2002.

    The limitation controls spending for the transportation 
research and technology programs of the FHWA. This limitation 
includes the intelligent transportation systems, surface 
transportation research, technology deployment, training and 
education, and university transportation research. The 
Committee recommendation provides an obligation limitation for 
transportation research of $447,500,000. This limitation is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consistent with the provisions of TEA21.

Surface transportation research.........................    $101,000,000
Technology deployment program...........................      45,000,000
Training and education..................................      19,000,000
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.....................      31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests, and 
    development.........................................     105,000,000
ITS deployment..........................................     120,000,000
University transportation research......................      26,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................     447,500,000

    Highway research and development.--The Committee 
appreciates the improvement in the justification accompanying 
the budget request and notes the presentation of the surface 
research estimate separate from the presentation of the 
technology deployment funding estimate. The Committee notes 
that FHWA is compiling a list of research and technology 
accomplishments and will be reporting to both the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations on how funds to advance 
research and development are being tracked separately from 
funds spent on technology deployment and assessment functions. 
The tracking of these expenses and a summary of the resulting 
accomplishments will help the Committee exercise oversight over 
the R&T; program. Within the funds provided for highway research 
and development under the surface transportation research 
program, the Committee recommends the following allocation 
consistent with the provisions of TEA21:

Environment, planning, and real estate..................     $15,558,000
Research and technology program support.................       8,510,000
International research..................................         500,000
Structures..............................................      14,250,000
Safety..................................................      14,619,000
Operations and asset management.........................      10,200,000
Pavements research......................................      13,753,000
Policy research.........................................       8,330,000
Long Term Pavement Project (LTTP).......................      10,000,000
Advanced Research.......................................       1,000,000
Other...................................................       4,280,000

    Environment, planning, and real estate.--The Committee 
recommends $15,558,000 for environment, planning, and real 
estate research, $31,000 more than the budget estimate and 
$5,258,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. 
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation 
includes $1,300,000 for the completion of the dust and 
persistent particulate abatement demonstration study at 
Kotzebue, Alaska.
    Research and technology program support.--The Committee 
recommends $8,510,000, a reduction of $750,000 from the budget 
estimate, and $7,610,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
appropriated level. The Committee recommendation includes 
$750,000 for the Center for Coastal Transportation Engineering 
Research at the University of South Alabama to develop civil 
engineering design of transportation facilities in 
environmentally sensitive coastal areas.
    International research.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $500,000 for international research activities, the 
amount authorized in TEA21, and a reduction of $700,000 from 
the budget estimate.
    Structures.--The Committee recommends $14,250,000 for 
structures research, an increase of $4,801,000 from the budget 
estimate. The funds provided will help the FHWA reduce 
deficiencies on National Highway System Bridges and should 
facilitate continued progress on high performance materials and 
engineering applications to design, repair, retrofit, inspect, 
and rehabilitate bridges. Within the funds provided, $1,500,000 
is for research into composite structure and related 
engineering research at West Virginia University; $850,000 is 
to conduct non-corrosive anti-icing projects in the Chicago 
region; $2,000,000 is for research conducted at the 
Transportation Research Center (TAC) at the Washington State 
University including non-destructive evaluation of bridges to 
determine load capacities, impacts of earthquakes mitigation on 
elevated highway structures and the development of advanced 
composite materials for bridges; and $500,000 is for the 
Electromagnetic Interrogation of Structures Project at the 
University of Vermont to develop wireless methods of assessing 
structure integrity.
    Safety.--The Committee recommendation provides $14,619,000 
for safety research activities consistent with the budget 
estimate. These funds will allow FHWA to continue to accelerate 
the substantial progress being made on technologies or 
strategies to reduce run-off-the-road crashes, improve night-
time driving, reduce the frequency of crashes at intersections, 
improve pedestrian safety, and develop and test the Interactive 
Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). The Committee understands 
that the IHSDM is ready for additional testing by State DOTs. 
The additional funds will expedite this process, and will also 
allow the use of the IHSDM to explore the safety implications 
of alternative designs. The Committee recommendation includes 
$500,000 to continue the research into the effectiveness of 
Freezefree anti-icing systems.
    Operations and asset management.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $10,200,000 for highway operations and 
asset management research activities, an increase of $5,000,000 
from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level, and $4,382,000 
less than the budget estimate.
    Pavements research.--The Committee recommends $13,753,000 
for highway pavement research, including work on asphalt, 
Portland cement concrete pavements, polymer additives, and 
recycled materials, $1,000,000 more than the budget estimate. 
Along with the funds provided for the LTPP, this appropriation 
will allow FHWA to undertake research projects to improve the 
quality of America's highway infrastructure. Within the funds 
provided, $1,000,000 is for a continuation of alkali silica 
reactivity research with lithium based technologies to mitigate 
alkali silica reactivity to prevent highway pavement cracking. 
In addition, the Committee supports funding for the Center for 
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology Research.
    Policy research.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$8,330,000, consistent with the budget estimate and an increase 
of $3,730,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level.
    Advanced research.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$1,000,000 for advanced research, consistent with the budget 
estimate. The Committee requests FHWA to review the advanced 
research program as it currently exists and to explore the role 
FHWA should play in sponsoring a more robust national effort 
that focuses on fundamental, long-term research. The results of 
this effort should be reflected in the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request or accompanying communications.
    Other.--The Committee supports the FHWA effort with AASHTO, 
TRB, among others in advancing a national R&T; agenda in the 
areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and 
mobility, planning and environment, and policy analysis and 
systems monitoring. The Committee recognizes the benefits of 
improved communication and coordination between key partners 
and stakeholders, and awaits completion of the synthesis report 
on the partnership initiative.
    ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, Development, 
and Deployment.--The Committee recommends that the $225,000,000 
authorized in TEA21 for ITS research and associated activities 
in fiscal year 2002 be allocated in the following manner:

Research and Development................................     $48,680,000
Operational Tests.......................................      12,930,000
Evaluation/Program Policy Assessment....................       7,750,000
Architecture and Standards..............................      15,290,000
Program Support.........................................       9,000,000
Integration.............................................      11,350,000
ITS Deployment Incentive Program........................     120,000,000

    Specified ITS deployment projects.--It is the intent of the 
Committee that the following projects contribute to the 
integration and interoperability for intelligent transportation 
systems in metropolitan and rural areas as provided under 
section 5208 of TEA21 and promote deployment of the commercial 
vehicle intelligent transportation system infrastructure as 
provided under section 5209 of TEA21. Funding for deployment 
activities are to be available as follows:

        Project                                                   Amount

Alaska Statewide........................................      $3,000,000
Arizona Statewide EMS...................................       1,000,000
Atlanta Metropolitan GRTA, Georgia......................       1,000,000
Central Ohio............................................       3,000,000
Chattanooga, Tennessee..................................       2,380,000
Clark County, Washington................................       1,000,000
Crash Notification, Alabama.............................       2,500,000
Delaware Statewide......................................       4,000,000
Detroit, Michigan (Airport).............................       4,500,000
Durham, Wake Counties, North Carolina...................       1,000,000
Fargo, North Dakota.....................................       1,500,000
Forsyth, Guilford Counties, North Carolina..............       2,000,000
Harrison County, Mississippi............................       1,000,000
Hawaii Statewide........................................       1,750,000
Illinois Statewide......................................       3,750,000
Indiana Statewide.......................................       1,500,000
Jackson Metropolitan, Mississippi.......................       1,000,000
Las Vegas, Nevada.......................................       3,000,000
Lexington, Kentucky.....................................       1,500,000
Macomb, Michigan (border crossing)......................       2,000,000
Maine Statewide (Rural).................................       1,000,000
Maryland Statewide......................................       2,000,000
Moscow, Idaho...........................................       2,000,000
Nebraska Statewide......................................       5,000,000
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut (TRANSCOM)............       7,000,000
North Greenbush, New York...............................       2,000,000
Pennsylvania Statewide (Turnpike).......................       1,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Drexel).....................       3,000,000
Rutland, Vermont........................................       1,200,000
Sacramento, California..................................       6,000,000
SAFE-T, Indiana.........................................       3,000,000
Santa Anita, California.................................       1,000,000
Santa Teresa, New Mexico................................       1,500,000
South Carolina Statewide................................       7,000,000
Southeast Corridor, Colorado............................       9,900,000
Southern Nevada (bus)...................................       2,200,000
St. Louis, Gateway Guide, Missouri......................       1,500,000
Texas Statewide.........................................       4,000,000
Travel Network, South Dakota............................       3,200,000
Vermont Statewide (Rural)...............................       1,500,000
Washington Metropolitan Region..........................       4,000,000
Washington Statewide....................................       6,000,000
Wisconsin Communications Network........................         620,000
Wisconsin Statewide.....................................       2,000,000

    Illinois Statewide.--The Committee provides $3,750,000 to 
the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for 
Intelligent Transportation Systems grants. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee expects IDOT to fund the following 
projects: (1) $750,000 to Lake County for a Traffic Management 
Center; (2) $750,000 to DuPage County for projects affecting 
Army Trail Road, Glen Ellyn Road, and Maple Avenue Signal 
Interconnects; (3) $750,000 to the City of Quincy for the 18th 
Street Bridge; and (4) $750,000 to the City of Carbondale for 
Southern Illinois University-Carbondale's Materials Technology 
Center.

           Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................................
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\...............................      $6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,000,000

\1\ Funding for NDGPS provided within FAA ``facilities and equipment'' 
account.
\2\ Funding to be derived from administrative takedown under 23 U.S.C. 
104(a)(1)(A).

    NDGPS.--The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 
for continued investment in the Nationwide NPGPS Network, as 
proposed in the budget estimate and as presented in the 
limitation on administrative expenses.

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics


                      (limitation on obligations)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $31,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      43,760,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,760,000

\1\ Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public 
Law 106-554.

    The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] was 
established in section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and 
make accessible information on the Nation's transportation 
systems, collect information on intermodal transportation, and 
enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical 
programs of the Department of Transportation. For fiscal year 
2002, the Committee recommends a funding level of $34,760,000, 
$3,760,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and 
$9,000,000 less than the President's budget request.
    Office of Airline Information.--Section 103(b) of the 
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century authorizes funding from the Airport and Airway Trust 
Fund for the Office of Airline Information (OAI) within the 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
    The Office of Airline Information collects and compiles 
financial and traffic (passenger and cargo) data. This 
information provides the Government with uniform and 
comprehensive economic and market data on individual airline 
operations. This program includes a small field office located 
in Anchorage, AK, which provides consumers and the Government 
with airline data related to essential air service and the 
intra-Alaskan mail rate program. The statistical aviation data 
compiled by OAI includes: airline passenger traffic statistics, 
ontime performance data by carrier, financial performance and 
certification data, fuel purchase and consumption, and other 
business and consumer directed statistics. The Committee 
provides $3,760,000 for the Office of Airline Information to be 
derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
    Bureau of Transportation Statistics safety data action 
plan.--The Committee has denied BTS's request for the agency's 
safety data action plan due to higher funding priorities in 
other critical areas.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001

                                                         $28,000,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002

                                                          30,000,000,000
Committee recommendation
                                                          30,000,000,000

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $30,000,000,000.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

    In December 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act (Public Law 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 preeminent mission of the FMCSA is to improve the 
safety of commercial vehicle operations on the nation's 
highways. A primary goal of the agency is to reduce the number 
of accidents and fatalities due to truck accidents. FMCSA 
resources and activities contribute to safety in commercial 
vehicle operations through enforcement, safety regulation, 
technological innovation, improvements in information systems, 
training, and improvements to commercial driver's license 
testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To achieve these goals, 
the FMCSA works with Federal, State, and local enforcement 
agencies, the motor carrier industry, and highway safety 
organizations.

                          Motor Carrier Safety


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

    The Motor Carrier Safety account provides for the salaries, 
operating expenses and research funding for the FMCSA. The 
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended 
Section 104(a)(1) of title 23 to provide one-third of 1 percent 
of the administrative takedown to be made available to 
administer motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier 
research. The administration's budget requests a takedown of 
two-thirds of 1 percent for these purposes.

                  Limitation on administrative Expense

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $92,194,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     139,007,000
Committee recommendation................................     105,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $202,827 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554; and does not reflect $375,000 obligation limitation 
transfer from FHWA.

    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
budget request:

Deny BTS Safety Data Improvements.......................     -$9,000,000
Reduce research and technology activities...............      -7,128,000
Transfer funding for crash data improvements, CDL 
    program, and hotline to FHWA........................     -11,000,000

    Motor Carrier Research.--The Committee recommends 
$7,000,000 for motor carrier research and technology, which is 
$7,128,000 less than the amount requested. The amount provided 
is funded under the section 104(a)(1)(A) takedown within the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    Truck Drivers' Fatigue management study.--Within the funds 
provided, the Committee includes $400,000 for a study to 
determine the fatigue management techniques used by truck 
drivers during overnight operations with an organization 
representing unionized motor carriers in cooperation with their 
labor organization.
    In Senate Report 106-55 and Senate Report 106-309, the 
Committee specified the information that it needed to review 
properly the request for this R&T; program. The fiscal year 2002 
budget submittal fails to respond to these specifications and 
is inadequate to justify a 40 percent increase in funds over 
the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Committee continues to 
seek a budget justification for FMCSA's R&T; program that is of 
the same level of detail and quality as that provided by other 
surface transportation agencies.
    Highway Watch Program.--Within the amount provided for 
motor carrier research, the Committee directs that not less 
than $1,000,000 shall be made available to analyze, evaluate 
and expand the Highway Watch program. The program is a national 
safety outreach initiative that trains professional truck 
drivers to recognize and report a variety of incidents on the 
Nation's highways.
    Crash Causation and Data Analysis.--The Committee 
encourages FMSCA to make available the preliminary results of 
the crash causation study as soon as a sufficiently large and 
representative data set is analyzed. The preliminary as well as 
the final study will help FMCSA prioritize its activities and 
will be relevant to future legislation seeking to ensure that 
Federal investments are focused on efforts to reduce the 
primary causes of commercial vehicle crashes.
    Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $100,000 
for the deployment and evaluation of a nation-wide ``Share the 
Road Safely'' program. The program is targeted at urban and 
suburban operators of passenger automobiles and truck drivers 
in cooperation with an organization representing unionized 
motor carriers in cooperation with their labor organization.
    Improvements Still Needed at FMCSA.--The Committee remains 
concerned with the need for a strengthened motor carrier safety 
program. There is no question that progress has been made 
toward improving motor carrier safety since the agency was 
established as a separate modal administration. FMCSA is 
conducting more compliance reviews (audits) and has claimed, 
per case and in total, an increased level of financial 
penalties against companies judged to be in probable violation 
of the safety regulations. Progress has also been made on some 
key regulatory and strategic planning initiatives as well as 
the review of State CDL programs. The Committee, however, 
remains concerned that the agency continues to allow many other 
key safety initiatives to languish, and has not responded to 
several congressional directives and legal mandates in a timely 
fashion. For example, the Committee has often noted the 
deficiencies and loopholes the CDL program but the FMCSA has 
not implemented all of the regulatory changes necessary to 
resolve these deficiencies. The Department has not issued final 
regulations regarding the establishment of a uniform program 
for State hazardous materials registration and permits as 
required by law. In addition, FMCSA has not made progress on 
the training requirements for commercial drivers. The Committee 
expects the FMCSA to make rapid progress in all of these areas 
at the soonest possible time.

  Safety of Cross-Border Trucking between the United States and Mexico

    The North American Free Trade Agreement anticipated the 
initiation of cross-border trucking shipments between the 
United States and Mexico. However, due to concerns over the 
safety of the Mexican trucking fleet, the Government of the 
United States opted not to allow Mexico-domiciled motor 
carriers to transport cross-border shipments beyond a limited 
commercial zone into the United States. As recently as May 
2000, testimony by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration maintained that Mexico did not have a 
comprehensive and integrated safety oversight system in place 
that would facilitate a decision on the part of the U.S. 
Government to open the border. On February 6, 2001, an Arbitral 
Panel issued its findings on the issue of Cross-Border 
Trucking. The Panel concluded the United States could not 
exclude all Mexican trucking firms from crossing the border. 
Following the panels report, the U.S. Administration announced 
its decision to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to enter 
the United States sometime before January 1, 2002.
    The Arbitral Panel concluded that the United States cannot 
bar all Mexican applicants from entering the United States. 
However, the Arbitral Panel also found that, in view of the 
differences between the United States and Mexican regulatory 
regimens, the United States did not have to treat applications 
from Mexican based carriers in exactly the same manner as 
United States or Canadian firms. The Panel indicated that NAFTA 
did not restrict the ability of the United States to implement 
measures to ensure Mexican trucking companies and Mexican truck 
drivers meet U.S. safety standards. The Arbitral Panel 
concluded:

          ``Compliance by the United States with its NAFTA 
        obligations would not necessarily require providing 
        favorable consideration to all, or to any, specific 
        number of applications from Mexican-owned trucking 
        firms, when it is evident that a particular applicant 
        or applicants may be unable to comply with U.S. 
        trucking regulations when operating in the United 
        States. Nor does it require that Mexican-domiciled 
        firms currently providing trucking services in the 
        United States be allowed to continue to do so, if and 
        when they fail to comply with U.S. safety regulations. 
        The United States may not be required to treat 
        applications from Mexican trucking firms in exactly the 
        same manner as applications from United States or 
        Canadian firms, as long as they are reviewed on a case-
        by-case basis. U.S. authorities are responsible for the 
        safe operations of trucks within U.S. territory, 
        whether ownership is United States, Canadian or 
        Mexican.'' (emphasis added)

    The Committee is greatly concerned that the Department of 
Transportation's plans to address the risks posed by some 
Mexican-domiciled motor carriers will not be sufficient to 
ensure the level of safety on our highways the American people 
have come to expect. As demonstrated below, Mexican trucks that 
crossed the U.S. border legally to serve the commercial zone 
surrounding and adjoining the United States border, have been 
ordered off the road by U.S. Motor Carrier Inspectors 50 
percent more frequently than U.S. trucks. It is noteworthy to 
point out that the ``out of service'' rate for United States 
trucks lags behind that of Canadian trucks.




    The Committee has reviewed several assessments of this 
problem including reports filed by the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General as recently as May 2001, as 
well as assessments prepared by the Controller General, the 
Congressional Research Service, and the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration. Recognizing the responsibility of the 
United States to fulfill its treaty obligations, the Committee 
has included a provision that will ensure that those Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers that enter the United States will 
demonstrate a safety record at least equal to that of its U.S. 
counterparts. The Committee has simultaneously provided 
$103,200,000 for initiatives to enhance truck safety at the 
Mexican Border. The amount provided is $15,000,000 more than 
the level included in the President's request. The funding 
provided includes:
  --$13,900,000 funded in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
        Administration limitation on administrative expenses to 
        hire 80 additional truck safety inspectors;
  --$18,000,000 requested for enhanced Motor Carrier Safety 
        Grants for the border; and
  --$71,300,000 in funding for the construction and improvement 
        of Motor Carrier Safety Inspection facilities along the 
        United States-Mexico border.
    As described below, the Committee provision seeks to ensure 
that the resources necessary for a rigorous enforcement and 
safety program at the Mexican border will be in place prior to 
the border being opened to Mexico-domiciled commercial motor 
vehicles. The following describes the Committee's specific 
concerns regarding the Administration's plan, followed by a 
description of the provision that addresses each concern.


                      Absence of Border Inspectors

  At present, Federal and State border        The Committee provision
inspectors are on duty 24 hours-a-day at    requires the DOT to only
only 2 of 27 border crossings. Mexican      allow Mexican trucks to
trucks crossing the border during off       cross the border at
hours are not subject to inspection.        inspection facilities where
                                            inspectors are present and
                                            on-duty. [Note: ``Mexican
                                            trucks'' here, and hereafter
                                            in this document, refer to
                                            Mexico-domiciled commercial
                                            motor vehicles operating
                                            beyond the commercial zone].

                  More Fully Trained Inspectors Needed

  At present, the level of inspector          The Committee
resources is not adequate to handle even    recommendation fully funds
the current level of limited traffic from   the Administration's request
Mexican trucks--much less the influx of     for 80 additional border
trucks expected once the border is fully    inspectors. Moreover, the
opened. It takes anywhere from 6 months to  Committee provision
a year to actually hire and fully train a   prohibits the full opening
new safety inspector.                       of the border until the DOT
                                            Inspector General certifies
                                            that all of these inspectors
                                            are fully trained as safety
                                            specialists capable of
                                            conducting compliance
                                            reviews and that the
                                            Administration has not
                                            accomplished this goal by
                                            transferring experienced
                                            inspectors elsewhere in the
                                            country to the border so as
                                            to undermine the level of
                                            inspection coverage and
                                            safety elsewhere in the
                                            nation.

                     Inspection Plans Are Inadequate

  The DOT plans to issue conditional          The Committee provision
operating certificates to Mexican trucking  requires the DOT to perform
firms to enter the United States based      a full safety audit of each
largely on the answers from a               Mexican trucking firm before
questionnaire. The DOT will perform a full  any conditional operating
safety audit of these firms within 18       certificate is granted and
months of the operating certificate being   then perform a full follow-
granted. The firm can operate freely in     up compliance review again
the United States throughout this 18-month  within 18 months before a
period.                                     permanent operating
                                            certificate can be granted.

                     Inspection Venue is Inadequate

  The DOT is planning to perform its          The Committee provision
safety audits of Mexican trucking firms at  requires that all safety
the border rather than at each firm's       audits of Mexican trucking
facilities. For both United States and      firms take place on-site at
Canadian trucking firms, the DOT conducts   each firm's facilities.
compliance reviews at each firm's
facilities.

    Mexican Trucks Have No Record Of Compliance with Hours-Of-Service

  Only in the last few months has Mexico      The Committee provision
established hours-of-service rules and the  prohibits the full opening
vast majority of Mexican truckers are       of the border until the DOT
exempt. As such, Mexican truckers will      Inspector General certifies
have no experience with compliance with     that the Federal Motor
such rules and U.S. inspectors will not     Carrier Safety
know how long a trucker has already been    Administration has
driving when they arrive at the border.     implemented a policy to
                                            ensure compliance on the
                                            part of Mexican truckers
                                            with pertinent hours-of-
                                            service rules. The DOT will
                                            be required to give a
                                            distinctive DOT number to
                                            all Mexican trucking firms
                                            operating beyond the
                                            commercial zone to assist
                                            state inspectors in
                                            enforcing hours-of-service
                                            regulations as well as other
                                            Federal safety rules.

  Validity of Licenses Are Not Verifiable And Are Not Routinely Checked

  Most border crossing inspection stations    The Committee provision
do not even have telephone lines much less  prohibits the full opening
computer linkages to confirm that licenses  of the border until the DOT
and other documents carried by Mexican      Inspector General certifies
truckers are valid. Many State inspectors   that the information
do not routinely check the status and       infrastructure of the
validity of the documents of Mexican        Mexican authorities is
drivers that are inspected at the           sufficiently accurate,
roadside. This is true even where the       accessible, and integrated
telephone or computer links do exist. The   with that of U.S. law
Mexican computer databases regarding        enforcement authorities to
licenses are terribly inadequate.           allow U.S. authorities to
                                            verify the status and
                                            validity of licenses,
                                            vehicle registration,
                                            operating authority, and
                                            insurance of Mexican motor
                                            carriers while operating in
                                            the United States. The
                                            Inspector General must also
                                            verify that adequate
                                            telephonic and computer
                                            links exist at all border
                                            crossings and in all mobile
                                            enforcement units operating
                                            adjacent to the border to
                                            ensure the opportunity to
                                            verify the status and
                                            validity of these documents.
                                            The DOT will require all
                                            Federal and State inspectors
                                            to electronically verify the
                                            status and validity of the
                                            documents of every Mexican
                                            truck crossing the border.

      Federally-Funded Inspectors Not Enforcing Federal Regulations

  Even though most State truck inspectors     The Committee provision
are compensated largely with Federal tax    prohibits the full opening
dollars, many inspectors at the border do   of the border until the DOT
not enforce Federal registration            requires that all State
regulations when they differ from State     inspectors funded in part or
requirements. For example, only California  in whole with Federal funds
inspectors require Mexican trucks to show   check for violations of
proof of operating authority. Moreover,     Federal regulations. All
State inspectors, when they find a          violations detected by State
deficiency that is a violation of Federal   inspectors of Federal law
but not State law, do not always refer the  will be either enforced by
case to a Federal inspector for             State inspectors or
enforcement.                                forwarded to Federal
                                            authorities for enforcement
                                            action.

               Inadequate Facilities For Truck Inspections

  At 70 percent of border crossings, motor    The Committee provision
carrier inspectors currently have space to  prohibits the full opening
only inspect 1 or 2 trucks at a time. At    of the border until the DOT
more than half of the border crossings,     Inspector General has
inspectors currently have only 1 or 2       certified that there is
spaces to park vehicles placed out of       adequate capacity to conduct
service, undermining their ability to       a sufficient number of
order unsafe trucks off the road.           meaningful truck inspections
                                            to maintain safety.

  Inadequate Capacity To Check Compliance With U.S. Weight Limitations

  Mexican trucks are currently permitted      The Committee provision
to operate in Mexico at axle and gross      prohibits the full opening
weights which are far higher than U.S.      of the border until the DOT
standards. Overweight trucks pose a         has equipped all Mexican
greater safety risk to the driving public   border crossings with Weigh-
but there is little if any infrastructure   In-Motion (WIM) systems as
to weigh trucks at the border.              well as fixed scales
                                            suitable for enforcement
                                            action. The DOT will be
                                            required to verify by either
                                            means the weight of all
                                            commercial vehicles entering
                                            the United States.

 Inadequate Data On Safety Record Of Mexican Trucking Firms and Drivers

  Unlike the United States, Mexico does       The Committee provision
not currently have a comprehensive          prohibits the full opening
mechanism to collect data on the safety     of the border until the DOT
record of Mexican trucking firms and        Inspector General certifies
drivers.                                    that there is an accessible
                                            database containing
                                            sufficiently comprehensive
                                            data to allow for safety
                                            performance monitoring of
                                            all Mexican firms applying
                                            for operating certificates
                                            and for all Mexican drivers
                                            that may enter the United
                                            States. Also, the DOT IG
                                            must certify that measures
                                            are in place similar to
                                            those in the United States
                                            to ensure that Mexican
                                            drivers who lose their
                                            licenses cannot obtain
                                            another one through
                                            surreptitious means.

                   Critical Safety Rules Not In Place

  DOT has rushed to implement the rules to    The Committee provision
allow Mexican trucks to enter the United    prohibits the full opening
States. At the same time, several safety-   of the border until the DOT
related rulemakings which pertain to        publishes in final form the
Mexican carriers and are required by law,   following overdue
have not been finalized.                    regulations:
                                              --rules establishing
                                               minimum requirements for
                                               motor carriers, including
                                               foreign motor carriers,
                                               to ensure they are
                                               knowledgeable about
                                               Federal safety standards,
                                               including the
                                               administration of a
                                               proficiency exam;
                                              --rules implementing
                                               measures to improve
                                               training and provide for
                                               the certification of
                                               motor carrier safety
                                               auditors;
                                              --rules requiring the
                                               development of staffing
                                               standards to determine
                                               the appropriate number of
                                               Federal and State motor
                                               carrier inspectors for
                                               the Mexican border;
                                              --rules prohibiting
                                               foreign motor carriers
                                               from leasing their
                                               vehicles to another
                                               carrier to transport
                                               products to the United
                                               States while the firm is
                                               subjected to a
                                               suspension, restriction,
                                               or limitation on its
                                               right to operate in the
                                               United States; and
                                              --rules disqualifying
                                               permanently from
                                               operating in the United
                                               States any foreign motor
                                               carrier that is found to
                                               have operated illegally
                                               in the United States.


                 National Motor Carrier Safety Program


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    (Liquidation of
                                       contract         (Limitation on
                                    authorization)       obligations)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001............       $177,000,000    \1\ $177,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...........        204,837,000         204,837,000
Committee recommendation........        204,837,000         204,837,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $389,400 pursuant to section 1403 of
  Public Law 106-554.

    The FMCSA's National Motor Carrier Safety Program (NMCSP) 
was authorized by TEA21 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). 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 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 $204,837,000 in liquidating cash 
for this program. This is an increase of $27,837,000 above the 
level enacted in fiscal year 2001.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    The Committee recommends a $204,837,000 limitation on 
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level 
authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999, which amended TEA21. This funding level includes 
$22,837,000 in Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), as 
authorized under 23 U.S.C. 110, as amended.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March 1970, to reduce the 
escalating number of deaths, injuries, and economic costs 
resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. The 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the 
establishment and enforcement of Federal safety standards for 
motor vehicles and associated equipment and research, including 
the operation of required testing facilities and the National 
Driver Register. The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
Act initially provided for the establishment of low-speed, 
collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, 
diagnostic inspection, and odometer regulations and was later 
amended to incorporate responsibility for the administration of 
Federal automotive fuel economy standards.
    The Highway Safety Act provides for a coordinated highway 
safety grant program to be carried out by the States, together 
with supporting research, development, and demonstration 
programs. Under section 403 of title 23, United States Code, 
technical assistance is provided to the States in the conduct 
of their highway safety programs, and research and 
demonstration projects are conducted to develop and show the 
effectiveness of new techniques and countermeasures to address 
highway safety problems.
    Grants are provided to the States under title 23, United 
States Code, section 402 to assist in the establishment and 
improvement of highway safety programs designed to reduce 
traffic crashes, deaths, and injuries. Alcohol incentive grants 
are allocated to the States for alcohol-impaired driver safety 
programs. The occupant protection incentive grants program 
rewards States that implement strong laws and programs to 
increase safety belt and child safety seat use.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year
                           Program                               2001 enacted     Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                     \1\         2002 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research......................................    $190,876,000     $196,000,000     $206,000,000
National driver register (HTF)...............................      (2,000,000)      (2,000,000)      (2,000,000)
Highway traffic safety grants (firewall).....................     213,000,000      223,000,000      223,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................     403,876,000      419,000,000      429,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reductions of $888,527 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

                        Operations and Research


                     (Including Highway Trust Fund)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 General Fund      Trust Fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001.........................................     $116,876,000      $74,000,000     $190,876,000
Budget estimate, 2002........................................      122,000,000       74,000,000      196,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................      132,000,000       74,000,000      206,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For fiscal year 2002, the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century (TEA21), as amended, authorizes $72,000,000 of 
contract authority from the highway trust fund to finance 
operations and research activities eligible under title 23 
U.S.C. 403. This funding is included within the firewall 
guarantee for highway spending and is not subject to 
appropriation. The act also includes an authorization, subject 
to appropriations, from the highway trust fund of $2,000,000 to 
maintain the National Driver Register. In addition, the 
administration is requesting $122,000,000 for activities 
related to sections 30104 and 32102 of title 49. This funding 
is derived from the general fund and is subject to 
appropriations.
    The Administration has submitted a budget request of 
$196,000,000 for NHTSA's operations and research account. The 
budget request consists of $72,000,000 from the highway trust 
fund guarantee for highway safety and research and analysis 
programs and $2,000,000 from the highway trust fund for the 
National Driver Register.
    The Committee recommends fully funding the authorized 
level, and the accompanying bill provides appropriations 
totaling $206,000,000 to be distributed as follows:

                                                               Committee
        Program                                           recommendation
Salaries and benefits...................................     $61,471,000
Travel..................................................       1,297,000
Operating expenses......................................      23,113,000
Contract Programs:
    Safety performance..................................       7,891,000
    Safety assurance....................................      15,064,000
    Highway safety......................................      50,333,000
    Research and analysis...............................      57,338,000
    General administration..............................         643,000
Grant administration reimbursement......................     -11,150,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     206,000,000

                         Salaries and benefits

    Staffing level.--The Committee recommends $61,471,000 for 
salaries and benefits, $4,341,000 more than the fiscal year 
2001 enacted level and $750,000 more than the President's 
budget request. The Committee includes an increase of $750,000 
for 7.5 FTE's in the Safety Standards Support program to assist 
with the agency's regulatory agenda. The Committee approves 709 
full time positions for NHTSA and expects to see progress on 
the agency's ability to meet congressional mandates and 
deadlines.

                      safety performance standards

    Safety Standards Support.--The Committee recommends 
$2,550,000 for safety standards support, $850,000 above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $550,000 above the 
President's budget request. The Committee notes that NHTSA's 
fiscal year 2002 performance plan sets a goal of reducing the 
number of highway-related injuries and fatalities by 20 percent 
by 2008. The data suggests, however, that the numbers are 
moving in the opposite direction. Last year, both the number 
and the rate of vehicle deaths and injuries increased. The 
Committee believes that progress on NHTSA's regulatory agenda 
would make a significant contribution to the achievement of the 
agency's safety goals. The Committee has included additional 
resources for the safety standard support program as well as 
additional staff as mentioned earlier in this report. These 
increases are intended to expedite NHTSA's actions on several 
key Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and to assist with 
the agency's implementation of the Transportation Recall 
Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act.
    While the Committee acknowledges that NHTSA has implemented 
some of the provisions in the TREAD Act, there remain several 
key regulations in the areas of tire standards, child safety 
restraints and dynamic rollover testing that are to be 
finalized next year. There are other important motor vehicle 
safety rules that have been neglected and need to be updated or 
issued. These include a revised roof crush standard to improve 
the current standard originally issued in 1971; a rollover 
stability standard to address the 10,000 passenger vehicle 
occupant deaths occurring annually as a result of rollover 
crashes; upgrading the 1971 Federal safety standard for seat 
back strength; improvements in pedestrian crash protection to 
reduce the aggressive quality of passenger vehicle front ends. 
The Committee expects NHTSA to utilize these additional 
resources to meet the regulatory deadlines set in the TREAD Act 
and to make noticeable progress on the agency's regulatory 
backlog.
    To assist the Committee in its oversight function, the 
Administrator of NHTSA is directed to submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations a notification letter as 
soon as there is a reasonable likelihood that the Agency will 
be unable to meet any of the deadlines specified in the TREAD 
Act. NHTSA's Administrator also is directed to submit a 
strategic implementation plan to both the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations with the submission of the 
President's fiscal year 2003 budget, specifying the timetable, 
milestones to be accomplished, and supporting research (if 
applicable) for each of the provisions of the TREAD Act. The 
plan should identify research projects, regulatory actions, 
information gathering efforts, and public information 
activities, as well as associated fiscal year 2001 and fiscal 
year 2002 funding amounts relevant to each of the provisions of 
the TREAD Act.

                        highway safety programs

    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:

Occupant protection:
    Enhance public education materials..................     +$1,000,000
    Increase local efforts to increase belt use.........      +2,000,000
Impaired Driving........................................      +2,700,000
Highway Safety Research: Safe mobility for older drivers      +1,000,000
New/Emerging/TEA-21 Issues: Cell phones and driver 
    distrac- 
    tion                                                      +1,000,000
Traffic Law Enforcement: Technologies to reduce speeding 
    and aggressive driving..............................      +1,000,000

    Occupant Protection Enhancements.--The Committee is 
concerned that NHTSA is making insufficient progress toward 
reaching the goal of achieving a 90 percent national seat belt 
use rate by 2005. In fact, over the last 4 years, seat belt use 
has only increased 2 percent to a total of 71 percent. To 
expedite the agency's progress, the Committee recommends 
$13,953,000 to improve NHTSA's occupant protection efforts, 
which is $3,000,000 more than the amount requested in the 
President's budget. Consistent with the recommendations of the 
Blue Ribbon Panel to Increase Seat Belt Use Among African 
Americans, NHTSA is expected to enhance its public education 
activities pertaining to occupant protection. This work will 
include the development and deployment of credible, positive, 
culturally appropriate health and safety values in media 
messages and literature to increase occupant protection by 
minority groups. Research shows that minorities are over-
represented in motor vehicle crashes and these populations are 
less likely to wear seat belts or use child safety seats. For 
example, black children ages 5 through 12 face a risk of dying 
in a crash that is almost three times as great as white 
children. As the relative percentage of minorities increases, 
the need to better educate all segments of the population about 
the importance of occupant protection increases. Also, NHTSA 
should intensify its efforts to increase occupant protection 
use rates by the Hispanic population, as well as other high 
risk groups, such as younger drivers and occasional users of 
seat belts.
    Last year, the Committee initiated a new effort to increase 
local government participation in promoting occupant protection 
activities. There has been definitive interest in this 
initiative and it should be expanded. The Selective Traffic 
Enforcement Program (STEP) has been shown to increase seat belt 
use rates and has been widely tested. Past NHTSA studies show 
that strong local leadership and coordination of activities are 
essential to conducting successful STEP activities. The 
Committee's allowance includes $2,000,000 to further deploy the 
STEP process as well as other innovative strategies by local 
governments seeking to increase seat belt use rates in their 
jurisdiction. NHTSA is directed to publically advertise the 
availability of these funds and to seek a wide range of 
applicants. In addition, the Committee has included bill 
language which would allow States to use traffic safety grants 
for public service messages as well as designate $15,000,000 
for the use of public safety messages during Operation ABC 
Mobilizations. A more detailed discussion of these public 
safety message initiatives is included in the NHTSA bill 
language section of this report.
    Older Driver Initiative.--The Committee provides an 
increase of $1,000,000 in Highway Safety Research to strengthen 
NHTSA's efforts to promote the safe mobility of older 
Americans. Federal data show that, while driving-related 
fatalities have decreased for all other age groups over the 
past 20 years, the rate for elderly drivers over 75 years has 
grown from 9.5 deaths to 14.3 deaths per 100,000 population--an 
increase of roughly 50.5 percent. Experts are now predicting 
that without corrective action, by 2030, the number of older 
persons killed in automobile crashes will increase three-fold. 
The additional funds will improve methodologies to better 
assess the capabilities of older drivers, and analyze ways to 
rehabilitate older Americans who have suffered strokes or other 
medical problems to resume some or all of their driving, if 
medically qualified.
    Cellphones and driver distraction.--The Committee provides 
an increase of $1,000,000 for Emerging Traffic Safety Issues in 
support of NHTSA's research to understand the factors that 
affect a driver's performance while using various in-vehicle 
technologies. The Committee also supports the development of 
test procedures and guidelines that can be used to design 
equipment that minimizes driver distraction. Research on how 
driver age and experience affects driver distraction also 
should be vigorously pursued. Sufficient funds to conduct a 
comprehensive research program are provided in the National 
Intelligent Transportation Systems Program in the FHWA, and in 
the research and analysis component of NHTSA's budget. While 
this research is ongoing, the Committee maintains that both 
drivers and passengers could benefit from information on the 
potential safety risks that can arise from various forms of 
driver distraction and overload. The public dissemination of 
information on this topic is time critical because the rate of 
deployment of these technologies is outpacing the knowledge of 
their impact on safety. The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a 
letter before January 1, 2002, to both the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations outlining the scope and direction 
of its efforts to provide relevant consumer and public 
information relevant to this safety challenge.
    Improved Technologies to Reduce Speeding and Aggressive 
Driving.--The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 for 
NHTSA's Traffic Law Enforcement Program. Various technologies, 
such as ITS, photo radar, and other electronic devices, can be 
used to alert law enforcement agencies to speeding or 
aggressive driving. NHTSA is expected to explore opportunities 
to advance and deploy such technologies. Funding should be 
provided to one or more State and local enforcement agencies to 
test approaches on secondary roads as well as on interstates.
    Impaired Driving.--The Committee recommends $12,517,000 for 
NHTSA's impaired driving program, which is $2,700,000 more than 
the President's budget request. The additional funds will be 
used primarily to help States and communities control repeat 
impaired, driving offenders. The agency will conduct a 
nationwide program to inform State and local governments, law 
enforcement agencies, and courts of the latest proven 
strategies for detection, arrest, prosecution, sentencing, and 
rehabilitation, including in-vehicle alcohol interlocks, home 
confinement techniques, and driver identification systems. The 
Committee envisions that the agency will explore whether 
technology transfer vans similar to those successfully used by 
the FHWA, could be an important part of this information 
program. The demonstration of best practices and peer-to-peer 
assistance should be emphasized. The agency may award up to 
one-half of the funds as small grants to assist States and 
communities that wish to implement promising new strategies.
    Emergency Medical Services.--The Committee recommends 
$2,245,000 for emergency medical services. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue 
training EMS personnel in delivering pre-hospital care to 
patients with traumatic brain injuries. The Committee urges 
NHTSA to continue this national roll-out with the Brain Trauma 
Foundation and its Centers of Excellence. The Centers will 
continue research into pre- and post-training data collection 
and evaluation of the efficacy of the Brain Trauma Foundation's 
Pre-hospital Traumatic Brain Injury guidelines. The funding 
will help NHTSA's Emergency Medical Services significantly 
decrease mortality and morbidity due to severe head injury 
throughout the United States while reducing in-hospital time 
and costs, by ensuring that scientific based procedures are 
being used in ambulances. The Committee expects to see a 
broader array of participation in the use of these EMS 
protocols.
    Driver Behavior/Simulation Research.--The Committee 
includes $3,450,000 for driver behavior/simulation research as 
requested in the President's budget. The Committee supports 
NHTSA's research to understand the factors that affect a 
driver's performance since it is estimated that nearly 90 
percent of all motor vehicle crashes are the result of driver 
error.

                         research and analysis

    Biomechanical research.--The Committee provides $2,500,000 
to continue research related to traumatic brain and spinal cord 
injuries caused by motor vehicle, motorcycle, and bicycle 
accidents at the Injury Control Research Center and encourages 
NHTSA to expand this research effort to the other centers of 
the Southern Consortium for Injury Biomechanics.
    Brake lining friction study.--The Committee is aware that 
NHTSA has issued regulations regarding stopping performance of 
medium and heavy duty trucks. The Committee understands that to 
remain in compliance with these rules, replacement brake lining 
must have the same friction rating as that of the original 
brake lining. The Committee further understands that a uniform 
method for measuring brake lining friction and permanently 
marking the lining with that rating is unavailable and thus 
directs NHTSA to perform research into rating brake lining 
friction and permanently marking the lining with that rating. 
Within the funds provided, the Committee provides $300,000 for 
research into the rating of brake lining friction in order to 
facilitate a rulemaking in this area.

                        national driver register


                           highway trust fund

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

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................    $213,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     223,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     223,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $468,000 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
authorized the following State grant programs: Highway Safety 
Program, the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive 
Grant Program, the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program, 
and the State Highway Safety Data Grant Program. Under the 
Highway Safety Program, grant allocations are determined on the 
basis of a statutory formula established under 20 U.S.C. 402. 
Individual States use this funding in national priority areas 
established by Congress which have the greatest potential for 
achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes, 
fatalities, and injuries. Also, the national occupant 
protection survey shall be funded from within this amount. The 
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant 
Program encourages States to enact stiffer laws and implement 
stronger programs to detect and remove impaired drivers from 
the roads. The occupant protection program encourages States to 
promote and strengthen occupant protection initiatives. The 
State Highway Safety Data Grants Program encourages States to 
improve their collection and dissemination of important highway 
safety data.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation 
of contract authorization of $223,000,000 for the payment of 
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant 
programs.
    The Committee has included a provision prohibiting the use 
of section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or 
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for 
State, local, or private buildings or structures.

                       limitation on obligations

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal year 2001  Fiscal year 2002     Committee
                                                                enacted \1\        estimate       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs....................................     $154,659,000      $160,000,000      $160,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures  grants...........       35,921,000        38,000,000        38,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants.......................       12,971,000        15,000,000        15,000,000
State highway safety data grants...........................        8,980,000        10,000,000        10,000,000
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................      212,531,000       223,000,000       223,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $468,600 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

                             bill language

    Public safety messages.--The bill contains a provision 
(sec. 338) extending the authority for States to use traffic 
safety grant funds under Section 402 to produce and place 
highway safety pubic service messages in television, radio, 
cinema, print media and on the Internet. This same provision 
was included in the fiscal year 2001 enacted bill. This year, 
the Committee includes additional language which would 
designate $15,000,000 of the safety belt use innovative grant 
funds to be used for public safety messages to support the 
Operation ABC (America Buckles up Children) Mobilizations that 
are conducted each year in May and November. During recent 
mobilization efforts, more than 10,000 law enforcement agencies 
in all 50 States have joined together to call attention to the 
need for increased safety belt and child safety seat use and to 
deter drunk driving. The Mobilizations have been effective in 
helping to increase restraint use, but there are still too many 
unrestrained children and adults that are killed and injured in 
vehicle crashes, many of which are caused by drunk drivers. 
Last year, the Committee directed NHTSA to implement an 
innovative demonstration program to promote seat belt usage. A 
pilot project in South Carolina in November 2000 used public 
safety messages to support the Mobilization, resulting in an 
increase in safety belt use from 65 percent to nearly 74 
percent. In carrying out this advertising program, NHTSA is 
encouraged to continue to work through non-profit safety 
organizations on this initiative.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

    The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an 
operating administration within the Department of 
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of 
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the 
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department 
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the 
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
(Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to 
rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical 
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad 
Administration.
    The Committee recommends $755,578,000 for the activities of 
the Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2002. This 
is $48,535,000 more than the budget request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                                                           ------------------------------------     Committee
                          Program                                                2002 budget     recommendation
                                                            2001 enacted \1\    estimate \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations \3\.................................     $101,717,000      $111,357,000      $111,357,000
Railroad research and development.........................       25,325,000        28,325,000        30,325,000
Next generation high-speed rail...........................       25,100,000        25,100,000        40,000,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation \4\........................       30,000,000   ................       20,000,000
West Virginia Rail Development............................       15,000,000   ................  ................
Rhode Island rail development.............................       17,000,000   ................  ................
Capital grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation.      521,476,000       521,476,000       521,476,000
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project................       20,000,000        20,000,000        20,000,000
National Rail Development and Rehabilitation..............  ................  ................       12,000,000
Amtrak Reform Council \5\.................................          750,000           785,000           420,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...........................      756,368,000       707,043,000       755,578,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include reduction of $1,642,009 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Fiscal year 2002 budget estimate includes $55,000,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\3\ Does not include $1,500,000 in Maglev funds from other accounts.
\4\ Fiscal year 2001 includes $10,000,000 transferred from USAF.
\5\ The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent oversight commission. Funding is provided through a general
  provision, and is not part of the FRA budget.

    User fees.--The Committee denies the Administration's 
legislative proposal to impose user fees on rail safety and 
research services.

                         Safety and Operations

Appropriations, 2001 \1\ \2\............................    $101,717,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \3\...............................     111,357,000
Committee recommendation................................     111,357,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $223,777 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public law 106-554.
\2\ Does not include $1,500,000 maglev funds from other accounts.
\3\ Includes $41,000,000 proposed rail safety user fees.

    The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA 
rail safety activities and all other administrative and 
operating activities related to staff and programs.
    Operation Lifesaver.--The Committee notes that the 
Department's ``Grade Crossing Safety Action Plan'' established 
a goal of reducing the number of crossing collisions and 
trespass casualties by 50 percent in 2004. One of the agency's 
partners in this effort has been Operation Lifesaver, Inc. 
which is a national, non-profit education and awareness program 
that focuses on eliminating collisions, fatalities and injuries 
at highway-rail grade crossings. Operation Lifesaver utilizes 
education to increase public awareness; promotes enforcement of 
highway-rail grade crossing traffic laws; and, encourages 
engineering research and innovation to improve the safety at 
grade crossings. The Committee includes $1,025,000 for 
Operation Lifesaver.
    Staffing increases.--The FRA has requested 26 new positions 
in fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommendation approves the 
funding request for these additional positions.

                   Railroad Research and Development

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $25,325,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\...............................      28,325,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,325,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $55,715 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Includes $14,000,000 proposed user fees.

    The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and 
Development Program provides for research in the development of 
safety and performance standards for high-speed rail and the 
evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$30,325,000 for railroad research and development, $2,000,000 
more than the administration's requested level.

                        committee recommendation

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

Equipment, operations, and hazardous materials research.     $12,950,000
Track and vehicle-track interaction.....................       9,900,000
Railroad systems safety and security....................       6,150,000
R&D; facilities and equipment............................       1,325,000

    Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials research.--
The Committee recommends a program funding level of 
$12,950,000.
    Southeastern Transportation Safety Center.--The Committee 
notes that the Southeastern Transportation Safety Center in 
Meridian, MS is an important regional safety training resource 
helping the region's emergency response community to focus on 
techniques and skills essential to rail passenger emergency 
response. Training at the Center emphasizes instruction in 
advanced techniques for fire suppression, passenger rescue, law 
enforcement or emergency medical situations. The Committee 
provides $475,000 within the funds available to enhance the 
center's facilities and capabilities in advanced and 
specialized passenger rescue training for emergency responders 
and carrier employees. These enhancements should include a 
fully functional rail-highway grade crossing, and a specially 
constructed low rail trestle and pond for rail passenger water 
rescue training.
    Track and Vehicle Track Interaction.--The Committee 
recommends $9,900,000 for track and vehicle track interaction, 
$1,618,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and 
$1,000,000 more than the President's budget request. The 
Committee's recommendation includes funding for track and 
components safety research in material and rail inspection and 
bridge safety and for vehicle/track interaction safety 
standards research. Within these funds, the Committee provides 
$2,000,000 in continued support for the Marshall University/
University of Nebraska safety research projects in the areas of 
human factors, equipment defects, railroad track and structures 
and failures associated with existing train control methods. 
Also, within available funds, the Committee includes $2,000,000 
for a pilot program of the Integrated Railway Remote 
Information Service at the Transportation Technology Center. 
This pilot program is expected to enjoy substantial industry 
matching contributions. It is designed to demonstrate the 
feasibility of using defect detectors across North America. 
These detectors will measure safety parameters such as the 
forces between the wheels and rails, and physical condition of 
axle bearings on rail vehicles. The Integrated Railway Remote 
Information Service is an internet-based system designed to 
aggregate, interrogate and store data from these field-deployed 
detector systems.
    Railroad systems safety and security.--The Committee 
recommends a program funding level of $6,150,000, $1,000,000 
more than the administration's request.
    Illinois Grade Crossing Safety.--The Committee is 
supportive of an innovative project in Illinois, designed to 
establish a comprehensive strategy to help the State of 
Illinois and local communities to address rail-grade crossing 
safety through voluntary, cooperative education and enforcement 
initiatives. This project, under the leadership of the Illinois 
Commerce Commission, also seeks to increase awareness of and 
participation in private, State, and Federal programs that are 
designed to improve crossing safety and to identify appropriate 
State and Federal resources that may aid communities in their 
efforts. The Committee includes $1,000,000 for this effort.
    Railroad freight congestion analysis.--The Committee is 
aware of the significant delays currently affecting railroad 
freight in and around Chicago, Illinois. It is not uncommon for 
freight trains to take 72 hours or more to move cargo through 
the metropolitan area. The Committee directs the Secretary, in 
cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration 
Administrator and the Chair of the Surface Transportation 
Board, to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the railroad 
freight congestion problems in the Chicago region, including 
possible administrative and legislative solutions and report 
the complete findings to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than January 15, 2002.
    Passenger rail studies.--The Committee includes $250,000 to 
conduct a feasibility study of constructing a passenger rail, 
high-speed rail or other passenger surface transportation 
system on a statewide basis. In particular, the study will 
evaluate the demand and needs of commuters along the existing 
infrastructure in the Lincoln and Omaha corridor in Nebraska. 
The results of the feasibility study will serve as the basis 
for developing short-term and long-term implementation plans 
for commuter services. The Committee also includes $300,000 to 
study the feasibility of linking Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania to 
the proposed Scranton-New York passenger rail line. The 
Committee also includes $100,000 to be transferred to Amtrak to 
conduct an analysis to determine the cost and feasibility of 
implementing high-speed intercity rail service between Los 
Angeles and Las Vegas. The study will include an assessment of 
existing capacity and the identification of infrastructure 
improvements necessary to increase capacity, allow for improved 
train speeds, and reduce trip time.

       Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program

    Section 502 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes 
obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs 
of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism 
to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or 
consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new 
loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 2002.
    The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, 
as established in section 7203 of the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century [TEA21], will enable the Secretary of 
Transportation to provide loans and loan guarantees to State 
and local governments, Government-sponsored authorities and 
corporations, railroads and joint ventures to acquire, improve, 
or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, 
including track, bridges, yards, and shops.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $25,100,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      25,100,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $55,220 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    The Committee has provided $40,000,000 in general fund 
appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT] 
Program, $14,900,000 more than the President's budget request.
    The Committee first provided funding for the Next 
Generation High-Speed Rail [NGHSR] Program in fiscal year 1995. 
The program funds high-speed rail research, development, and 
technology programs that are aimed at demonstrations to foster 
high-speed passenger service on corridors throughout the 
country.
    The Committee recommends the following funding levels for 
the Next generation high-speed rail programs:

High-speed train control systems........................     $11,000,000
High-speed non-electric locomotives.....................       6,800,000
Grade crossing hazard mitigation........................       4,300,000
Track/structures technology.............................       1,300,000
Corridor planning.......................................       9,600,000
Magnetic levitation.....................................       7,000,000

    High-speed train control systems.--The Committee has 
provided a total of $11,000,000 for positive train control 
(PTC) systems and demonstration projects. The Committee 
includes $5,000,000 to design, construct and test a PTC system 
in the Milwaukee-Madison corridor. This work will include 
engineering, applied research and development to demonstrate 
the implementation of a positive train control system on a non-
signaled railroad corridor segment between Milwaukee and 
Madison, Wisconsin.
    Grade crossing hazard mitigation/low-cost innovative 
technologies.--The Committee recommends $4,300,000 for grade 
crossing hazard mitigation and low-cost innovative technology 
initiatives. Within these funds, the Committee includes 
$700,000 for the North Carolina Sealed Corridor Initiative 
which has been highly effective at identifying and implementing 
cost-effective tools to reduce hazards at highway-rail grade 
crossings.
    Corridor planning.--The Committee includes $9,600,000 for 
passenger rail corridor planning. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee includes the following allocations:

Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor.....................        $600,000
Florida high-speed rail between Orlando and Tampa.......       4,500,000
California high-speed rail..............................       4,500,000

    Magnetic levitation transportation.--A total of $7,000,000 
has been provided for magnetic levitation activities to be 
distributed as follows:

Segmented Rail Phased Induction: Electric Magnetic Motor 
    (Seraphim) technology, NM...........................        $500,000
Washington-Baltimore, MD: Environmental impact studies 
    and preliminary engineering.........................       2,000,000
Nevada-California: Environmental impact studies, design 
    and engineering.....................................       2,000,000
Greensburgh-Pittsburgh, PA: Environmental impact study..       2,500,000

    Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.--Section 1103 of 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) 
provides $5,250,000 for the elimination of rail-highway 
crossing hazards. Of these set-aside funds, the following 
allocations are made:

Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor.....................      $2,000,000
Chicago Hub high-speed rail corridor between Milwaukee 
    and Madison, WI.....................................         500,000

                     Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation

Appropriations, 2001 \1\ \2\............................     $30,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $44,000 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Includes $10,000,000 transferred from USAF pursuant to section 8107 
of Public Law 106-259.

    The Committee has included a total of $20,000,000 for rail 
safety and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger 
operations of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 498 
miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in 
Alaska, to the city of Fairbanks, and east to the town of North 
Pole and Eielson Air Force Base. It carries both passengers and 
freight, and provides a critical transportation link for 
passengers and cargo traveling through difficult terrain and 
harsh climatic conditions.

              National Rail Development and Rehabilitation

Appropriations, 2001....................................................
Budget estimate, 2002...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $12,000,000

    The bill authorizes the Federal Railroad Administration to 
make grants and enter into contracts for the development and 
rehabilitation of freight and passenger rail infrastructure. 
The Committee includes $12,000,000 for this program. Within 
these funds, the Committee recommends $1,700,000 for the 
Central Valley Rail line project to establish a short line from 
Sigurd/Salina to the Union Pacific main line at Levan, Utah; 
$5,000,000 for the design and construction of a passenger rail 
station at the General Mitchell International Airport in 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; $3,000,000 for track relocation, track 
construction and grade crossing separation in Greenwood, MS; 
and $2,300,000 for the rehabilitation of the Minnesota Valley 
Regional Rail Authority.

 Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................    $521,476,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     521,476,000
Committee recommendation................................     521,476,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $1,142,247 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    For fiscal year 2002, the administration has requested an 
appropriation of $521,476,000 for Amtrak capital funding with 
the same flexibility in spending its capital grant as provided 
to transit grantees.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $521,476,000 for 
Amtrak capital grants for fiscal year 2002. The amount provided 
is the same as the President's request and the same as the 
fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Consistent with the 
Administration's budget request, the Committee grants Amtrak 
the authority to use all of this funding immediately upon the 
enactment of the bill.
    The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (ARAA), 
Public Law 105-134, authorized a total of $5,200,000,000 over a 
5 year period in funding for Amtrak. The act also required the 
railroad to reach operating self-sufficiency by fiscal year 
2003. Together with the funding included in the Committee 
recommendation, Amtrak will have received $2,200,000,000 of the 
$5,200,000,000 authorized by the end of 2002.
    During the authorization period covered by the ARAA, Amtrak 
has made steady progress in its goal of achieving operating 
self-sufficiency. Its overall ridership and ticket revenues 
during this period have continued to grow. Amtrak's ridership 
has increased 14.4 percent between 1996 and 2000. It is 
expected to grow another 6 percent in 2001. Over the same 
period, Amtrak's ticket revenues increased 29.8 percent. Those 
revenues are expected to grow by another 10.9 percent in 2001. 
The Committee is pleased to see continued growth in Amtrak's 
ticket revenues and ridership and expects those revenues to 
continue to grow with the long delayed introduction of the 
Acela Express Service beginning in calender year 2002.





    As part of its mission to achieve operating self-
sufficiency, Amtrak has aggressively sought to increase its 
revenues from non-passenger operations. Such non-passenger 
revenue grew by more than 15 percent between 1999 and 2000. 
However, the amount of revenues in this area has not grown as 
fast as Amtrak's business plan had hoped.
    At the same time as Amtrak's overall revenues have 
increased, costs have also increased. Operating expenses for 
the railroad grew 9.1 percent over the 1999-2000 level. The 
Committee is concerned by testimony by the DOT Inspector 
General that Amtrak has yet to fully define some of the cost 
saving measures that will be necessary if the railroad is to 
achieve its self-sufficiency goal. The delay in the delivery of 
Amtrak's Acela Express trainsets and the associated delay in 
launching the Acela service has endangered Amtrak's overall 
finances. Just recently, Amtrak was required to collateralize 
part of its assets in Penn Station, New York in order to obtain 
$300,000,000 in operating funds for the current fiscal year. 
The Committee is greatly concerned over Amtrak's tenuous 
financial condition. In testimony before the Committee, the 
President of Amtrak testified that if the Committee fully 
funded the President's budget request of $521,476,000 as it 
has, there will be no risk of Amtrak going bankrupt within the 
coming fiscal year. Even so, the Committee will continue to 
carefully monitor Amtrak's financial condition as well as its 
efforts to achieve operating self-sufficiency by 2003.

                         Amtrak Reform Council

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................        $750,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\...............................         785,000
Committee recommendation................................         420,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $1,650 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.
\2\ The Council is an independent entity. Its funding is presented 
within the FRA for display purposes only.

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $420,000 for 
necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform Council [ARC]. Initial 
funding for the ARC was provided in the fiscal year 1998 
supplemental appropriations bill, Public Law 105-174; in the 
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 transportation appropriations 
acts, $450,000, $750,000, and $750,000, respectively, was 
appropriated for the Council. For fiscal year 2002, the 
administration has requested an appropriation of $785,000. 
Because the Council is an independent commission, the 
Committee's appropriation is not provided within the FRA's 
budget, but is provided in a general provision (sec. 330) of 
the bill.
    The ARC was established by the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act of 1997 [ARAA]. The Council consists of 11 
members, including four Senate appointees, four House 
appointees, two Presidential appointees, and the Secretary of 
Transportation. Under the ARAA, the responsibilities of the ARC 
include evaluating Amtrak's performance and making 
recommendations to Congress and Amtrak for achieving further 
cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial 
reforms. In addition, fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill 
language expanded the Council's statutory responsibilities to 
include its views on any routes or services that Amtrak's route 
analysis data indicate should be closed or realigned.
    The ARC is a temporary commission. By the end of fiscal 
year 2002, the Council must make a determination on whether or 
not Amtrak can meet the financial goals outlined in the ARAA 
(though the Council may make a finding before the end of the 
current authorization). If the ARC determines these goals 
cannot be met, they must then submit a restructuring plan, and 
Amtrak must submit a liquidation plan.

               pennsylvania station redevelopment project

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $44,000 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    In 2000, an advance appropriation of $20,000,000 was 
provided for each fiscal year 2001, 2002, and 2003. These funds 
support the redevelopment of the Pennsylvania Station in New 
York City, including the renovation of the James A. Farley Post 
Office building as a train station and commercial center, and 
basic upgrades to Pennsylvania Station.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION


                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

    The Federal Transit Administration was established as a 
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization 
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred 
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit 
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist 
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, 
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning 
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services 
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide 
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural 
areas; to maximize productivity of transportation systems; and 
to provide assistance to State and local governments and their 
instrumentalities in financing such services and systems.
    The current authorization for the programs funded by the 
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
    Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level 
of $6,847,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the 
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2002, which is 
$100,000,000 more than the obligation limitation authorized 
under the mass transit category in TEA21. This funding is 
comprised of $1,449,200,000 in direct appropriations of general 
funds and $5,397,800,000 in limitations on contract authority.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations compared to fiscal year 2000 and the 
administration's request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                        Program                          2001 enacted \1\     2002 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................             64,000             67,000             67,000
Formula grants \2\.....................................          3,294,000          3,592,000          3,592,000
University transportation research.....................              6,000              6,000              6,000
Transit planning and research..........................            110,000            116,000            116,000
Capital investment grants \2\ \3\......................          2,700,500          2,841,000          2,941,000
Job access and reverse commute grants..................            100,000            125,000            125,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................          6,274,500          6,747,000          6,847,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescissions totaling $13,803,900 for the 0.22 percent rescission pursuant to section 1403
  of Public Law 106-554 and $1,646,816,709 in FHWA flex funding .
\2\ Fiscal year 2001 reflects transfer of $50,000,000 from Formula grants to Capital investment grants and
  $1,000,000 from Formula grants to the OIG pursuant to Public Law 106-346.
\3\ Fiscal year 2001 includes $4,500,000 direct appropriation pursuant to sections 1105, 1107, and 1123 of
  Public Law 106-554.

                        Administrative Expenses


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              General fund        Trust fund
                                                                                                       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................       $12,800,000        $51,200,000       $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................        13,400,000         53,600,000        67,000,000
Committee recommendation................................        13,400,000         53,600,000        67,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $140,800 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

    The Committee recommends a total of $67,000,000 in budget 
resources funds for administrative expenses.

                             Formula Grants


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              General fund       Trust fund            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\..................................      $618,000,000    $2,676,000,000    $3,294,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002.....................................       718,400,000     2,873,600,000     3,592,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................       718,400,000     2,873,600,000     3,592,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects $50,000,000 transferred to capital investment grants and $1,000,000 transferred to the OIG; does
  not reflect rescission of $7,246,800 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

    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 non-urbanized areas (U.S.C. 
sec. 5311). In addition, setasides 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. The Committee also recommends that 
$5,000,000 be provided for the Salt Lake City transit needs for 
the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled. The Committee intends 
that use of these funds be for the transportation systems for 
athletes, media, spectators and other officials associated with 
the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled.
    Within the total funding level of $3,592,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2002, the statutory distribution of these formula grants 
is allocated among these categories as follows:

Urbanized areas (sec. 5307).............................  $3,220,601,506
Clean fuels (sec. 5308).................................      50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................      84,724,801
Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311)..........................     224,873,743
Over-the-Road Bus Program...............................       6,950,000
Alaska railroad.........................................       4,849,950

    Section 3007 of TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized formula 
grants, by striking the authorization to utilize these funds 
for operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing 
the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas with 
a population of less than 200,000. Generally, urbanized formula 
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 1 percent of their annual formula 
grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art, 
bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
    The following table displays the State-by-State 
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the 
program categories:

 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2002 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Section 5310
                                                   Section 5307    Section 5311     elderly and    Total formula
                      State                       urbanized area   nonurbanized    persons with      programs
                                                                       area        disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................................     $14,040,178      $5,344,661      $1,465,034     $20,849,873
Alaska..........................................   \1\ 7,619,647         797,004         203,762       8,620,413
American Samoa..................................  ..............         113,598          53,101         166,699
Arizona.........................................      36,086,127       2,339,752       1,287,919      39,713,798
Arkansas........................................       5,520,952       4,272,834       1,014,025      10,807,811
California......................................     518,704,526      10,428,595       8,077,729     537,210,850
Colorado........................................      40,928,704       2,226,089         991,811      44,146,604
Connecticut.....................................      55,160,193       2,019,272       1,141,158      58,320,623
Delaware........................................       7,329,543         503,760         323,821       8,157,124
District of Columbia............................      29,256,884  ..............         321,183      29,578,067
Florida.........................................     156,776,788       6,703,961       5,440,466     168,921,215
Georgia.........................................      55,198,599       7,814,463       1,909,167      64,922,229
Guam............................................  ..............         323,387         135,314         458,701
Hawaii..........................................      25,789,482         877,054         420,603      27,087,139
Idaho...........................................       3,300,878       1,769,431         431,176       5,501,485
Illinois........................................     217,131,921       7,169,333       3,505,594     227,806,848
Indiana.........................................      34,806,454       6,925,413       1,824,126      43,555,993
Iowa............................................       9,303,320       4,454,494       1,092,507      14,850,321
Kansas..........................................       8,541,490       3,543,409         910,746      12,995,645
Kentucky........................................      18,577,689       5,849,395       1,402,706      25,829,790
Louisiana.......................................      29,765,457       4,837,873       1,407,347      36,010,677
Maine...........................................       2,367,920       2,334,462         547,089       5,249,471
Maryland........................................      80,384,314       2,914,464       1,414,153      84,712,931
Massachusetts...................................     124,736,660       3,123,420       2,050,913     129,910,993
Michigan........................................      66,414,415       8,458,755       2,994,685      77,867,855
Minnesota.......................................      38,624,294       4,867,525       1,434,541      44,926,360
Mississippi.....................................       4,932,006       4,750,072         984,235      10,666,313
Missouri........................................      35,603,515       5,669,413       1,850,314      43,123,242
Montana.........................................       2,497,778       1,433,378         392,963       4,324,119
Nebraska........................................       8,447,964       2,162,787         632,725      11,243,476
Nevada..........................................      21,339,036         706,117         462,562      22,507,715
New Hampshire...................................       3,499,595       1,869,613         435,225       5,804,433
New Jersey......................................     189,133,645       2,673,150       2,468,641     194,275,436
New Mexico......................................       7,078,357       2,101,501         552,626       9,732,484
New York........................................     546,166,788       9,409,809       5,762,287     561,338,884
North Carolina..................................      29,462,044       9,995,997       2,175,630      41,633,671
North Dakota....................................       2,434,856       1,060,047         329,769       3,824,672
Northern Marianas...............................  ..............         105,272          52,833         158,105
Ohio............................................      92,258,624      10,176,620       3,659,887     106,095,131
Oklahoma........................................      11,565,275       4,350,400       1,206,115      17,121,790
Oregon..........................................      29,577,270       3,454,256       1,119,077      34,150,603
Pennsylvania....................................     148,792,087      11,352,125       4,394,371     164,538,583
Puerto Rico.....................................      52,797,914       3,392,373       1,059,960      57,250,247
Rhode Island....................................      10,331,636         434,568         483,450      11,249,654
South Carolina..................................      11,616,676       5,003,046       1,164,780      17,784,502
South Dakota....................................       1,756,431       1,292,115         358,657       3,407,203
Tennessee.......................................      23,225,955       6,458,361       1,735,610      31,419,926
Texas...........................................     170,177,230      13,635,398       4,539,494     188,352,122
Utah............................................      20,796,268         979,495         512,817      22,288,580
Vermont.........................................         882,731       1,155,262         290,967       2,328,960
Virgin Islands..................................  ..............         247,264         138,096         385,360
Virginia........................................      66,268,007       5,725,963       1,806,838      73,800,808
Washington......................................      88,572,612       4,012,110       1,617,182      94,201,904
West Virginia...................................       4,255,733       3,411,450         842,548       8,509,731
Wisconsin.......................................      38,268,062       5,894,585       1,651,726      45,814,373
Wyoming.........................................       1,219,667         824,424         242,740       2,286,831
      Subtotal..................................   3,209,324,197     223,749,375      84,724,801   3,517,798,373
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight.......................................      16,127,259       1,124,368  ..............      17,251,627
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................   3,225,451,456     224,873,743      84,724,801   3,535,050,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Clean Fuels.....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............      50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility.................  ..............  ..............  ..............       6,950,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............   3,592,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad.

    Over-the-road buses.--The Committee has included $6,950,000 
in fiscal year 2002 for the over-the-road accessibility 
program. These funds are intended to assist over-the-road bus 
operators in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act 
accessibility requirements. Additionally, the Committee has 
included bill language (sec. 339) expanding the exemption from 
Federal axle weight restrictions that apply only to public 
transit passenger buses to all over-the-road buses. The 
Committee is aware that over-the-road buses, like urban transit 
buses, have been carrying progressively more weight on each 
axle due to the requirements necessary to accommodate safety, 
environmental and accessibility concerns. Transit buses 
received an exemption from axle weight requirements in 1991, 
the Committee believes that the over-the-road bus industry 
should receive equal consideration. Last year, the Committee 
included language providing a similar axle weight exemption for 
over-the-road buses. The bill also requires a study on the 
applicability of maximum weight limitation to both over-the-
road buses and public transit vehicles is directed to be 
submitted to Congress no later than 18 months after enactment 
of this Act.

                   University Transportation Research


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\........................................      $1,200,000      $4,800,000      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...........................................       1,200,000       4,800,000       6,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................       1,200,000       4,800,000       6,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $13,200 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

    Section 5505 of TEA21 provides authorization for the 
university transportation research program. The purpose of the 
university transportation research program is to become a 
national resource and focal point for the support and conduct 
of research and training concerning the transportation of 
passengers and property. Funds provided under the FTA 
university transportation research program are transferred to 
and managed by the Research and Special Programs Administration 
(RSPA), combined with a transfer from the Federal Highway 
Administration of $26,500,000. The transit university 
transportation research program funds are statutorily available 
only to the following universities: University of Minnesota, 
Northwestern University, Morgan State University, and North 
Carolina State University.
    The Committee action provides $6,000,000 for the university 
transportation research program, the same level as provided in 
fiscal year 2001.

                     Transit Planning and Research


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\........................................     $22,200,000     $87,800,000    $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\.......................................      23,000,000      93,000,000     116,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      23,000,000      93,000,000     116,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $242,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554 and $54,280,827 in
  FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA.

    The Committee action provides $116,000,000 for transit 
planning and research. The bill contains language specifying 
that $55,422,400 shall be available for the metropolitan 
planning program; $5,250,000 for the rural transit assistance 
program; $31,500,000 for the national planning and research 
program; $11,577,600 for the State planning and research 
program; $8,250,000 for transit cooperative research; and 
$4,000,000 for the National Transit Institute at Rutgers 
University.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year--
                             ----------------------------    Committee
                              2001 program   2002 budget  recommendation
                                level \1\     estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning.......   $52,113,600   $55,422,400    $55,422,400
Rural transit assistance         5,250,000     5,250,000      5,250,000
 program....................
State planning and research     10,886,400    11,577,600     11,577,600
 program....................
Transit cooperative research     8,250,000     8,250,000      8,250,000
 program....................
National Transit Institute..     4,000,000     4,000,000      4,000,000
National planning and           29,500,000    31,500,000     31,500,000
 research program...........
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................   110,000,000   116,000,000    116,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2001 does not reflect rescission of $242,000 pursuant to
  section 1403 of Public Law 106-554 and $54,280,827 in FHWA flex
  funding transferred to FTA.

                 NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

    The Committee recommendation includes transit planning and 
research grants from the national program that were authorized 
in section 3012 of the Transportation Equity Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001:

Project ACTION..........................................      $3,000,000

    Support in fiscal year 2002 is also provided for a number 
of important initiatives and Federal Transit Administration 
priorities, including:

North Dakota State University transit center for small 
    urban
    areas...............................................        $400,000
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority/Southern 
    California Association of Governments transit trip 
    planning partnership................................         500,000
Center for Composites Manufacturing.....................       1,100,000
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute (ETVI) outreach and 
    research activities.................................         500,000
Washington State WestStart innovative transit vehicle 
    initiative..........................................       2,000,000
West Virginia transit vehicle exhaust emissions 
    evaluation initiative...............................       1,400,000
Missouri Soybean Association biodiesel transit 
    demonstration.......................................       1,000,000

    Dollar coin fare study.--Within the funds provided, the 
Committee directs the Administrator to conduct a study on the 
benefits and feasibility of having large transit and toll road 
systems use fare card or coin technology that recognizes and 
accepts the Sacagawea Dollar Coins by April 1, 2002.

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $5,016,600,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   5,397,800,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,397,800,000

    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided 
$5,397,800,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of 
transit expenses associated with the following programs: 
administrative expenses, formula grants, university 
transportation research, transit planning and research, job 
access and reverse commute grants, and capital investment 
grants. This level of funds is equal to the total budget 
authority from the highway trust fund inside the transit 
firewall as outlined in the transportation discretionary 
spending guarantee subtitle of the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century.

                       Capital Investment Grants


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                General funds     Trust funds         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\.....................................     $579,200,000   $2,121,300,000   $2,700,500,000
Budget estimate, 2002........................................      568,200,000    2,272,800,000    2,841,000,000
Committee recommendation.....................................      668,200,000    2,272,800,000    2,941,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants pursuant to Public Law 106-346; also includes
  $4,500,000 Trust Fund direct appropriation pursuant to sections 1105, 1107, and 1123 of Public Law 106-554,
  does not reflect rescission of $5,941,100 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

    Section 5309 of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants 
or loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof 
to be used in financing mass transportation investments. 
Investments may include construction of new fixed guideway 
systems and extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus 
fleet expansions and bus facility construction; and fixed 
guideway expenditures for existing systems.
    The Committee action provides a level of $2,941,000,000. 
Within this total, $2,272,800,000 is from the ``Mass transit'' 
account of the highway trust fund, and no more than 
$668,200,000 shall be appropriated from general funds. The 
following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                   2001 program     2002 budget      Committee
                                                                       level         estimate     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities..........................................    $579,700,000    $568,200,000    $568,200,000
Fixed guideway modernization....................................   1,058,400,000   1,136,400,000   1,136,400,000
New systems and new extensions..................................   1,062,400,000   1,136,400,000   1,236,400,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................   2,700,500,000   2,841,000,000   2,941,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
Unobligated discretionary bus and new starts funds from 
projects funded in the fiscal year 1999 Transportation 
appropriations bill (Public Law 105-277) and previous acts are 
available for reallocation in fiscal year 2002. As in previous 
years, a general provision (sec. 314) is included which limits 
funding availability for fiscal year 2002 capital investment 
funds, except fixed-guideway modernization funds, to 3 years 
from enactment.
    Limited extensions of discretionary funds.--There have been 
occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of 
capital investment funds. These extensions are granted on a 
case by case basis and, in nearly all instances, are due to 
circumstances that were unforeseen by the project's sponsor. 
The availability of these particular funds are intended for one 
additional year, absent further congressional direction.
    The Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds 
provided in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 
Transportation appropriations bills for the following projects:
  --Chambersburg, Pennsylvania intermodal facility and transit 
        vehicles
  --Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities
  --Albuquerque, New Mexico--Alvarado Multi-modal transit 
        center
  --Albuquerque, New Mexico light rail project
  --New York, New York--Midtown West Intermodal Ferry Terminal 
        Project
  --Birmingham-Jefferson County, Alabama buses
  --Prichard, Alabama bus and bus facilities
  --King County, Washington--Elliot Bay water taxi
  --Morgantown, West Virginia fixed guideway modernization 
        project
  --Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania intermodal facility
  --Towamencin Township, Pennsylvania intermodal bus 
        transportation center
  --Harrisburg, Pennsylvania--Capital Area Transit/Corridor One 
        project
  --Philadelphia-Reading, Pennsylvania--SEPTA Schuylkill Valley 
        Metro
  --Washington, District of Columbia--intermodal transportation 
        center
  --Burlington-Essex Junction Commuter Rail, Vermont
    Bill language.--The bill contains a general provision (sec. 
348) reprogramming funds provided in previous fiscal years from 
the following projects for the purposes specified below:
  --Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities (fiscal year 
        1999)--to be made available for the Northern New Mexico 
        park and ride facilities and State of New Mexico, buses 
        and bus-related facilities.
  --Northern New Mexico Transit Express/Park and Rides buses 
        (fiscal year 2000)--to be made available for the 
        Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities and State 
        of New Mexico, buses and bus-related facilities.
    The bill also includes another general provision (sec. 344) 
which clarifies the local match requirements pertaining to a 
transit project in Clark County, Nevada.

                         bus and bus facilities

    The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities 
funding is $568,200,000. These funds may be used to replace, 
rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to 
construct bus-related facilities. Funds for bus and bus 
facilities shall be distributed as follows:

        Project                                                   Amount

Alabama rural buses, Alabama............................      $9,000,000
Alabama State Dock intermodal passenger & Monroe Park 
    freight terminal, Alabama...........................       5,000,000
Alabama-Tombigbee Regional Commission buses and vans, 
    Alabama.............................................         500,000
Albuquerque west side bus and bus facility, New Mexico..       5,000,000
Albuquerque Alvarado transportation center (phase II)...       3,000,000
Anchorage bus and rail transfer facility, Alaska........       3,000,000
Area VII Agency on Aging bus facility, Montana..........       1,100,000
Arkansas Transit Association small urban and rural 
    transit systems buses and bus facilities, Arkansas..      10,000,000
Atlanta, Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority clean 
    fuel buses, Georgia.................................       8,000,000
Auburn intermodal facility and parking garage, Maine....         500,000
Averdeen Ride Line buses, South Dakota..................         100,000
Baton Rouge multi-modal transportation and parking 
    facility, Louisiana.................................       8,000,000
Billings buses and transfer facility, Montana...........       3,000,000
Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority buses, 
    Alabama.............................................       2,000,000
Brazos Transit ADA compliant bus, Texas.................         800,000
Brazos Transit buses for Texas A&M; University, Texas....       1,500,000
Brazos Transit buses, intermodal facility, and parking 
    facility, Texas.....................................       1,500,000
Brazos Transit park and ride facility, Texas............         800,000
Bridgeport intermodal corridor project, Connecticut.....       8,000,000
Brockton Intermodal transit center, Massachusetts.......       1,000,000
Brookhaven multi-modal facility, Mississippi............       2,000,000
Austin Metro bus, Texas.................................       1,400,000
El Paso bus, Texas......................................       1,100,000
Buffalo County bus and maintenance facility, Nebraska...          75,000
Butler County transit facility, Ohio....................       2,000,000
Butte-Silver Bow Bus facility, Montana..................         500,000
Callowhill bus garage replacement, Pennsylvania.........       6,000,000
Capital Area Transportation Authority articulated buses, 
    Michi- 
    gan.................................................       4,000,000
Cedar Rapids intermodal facility, Iowa..................       4,630,000
Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority bus 
    and bus facilities, Florida.........................       2,000,000
Central Kenai Peninsula Transit buses and bus 
    facilities, Alaska..................................         500,000
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority, New 
    York................................................       4,000,000
Cherry Street Project multi-modal facility, Indiana.....       1,500,000
City of Kent facility, Washington.......................         900,000
Clackamas County south corridor transit improvements, 
    Oregon..............................................       7,000,000
Clark County Public Transit park and ride facility, 
    Washington..........................................       2,500,000
Dayton, Wright-Dunbar Transit Access Project, Ohio......       3,200,000
Detroit Department of Transportation bus replacement, 
    Michigan............................................       5,000,000
East Haddam transportation vehicles and transit 
    facilities, Connecticut.............................         420,000
Everett Transit buses and vans, Washington..............       1,750,000
Fairbanks clean fuel buses and bus facility, Alaska.....       1,500,000
Flint Mass Transportation Authority replacement buses 
    and vans, Michigan..................................       2,000,000
Folsom railroad block project, California...............       1,250,000
Fort Clatsop Shuttling system, Oregon...................       2,500,000
Georgia Regional Transit Authority express bus program, 
    Geor- 
    gia.................................................      10,200,000
Grand Rapids Interurban Transit Partnership 
    transportation center, Michigan.....................       6,000,000
Granite State Clean Cities Coalition CNG buses and 
    facilities, New Hampshire...........................       1,500,000
Greater Glens Falls Transit bus facility renovation, New 
    York................................................         500,000
Greater Minnesota Transit Authority bus, paratransit and 
    transit hub, Minnesota..............................       7,525,000
Hampton Roads regional buses, Virginia..................       7,000,000
Harrison county multi-modal facilities and shuttle 
    service, Mississippi................................       8,000,000
Hartford-New Britain bus rapid transitway, Connecticut..      15,000,000
Hattiesburg intermodal facility, Mississippi............       4,000,000
Hershey intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania..       2,000,000
Hillsborough Area Transit Authority bus and bus 
    facilities, Flor- 
    ida.................................................       4,000,000
Honolulu bus and bus facilities, Hawaii.................      10,000,000
Huntsville Public Transit intermodal facility, Alabama..       1,000,000
I-5 Trade Corridor/99th St facility, Washington.........       4,000,000
Indiana bus consortium, bus and bus facilities, Indiana.       5,000,000
Indianapolis downtown transit facility, Indiana.........       4,000,000
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Line 22 
    articulated buses, CA...............................         500,000
San Joaquin Regional Transit District bus facility, 
    California..........................................         500,000
Orange County buses, California.........................         500,000
Contra Costa Connection buses, California...............         250,000
Palmdale Transportation Center, California..............         350,000
Palo Alto intermodal transit center, California.........         250,000
Costa Mesa CNG facility, California.....................         150,000
Livermore park and ride, California.....................         250,000
Issaquah Highlands park and ride, Washington............       1,000,000
Jackson multi-modal transportation center, Mississippi..       2,000,000
Kalamazoo Metro Transit System bus transfer center, 
    Michigan............................................       1,800,000
Kansas City Area Transit Authority bus and radio 
    equipment, Missouri.................................      10,000,000
King County Eastgate Park and Ride, Washington..........       2,500,000
Las Cruces buses, New Mexico............................       1,000,000
Las Cruces intermodal transit facility, New Mexico......       2,000,000
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority buses and 
    facility, California................................       1,500,000
Long Island Rail Road Jamaica intermodal facilities, New 
    York................................................       4,000,000
Los Angeles Metro Transportation Authority rapid buses 
    and bus facilities, California......................       5,000,000
Louisiana State University, intermodal parking facility, 
    Louisi- 
    ana.................................................       2,000,000
Lowell Regional Transport Authority, new bus hub, 
    Massachu- 
    setts...............................................       1,000,000
Macon terminal intermodal station, Georgia..............       1,500,000
Main Street multi-modal transportation center, Virginia.       5,000,000
Marquette County Transit Authority bus and bus facility, 
    Michi- 
    gan.................................................       1,750,000
Memphis International Airport intermodal facility, 
    Tennessee...........................................       3,000,000
Miami beach Development electrowave shuttle service, 
    Florida.............................................       3,000,000
Mobile Waterfront terminal, Alabama.....................       5,000,000
Mobridge Senior Citizen handicap-accessible vehicles, 
    South Dakota........................................          60,000
Monterey-Salinas Transit facility, California...........       1,500,000
Mukilteo multi-modal terminal and ferry, Washington.....       1,450,000
Murray-Calloway Transit Authority bus facility, Kentucky         200,000
Muskegon Area Transit System facility, Michigan.........       1,700,000
Nassau University Medical Center bus service extension, 
    New 
    York................................................       1,000,000
New Rochelle intermodal center, New York................       1,500,000
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses, New 
    York................................................       2,560,000
North Puget Sound Intermodal facilities and 
    improvements, Washington............................         400,000
OATS bus and bus facilities, Missouri...................       2,800,000
Oglala Sioux Tribe bus and bus facilities, South Dakata.       2,500,000
Phoenix Regional Public Transportation Authority 
    facility maintenance, Arizona.......................       7,500,000
Pierce Transit buses, vans, and equipment, Washington...       1,000,000
Port Authority of Allegheny buses, Pennsylvania.........       2,000,000
Port McKenzie bus and bus facilities, Alaska............       2,000,000
Providence transportation information center, Rhode 
    Island..............................................       2,000,000
Ravalli County Council on Aging bus facility, Montana...         625,000
Regional Transport Commission of Southern Nevada bus 
    rapid transit, Nevada...............................       6,000,000
Reno Bus Rapid Transit high-capacity articulated buses, 
    Nevada..............................................       2,000,000
Reno/Sparks bus and bus facilities, Nevada..............       8,000,000
Rosebud Sioux Tribe transportation vans, South Dakota...          55,000
San Antonio VIA Metro Transit Authority clean fuel 
    buses, 
    Texas...............................................       3,000,000
San Francisco Municipal bus and bus facilities, 
    California..........................................       6,500,000
Santa Fe buses and bus facilities, New Mexico...........       2,000,000
Ship Creek pedestrian and intermodal facility, and 
    parking garage, Alaska..............................       5,000,000
Sierra Madre Villa & Chinatown intermodal transportation 
    centers, California.................................       3,500,000
Snohomish County transit buses and bus facilities, 
    Washington..........................................       5,000,000
Sound Transit regional transit hubs, Washington.........      10,000,000
South Bend Public Transit bus fleet replacement, Indiana       4,500,000
South Florida Regional Transit buses and bus facilities, 
    Florida.............................................       8,000,000
Southwest Missouri State University intermodal transfer 
    facility, Missouri..................................       5,000,000
Springfield bus transfer station, Oregon................       4,000,000
Springfield intermodal facility, Massachusetts..........       4,000,000
St. Bernard Parish intermodal facility, Louisiana.......       2,000,000
St. Louis Bi-State Development Authority bus and bus 
    facilities, Missouri................................       8,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Alabama.............       3,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Colorado..............       8,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Kentucky..............       5,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Michigan..............       3,500,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, New Mexico............       2,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Ohio..................       6,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Tennessee.............       9,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, West Virginia.........       4,000,000
Statewide bus replacement, Iowa.........................       7,000,000
Statewide bus, bus facilities, and rural transit 
    vehicles, North Dakota..............................       3,900,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Delaware............       5,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Illinois............       8,950,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Kansas..............       3,500,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Maryland............      12,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, North Carolina......       5,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Rhode Island........       8,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Wisconsin...........      12,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Wyoming.............       5,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facility, South Carolina........       9,000,000
Statewide buses, bus facilities, and equipment, Idaho...       3,500,000
Statewide buses, Maine..................................       5,000,000
Statewide regional intermodal transportation centers, 
    Utah................................................       7,000,000
Statewide small transit systems, buses, and bus 
    facilities, Washington..............................       3,500,000
Seward Mass Transit bus and terminal facility, Alaska...         200,000
TEA21 Setaside (Altoona and Georgetown).................       7,850,000
Tompkins County replacement buses, New York.............       2,000,000
Topeka Transit transfer center, Kansas..................         500,000
Tuscon intermodal center, Arizona.......................       2,000,000
Twin Cities metro transit bus, bus facilities, and fare 
    card system, Minnesota..............................       6,000,000
University of North Alabama transit projects, Alabama...       2,000,000
Vermont Public Transit alternative fuel/hybrid bus and 
    facility, Vermont...................................       4,000,000
Village of Taos Ski Valley bus and bus facilities, New 
    Mexico..............................................         500,000
West Lafayette Transit Project bus and bus facilities, 
    Indiana.............................................       1,000,000
Wilkes-Barre Intermodal facility, Pennsylvania..........       2,000,000
Wrangle Hill buses and maintenance facility, Delaware...       6,000,000

    Illinois Statewide Buses.--The Committee provides 
$8,950,000 to the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) 
for Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee 
expects IDOT to fund the following projects: (1) $750,000 to 
Western Illinois University for Go WEST, a University transit 
bus system; (2) $750,000 to the Rockford Mass transit District 
for a feasibility study and preconstruction work on the 
proposed Eastside Transfer Center; (3) at least $4,500,000 for 
Downstate Illinois replacement buses in Champaign-Urbana, 
Danville, Macomb, Madison County, Quincy, River Valley, Rock 
Island, and Springfield.
    Washington Statewide Small Transit System, Buses & Bus 
Facilities.--The Committee provides $3,500,000 to the 
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for 
Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee 
expects WSDOT to fund the following projects: (1) $440,000 to 
Clallam Transit. (2) $928,000 to Grays Harbor Transportation. 
(3) $632,000 to Island Transit. (4) $324,000 to Link Transit. 
(5) $385,000 to Mason County Transportation Authority. 
(6)$750,000 to Valley Transit.

                      fixed guideway modernization

    The Committee recommends a total of $1,136,400,000 for the 
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under TEA21 all 
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table 
itemizes the fiscal year 2001 rail modernization allocations by 
State:

Fiscal year 2002 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization

                                                        Fiscal year 2002
        State                                                     budget

Alaska..................................................  \1\ $7,047,502
Arizona.................................................       1,644,697
California..............................................     126,085,672
Colorado................................................       1,685,042
Connecticut.............................................      38,882,061
Delaware................................................         925,702
District of Columbia....................................      56,905,623
Florida.................................................      17,442,156
Georgia.................................................      24,732,420
Hawaii..................................................       1,104,095
Illinois................................................     123,714,778
Indiana.................................................       9,066,393
Louisiana...............................................       2,904,984
Maryland................................................      27,174,472
Massachusetts...........................................      69,275,018
Michigan................................................         390,401
Minnesota...............................................       4,169,386
Missouri................................................       4,019,407
New Jersey..............................................      92,768,993
New York................................................     350,286,663
Ohio....................................................      17,728,816
Oregon..................................................       4,104,767
Pennsylvania............................................     103,484,030
Puerto Rico.............................................       2,401,851
Rhode Island............................................       1,843,732
Tennessee...............................................         309,837
Texas...................................................       8,110,941
Virginia................................................       6,133,234
Washington..............................................      19,883,930
Wisconsin...............................................         809,397
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................   1,125,036,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Oversight...............................................      11,364,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................   1,136,400,000

\1\ The Committee understands that the final Alaska rail modernization 
allocation will include both the prior years' allocation owed the 
railroad and the fiscal year 2002 allocation after appropriate 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               NEW STARTS

    The bill provides $1,236,400,000 for new starts. These 
funds are available for major investment studies, preliminary 
engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management, 
oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions. 
Under section 3009(g) of TEA21, there is an 8-percent statutory 
cap on the amount made available for activities other than 
final design and construction--that is, alternatives analysis, 
environmental impact statements, preliminary engineering, major 
investment studies, and other predesign and preconstruction 
activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill allocates the funds provided for new starts as 
follows:

        Project                                                   Amount

Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transit 
    project.............................................        $192,492
Northeast Indianapolis-downtown corridor project........       3,000,000
Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail project......       3,000,000
Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University light rail 
    transit proj- 
    ect.................................................      15,000,000
Salt Lake City, Utah, University Medical Center light 
    rail transit extension project......................       6,000,000
Salt Lake City, Utah, Ogden-Provo commuter rail project.       2,000,000
Wilmington, Delaware, Transit Corridor project..........       4,000,000
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System project....         500,000
Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit 
    project.............................................      60,000,000
Kansas City, Missouri, Central Corridor Light Rail 
    transit proj- 
    ect.................................................      10,000,000
Atlanta, Georgia, MARTA extension project...............      25,000,000
Maine Marine Highway development project................       2,000,000
New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project....     151,069,771
Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project.........      20,000,000
New Jersey Urban Core Newark Penn Station improvements 
    project.............................................       3,000,000
Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor extension project......       7,000,000
Albuquerque, New Mexico, light rail project.............       2,000,000
Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project      35,000,000
Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood line extension project....       5,000,000
St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair extension 
    project.............................................      24,223,268
Chicago, Illinois, Metra North central, South West, 
    Union Pacific commuter project......................      30,000,000
Charlotte, North Carolina, South corridor light rail 
    transit proj- 
    ect.................................................      10,000,000
Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project.......       9,000,000
San Diego, California, Mission Valley East light rail 
    transit extension project...........................      65,000,000
Los Angeles, California, East Side corridor light rail 
    transit proj- 
    ect.................................................      10,000,000
San Francisco, California, BART extension project.......      80,605,331
Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood extension 
    project.............................................       9,289,557
Stockton, California, Altamont commuter rail project....       5,000,000
San Jose, California, Tasman West, light rail transit 
    project.............................................         113,336
Nashville, Tennessee, Commuter rail project.............       6,000,000
Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail extension 
    project.............................................      19,170,000
Des Moines, Iowa, DSM bus feasibility project...........         150,000
Macro Vision Pioneer, Iowa, light rail feasibility 
    project.............................................         100,000
Sioux City, Iowa, light rail project....................       3,500,000
Dubuque, Iowa, light rail feasibility project...........         300,000
Charleston, South Carolina, Monobeam project............       2,000,000
Anderson County, South Carolina, transit system project.       5,000,000
Dallas, Texas, North central light rail transit 
    extension project...................................      70,000,000
Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit plan project.....      25,000,000
Fort Worth, Texas, Trinity railway express project......       4,000,000
Honolulu, Hawaii, Bus rapid transit project.............      12,000,000
Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway 
    project.............................................      10,631,245
Boston, Massachusetts, Urban ring transit project.......       1,000,000
Kenosha-Racine, Milwaukee Wisconsin, commuter rail 
    extension project...................................       4,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street car line project...      23,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana, Airport CBD commuter rail 
    project.............................................       7,000,000
Burlington, Vermont, Burlington to Middlebury rail line 
    project.............................................       3,000,000
Detroit, Michigan, light rail airport link project......       1,000,000
Grand Rapids, Michigan, ITP metro area, major corridor 
    project.............................................       1,500,000
Iowa, Metrolink light rail feasibility project..........         500,000
Fairfield, Connecticut, Commuter rail project...........       6,000,000
Stamford, Connecticut, Urban transitway project.........       4,000,000
Little Rock, Arkansas, River rail project...............       3,000,000
Maryland, MARC commuter rail improvements projects......      14,000,000
Baltimore, Maryland rail transit project................       3,000,000
Largo, Maryland, metrorail extension project............      60,000,000
Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double 
    track proj- 
    ect.................................................      18,110,000
Puget Sound, Washington, Sounder commuter rail project..      24,500,000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-County commuter rail 
    project.............................................      30,000,000
Pawtucket-TF Green, Rhode Island, commuter rail and 
    maintenance facility project........................       8,000,000
Johnson County, Kansas, commuter rail project...........       1,500,000
Long Island Railroad, New York, east side access project      20,000,000
New York, New York, Second Avenue subway project........       3,000,000
Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor project...........       4,000,000
Nashua, New Hampshire-Lowell, Massachusetts, commuter 
    rail project........................................       5,000,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light 
    rail extension project..............................      10,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schuykill Valley metro 
    project.............................................      16,000,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit 
    reconstruction project..............................      20,000,000
Scranton, Pennsylvania, rail service to New York City 
    project.............................................       2,500,000
Wasilla, Alaska, alternate route project................       2,500,000
Ohio, Central Ohio North Corridor rail (COTA) project...       1,000,000
Virginia, VRE station improvements project..............       4,000,000
Twin Cities, Minnesota, Hiawatha Corridor light rail 
    transit project.....................................      50,000,000
Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit 
    extension project...................................      70,000,000
San Juan, Tren Urbano project...........................      50,149,000
Alaska and Hawaii Ferry projects........................      10,296,000

    Albuquerque, New Mexico, light rail project.--The City of 
Albuquerque's Transit Department, in coordination with New 
Mexico's Highway and Transportation Department, and the Middle 
Rio Grande Council of Governments, has undertaken a High 
Capacity Transportation System (HCTS) Study. The Albuquerque 
Metropolitan Planning Area is forecasted to have a 48 percent 
increase in population by 2020. Accordingly, in order to 
maintain the area's attractiveness for residents and economic 
development, a combination of transportation improvements is 
under examination. Planning for the proposed HCTS will be 
completed in two phases. Phase I will develop a 20-year high 
capacity-strategic corridors plan. Phase I will be completed in 
November 2000. Phase II will include the environmental document 
for the approved corridor(s). The Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement is anticipated for completion in December 2002. 
Alternatives that are being studied include: No-build, roadway 
improvements, new roadways, Travel Demand Management/
Transportation System Management (TDM/TSM), including 
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications, bus 
service improvements, express bus and park-and-ride service, 
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, busways, commuter rail, 
light rail and a combination of modes. High capacity-strategic 
corridors will be incorporated into the region's Metropolitan 
Transportation Plan. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has 
appropriated $12,300,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for 
this effort and it has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee 
has recommended $2,000,000 in new starts funding for this 
project in fiscal year 2002.
    Anderson County, South Carolina Transit System.--The 
Anderson County trolley system would prove an integral part of 
the commuter population in Anderson County. It would move 
people, many of which are low income, from their homes to jobs 
by using the rail system. This would create a more efficient 
and environmentally conscious answer to the overburdened system 
currently in place. The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 in 
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    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 TEA21. Accordingly, 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. The 
total cost of the amended project is $463,180,000, with 
$370,540,000 from the section 5309 new starts program. Of the 
$65,530,000 increase in Federal funding, $10,670,000 was 
applied from unexpended prior-year funds identified from cost 
savings on the Dunwoody section of the North Line extension. 
Including these prior-year funds, a total of $304,820,000 has 
been appropriated for this project in fiscal year 2000 and 
prior years, and an additional $24,770,000 was provided in 
fiscal year 2001. This leaves $40,950,000 remaining in the 
amended FFGA for this project. The Committee has recommended 
$25,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    Baltimore, Maryland, rail transit project.--Planning and 
feasibility studies to look at the future of rail improvements 
in the Baltimore area are needed. The studies would examine the 
possibility of creating a rail ``loop'' extending from the 
terminus of Light Rail at Penn Station southward to the Pratt 
Street Corridor. The rail would then continue westward to 
connect with the Light Rail at Howard Street. Funding is based 
under TEA21 on section 3030(b)(6) under the Metropolitan Rail 
Corridor project, and section 3030(b)(7) under the Baltimore 
People Mover project. The Committee has recommended $3,000,000 
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Baltimore/Central LRT Double-Tracking.--The Maryland Mass 
Transit Administration plans to construct 9.4 miles of track to 
upgrade 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, of which MTA is expected to seek $120,000,000 (78 
percent) in section 5309 new starts funds. MTA ridership 
forecasts estimate that this project will serve 44,000 average 
weekday boardings and 6,800 daily new riders by 2020. This 
project will improve service and reliability by permitting the 
operation of additional trains which will reduce the interval 
between trains to eight minutes in peak service and 12 minutes 
during off-peak periods; trains currently operate at 17-minute 
intervals. This project has been rated ``medium-high'' for 
finance and ``medium'' for project justification, based on 
FTA's evaluation under section 5309(e). This results in an 
overall project rating of ``recommended.'' The original Central 
Corridor Light Rail Line began operations in 1992 as a mostly 
single-track line. MTA completed a study examining the 
feasibility, environmental impacts and benefits of double 
tracking eight sections. Three federally-funded extensions, to 
Hunt Valley, Penn Station, and Baltimore-Washington 
International Airport were completed in 1998. The double track 
project was adopted by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council and 
included in its financially constrained long-range plan in 
1993. Section 3030(a)(42) of TEA21 authorizes the ``Maryland--
Light Rail Double Track'' for final design and construction. A 
total of $5,650,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 
2000, and an additional $2,970,000 was provided in fiscal year 
2001. The Committee has recommended $18,110,000 in new starts 
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor project.--The 
Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) completed a 
Regional Transit Feasibility Analysis as part of the Strategic 
Regional Multi-modal Mobility Plan (Plan) in November 1999. The 
overall Plan includes a congestion management system element 
and a feasibility determination for regional transportation and 
transit improvements for the Birmingham Metropolitan Planning 
Area of Jefferson and Shelby Counties. In the Phase I regional 
transportation and investment planning process, the 
transportation alternatives that were identified included 
highway improvements, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, 
improved fixed-route transit service, circulator and feeder bus 
service, express bus service operating from park-and-ride lots 
on HOV lanes and light rail transit. The conclusions from the 
Phase I effort included, among other findings, the need to 
address long-term dedicated public transit funding and land 
development policies. The Birmingham MPO, representing local 
municipal and county governments, in cooperation with the 
Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority, will conduct 
Phase II. Phase II will identify the locally preferred 
alternative in each corridor in accordance with FTA's 
regulations for Major Capital Investment Projects. Phase II is 
scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2002. Through fiscal 
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $8,880,000 in section 5309 
New Starts funds for this effort and it has been authorized in 
TEA21. The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in new starts 
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston pier 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 will 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 1, committing a 
total of $330,730,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. 
Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $294,760,000 has been 
provided for this project. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation 
provided an additional $24,770,000. The Committee has 
recommended $10,631,245 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    Boston, Massachusetts, Urban ring transit project.--The 
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is conducting 
a Major Investment Study (MIS) to examine transportation 
alternatives to improve circumferential mass transit in a 
corridor surrounding the Boston central core. The proposed 
corridor, known as the Urban Ring and generally following a 
previously proposed inner belt highway alignment, includes 
regional trip generators, beginning at the University of 
Massachusetts' Boston Campus at the southeast end and 
terminating at Logan Airport at the northeast end. The corridor 
also includes many major public, private, and institutional 
activity centers located in Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, 
Everett, Somerville, and Brookline. Currently, the alternatives 
under consideration include circumferential rail service, 
various combinations of rail and bus service to new station 
stops on the existing radial system, and enhanced bus service. 
These alternatives would connect with extant commuter rail and 
transit lines. The project is included in the ``future 
projects'' section of the Boston area Long-Range Transportation 
Plan, but is not in the financially constrained plan. Through 
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $4,800,000 in 
section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort and authorized 
under TEA21. The Committee has recommended $1,000,000 in new 
starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Burlington, Vermont, Burlington to Middlebury rail line 
project.--The Vermont Agency of Transportation and Vermont Rail 
Division are working to slowly rehabilitate the rail system 
along the western side of the State to provide faster and more 
efficient service to a greater amount of people in Vermont. 
Given the overwhelming success of the Champlain Flyer commuter 
rail line from Burlington to Charlotte, Vermont. This new rail 
line would extend service to Middlebury as well as add more 
daily travelers on the rail system. The Committee has 
recommended $3,000,000 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    Central Link Light Rail, Puget Sound, Washington.--The 
Committee strongly supports a comprehensive transit solution 
for the Puget Sound, Washington corridor. It is currently the 
second most congested area in the nation. A $500,000,000 Full 
Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the project was executed in 
January 2001. Since that time, the project has faced increased 
scrutiny and oversight by Congress and the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General related to concerns about cost 
increases and schedule delays. This thorough examination of the 
project is justified.
    The Committee has been encouraged by progress made in 
recent months. The agency has new leadership and a new 
management team. New management has executed an agency-wide re-
organization and instituted rigorous new budget and project 
controls. The Sound Transit board is currently reviewing the 
project, and is scheduled to make a decision to affirm or 
revise the alignment for the first minimum operable segment in 
September 2001.
    The Committee anticipates honoring the FFGA and resuming 
funding for the project once the concerns raised by the 
Congress and the Inspector General's Interim Report are 
addressed satisfactorily.
    Central Ohio North Corridor Rail project.--The Central Ohio 
Transit Authority (COTA) is pursuing funding for preliminary 
engineering for the North Corridor Rail project. COTA and Mid-
Ohio Regional Planning Commission are currently in the process 
of updating a Major Investment Study (MIS) of the North 
Corridor that will be completed in 2001. COTA plans to move 
into preliminary engineering (PE) upon completion of the MIS. 
The Committee has recommended $1,000,000 in New Starts funding 
for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Charleston, South Carolina, Monobeam Project.--The 
Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority, in 
cooperation with the City of Charleston and the City of North 
Charleston, is examining the feasibility of implementing a 
proposed monobeam transit system from the Airport to the 
Convention Center. The proposed full-scale monobeam prototype 
is a 3-year $35,000,000 to $40,000,000 effort that is expected 
to be financed largely with private funds. An approximately 
1.25-mile prototype will be erected on a site in the Charleston 
community and is designed to demonstrate the aesthetic, cost 
and environmental characteristics of the monobeam, as well as 
its safety and reliability. The prototype could become the 
first segment of a regional rail transit network. Through 
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $6,130,000 in 
section 5309 New Starts for this effort and it has also been 
authorized under TEA21. The Committee has recommended 
$2,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    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 line extending from 
Uptown Charlotte to the Town on Pineville, North Carolina, near 
the South Carolina border. The proposed project is currently 
planned to operate within portions of existing Norfolk-Southern 
railroad rights-of-way (ROW), including sharing ROW with the 
city's existing downtown trolley system. The south corridor is 
an area generally paralleling I-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 
reminder of the planned system (7.3 miles) would operate on 
separate tracks generally paralleling NS ROW. The proposed 
project also includes construction of 19 stations, purchase of 
up to 12 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. An additional station will transfer as an intermodal 
transfer point for feeder buses, while a station at the 
Charlotte Transportation Center in uptown Charlotte will 
provide connections to the downtown trolley and local bus 
service. Total capital costs for the south corridor project are 
estimated at $331,000,000. The Federal share is estimated to be 
$166,800,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, Congress 
has appropriated $12,840,000 in section 5309 new starts funds 
for this effort. It has also been authorized under TEA21. The 
Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Chicago, Illinois, Douglas Branch reconstruction project.--
The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is proposing a complete 
reconstruction of the Douglas Branch heavy rail line. Part of 
the 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-1980's. 
Age-related deterioration has resulted in high maintenance and 
operating costs on the line, as well as declining service. The 
Douglas Branch currently carries approximately 27,000 riders on 
an average weekday, and serves one of the most economically 
distressed areas in Chicago; low income households make up 30 
percent of the total number of households within walking 
distance of the stations. The line has been in operation for 
over 100 years, and serves neighborhoods that originally 
developed along the system. The corridor contains an estimated 
54,000 jobs and 115,000 residents within one-half mile of the 
stations, and serves the University of Illinois at Chicago 
(25,000 students) and a large, dense central business district 
with an estimated 339,000 jobs. Population and employment 
densities are high, averaging 9,100 jobs and nearly 20,000 
people per square mile. After ``looping'' through the central 
business district, the Blue Line also extends to O'Hare 
International Airport and the Medical Center Complex. The total 
capital cost of the Douglas Branch reconstruction project is 
estimated at $482,600,000. The Douglas Branch is authorized for 
final design and construction by section 3030(a)(106) of TEA21. 
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 $4,920,000 has been appropriated 
through fiscal year 2000, and an additional $14,860,000 was 
provided in fiscal year 2001. This leaves $300,320,000 needed 
to fulfill the FFGA. The Committee has recommended $35,000,000 
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Chicago, Illinois, Metra North Central, Southwest Corridor 
Commuter Rails, and Union Pacific West line extension 
project.--Metra, the commuter rail division of the Regional 
Transportation Authority (RTA) of northeastern Illinois, is 
seeking to add a second mainline track along 12 miles of the 
53-mile North Central Service commuter rail line. 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. The total capital cost of this project is 
estimated at $236,450,000, of which Metra is expected to seek 
$144,690,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. The North 
Central corridor extends from downtown Chicago to Antioch on 
the Illinois-Wisconsin border, and traverses suburban Lake 
County. It includes the two most significant hubs of employment 
in the six-county northeastern Illinois region, the Chicago CBD 
and the area surrounding O'Hare International Airport. Metra 
estimates that this project will serve an average of 8,400 
average weekday boardings by 2020, with 8,000 daily new riders. 
This project has been rated ``medium'' for both project 
justification and finance, earning an overall rating of 
``recommended.'' FTA approved entry into the final design stage 
of development in October 2000. Section 3030(a)(10) of TEA21 
authorizes the North Central project for final design and 
construction. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $19,600,000 
was provided for this project, and an additional $14,250,000 
was provided in fiscal year 2001. Metra is planning an 
extension and various improvements to 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 TEA21 authorized the ``Southwest 
extension''. The total cost of this project is estimated at 
$218,700,000, of which Metra is expected to seek $36,970,000 
(17 percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. To date 
Congress has appropriated $17,860,000 to the 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 36-mile Union Pacific 
west line, which currently provides service between Geneva and 
downtown Chicago. This project would extend the line eight 
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 the 
multiple track and diagonal 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 TEA21 authorizes 
this project as the Chicago ``west line extension''. The total 
capital costs of the Union Pacific west extension and 
improvements project is estimated at $80,728,000 in Federal new 
starts funding (60 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, a total 
of $16,450,000 has been appropriated. The Committee has 
recommended a combined amount of $30,000,000 in new starts 
funding for these three projects in fiscal year 2002.
    Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.--The 
Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to lengthen existing 
platforms and expand 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 
except one portion near the north end of the line, which 
operates at grade. The brown line was built between 1900 and 
1907. The line currently carries approximately 104,000 average 
weekday boardings; however, current stations 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 TEA21 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 contemplating an 
examination of the environmental impacts and benefits related 
to the proposed project, including a historical preservation 
issue associated with one of the stations that is scheduled for 
rehabilitation. The environmental review process is scheduled 
for completion in 2001. Total capital costs are currently 
estimated at $327,000,000. To date, Congress has appropriated 
$4,920,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the project, in 
addition to be authorized in TEA21. The Committee has 
recommended $5,000,000 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    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 area and continue into 
the city of East Cleveland, terminating at the Stokes/
Windermere rapid transit station. GCRTA proposes to operate 60-
foot articulated electric trolley buses (ETB) with both left 
and right-hand side doors for access and egress of patrons on 
the corridor. The ETBs 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 tail link between downtown and University Circle. In November 
1995, the GCRTA Board of Trustees selected the ETCP 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 planing organization) 
adopted a resolution supporting the ECTP. In mid-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 summer of 2001. 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 2001, Congress has appropriated 
$13,440,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the Euclid 
corridor transportation project. Of this amount, $4,720,000 was 
rescinded or reprogrammed by Congress because of project 
delays. The Committee has recommended $7,000,000 in new starts 
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Dallas, Texas, North Central LRT extension project.--Dallas 
Area Rapid Transit (DART) is constructing a 12.5-mile, 9-
station extension of its light rail system from the Park Lane 
Station north to the City of Plano. DART estimates that 
approximately 17,000 riders will use this extension by 2020, of 
which 6,800 will be new riders. The total cost of this project 
is estimated at $517,200,000. DART began contracting for 
construction and purchasing vehicles and necessary right-of-way 
in May 1998, and expects to open the North Central extension 
for revenue service in December 2003. The North Central 
extension is authorized for final design and construction under 
section 3030(a)(20) of TEA21. FTA issued an FFGA for this 
project on October 6, 1999, which will provide a total of 
$333,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal 
year 2000, a total of $92,270,000 has been provided to this 
project, with an additional $69,350,000 appropriated in fiscal 
year 2001. The Committee has recommended $70,000,000 in new 
starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Denver, Colorado, Southeast Corridor LRT project.--The 
Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver and the 
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are implementing a 
19.12-mile, 14-station light rail line between downtown Denver 
and Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County along I-25, with a spur 
along I-225 to Parker Road in Arapahoe County. The double-
tracked line would operate over an exclusive right-of-way and 
connect with both the existing Central Corridor light rail line 
in downtown Denver, and the Southwest line which is currently 
under construction. 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 TEA21 authorized 
the Southeast LRT in Denver for final design and construction. 
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 
funding. A total of $3,440,000 in section 5309 new starts funds 
has been appropriated for this project through fiscal year 
2000, and an additional $2,970,000 was provided in fiscal year 
2001. The Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in new starts 
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Denver, Colorado, Southwest Corridor LRT project.--The 
Denver RTD Southwest Corridor light rail extension opened for 
revenue service in July 2000. The 8.7-mile, five-station line 
between Denver and Littleton extends from the I-25/Broadway 
station on the existing Central Corridor line south to Mineral 
Avenue in Littleton, running parallel to Santa Fe Drive over an 
exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way. The total cost of this 
project was $176,320,000. Ridership in the opening year has 
exceeded not only the original opening-year forecast of 8,400 
daily passengers, but also the projections of 22,000 daily 
riders by 2015. The line currently serves 30,000 passengers per 
day. FTA issued an FFGA for this project on May 9, 1996, which 
will provide a total of $120,000,000 in section 5309 new starts 
funding. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $99,790,000 has 
been provided to this project, with an additional $20,010,000 
appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended 
$192,492 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 
2002.
    Des Moines, Iowa, DSM bus feasibility project.--Due to 
growth in the Des Moines area, a feasibility study is necessary 
to apprise the need for adjustments in the transportation 
system in the greater Des Moines area. The Committee has 
recommended $150,000 in new starts funding for this project in 
fiscal year 2002.
    Detroit, Michigan, light rail airport link project.--An 
alternative analysis phase of the study of a rail system 
linking downtown Detroit with the Detroit Metropolitan/Wayne 
County Airport. The Detroit Airport will open a new 
international terminal in December which will greatly increase 
the airport's capacity. This rail project will alleviate 
traffic congestion and the shortage of parking that is expected 
as a result of the expanded airport. The rail project is 
currently undergoing a feasibility study. This study is 
expected to be completed in June of 2001. The Committee has 
recommended $1,000,000 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Upgrade.--
The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) is proposing 
a number of system improvements to the 71.7-mile regional 
transportation system it operates between Palm Beach, Broward 
and Dade Counties in South Florida. This area has a population 
of over 4 million, nearly one-third of the total population of 
Florida. The planned improvements include construction of a 
second mainline track, rehabilitation of the signal system, 
station and parking improvements, acquisition of new rolling 
stock, improvements to the Hialeah Maintenance Yard facility 
and construction of a new, northern layover facility. The 
proposed double-tracking will improve service by a factor of 
three, permitting 20-minute intervals between trains during 
peak commuter hours instead of the current one-hour headways. 
Tri-Rail estimates that these improvements will serve 42,100 
average daily boardings by 2015, including 10,200 daily new 
riders. 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 on March 21, 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 for the Double Track 
Corridor Improvement Program Segment 5 Project will provide a 
total of $110,500,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Tri-
Rail has allocated a total of $10,810,000 in fiscal year 2000 
and prior year funding to this project, and an additional 
$14,860,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. This project 
has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended 
$30,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    Fort Worth, Texas, Trinity Railway Express project.--The 
addition of rolling stock in the Trinity Railway Express would 
allow the rail to meet anticipated ridership that is associated 
with service to the Fort Worth central business district which 
is due to increase in the fall. Existing ridership has exceeded 
expectations and the Fort Worth Transit Authority anticipates 
that the central business district service will require two new 
bi-level coaches, one new bi-level cab car and one new 
locomotive to meet demand for the extension of service to 
downtown Fort Worth. The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, ITP metro area, major corridor 
project.--The Interurban Transit Partnership is looking to 
conduct a study in the Grand Rapids, Michigan metro area. This 
study would investigate the possibility and assess the 
necessity of a major corridor running through this region. This 
project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has 
recommended $1,500,000 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    Honolulu, Hawaii, Bus rapid transit study.--This project is 
part of the Primary Corridor Transportation Project. The 
Honolulu Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) consists of a Regional and In-
town bus rapid transit system. The Regional BRT element 
includes a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to 
Downtown, to be used by Regional BRT vehicles as well as 
private automobiles with three or more occupants. The in-town 
BRT component would be a high capacity transit spine from 
Middle Street Downtown, a University Branch from Downtown to 
the University of Hawaii-Manoa, and a downtown Kakaako/Wakiki 
Branch. In fiscal year 2001 $2,500,000 was appropriated for 
this project. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The 
Committee has recommended $12,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit plan project.--The 
Advanced Transit Program (ATP) is a $304,800,000 program that 
is proposed for funding with 50 percent section 5309 New Starts 
funds and 50 percent local funds. The ATP includes a number of 
projects, including two Major Investment Studies (MIS)--
(Downtown to Astrodome and West Loop Corridors). The Downtown 
to Astrodome MIS/Environmental Assessment was completed in 
September 1999. Preliminary engineering for the resultant light 
rail locally preferred alternative is currently underway. The 
West Loop MIS is scheduled for completion in March 2001. The 
West Loop MIS is locally funded. Through fiscal year 2001, 
Congress has appropriated $8,400,000 in section 5309 New Starts 
funds for the ATP. Section 5309 New Starts funds appropriated 
through fiscal year 1999 were applied to the MIS/EA for the 
Downtown to Astrodome LRT. Assignment of fiscal year 2000 and 
fiscal year 2001 funds are pending. This project has been 
authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $25,000,000 
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Johnson County, Kansas, commuter rail project engineering 
and design.--Johnson County, Kansas is proposing to implement a 
5 station, 23-mile Commuter Rail line extending from downtown 
Kansas City, Missouri, southwest to Olathe, Kansas, in Johnson 
County. The proposed commuter rail project would parallel 
Interstate 35, the major highway connecting Kansas City with 
Olathe, and would share existing Burlington Northern and Santa 
Fe (BNSF) railroad track (except for the line's northern-most 
mile segment, which would require either new track or existing 
Kansas City Terminal Railway trackage). Park and ride 
facilities are being planned for each proposed station. The 
commuter rail line will terminate in Kansas City at its 
historic Union Station. Ridership estimates for the I-35 
commuter rail project range from 1,400 to 3,800 trips per day 
by 2001; these estimates will be refined during subsequent 
phases of project development. TEA21 section 5309(e)(8)(A) 
applies to this project. The Committee has recommended 
$1,500,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    Kansas City, Missouri, Central corridor light rail/
streetcar project.--The Kansas City Area Transportation 
Authority is finalizing the preliminary engineering for the 25 
miles of light rail/streetcars linking southern and eastern 
portions of Kansas City, Missouri. The City of Kansas City, 
Missouri is embarking on an initiative to develop a fixed-guide 
way public transit system in the Central Corridor. The 
Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, commuter rail 
extension project.--The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional 
Planning Commission (SEWRPC)--local Metropolitan Planning 
Organization--plans to conduct an Alternative Analysis study to 
examine the feasibility of extending Chicago-based Metra 
commuter rail service from Kenosha to Racine and Milwaukee. The 
study will focus on a proposed 33-mile corridor connecting the 
central business districts of Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee in 
southeastern Wisconsin. SEWRPC has recently completed a 
feasibility study--funded entirely with local funds--that 
concluded that the extension is feasible. SEWRPC has adopted 
the project into the region's Long-Range Plan. Through fiscal 
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $5,440,000 in section 5309 
New Starts funds for this effort. This project has been 
authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    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 Georges'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 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 September 2004, 
with a total capital cost estimated at $433,900,00. 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 $13,080,000 to 
this project. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The 
Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    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 seven replica streetcars 
operating on a single track powered by overhead catenary. The 
proposed system includes 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. 
A future 0.4 mile extension to the William Jefferson Clinton 
Presidential Library site has been proposed. Revenue service is 
planned to begin in December 2002. This project is addressed in 
the TEA21 section 5309(e)(8)(A). The Committee has recommended 
$3,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    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 and Long Island and 
Queens and a new passenger terminal in Grand Central Terminal 
(GST) 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. 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 
$4,340,000,000 (escalated dollars), including $3,560,000,000 
for project management, design, construction, and right-of-way, 
and $790,000,000 for rolling stock (over 225 new vehicles). MTA 
is expected to seek $2,172,000,000 in section 5309 new starts 
funding for this project (50 percent) Overall, more than 
351,000 average weekday boardings to both Penn Station and GCT 
would benefit directly from the LIRR ESA project by the year 
2020. These include approximately 162,000 daily boardings 
serving GCT, 161,000 daily boardings serving Penn Station and 
5,500 daily boardings at the proposed Sunnyside 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 in to 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 is anticipated in mid-2001. Through 
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $53,630,000 in 
section 5309 new start funds for this project. This project has 
been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended 
$20,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    Los Angeles, California, East Side 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 (the city's major intermodal hub, serving intercity, 
commuter, and regional rail service, as well as local and 
express bus services) along Alameda Street through the City 
Terrace, Belvedere, and East Los Angeles communities of 
unincorporated Los Angeles County. The project would terminate 
at Beverly and Atlantic Boulevards, where a 500 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. 15,000 average 
weekday boardings are forecasted on the proposed line in 2020, 
including 9,700 daily new riders. The project is estimated to 
cost $759,500,000 in escalated dollars, with a section 5309 New 
Starts share of $402,300,000. This project has been authorized 
in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in new 
starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood extension 
project.--The Los Angeles Metro Rail Red Line rapid-rail system 
is being planned, programmed and constructed in phases, through 
a series of ``Minimum Operable Segments'' (MOSs). The first of 
these segments (MOS-1), a 4.4-mile, 5-station segment, opened 
for revenue service in January 1993. A 2.1-mile, three-station 
segment of MOS-2 opened along Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996; 
an additional 4.6-mile, 5-station segment of MOS-2 opened in 
June 1999, and the Federal funding commitment has been 
fulfilled. 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. In January 1997, FTA requested that LACMTA 
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 the 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, 
LACMTA 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, including the LACMTA 
Accelerated Bus Procurement Plan. LACMTA continued to study 
transit investment options for the Eastside and Mid-City 
corridors. In October 2000, FTA approved entry into preliminary 
engineering for a 5.9-mile, 8-station light rail line in the 
Eastside Corridor between downtown Los Angeles and East Los 
Angeles. The Mid-City corridor is still undergoing alternatives 
analysis. FTA will consider the prior Federal commitment under 
the MOS-3 FFGA as an ``other factor'' for rating and evaluation 
purposes for these projects, as long as the identified projects 
otherwise meet the requirements of the new starts program. 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 June 2000. The total capital cost of the North Hollywood 
project is estimated at $1,310,820, of which the revised FFGA 
commits $681,040,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. Through 
fiscal year 2000, a total of $581,820,000 has been appropriated 
for the North Hollywood segment of MOS-3; an additional 
$49,530,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. This project has 
been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended 
$9,289,557 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    Maine Marine Highway development project.--The Maine 
Department of Transportation is looking into developing a 
marine transportation system that would offer an alternative to 
automobile traffic. The original Marine Highway was authorized 
by section 3030 of the TEA21 authorization and $2,000,000 was 
appropriated for the project. Funding in 2002 will go towards 
the Portland Harbor Ocean Gate Project. The Committee has 
recommended $2,000,000 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    Macro Vision Pioneer, Iowa, light rail feasibility 
project.--The Macro Vision Pioneer Light Rail system would use 
the existing track of the CRANDIC, the Iowa Northern and the CN 
Railroad. It would also use vintage railcars. To complete the 
plan, funds are needed for the initial design of the project, a 
feasibility study, and building costs. The Committee has 
recommended $100,000 in new starts funding for this project in 
fiscal year 2002.
    Maryland, MARC commuter rail improvement projects.--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 train sets within the Amtrak Yard 
at Washington, DC's Union Station. Platforms that are currently 
used to store these trains at Union Station will no longer be 
available following 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. Estimated capital 
costs for the project total $21,000,000. The Penn-Camden 
Connection is a 6-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, allowing redirection 
of MARC service during periods of CSX freight operations. 
Estimated capital costs for the project total $30,800,000. The 
proposed Silver Spring Intermodal Transit Center, located in 
suburban Washington, DC, will construct an intermodal transit 
facility that relocates the Silver Spring MARC Station to the 
Silver Spring Metrorail station. The transit center would allow 
convenient passenger transfers between several modes of travel, 
including commuter rail, heavy rail, commuter and local bus 
service, taxi, bicycle, auto, and pedestrians. The center will 
also accommodate the proposed Georgetown Branch Trolley to 
operate between Silver Spring and Bethesda. Located in the 
Silver Spring, MD central business district, a major transit 
hub for lower Montgomery County, the intermodal transit center 
will more efficiently meet existing and future transit needs of 
this area. Estimated capital costs for the project total 
$33,300,000. Section 3030(g)(2) of TEA21 authorizes these 
projects as part of the Frederick extension, and will permit 
service improvements necessary to take full advantage of that 
extension. The proposed share of Federal funding from the 
section 5309 new starts program is less than $25,000,000 for 
each of the individual improvements, which renders them exempt 
from evaluation. The Committee has recommended $14,000,000 in 
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center Extension project.--The 
Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in cooperation with the 
City of Memphis, is proposing to build a 2-mile light rail 
extension to the Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop village 
rail system. The extension would expand service from the 
central business district (CBD) east to the Medical Center 
area. The line would operate on 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. 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 used until a proposed 
regional LRT line is implemented and a fleet of modern LRT 
vehicles is acquired. The total capital cost of this project is 
estimated at $74,580,000. This project would be the last 
segment of the downtown rail circulation system as well as the 
first segment of a regional light rail line. This project is 
included in the City of Memphis' Capital Improvement Program, 
the Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program, and the 
State Transportation Improvement Program. A Major Investment 
Study/Environmental Assessment was completed in May 1997, 
fulfilling the statutory requirement for an alternatives 
analysis. FTA approved this project for entry into final design 
in May 2000. The Memphis Corridor was authorized for final 
design and construction by section 3030(a)(43) of TEA21. 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. A total of $9,890,000 has been appropriated 
for this project through fiscal year 2000; an additional 
$5,940,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has 
recommended $19,170,000 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    Iowa, Metrolink light rail feasibility project.--Metrolink, 
the transit agency for the bi-state Illinois-Iowa Quad City 
area will conduct a detailed feasibility study for providing 
rapid transit using existing rail lines. The lines being 
examined on the Iowa side follow the Mississippi River in the 
metropolitan area and a possible line may go to Eldridge. The 
Committee provides $500,000 for this project in fiscal year 
2002
    Nashua, New Hampshire-Lowell, Massachusetts, commuter rail 
project.--The New Hampshire Department of Transportation is 
planning on constructing an 11 mile commuter rail extension 
project. The rail line would connect Lowell, Massachusetts and 
Nashua, New Hampshire. The project includes the rehabilitation 
of track and appurtenances, construction of new track where 
necessary, as well as construction of a park-and-ride lot with 
a boarding platform. The new service extension will provide an 
alternative to a highly congested highway corridor. This 
project received funding through the TEA21 authorization as 
well as through other appropriations. The Committee has 
recommended $5,000,000 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    Nashville, Tennessee, regional commuter rail project.--
Nashville's Regional Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan 
Planning Organization, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority 
have recently completed the preliminary engineering and 
environmental studies. Facility upgrades and rolling stock are 
needed to increase the productivity of the commuter rail line. 
$6,000,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2001 for the 
Nashville Regional Commuter Rail. This project has been 
authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $6,000,000 
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    New Jersey/Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project.--The 
New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing a 
9.6-mile, 16-station light rail line along the Hudson River 
Waterfront in Hudson County, from the Hoboken Terminal to 34th 
Street in Bayonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey City. This line 
is intended as the initial minimum operable segment (MOS-1) of 
a larger 21-mile, 30-station 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 completed system will serve the high-density 
commercial centers in Jersey City and Hoboken, and provide 
connections with NJ Transit commuter rail service, PATH trains 
to Newark and Manhattan, and the Port Imperial ferry from 
Weehauken to Manhattan. This initial operating segment is being 
constructed under a turnkey contract to design, build, operate, 
and maintain the system, which was awarded in October 1996. 
Total costs are expected to be $992,140,000 for MOS-1; 
construction began in December 1996. The Department issued an 
FFGA on October 15, 1996 that commits $604,090,000 in section 
5309 new starts funding for MOS-1. Through fiscal year 2000, a 
total of $325,430,000 has been appropriated for this project. 
The fiscal year 2001 appropriation provided an additional 
$119,870,000. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The 
Committee has recommended $151,069,771 in new starts funding 
for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    New Jersey, Urban Core Project.--Improvements and expansion 
of platforms at the Newark Penn Station would help to 
facilitate additional passenger capacity and efficiency. This 
added capacity will be needed to accommodate additional 
passenger loads that are expected to accompany the further 
development of downtown Newark. This development includes the 
location of a new professional sports complex located in 
Newark. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The 
Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Streetcar project.--The New 
Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is developing a 5.5-
mile streetcar project in the downtown area, 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 Carrollton Avenue to City 
Park/Beauregard Circle. The corridor is located in an existing, 
built-up area that was originally developed in the streetcar 
era. Much of the corridor lies within the central business 
district and historic areas, where employment and housing 
densities, mix of uses, and pedestrian-oriented development are 
generally good. The central business district includes a high-
density mix of office, retail, hotels and leisure attractions. 
The total capital cost of this project is estimated at 
$156,600,000, of which RTA is expected to seek $125,300,000 (80 
percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. RTA completed a 
major investment study for this project in March 1995, 
fulfilling the requirement for an alternatives analysis. FTA 
approved entry into preliminary engineering in September 1995, 
and RTA initiated final design activities in September 1997. 
Final design is essentially complete, contracts for vehicle 
assembly have been awarded, and construction contracts will be 
awarded in early 2001. This project has been rated ``medium-
high'' for project justification and ``medium'' for local 
financial commitment, earning it an overall rating of 
``recommended.'' The financial rating reflects the fact that 
sufficient local capital funds are now committed to this 
project, as well as improvements to the stability of the agency 
due to an extension in the scope of the RTA sales tax. RTA 
expects to open this line in April 2004. Section 3030(a)(51) of 
TEA21 authorizes the New Orleans Canal Streetcar Project for 
final design and construction. To date, Congress has 
appropriated a total of $55,180,000 for this project. The 
Committee has recommended $23,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    New York, New York, Second Avenue Subway project.--The New 
York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is planning to 
develop a full-length Second Avenue subway line along the East 
Side of Manhattan from 125th Street to the Financial District 
in Lower Manhattan pursuant to approvals by the MTA Board and 
the MTA Capital Program Review Board. The East Side of 
Manhattan has only one rapid transit line (Lexington Avenue). 
The line experiences significant overcrowding during peak 
periods. In 1995, the line carried approximately 288,000 
inbound daily passenger trips. There is limited additional 
capacity to expand bus service. The specific alignment of the 
full-length subway line is being developed by two coordinated 
studies: Manhattan East Side Alternatives (MESA) Study and the 
Lower Manhattan Access (LMA) Study. FTA is sponsoring both 
studies. The MESA Study has completed a Major Investment Study/
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (MIS/DEIS) on the northern 
segment of the Second Avenue subway from 125th Street to the 
63rd Street subway line. The LMA Study is completing an MIS/
DEIS on the southern segment of the Second Avenue subway from 
63rd Street to Lower Manhattan. FTA and the MTA are developing 
an approach to complete the planning and environmental review 
process for the full-length Second Avenue subway using these 
two studies. The MTA has included $1,050,000,000 in its fiscal 
year 2000-fiscal year 2004 Capital Program for planning, 
environmental review, design and engineering, and the 
initiation of construction by the end of 2004. This project has 
been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended 
$3,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    Newark, New Jersey Newark Rail Link project.--The New 
Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is planning a 1-mile, 
five-station extension of the Newark City Subway light rail 
line, running from Broad Street Station in Newark to Newark 
Penn Station. This project is planned as the first minimum 
operable segment (MOS-1) of a proposed 8.8-mile, 16-station 
light rail system that will link the cities of Newark and 
Elizabeth, New Jersey. The second stage is a planned 1-mile 
segment from Newark Penn Station to Camp Street in downtown 
Newark, and the third is the planned remaining 7-mile segment 
to Elizabeth, which includes a station serving Newark 
International Airport. The total cost of the MOS-1 segment is 
estimated at $207,700,000. Section 3030(a)(57) of TEA21 
authorized the New Jersey Urban Core Project, which consists of 
eight separate elements including the Newark-Elizabeth Rail 
Link, for final design and construction. On August 2, 2000 FTA 
issued an FFGA committing a total of $141,950,000 in section 
5309 new starts funds to the Newark Rail Link MOS-1 project. 
Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated a total of 
$29,680,000 for this project. An additional $9,910,000 was 
provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended 
$20,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    Northeast Indianapolis downtown corridor project.--The I-
69/SR37 corridor connecting Indianapolis' central business 
district with its northeast suburbs is one of the fastest 
growing corridors in the nation. Along with other 
transportation solutions, this proposed rail project will help 
alleviate the extreme traffic congestion that has resulted from 
this economies expansion. This system also will help distribute 
workers to job centers. In addition to this heavily congested 
corridor, planners are currently examining the feasibility of a 
line to the city's west side connecting with the rapidly 
expanding Indianapolis International Airport. Also, the City of 
Indianapolis has approved a privately-funded overhead people 
mover system linking the city's major healthcare facilities, 
and linkage between this system and the adjacent rail corridor 
are also being examined. The Major Investment Study (MIS) and 
the Draft Environmental Study (DEIS) are in the final analysis 
phase, with final recommendations projected for September 2001. 
There needs to be funding to continue additional study efforts 
concerning the proposed airport line plus the initial design 
costs. This project has been approved by the TEA21 
authorization and the Major Investment Study (MIS) and the 
Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) should be completed in 
September of 2001. The Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in 
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Pawtucket, Rhode Island, commuter rail and maintenance 
facility project.--The existing Massachusetts Bay Transit 
Authority layover/storage yard at East Junction, located in the 
heavily residential area in Attleboro, needs to be relocated to 
a 9-acre parcel located in the northwest quadrant of I-95 and 
Smithfield Avenue in Pawtucket. A six track yard with light 
servicing capabilities will be constructed initially. The yard 
will be designed to accommodate eight tracks and an electrified 
maintenance facility in the future. The Federal share of the 
project is $9,500,000 (50 percent), the rest of the project is 
being funded through the Rhode Island Department of 
Transportation (RIDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transit 
Authority. TEA21 authorized $10,000,000 in section 5309 in the 
FTA new start fund. To date RIDOT has received $495,321 in 
fiscal year 2001 funds. The Committee has recommended 
$8,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schuylkill Valley Metro 
Project.--The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 
Authority (SEPTA) and the Berks Area Reading Transportation 
Authority (BARTA) are conducting an Alternatives Analysis 
Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) for the 
Schuylkill Valley Corridor. The proposed corridor extends 
approximately 62 miles from Philadelphia to Reading and 
parallels the following major congested roadways: Schuylkill 
Expressway (Interstate 76), US 422 Expressway and US Route 202. 
The corridor includes the smaller cities of Norristown, 
Pottstown and Phoenixville. The corridor also includes suburban 
centers of King of Prussia and Great Valley, as well as 
regional activity centers and attractions including Center City 
Philadelphia, Art Museum, Philadelphia Zoo, King of Prussia 
Malls, Valley Forge National Park and Reading outlets. The 
proposed corridor encompasses three transit authorities: SEPTA, 
BARTA and Pottstown Urban Transit (PUT) and two metropolitan 
planning regions: Delaware Valley and Berks County. Commuter 
rail service currently operates in the eastern portion of the 
corridor with rail freight service operations in the western 
portion of the corridor. A locally preferred alternative (LPA) 
has been chosen by SEPTA and BARTA, but has not been adopted 
into the fiscally constrained long-range plans of the 
respective urbanized areas. The LPA would employ rail vehicle 
suitable for operation on mixed-use (passenger or freight) 
track, capable of one-man operation and with 15 and 30-minute 
headways in the peak and off peak, respectively. Total capital 
costs for the LPA are estimated at $1,400,000,000. A 
preliminary DEIS is currently under review by FTA prior to its 
public release before in the end of 2000. Work has commenced on 
the preparation of supporting documentation for entry into 
preliminary engineering (PE). Project sponsors plan to submit a 
request to FTA to enter PE before the end of 2000. Through 
fiscal year 2001, Congress has provided $16,810,000 in section 
5309 new starts funds for the proposed Schuylkill Valley 
Corridor. In addition, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning 
Commission, the Philadelphia Area metropolitan planning 
organization, is studying a proposed Regional Transit Oriented 
Development Program in the corridor under a Transportation and 
Community and System Preservation (TCSP) grant. This project 
has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended 
$16,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    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 and the Convention Center. The North Shore connector 
LRT stations and modifications of the Gateway Center and Steel 
Plaat stations, and the acquisition of 10 new light rail 
vehicles. The alternatives analysis was competed 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. Project 
capital costs are estimated at $389,900,000 (escalated); 
revenue service start-up is planned in 2004. Through fiscal 
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $15,750,000 in section 
5309 new starts funds (50 percent) for this effort. The 
Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Stage II LRT Reconstruction 
project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County (``Port 
Authority'') is in the process of reconstructing Pittsburgh's 
old 25-mile trolley lines to modern light rail standards. The 
reconstruction is taking place in two stages. The Stage I Light 
Rail Transit (LRT) project, undertaken in the 1980s, included 
reconstruction of the first segment and construction of 
Pittsburgh's first subway. Ground was broken on the Stage I LRT 
project in December 1980, and the reconstruction of this 
segment was completed in 1987. The Stage II LRT project 
includes reconstruction of the remaining 12 miles of the 
system, which consists of the Overbrook, Library and Drake 
trolley lines, to modern LRT standards. Single-track segments 
will be double-tracked, the Overbook and Drake lines (which are 
currently closed) would be reopened, and 28 new light rail 
vehicles would be purchased. In order to prioritize program 
needs against financing requirements, Port Authority 
reconfigured its rail improvement program in 1999. As a result, 
the Stage II LRT project will itself be undertaken in segments. 
The revised Stage II LRT Priority Program includes 
reconstruction of 10.7 miles on both the Overbrook Line and a 
portion of the Library Line, construction of 2,400 park-and-
ride spaces, and the purchase of 28 light rail vehicles. The 
total capital cost of the Stage II Priority Program is 
estimated at $386,400,000. The remaining portions of the 
original Stage II LRT project will be undertaken as local 
funding becomes available. Section 3030(a)(98) authorizes the 
``Pittsburgh--Stage II Light Rail'' project for final design 
and construction. 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 2000, a total of 
$11,820,000 has been appropriated for this project, and an 
additional $11,890,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee has recommended $20,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Portland, Oregon Interstate MAX LRT Extension project.--The 
Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is 
planning a 5.8-mile, 10-station extension of the Metropolitan 
Area Express (``MAX'') light rail system, which will connect 
Portland's central business district with the regional 
Exposition Center in north Portland. Riders will be able to 
transfer between the Interstate MAX extension and the existing 
33-mile East/West MAX line at the Rose Quarter station. This 
line will complement regional land use plans by connecting 
established residential, commercial, entertainment and other 
major activity centers, and will provide a key transportation 
link in the region's welfare-to-work programs. The total cost 
of the Interstate MAX project is estimated at $350,000,000. 
Tri-Met estimates that the Interstate MAX extension will serve 
18,100 average weekday boardings and 8,400 daily 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. The fiscal year 2001 
appropriation provided $7,430,000 for the Interstate MAX light 
rail extension. The Committee has recommended $70,000,000 in 
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Raleigh, North Carolina, triangle transit project.--The 
Phase I Regional Rail project is the first proposed 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 stations proposed for the Phase I of the project. 
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 17,600 average weekday boardings 
by the year 2020. The most recent capital cost estimate for 
Phase I is $754,700,000 (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 
corridor proposed to be used by TTA for the project is shared 
among a number of railroads, thus, TTA is considering a number 
of track realignments to accommodate proposed inter-city and 
high-speed rail improvements. This project has been authorized 
in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $9,000,000 in new 
starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair Extension 
project.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is 
developing a 26-mile extension of the Metrolink light rail line 
from downtown East St. Louis, Illinois to the Mid-America 
Airport in St. Clair County. A 17.4-mile Minimum Operable 
Segment (MOS) will extend from the current Metrolink terminal 
in downtown East St. Louis to Belleville Area College (now 
known as Southwest Illinois College). This segment consists of 
eight stations, seven park-and-ride lots, 20 new light rail 
vehicles, and a new maintenance facility in East St. Louis. The 
route makes extensive use of abandoned railroad rights-of-way. 
Right-of-way and real estate acquisition is proceeding as 
scheduled, and revenue service is scheduled to begin in 2001. 
The total capital cost of the St. Clair MOS is estimated at 
$339,200,000. On October 17, 1996, FTA and Bi-State entered 
into an FFGA that commits a total of $243,930,000 in section 
5309 new starts funding to complete the 17.4-mile MOS to 
Southwest Illinois College, and provides for extending the 
system to Mid-America Airport should funding become available 
at a later date. The funding committed to the MOS does not 
include $8,490,000 in Federal new starts funding provided prior 
to fiscal year 1996, which brings total Federal funding for 
this project to $252,410,000 under the new starts program. 
Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $161,880,000 has been 
appropriated for this project. The fiscal year 2001 
appropriation provided an additional $59,440,000. The Committee 
has recommended $24,223,268 in new starts funding for this 
project in fiscal year 2002.
    Stamford, Connecticut, urban transitway project.--The City 
of Stamford, in coordination with the Connecticut Department of 
Transportation (ConnDOT), and the Southwestern Regional 
Planning Agency, is proposing to design and construct a one-
mile Urban Transitway. This will consist of a bus lane, shared 
with high occupancy vehicles, that will provide a direct link 
from Interstate 95 to the Stamford Intermodal Transportation 
Center (SITC). The Urban Transitway project will include 
changes to the bus routes serving the SITC, improved pedestrian 
access, and the implementation of intelligent transportation 
systems (ITS). The SITC serves as a major transfer point for 
local bus and employer shuttle service and provides access to 
existing Amtrak and Metro-North rail service in the Northeast 
corridor. Currently, Metro-North operates 190 daily trains that 
stop at the SITC and approximately 2,500 riders use the service 
in the peak hours to commute from Stamford to New York City, 
while 1,500 riders travel inbound to employment opportunities 
in Stamford. To accommodate additional commuter capacity at the 
SITC, the City is expanding rail platform capacity and 
constructing a 1,200-space parking facility. This project has 
been authorized in TEA21 under section 5309(e)(8)(A). The 
Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT project.--The 
Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is implementing 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 would connect with the existing North/South 
line at Main Street and travel east along 400 South and 500 
South to the stadium. Light rail vehicles would operate on city 
streets and property owned by Salt Lake City, the Utah 
Department of Transportation, and the University. The line is 
intended to significantly improve access to jobs, educational 
opportunities, health care, and housing throughout the 400 
South corridor. The CBD to University line is scaled back from 
the originally proposed 10.9-mile West/East line from the 
airport to the university. Total capital costs are estimated at 
$105,800,000. 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. An additional $1,980,000 was appropriated in 
fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 in 
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Salt Lake City, Utah, University Medical Center LRT 
extension project.--The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has 
completed construction of a 15-mile light rail transit (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) and then 
follows a lightly-used railroad alignment owned by UTA to the 
suburban community of Sandy (13 miles). A 2.5 mile light rail 
line extension is under construction connecting the Salt Lake 
City CBD with Rice-Eccles stadium located at the western edge 
of the University of Utah campus. The Committee notes that the 
University of Utah, the University Medical Center and 
associated facilities constitute one of Utah's largest traffic 
generation points. Significant ridership will be served by this 
project which will add 3 stations and 1.5 miles of track 
extending from Rice-Eccles stadium to the University Medical 
Center. The Committee has recommended $6,000,000 in new starts 
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Salt Lake City, Utah, Salt Lake City-Ogden-Provo Commuter 
Rail project.--The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and 
the Moutainlands Association of Governments (MAG) the two 
metropolitan planning organizations that oversee transportation 
planning for more than 85 percent of the State of Utah's 
population, along with the Utah Transit Authority and the Utah 
Department of Transportation, are conducting an Alternatives 
Analysis (Inter-Regional Corridor Alternatives Analysis) study 
to evaluate transportation improvements in a proposed 120-mile 
corridor from Brigham City to Payson. The corridor encompasses 
the Ogden, Salt Lake City and Provo/Orem urbanized areas. The 
study is evaluating highway and transit alternatives in the 
corridor. The study is scheduled for completion in March 2001. 
WFRC and MAG completed a Long-Range Transit Analysis in 1998, 
identifying commuter rail as an effective means of serving the 
transportation demands in the corridor between Brigham City and 
Payson. A commuter rail line, with twelve stations, has been 
identified and evaluated and subsequently included in the 
region's Long Range Transportation Plan. Discussions are 
underway with the Union-Pacific Railroad concerning the 
acquisition of railroad right-of-way to implement commuter 
rail, light rail or other transportation improvements. Total 
capital costs are estimated at $292,000,000. Through fiscal 
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $3,900,000 in section 5309 
new starts funds for this effort. Consideration has been given 
to a proposed option of implementing interim commuter rail 
service during the Olympic 2002 Winter Games. The Committee has 
recommended $2,000,000 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    San Diego, California, Mission Valley East LRT Extension 
project.--The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is 
constructing a 5.9-mile, 4-station light rail extension of its 
existing Blue Line, from east of Interstate 15 to the City of 
La Mesa, where it will connect to the existing Orange Line near 
Baltimore Drive. The Mission Valley East line will serve four 
new and two existing stations, and would include elevated, at-
grade, and tunnel portions. The project includes two park and 
ride lots and a new access road between Waring Road and the 
Grantville Station. The corridor runs parallel to Interstate 8 
in eastern San Diego and La Mesa, and is characterized by a mix 
of low- to moderate-density industrial, residential, and 
commercial uses, but includes several major activity centers 
such as San Diego State University, the Grossmont regional 
shopping center, Kaiser Hospital, the Alvarado Medical Center, 
and the Grantville employment area. Over 24,000 jobs and nearly 
10,000 residences are located within walking distance of the 
proposed stations, and existing zoning is generally supportive 
of transit. Total capital costs are estimated at $431,000,000. 
On June 22, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of 
$329,960,000 in section 5309 new starts funding to this 
project. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated 
$22,110,000 for this project, and an additional $31,210,000 was 
provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended 
$65,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    San Francisco, California, BART Extension to SFO Airport 
project.--Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in San Francisco and 
the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) are 
constructing an 8.7-mile, 4-station extension of the BART rapid 
transit system to serve San Francisco International Airport 
(SFO). The project consists of a 7.5-mile mainline extension 
from the existing BART station at Colma, through Colma, south 
San Francisco, and San Bruno, terminating at the Millbrae 
Avenue BART/CalTrain Station. An additional 1.2-mile spur from 
the main line north of Millbrae will take BART trains directly 
into the airport, to a station adjoining the new International 
Terminal. The San Francisco International Airport is a major 
partner in this project. All structures and facilities to be 
constructed on airport property, and installation of related 
equipment, are being funded, designed and constructed by the 
airport for BART. This project is also part of the FTA Turnkey 
Demonstration Program to determine if the design/build approach 
will reduce implementation time and cost. On July 24, 1997, the 
first contract was awarded for site preparation and utility 
relocation associated with this project. Bids for the main 
contract for construction of the line, trackwork and related 
systems were opened on November 25, 1997. On June 30, 1997, FTA 
entered into an FFGA for the BART-SFO extension, committing a 
total of $750,000,000 in Federal new starts funds to the 
project; total capital costs at that time were estimated at 
$1,054,000,000. The total cost has since increased to an 
estimated $1,510,200,000; a recent surge in local construction 
activity has resulted in higher than estimated costs for 
construction of this project. Per the terms of the FFGA, any 
cost increases are the responsibility of the local project 
sponsors. Thus, the original Federal commitment is unchanged at 
$750,000,000. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $217,190,000 
has been appropriated for this project. An additional 
$79,250,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. This project has 
been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended 
$80,605,331 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal 
year 2002.
    San Jose, California, Tasman West LRT project.--The Santa 
Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) is implementing a 12.4-
mile light rail system from northeast San Jose to downtown 
Mountain View, connecting with both the Guadalupe LRT in 
northern Santa Clara County and the Caltrain commuter rail 
system. The project is proceeding in two phases: the Phase 1 
West Extension will connect the northern terminus of the 
Guadalupe Light Rail System in Santa Clara with the Caltrain 
Commuter Rail station in downtown Mountain View, a distance of 
7.6 miles; the future Phase 2 East Extension will complete the 
remaining 4.8 miles. The total capital cost of the Phase 1 West 
project was $325,000,000. Construction is complete and the 
Phase I West Extension opened for revenue service on December 
17, 1999, a year ahead of schedule. The Phase II East Extension 
is being funded with State and local funds. An FFGA was issued 
for Phase 1 of this project on July 2, 1996, providing a total 
of $182,750,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. A total of 
$170,500,000 was provided in fiscal year 2000 and prior years, 
and an additional $12,140,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. 
The Committee has recommended $113,336 in new starts funding 
for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    San Juan/Tren Urbano.--The Puerto Rico Department of 
Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) is constructing a 10.7-
mile, 16-station rapid rail line between Bayamon Centro and the 
Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce in the San Juan metropolitan 
area. The system consists of a double-track line operating over 
at-grade and elevated rights-of-way with a short below-grade 
segment, and a maintenance facility. When complete, this system 
is expected to carry 113,300 riders per day by 2010. This 
project has been selected as one of FTA's turnkey demonstration 
projects, which incorporates contracts to design, build, 
operate, and maintain the system. During 1996 and 1997, seven 
contracts were awarded under the turnkey procurement. The total 
capital cost of this project is now estimated at 
$1,653,600,000. On March 13, 1996, FTA entered into an FFGA 
committing $307,410,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to 
this project, out of a total project cost of $1,250,000,000. 
This did not include $4,960,000 in Federal new starts funding 
provided prior to fiscal year 1996, which brings total Federal 
new starts funding for this project to $312,370,000. This FFGA 
was amended in July 1999 to include two additional stations and 
10 additional railcars. This amendment included $141,000,000 in 
section 5307 funds and $259,900,000 in flexible funding; no 
additional section 5309 new starts funds were committed. A 
total of $84,630,000 in section 5309 funds has been allocated 
to the Tren Urbano project in fiscal year 2000 and prior years, 
and an additional $74,300,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 
2001. The Committee has recommended $50,149,000 in new starts 
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Scranton, Pennsylvania, rail service to New York City.--The 
Scranton to New York City Passenger Rail Service project 
involves the addition of new passenger rail service with a 
total of eight station stops--five in Pennsylvania (Scranton, 
Mt. Pocono, Stroudsburg, East Stroudsburg, and Deleware Water 
Gap) and three in New Jersey (Morristown, the Oranges, and 
Hoboken). When completed, the rail line is expected to carry 
684,000 riders annually. Freight track already exists along 
much of this route, with the exception of a 26-mile stretch in 
New Jersey from the Deleware Water Gap to Port Morris. The goal 
of this project is to provide commuters with an alternate 
source of public transportation in New York City while reducing 
congestion along I-80. The Committee has recommended $2,500,000 
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Puget Sound, Washington, Sounder Commer Rail project.--
Sound Transit, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit 
Authority, is implementing commuter rail service along the 82-
mile existing rail corridor between Lakewood and Everett, 
Washington. When the Sound Move enabling legislation is fully 
implemented, Sounder will serve 13 stations along the corridor, 
connecting commuters with local and regional bus service, the 
Washington State ferry system, Amtrak, the Central Link light 
rail system, and Tacoma Link. Currently, Sounder commuter rail 
is providing weekday service during peak hours at seven 
stations between downtown Tacoma and Seattle. Once in full 
operation, 18 trains will serve the Lakewood-Tacoma-Seattle 
Sounder segment, and 12 trains will serve the Everett-Seattle 
segment. By 2020, Sounder is estimated to carry 18,800 daily 
riders. To date, $60,850,000 has been appropriated for the 82-
mile corridor. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes 
$24,500,000 for Sounder commuter rail to develop facilities 
between Tacoma and Lakewood to the south.
    Sioux City, Iowa, light rail project.--A feasibility study 
was conducted in fiscal year 1998 regarding a light rail 
project in Sioux City. Sioux City Transit is now waiting for 
the final steps to complete this project. It has been 
authorized in TEA21 for a total of $10,000,000. The Committee 
has recommended $3,500,000 in new starts funding for this 
project in fiscal year 2002.
    Stockton, California, Altamont Commuter Rail project.--The 
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), the Alameda 
Congestion Management Agency, and the Santa Clara Valley 
Transportation Authority have proposed to implement a commuter 
rail system along an existing Union-Pacific Railroad right-of-
way operating between the three counties. A Joint Powers Board 
comprised of members from each of the three agencies was also 
created to operate the proposed Altamont Commuter Express. The 
SJRRC would be the managing agency for the initial 36-month 
term of an agreement executed between the three agencies. In 
addition to identifying potential sources for capital and 
operating funds, the member agencies will define the methods 
for allocating future costs and the shares of future capital 
improvement contributions from the member agencies. Through 
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $6,910,000 in 
section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. The Committee 
has recommended $5,000,000 in new starts funding for this 
project in fiscal year 2002.
    Twin Cities, 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), are proposing to design 
and construct an 11.6-mile Light Rail Transit (LRT) line within 
the Hiawatha Corridor. The proposed LRT will operate on the 
Hiawatha Avenue/Trunk Highway 55 Corridor linking downtown 
Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) International 
Airport, and the Mall of America (MOA) in Bloomington. The LRT 
is the transit component of a Locally Preferred Alternative, 
which includes the 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-62 
(Crosstown Highway). Current plans call for the north end of 
the LRT to begin in the 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 Humphrey Metrodome, 
following the former Soo Line Railroad to Franklin Avenue then 
generally 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 underground station 
and one at-grade station. The Metropolitan Airports Commission 
(MAC) will be responsible for the portion of the line that 
impacts the MSP, including the tunnel and stations. The line is 
then planned to emerge from the tunnel on the West Side of the 
airport and continue south with three proposed stations in 
Bloomington, including a station serving the Mall of America 
(MOA). The estimated capital cost for the 11.6-mile Hiawatha 
Corridor LRT, including 17 proposed stations, totals 
$675,400,000 (escalated dollars). 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. 
This project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has 
recommended $50,000,000 in new starts funding for this project 
in fiscal year 2002.
    Virginia, Burke Center VRE Station.--This project would 
include the design and construction of the expansion of the 
existing 543 space surface parking lot. Utilization is 
averaging 95 percent and is steadily increasing as VRE's 
ridership is increasing. The need for an increased space for 
parking is a result of improved road access to the station; new 
higher capacity coaches being placed in service by VRE; and new 
transit fare discounts being offered to attract more public 
transportation users. A feasibility study, currently in the 
planing stage, will determine whether a surface or structured 
facility is needed. VRE received $3,000,000 in fiscal year 
2001. The Committee has recommended a total of $4,000,000 in 
new starts funding for this and other VRE improvements in 
fiscal year 2002.
    Wasilla, Alaska, alternate route project.--The current 
population density in the Parks Highway corridor in the Wasilla 
area will support commuter rail operations if the trip time for 
the Alaska Railroad can be reduced by track improvements and 
relocations. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The 
Committee recommendation provides $2,500,000 for track 
upgrades, relocations, and signalizations to foster the 
development of the Alaska Railroad commuter rail service to 
Wasilla, Alaska.
    Wilmington, Delaware, Wilmington Transit Connector 
project.--The Delaware Department of Transportation and the 
City of Wilmington conducted a study to address transportation 
needs between major employment, commercial and entertainment 
venues in the city. The locally preferred alternative is a 
trolley line, approximately 2.1 miles in length, 0.6 miles of 
exclusive right-of-way. Total capital costs are currently 
estimated at $37,000,000. No environmental work has been 
undertaken for this effort. Work is underway, in consultation 
with FTA, in revising and supplementing the existing materials 
to support a request to FTA for entry into preliminary 
engineering. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has 
appropriated $5,930,000 in new starts funds for this effort. 
The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in new starts funding 
for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System Project.--The 
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is a fixed 
route transit system providing service between and among the 
Yosemite region's gateway communities and Yosemite National 
Park. YARTS is a joint powers authority formed by the counties 
of Merced, Mono and Mariposa with transportation to visitors 
and workers of the park. Funds would be used to help increase 
participation in the YARTS program, which served 20,000 
individuals last year. The Committee has recommended $500,000 
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   General fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\........................................     $20,000,000     $80,000,000    $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...........................................      25,000,000     100,000,000     125,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      25,000,000     100,000,000     125,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $220,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

    The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the Job Access 
and Reverse Commute Grants program, the level guaranteed under 
the TEA21 transit category firewall. This program is meant to 
help welfare reform efforts succeed by providing enhanced 
transportation services for low-income individuals, including 
former welfare recipients, traveling to jobs or training 
centers.
    The program makes competitive grants to qualifying 
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental 
authorities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations in urbanized 
areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants may not be 
used for planning or coordination activities.
    The Committee recommends the following allocations of job 
access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 
2002:

        Project                                                   Amount

AC Transit, California..................................      $2,000,000
Allegheny County Port Authority, Pennsylvania...........       2,000,000
Atlanta Regional Commission, Georgia....................       1,000,000
Austin, Texas...........................................         500,000
Baton Rouge, Louisiana..................................         750,000
Buncombe County, North Carolina.........................         100,000
Central Arkansas Transit Authority, Arkansas............         500,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority, Ohio....................       1,000,000
Charlotte Area Transit, North Carolina..................         500,000
Chicago Regional Transportation Authority, Illinois.....         500,000
Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority, Texas........         550,000
Galveston, Texas........................................         600,000
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, Indiana.       1,000,000
Jefferson County, Alabama...............................       2,000,000
Kenai Peninsula Transit Planning, Alaska................         500,000
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania..........................         198,000
Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority, 
    Pennsyl- 
    vania...............................................         250,000
Los Angeles County, California..........................       2,000,000
Macon/Bibb County, Georgia..............................         400,000
MASCOT Matanuska, Susitna Valley, Alaska................         200,000
Mass Transportation Authority, Michigan.................       1,000,000
Oglala Sioux Tribe, North Dakota........................         150,000
Phoenix Regional Transportation, Arizona................         240,000
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, New 
    York................................................         400,000
Sacramento Area Council of Governments, California......       2,000,000
Salem Area Transit, Oregon..............................         700,000
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, California.         500,000
Santa Fe, New Mexico....................................         630,000
Southeast Missouri Council, Missouri....................       2,000,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       6,000,000
State of Connecticut....................................       3,500,000
State of Delaware.......................................         750,000
State of Idaho..........................................         300,000
State of Iowa...........................................       1,700,000
State of Maryland.......................................       5,000,000
State of New Jersey.....................................       3,000,000
State of New Mexico.....................................       2,000,000
State of Ohio...........................................       1,500,000
State of Oklahoma.......................................       4,500,000
State of Pennsylvania...................................       1,500,000
State of Rhode Island...................................       2,000,000
State of Tennessee......................................       6,000,000
State of Washington.....................................       3,000,000
State of West Virginia..................................         800,000
State of Wisconsin......................................       5,200,000
Seward Transit Service, Alaska..........................         200,000
Tri-Met Region, Oregon..................................       1,800,000
Tuscaloosa, Alabama.....................................       1,000,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 
    Washington,
    DC..................................................       2,500,000
Westchester County, New York............................         500,000

    State of Maryland.--The Committee provides $5,000,000 to 
the Maryland Department of Transportation for Section 3037 Job 
Access and Reverse Commute Grants. The Committee expects 
Maryland Department of Transportation to fund the following 
project: (1) $800,000 to Montgomery County to operate the 
County's transit system during expanded hours of service; (2) 
$200,000 to Sojourner-Douglass College in Baltimore, Maryland 
for the College's Workforce Transportation and Referral.

             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. The 
Corporation's major priorities include: safety, reliability, 
trade development, and management accountability.

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $13,004,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      13,345,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,345,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $28,609 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554.

    Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and 
revenues from non-federal sources finances the operation and 
maintenance of the Seaway for which the corporation is 
responsible.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $13,345,000 to fully 
fund the operations and maintenance of the Corporation. The 
Committee recommendation provides sufficient funding for the 
Corporation's highest capital priorities and the projects 
recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after its 
survey and evaluation of the Corporation's lock and maintenance 
practices. The Committee requests a report on the Seaway's 
efforts at ballast water management and its efforts to 
coordinate with the Coast Guard to control non-indigenous 
aquatic nuisance species.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

    The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was 
established by the Secretary of Transportation's organizational 
changes dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research, 
analytical, and technical development arm of the Department for 
multimodal research and development, as well as special 
programs. Particular emphasis is given to pipeline 
transportation and the transportation of hazardous cargo by all 
modes. In 2002, resources are requested for the management and 
execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety, 
Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, and program and 
administrative support. Funds are also requested for the 
emergency preparedness grants program. RSPA's two reimbursable 
programs--Transportation Safety Institute [TSI] and the Volpe 
National Transportation Systems Center [VNTSC]--support 
research safety and security programs for all modes of 
transportation.

                     Research and Special Programs

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $36,373,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\...............................      41,993,000
Committee recommendation................................      41,993,000

\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $80,021 pursuant to Public Law 106-
554.
\2\ Does not includes reduction of $12,000,000 in proposed user fees.

    The Committee has provided a total of $41,993,000 for the 
``Research and special programs'' account, which is the same as 
the budget request.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                   2001 enacted     Fiscal year      Committee
                                                                        \1\        2002 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety......................................     $18,750,000     $21,217,000     $21,217,000
    (FTE).......................................................           (129)           (132)           (132)
Emergency transportation........................................      $1,831,000      $1,897,000      $1,897,000
    (FTE).......................................................             (9)             (9)             (9)
Research and technology.........................................      $4,700,000      $4,759,000      $4,759,000
    (FTE).......................................................             (9)             (9)             (9)
Program and administrative support..............................     $11,092,000     $14,060,000     $14,060,000
    (FTE).......................................................            (50)            (57)            (57)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, research and special programs......................     $36,373,000     $41,993,000     $41,993,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect $80,021 rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

                       hazardous materials safety

    The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [OHMS] administers 
a nationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the 
Secretary's duty to protect the Nation from the risks to life, 
health, and property that are inherent in the transportation of 
hazardous materials by water, air, highway, and railroad. OHMS 
plans, implements, and manages the hazardous materials 
transportation program consisting of information systems, 
research and analysis, inspection and enforcement, rulemaking 
support, training and information dissemination, and emergency 
procedures.
    The Committee recommends $21,217,000 for hazardous 
materials safety, which is the same as the budget request.

                        Emergency transportation

    Emergency transportation [ET] programs provide support to 
the Secretary of Transportation for his statutory and 
administrative responsibilities in the area of transportation 
civil emergency preparedness and response. This program 
develops and coordinates the Department's policies, plans, and 
programs, in headquarters and the field to provide for 
emergency preparedness.
    ET is responsible for implementing the Transportation 
Department's National Security Program initiatives, including 
an assessment of the transportation implications of the 
changing global threat. The Office also coordinates civil 
emergency preparedness and response for transportation services 
during national and regional emergencies, across the entire 
continuum of crises, including natural catastrophes such as 
earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados, and international and 
domestic terrorism. The Office of Emergency Transportation 
develops crisis management plans to mitigate disasters and 
implements these plans nationally and regionally in an 
emergency.
    The Committee recommends $1,897,000 for emergency 
transportation, which is the same as the budget request.

                        Research and technology

    The Committee recommends $4,759,000 for the Office of 
Research and Technology, which is the same as the budget 
request. The funds provided will help the Department coordinate 
and strengthen its responsibilities under TEA21, and will help 
support the R&T; organizational excellence strategy specified in 
the Department's strategic plan, allow RSPA to support the 
intergovernmental transportation research coordination 
responsibilities of the National Science and Technology 
Council, and support a limited intermodal research program.
    The Committee supports the request for R&D; planning. These 
funds are used to conduct a diversity of activities of 
fundamental importance to the Department and to help coordinate 
transportation-related research throughout the Government. For 
example, these funds are used to support technology transfer 
and in particular to ensure that R&T; advances made in the 
international arena are made available to various modes within 
the Department. These planning funds are the sole source for 
longer-term, visionary R&T; planning in the Department. In 
addition, these funds are used to support research and 
education planning that applies to all of the modes. Most 
importantly, one of the key purposes of these funds is to 
eliminate any duplication of research within the DOT.
    Research and development program initiatives.--The National 
Transportation Safety Board has recommended to the Department 
of Transportation that research be conducted on the role of 
fatigue in the transportation industry. Consistent with that 
recommendation, the Committee has provided $300,000, which is 
the amount requested for R&D; planning and management to support 
long-term, cross-cutting research on transportation operator 
fatigue management.

                   Program and administrative support

    The program support function provides legal, financial, 
management, and administrative support to the operating offices 
within RSPA. These support activities include executive 
direction (Office of the Administrator), program and policy 
support, civil rights and special programs, legal services and 
support, and management and administration.
    The Committee has provided $14,060,000 for program and 
administrative support, which is consistent with the budget 
request.
    Business modernization.--The Committee's allowance includes 
the 7 FTEs (all 14 new positions to be funded at .5 FTE each) 
and the $2,600,000 requested for business modernization. This 
new initiative is required to ensure that both the pipeline 
safety and hazardous materials transportation programs are 
underpinned with information technologies and administrative 
support that will promote effective program implementation. 
RSPA, compared to its sister agencies, has not received the 
funding needed to build the information technology (IT) 
infrastructure--servers, communications lines, security 
apparatus--to become citizen-centered in the Internet era. 
Without this IT infrastructure, the public is forced to rely on 
less than satisfactory ways to request and receive information 
on the location of pipelines so they can make intelligent 
decisions about where to build schools, hospitals, and high-
density housing. Without this infrastructure, companies 
reporting hazardous materials incidents or pipeline failures 
will continue to have to report these releases using paper 
forms instead of using the Internet. Without this 
infrastructure, companies and individuals will have to continue 
filing applications for hazardous materials registration, 
exemptions, and approvals by mail, fax, or phone instead of 
over the Internet.
    The Committee directs RSPA to submit to both the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations before February 1, 2002, a 
strategic plan outlining the improvements in IT that will be 
made during the next few years. The plan will specify the 
necessary steps to be taken and funds needed to ensure that 
RSPA's missions and activities will be underpinned by a current 
IT with the capability for upgrading. Obligations for most 
infrastructure improvements will not be made until such a plan 
has been submitted.
    The Committee also directs that RSPA use the additional 
funds and positions recommended herein to ensure that the 
financial management of each its accounts is brought under the 
direct control of the agency. As soon as possible, but before 
the end of fiscal year 2002, RSPA will conduct all of its own 
accounting functions, with perhaps the exception of minor 
disbursement activities that may be contracted to FAA. This 
transfer of responsibility will allow the Office of Pipeline 
Safety (OPS) to exercise improved management over the Pipeline 
Safety Fund and will help that office respond to 
recommendations issued by the General Accounting Office.
    User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request 
to begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from 
user fees. These fees are not authorized under current law.

                            Pipeline Safety


                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)

                    (Oilspill Liability Trust Fund)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Pipeline
                                                                    safety fund     Trust fund         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\ \2\....................................     $39,556,000      $7,488,000     $47,044,000
Budget estimate, 2002...........................................      46,286,000       7,472,000      53,758,000
Committee recommendation \3\....................................      47,278,000      11,472,000      58,750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $103,497 pursuant to Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Pipeline safety funding includes $3,000,000 from reserve fund balances.
\3\ Pipeline safety funding includes $2,500,000 from reserve fund balances.

    The Research and Special Programs Administration is 
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. 
Funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety is made available 
from two primary sources: the pipeline safety fund, comprised 
of user fees assessed on interstate pipeline operators; and the 
oil spill liability trust fund, a revolving fund comprised of 
an environmental tax on petroleum and oil spill damage recovery 
payments. The Pipeline Safety Program promotes the safe, 
reliable, and environmentally sound transportation of natural 
gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. This national program 
regulates the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and 
emergency response procedures pertaining to gas and hazardous 
liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural gas facilities. 
Also included is research and development to support the 
Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aid to State agencies 
that conduct a qualified pipeline safety program and to others 
who operate one-call programs.
    The Committee's recommendation for the Federal pipeline 
safety program generally supports, and is consistent with, the 
key provisions of the Senate-passed version of the pipeline 
safety reauthorization bill. The Committee recommends 
$58,750,000 for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program, which 
is $4,992,000 more than the budget estimate. The bill specifies 
that, of the total appropriation, $47,278,000 shall be from the 
pipeline safety fund and $11,472,000 shall be from the oil 
spill liability trust fund. Specific adjustments to the budget 
estimate are listed below:

                                                               Change to
        Item                                             budget estimate

Integrity management....................................     +$3,000,000
Research and development................................      +1,992,000

    As indicated below, the Committee has added funds above the 
request to ensure a strong foundation for OPS initiatives to 
advance integrity management of pipeline systems and to provide 
for a stronger research and development program. The increased 
use of the reserve in the Pipeline Safety Fund and the 
increased use of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund will 
provide for an equitable fee assessment on both the interstate 
liquid and natural gas transmission companies.
    Pipeline safety reserve fund.--The Committee recommends 
$2,500,000 to be derived from amounts previously collected in 
pipeline user fees from interstate liquid and natural gas 
transmission companies, which are maintained in a reserve fund 
by RSPA. As of May 5, 2001 the balance in the fund is 
approximately $11,915,000.
    Oil spill liability trust fund.--The Committee recommends 
$11,472,000 to be derived from the oil spill liability trust 
fund for implementation of OPS responsibilities under the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which is $4,000,000 more than the 
administration's request. OPS estimates that the total amount 
of the fiscal year 2002 pipeline safety budget request that 
could legally be associated with OPA program requirements is 
$14,797,000.
    Integrity Management Program.--The Committee recommends 
$7,943,000 for integrity management, which is $3,000,000 more 
than the amount requested. According to OPS, the integrity 
management regulations covering natural gas transmission and 
hazardous liquid pipelines constitute the single largest 
modification to the Federal pipeline regulatory and oversight 
program in over a decade. The additional funds are needed to 
ensure proper implementation of the new hazardous liquids 
pipeline safety regulations, which become effective on January 
1, 2002, and to lay the foundation for a similar regulatory 
strategy to cover the gas pipeline industry. In addition to new 
inspectors, OPS will need new regulatory, legal, contractual, 
and administrative support in the field and at headquarters to 
maximize the effectiveness of this critical oversight program.
    The Committee's allowance for the integrity management 
program includes $750,000 for OPS and State training, and 
adequate funds to interpret pigging data submitted by industry, 
to witness new construction of pipelines, and to develop 
improved information systems needed to monitor and evaluate 
industry data supplied to OPS.
    New positions.--The Committee has approved OPS's request 
for 26 new positions to support a new community based program 
and to support the new integrity management program.
    Research and development.--The Committee recommends 
$4,736,000 for pipeline safety research, which is $1,992,000 
more than the amount requested. Within the funds provided, 
$600,000 shall be used for airborne environmental laser mapping 
technology research and engineering to support improved leak 
detection, analysis, and response by Federal, State, and 
industry pipeline safety officials.
    Washington State Pipeline Safety Program.--Any amount of 
the $800,000 unobligated in fiscal year 2001 for the Washington 
State Pipeline Safety Program will be obligated in fiscal year 
2002. The Committee recommends that RSPA obligate the $800,000 
as soon as possible.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (Emergency Preparedness Fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................        $200,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................         200,000
Committee recommendation................................         200,000

\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $440 pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

    The hazardous materials transportation law (title 49 U.S.C. 
5101 et seq.) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a 
reimbursable emergency preparedness grants program; (2) monitor 
public sector emergency response training and planning and 
provide technical assistance to States, territories, and Indian 
tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national 
training curriculum for emergency responders. These activities 
are financed by receipts received from the hazardous materials 
shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the 
emergency preparedness fund. The hazardous materials 
transportation law provides permanent authorization for the 
emergency preparedness fund for planning and training grants, 
monitoring and technical assistance, and for administrative 
expenses. An appropriation of $200,000 in budget authority, 
also from the emergency preparedness fund, provides for the 
training curriculum for emergency responders.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    Bill language is included that limits the obligation of 
emergency preparedness training grants to $14,300,000 in fiscal 
year 2002. The Committee's recommendation reflects the State 
grants total funding that would be represented if the 
administration's fiscal year 2001 requested level was met.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................     $48,450,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\...............................      50,614,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,614,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $108,790 pursuant to section 1403 of 
Public Law 106-554. Does not include reimbursement of $3,524,000 from 
the FHWA and transfer of $1,000,000 from FTA pursuant to Public Law 106-
346.
\2\ Does not include reimbursements of $5,524,000 from FHWA and FTA.

    The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of 
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective 
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise 
audits and investigations relating to the programs and 
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and 
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and 
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; 
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (4) keep 
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding 
problems and deficiencies.
    OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office 
of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and the Office of 
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The assistant 
inspectors general for auditing and investigations are 
supported by headquarters and regional staff.
    The Committee recommends $50,614,000.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Crediting
                                        Appropriation      offsetting
                                                           collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\.............      $17,954,000        ($900,000)
Budget estimate, 2002................       18,457,000         (950,000)
Committee recommendation.............       18,457,000         (950,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $37,519 pursuant to section 1403 of
  Public Law 106-554.

    The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 
1996, by Public Law 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Committee 
Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend 
toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, 
the act abolished the ICC, eliminated certain functions that 
had previously been implemented by the ICC, transferred core 
rail and certain other functions to the Board, and transferred 
motor licensing and certain other motor functions to DOT and 
are now being administered by FMCSA. The Board is specifically 
responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline 
industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of motor 
carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the Board, through its 
exemption authority, is able to promote deregulation 
administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail reforms made by 
the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been continued.
    The administration's fiscal year 2002 program request is 
$18,457,000 to perform key functions under the ICCTA, including 
rail rate reasonableness oversight; the processing of rail 
consolidations, abandonments, and constructions, other 
restructuring proposals; and labor arbitration appeals.
    The Committee has provided $18,457,000 for activities of 
the Board with $950,000 provide from the collection of user 
fees. The Board is authorized to credit the fees collected to 
the appropriated amount as offsetting collections and to be 
used for authorized expenses.
    The Committee's recommendation will fund a total of 143 
full-time staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board 
collects the full $950,000 in user fees. Between now and 
September 30, 2002, 34 percent of the Board's employees will be 
eligible for voluntary retirement. The Committee encourages the 
Board to move expeditiously in filling vacancies as retirements 
occur in order to ensure that the oversight functions of the 
Board are not compromised.
    Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (DM&E;).--For more than 
3 years, the Surface Transportation Board has been considering 
an application on the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad. The 
Committee believes that the board should complete action on 
this proceeding. A petitioner has a legitimate expectation of 
receiving a decision on an application within a reasonable 
period of time.

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................      $4,795,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       5,015,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,015,000

\1\ Does not include reduction of $11,000 pursuant to section 301 of 
Public Law 106-113.

    The Committee recommends $5,015,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
the funding level requested by the administration.
    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting 
accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was 
reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, 
Public Law 102-569. Under this authorization, the Access 
Board's functions are to ensure compliance with the 
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to develop guidelines 
for and technical assistance to individuals and entities with 
rights or duties under titles II and III of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum 
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public 
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities 
and vehicles, State and local government facilities, children's 
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board 
also provides technical assistance to Government agencies, 
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses 
on the removal of accessibility barriers.
    The Committee's recommendation provides adequate funding to 
support 32.8 FTE, 2 FTE more than the fiscal year 2000 staffing 
level, consistent with the Board's budget request.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $62,942,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      64,480,000
Committee recommendation................................      70,000,000

    The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the 
National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent 
Federal agency to promote transportation safety by conducting 
independent accident investigations. In addition, the act 
authorizes the Board to make safety recommendations, conduct 
safety studies, and oversee safety activities of other 
Government agencies involved in transportation. The Board also 
reviews appeals of adverse actions by the Department of 
Transportation with respect to airmen and seamen certificates 
and licenses.
    The Board has no regulatory authority over the 
transportation industry. Thus, its effectiveness depends on its 
reputation for impartial and accurate accident reports, 
realistic and feasible safety recommendations, and on public 
confidence in its commitment to improving transportation 
safety.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill includes $70,000,000 for the National 
Transportation Safety Board. The Committee recommendation is 
$7,058,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and 
$5,520,000 more than the budget request. The Committee notes 
that the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 
2000 (Public Law 106-424) requires the Board, among other 
things, to provide the payment of true overtime for 
investigators and to implement the financial management control 
initiatives that were recommended by a private sector audit 
firm last year. The Committee's recommendation includes 
additional funding to annualize 25 new positions; provide true 
overtime payment costs; to provide 11 additional FTE's; and, to 
implement financial management programs.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee concurs with the general provisions that 
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
as proposed in the budget, with some changes, deletions, and 
additions. These are noted below:
    Sec. 302. Includes a provision which the administration had 
proposed be deleted that fiscal year 2002 pay raises for 
programs be absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act 
or previous appropriations Acts.
    Sec. 304. Modifies a requested provision to prohibit the 
use of funds for the salaries and expenses of more than 98 
political and presidential appointees to the Department of 
Transportation.
    Sec. 306. Retains a provision regarding the availability of 
funds appropriated in this Act beyond the fiscal year. The 
administration proposed modifying this provision.
    Sec. 307. Retains a provision that the administration had 
requested be deleted regarding consulting service through 
procurement contracting carried in previous appropriations 
Acts.
    Sec. 308. Retains a provision prohibiting the release of 
personal information, including a social security number, 
medical, or disability information, and photographs from a 
driver's license or motor vehicle record without express 
consent of the individual. The administration proposed deleting 
this provision.
    Sec. 309. This provision regarding the allocation of 
Federal-aid Highway Program funds is continued with 
modifications to reflect the passage of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21]. The administration 
proposed modifying this provision.
    Sec. 315. Includes a provision relating to modernizing 
O'Hare International Airport, addressing traffic congestion 
along the Northwest Corridor, and moving forward with a third 
Chicago-area airport.
    Sec. 319. Includes a provision rescinding certain funds 
from Public Law 105-178.
    Sec. 323. Includes a provision which amends section 33(a) 
of Public Law 105-178 to authorize the Washington County--
Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail project.
    Sec. 324. Includes a provision which amends section 3030(b) 
of Public Law 105-178 to authorize Detroit, Michigan 
Metropolitan Airport rail project.
    Sec. 325. Retains a provision which prohibits the use of 
funds for specific types of employee training. The 
administration proposed to delete this provision.
    Sec. 326. Retains a provision that the administration had 
requested be deleted to prohibit the use of funds for 
activities to influence Congress or a State legislature on 
legislation or appropriations except through proper, official 
channels.
    Sec. 327. Includes a provision requiring compliance with 
the Buy American Act. The administration proposed deleting this 
provision.
    Sec. 328. Includes a provision regarding staffing levels at 
the Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland.
    Sec. 330. Modifies provision requested by the 
administration relating to funding for the Amtrak Reform 
Council.
    Sec. 331. Includes a provision providing funding for 
surface transportation projects.
    Sec. 332. Includes a provision regarding Coast Guard Yard 
in Curtis Bay, Maryland and other Coast Guard specialized 
facilities.
    Sec. 333. Includes a provision from the fiscal year 2000 
appropriations act which prohibits the use of funds in this Act 
unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full 
business days before any discretionary grant agreement totaling 
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department or its modal 
administrations. The administration proposed deleting this 
provision.
    Sec. 334. Modifies a provision regarding funding of motor 
carrier safety programs.
    Sec. 335. Includes a provision allowing the Federal 
Aviation Administration to accept funds from an airport sponsor 
for specific staffing purposes.
    Sec. 336. Includes a provision prohibiting use of funds to 
develop new regional airport for southeast Louisiana until a 
comprehensive plan is submitted to and approved by the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and then 
submitted to and approved by the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations.
    Sec. 337. Includes a provision relating to air traffic 
controller retirement.
    Sec. 338. Modifies a provision from a previous 
appropriations Act permitting Section 402 funds to be used to 
produce and place highway safety messages on paid media outlets 
and designating certain Section 157 funds for paid media to 
support national law enforcement safety mobilizations.
    Sec. 339. Includes a provision which expands the exemption 
from Federal axle weight restrictions presently applicable only 
to public transit buses to all over-the-road buses and directs 
that a study and report concerning applicability of maximum 
axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses and public 
transit vehicles be submitted to the Congress.
    Sec. 340. Prohibits funds to be used to adopt guidelines or 
regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide Federal 
Aviation Administration ``without cost'' buildings, 
maintenance, or space for FAA services. However, the 
prohibition does not apply to negotiations concerning ``below 
market'' rates for those items.
    Sec. 341. Includes a provision which requires the Coast 
Guard to submit a quarterly report to the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees on major Coast Guard acquisition 
projects.
    Sec. 342. Includes a provision which the administration had 
requested be deleted that reduces the funds provided for the 
Transportation Administrative Service Center.
    Sec. 343. Includes a provision regarding safety standards 
for Mexico-domiciled truck operating in the United States 
beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the 
United States-Mexico border.
    Sec. 344. Includes a provision relating to the calculation 
of the local share to match Federal funds provided for a 
transit project in Clark County, Nevada.
    Sec. 345. Includes a provision amending Public Law 105-178 
relating to a project in Alaska.
    Sec. 346. Includes a provision amending Public Law 105-178 
relating to projects in Washington.
    Sec. 347. Includes a provision regarding historic covered 
bridges.
    Sec. 348. Includes a provision clarifying the use of funds 
allocated in previous appropriations Act for transit capital 
projects in New Mexico.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered reported, en bloc, S. 1171, an original fiscal year 
2002 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, S. 1172, 
an original fiscal year 2002 Legislative Branch appropriations 
bill, and S. 1178, an original fiscal year 2002 Transportation 
and related agencies appropriations bill, each subject to 
amendment and each subject to its budget allocations, by a 
recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as 
follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Mrs. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine

 COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports 
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute 
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or 
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the 
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by 
the committee.''
    In compliance with this rule, the following changes in 
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as 
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

             TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                         PART III--EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                  Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                         CHAPTER 83--RETIREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                SUBCHAPTER III--CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 8335. Mandatory separation

    (a) An air traffic controller shall be separated from the 
service on the last day of the month in which he becomes 56 
years of age if the controller qualifies for an immediate 
annuity at that time. If not eligible for an immediate annuity 
upon reaching age 56, the controller may work until the last 
day of the month in which the controller becomes eligible for a 
retirement annuity unless the Secretary determines that such 
action would compromise safety. The Secretary, under such 
regulations as he may prescribe, may exempt a controller having 
exceptional skills and experience as a controller from the 
automatic separation provisions of this subsection until that 
controller becomes 61 years of age. The Secretary shall notify 
the controller in writing of the date of separation at least 60 
days before that date. Action to separate the controller is not 
effective, without the consent of the controller, until the 
last day of the month in which the 60-day notice expires.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         TITLE 14--COAST GUARD

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                      PART I--REGULAR COAST GUARD

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                      CHAPTER 17--ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 648. Accounting for industrial work

    (a) The Secretary may prescribe regulations governing 
accounting for industrial work, including charges for overhead 
for civilian labor and for maintenance of industrial plant and 
equipment, performed at the Coast Guard Yard and other Coast 
Guard specialized facilities [or such similar Coast Guard 
industrial establishments] as he may designate. Any orders 
placed for such industrial work shall be covered by a transfer 
or advance of funds to cover the estimated cost thereof, and 
shall be credited to such accounts as may be necessary and 
established by the Secretary to carry out the provisions of 
this section. Accounts so established shall be available for 
materials, supplies, or equipment, and civilian labor, 
including overhead and maintenance, required in performing the 
work ordered. Upon completion of an order an adjustment will be 
made to make the amount transferred or advanced equal to the 
actual cost as computed in accordance with the accounting 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
    (b) For providing support to the Department of Defense, the 
Coast Guard Yard and other Coast Guard specialized facilities 
designated by the Commandant shall qualify as components of the 
Department of Defense for competition and workload assignment 
purposes. In addition, for purposes of entering into joint 
public-private partnerships and other cooperative arrangements 
for the performance of work, the Coast Guard Yard and other 
Coast Guard specialized facilities may enter into agreements or 
other arrangements, receive and retain funds from and pay funds 
to such public and private entities, and may accept 
contributions of funds, materials, services, and the use of 
facilities from such entities. Amounts received under this 
subsection may be credited to appropriate Coast Guard accounts 
for fiscal year 2002 and for each fiscal year thereafter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


       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; or
                    (B) any vehicle that
        is regularly and exclusively used as an intrastate 
        public agency transit passenger bus.
            [(2) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on 
        the maximum axle weight limitations on the Dwight D. 
        Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
        established under section 127 of title 23, United 
        States Code, or under State laws, as they apply to 
        public transit vehicles. The study shall determine 
        whether or not public transit vehicles should be 
        exempted from the requirements of section 127 or State 
        laws or if such laws should be modified with regard to 
        public transit vehicles. In making such determination, 
        the Secretary shall consider current transit vehicle 
        design standards, the implications of the Americans 
        with Disabilities Act and Clean Air Act requirements on 
        such design standards, and the potential impact of 
        revised design standards on transit ridership capacity, 
        operating and replacement costs, air quality concerns, 
        and highway wear and tear.
            [(3) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
        submit to the Congress a report on the result of the 
        study conducted under paragraph (2), together with 
        recommendations.]
            (2) Study and report concerning applicability of 
        maximum axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses 
        and public transit vehicles.--
                    (A) Study and report.--Not later than July 
                31, 2002, the Secretary shall conduct a study 
                of, and submit to Congress a report on, the 
                maximum axle weight limitations applicable to 
                vehicles using the Dwight D. Eisenhower 
                National System of Interstate and Defense 
                Highways established under section 127 of title 
                23, United States Code, or under State law, as 
                the limitations apply to over-the-road buses 
                and public transit vehicles.
                    (B) Determination of applicability of 
                vehicle weight limitations.--
                            (i) In general.--The report shall 
                        include--
                                    (I) a determination 
                                concerning how the requirements 
                                of section 127 of that title 
                                should be applied to over-the-
                                road buses and public transit 
                                vehicles; and
                                    (II) short-term and long-
                                term recommendations concerning 
                                the applicability of those 
                                requirements.
                            (ii) Considerations.--In making the 
                        determination described in clause 
                        (i)(I), the Secretary shall consider--
                                    (I) vehicle design 
                                standards;
                                    (II) statutory and 
                                regulatory requirements, 
                                including--
                                            (aa) the Clean Air 
                                        Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
                                        seq.);
                                            (bb) the Americans 
                                        with Disabilities Act 
                                        of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
                                        12101 et seq.); and
                                            (cc) motor vehicle 
                                        safety standards 
                                        prescribed under 
                                        chapter 301 of title 
                                        49, United States Code; 
                                        and
                                    (III)(aa) the availability 
                                of lightweight materials 
                                suitable for use in the 
                                manufacture of over-the-road 
                                buses;
                                    (bb) the cost of those 
                                lightweight materials relative 
                                to the cost of heavier 
                                materials in use as of the date 
                                of the determination; and
                                    (cc) any safety or design 
                                considerations relating to the 
                                use of those materials.
                    (C) Analysis of means of encouraging 
                development and manufacture of lightweight 
                buses.--The report shall include an analysis 
                of, and recommendations concerning, means to be 
                considered to encourage the development and 
                manufacture of lightweight buses, including an 
                analysis of--
                            (i) potential procurement 
                        incentives for public transit 
                        authorities to encourage the purchase 
                        of lightweight public transit vehicles 
                        using grants from the Federal Transit 
                        Administration; and
                            (ii) potential tax incentives for 
                        manufacturers and private operators to 
                        encourage the purchase of lightweight 
                        over-the-road buses.
                    (D) Analysis of consideration in 
                rulemakings of additional vehicle weight.--The 
                report shall include an analysis of, and 
                recommendations concerning, whether Congress 
                should require that each rulemaking by an 
                agency of the Federal Government that affects 
                the design or manufacture of motor vehicles 
                consider--
                            (i) the weight that would be added 
                        to the vehicle by implementation of the 
                        proposed rule;
                            (ii) the effect that the added 
                        weight would have on pavement wear; and
                            (iii) the resulting cost to the 
                        Federal Government and State and local 
                        governments.
                    (E) Cost-benefit analysis.--The report 
                shall include an analysis relating to the axle 
                weight of over-the-road buses that compares--
                            (i) the costs of the pavement wear 
                        caused by over-the-road buses; with
                            (ii) the benefits of the over-the-
                        road bus industry to the environment, 
                        the economy, and the transportation 
                        system of the United States.
            (3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                    (A) Over-the-road bus.--The term ``over-
                the-road bus'' has the meaning given the term 
                in section 301 of the Americans with 
                Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181).
                    (B) Public transit vehicle.--The term 
                ``public transit vehicle'' means a vehicle 
                described in paragraph (1)(B).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY, PUBLIC LAW 105-178


SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                (Dollars
 No.                State                Project description       in
                                                               millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 642. Washington                      [Construct passenger        3.75
                                       ferry facility to
                                       serve Southworth,
                                       Seattle] Passenger
                                       only ferry to serve
                                       Kitsap County-
                                       Seattle.............
      *        *        *        *        *        *
                                 *
      Alaska 1348.                    [Extend West Douglas       2.475
                                       Road] Second Douglas
                                       Island Crossing.....
      *        *        *        *        *        *
                                 *
      Washington3.                    [Southworth Seattle        0.962
                                       Ferry] Passenger
                                       only ferry to serve
                                       Kitsap County-
                                       Seattle.............
      *        *        *        *        *        *
                                 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      

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

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            Washington County--Wilsonville to Beaverton 
        commuter rail.
    (b) * * *
            Detroit, Michigan Metropolitan Airport rail 
        project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        1999, PUBLIC LAW 105-277


                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                    FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                      Capital Investment Grants

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 No.                     State                                         Project                        Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 143 New Mexico                                 [Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities]       2,000,000
                                                 Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities and
                                                 State of New Mexico, Buses and Bus-Related
                                                 Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                   

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-69


                     DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                    FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                       Capital Investment Grants

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 No.                     State                                         Project                        Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 167 New Mexico                                 [Northern New Mexico Transit Express/Park and        2,750,000
                                                 Ride buses] Northern New Mexico park and ride
                                                 facilities and State of New Mexico, Buses and
                                                 Bus-Related Facilities..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount of    Committee    Amount of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
 Resolution 2002: Subcommittee on Transportation and Related
 Agencies:
    General purpose, defense................................          695          695           NA           NA
    General purpose non-defense.............................       14,884       14.880           NA           NA
    General purpose, total..................................       15,579       15.575       19,104   \1\ 19,101
    Highway category........................................           NA           NA       28,489       28,489
    Mass transit............................................           NA           NA        5,275        5,275
    Mandatory...............................................         -915  ...........          801          801
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 20,981
    2003....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       19,371
    2004....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        8,467
    2005....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,859
    2006 and future year....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,076
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2002           NA        1.506           NA        1,080
 in bill....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2002
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     2001         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         2001
                                                                                                                        appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses.........................................           63,245            69,500            67,349            +4,104            -2,151
    Immediate Office of the Secretary.........................           (1,827)           (1,989)           (1,929)            (+102)             (-60)
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary..................             (587)             (638)             (619)             (+32)             (-19)
    Office of the General Counsel.............................           (9,972)          (13,355)          (14,075)          (+4,103)            (+720)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy..............           (3,011)           (3,153)           (3,058)             (+47)             (-95)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and                   (7,289)           (7,650)           (7,421)            (+132)            (-229)
     International Affairs....................................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.           (7,362)           (7,728)           (7,728)            (+366)  ................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs           (2,150)           (2,282)           (2,214)             (+64)             (-68)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......          (19,020)          (20,262)          (18,236)            (-784)          (-2,026)
    Office of Public Affairs..................................           (1,674)           (1,776)           (1,723)             (+49)             (-53)
    Executive Secretariat.....................................           (1,181)           (1,241)           (1,204)             (+23)             (-37)
    Board of Contract Appeals.................................             (496)             (523)             (507)             (+11)             (-16)
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....           (1,192)           (1,251)           (1,213)             (+21)             (-38)
    Office of Intelligence and Security.......................           (1,262)           (1,321)           (1,281)             (+19)             (-40)
    Office of the Chief Information Officer...................           (6,222)           (6,331)           (6,141)             (-81)            (-190)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          (63,245)          (69,500)          (67,349)          (+4,104)          (-2,151)

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................             -139   ................  ................             +139   ................

Office of Civil Rights........................................            8,140             8,500             8,500              +360   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -18   ................  ................              +18   ................
Transportation planning, research, and development............           11,000             5,193            15,592            +4,592           +10,399
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -24   ................  ................              +24   ................
Transportation Administrative Service Center..................         (126,887)         (125,323)         (125,323)          (-1,564)  ................
Minority business resource center program.....................            1,900               900               900            -1,000   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................               -4   ................  ................               +4   ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (13,775)          (18,367)          (18,367)          (+4,592)  ................
Minority business outreach....................................            3,000             3,000             3,000   ................  ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................               -7   ................  ................               +7   ................
Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)......  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Office of the Secretary..........................           87,285            87,093            95,341            +8,056            +8,248

          ATB rescissions.....................................             -192   ................  ................             +192   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................           87,093            87,093            95,341            +8,248            +8,248

                          Coast Guard

Operating expenses............................................        2,851,000         3,042,588         2,732,588          -118,412          -310,000
    Defense function..........................................          341,000           340,250           695,000          +354,000          +354,750
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................        3,192,000         3,382,838         3,427,588          +235,588           +44,750

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................           -6,967   ................  ................           +6,967   ................

Acquisition, construction, and improvements:
    Vessels...................................................          156,450            79,390            79,640           -76,810              +250
    Aircraft..................................................           37,650               500            10,500           -27,150           +10,000
    Other equipment...........................................           60,113            95,471            99,921           +39,808            +4,450
    Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities........           63,336            79,262            88,862           +25,526            +9,600
    Personnel and related support.............................           55,151            66,700            65,200           +10,049            -1,500
    Integrated Deepwater Systems..............................           42,300           338,000           325,200          +282,900           -12,800
    Rescission................................................  ................  ................           -8,700            -8,700            -8,700
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, A C & I (excl rescissions)....................          415,000           659,323           669,323          +254,323           +10,000

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................             -869   ................  ................             +869   ................
Environmental compliance and restoration......................           16,700            16,927            16,927              +227   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -37   ................  ................              +37   ................
Alteration of bridges.........................................           15,500            15,466            15,466               -34   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -35   ................  ................              +35   ................
Retired pay...................................................          778,000           876,346           876,346           +98,346   ................
Reserve training..............................................           80,375            83,194            83,194            +2,819   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................             -176   ................  ................             +176   ................
Research, development, test, and evaluation...................           21,320            21,722            21,722              +402   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -40   ................  ................              +40   ................
Trust fund share of expenses (ATB rescission).................             -108   ................  ................             +108   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Coast Guard......................................        4,518,895         5,055,816         5,110,566          +591,671           +54,750

          Rescissions.........................................           -8,232   ................           -8,700              -468            -8,700
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................        4,510,663         5,055,816         5,101,866          +591,203           +46,050

                Federal Aviation Administration

Operations....................................................        6,544,235         6,886,000         6,916,000          +371,765           +30,000
    Air traffic services......................................       (5,200,274)       (5,447,421)       (5,447,421)        (+247,147)  ................
    Aviation regulation and certification.....................         (694,979)         (744,744)         (774,744)         (+79,765)         (+30,000)
    Civil aviation security...................................         (139,301)         (150,154)         (150,154)         (+10,853)  ................
    Research and acquisition..................................         (189,988)         (196,674)         (196,674)          (+6,686)  ................
    Commercial space transportation...........................          (12,000)          (14,706)          (14,706)          (+2,706)  ................
    Financial services........................................          (48,444)          (50,684)          (50,684)          (+2,240)  ................
    Human resources...........................................          (54,864)          (74,516)          (74,516)         (+19,652)  ................
    Regional coordination.....................................          (99,347)          (90,893)          (90,893)          (-8,454)  ................
    Staff offices.............................................         (105,038)         (116,208)         (116,208)         (+11,170)  ................
    Undistributed.............................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (6,544,235)       (6,886,000)       (6,916,000)        (+371,765)         (+30,000)

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................          -14,397   ................  ................          +14,397   ................
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)......        2,656,765         2,914,000         2,914,000          +257,235   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................           -5,845   ................  ................           +5,845   ................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway              187,000           187,781           195,808            +8,808            +8,027
 Trust Fund)..................................................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................             -411   ................  ................             +411   ................
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................       (3,200,000)       (1,800,000)       (1,800,000)      (-1,400,000)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (3,200,000)       (3,300,000)       (3,300,000)        (+100,000)  ................
        Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............          (-7,040)  ................  ................          (+7,040)  ................
        Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............               -4   ................  ................               +4   ................
    Rescission of contract authorization......................         -579,000          -331,000          -301,720          +277,280           +29,280
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net subtotal............................................       (2,613,956)       (2,969,000)       (2,998,280)        (+384,324)         (+29,280)

Small Community air service development pilot program.........  ................  ................           20,000           +20,000           +20,000
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration..................        9,388,000         9,987,781        10,045,808          +657,808           +58,027
          (Limitations on obligations)........................       (3,200,000)       (3,300,000)       (3,300,000)        (+100,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources.........................      (12,588,000)      (13,287,781)      (13,345,808)        (+757,808)         (+58,027)

          ATB rescissions.....................................          (-7,040)  ................  ................          (+7,040)  ................

          ATB rescissions.....................................          -20,657   ................  ................          +20,657   ................

          Rescission..........................................         -579,000          -331,000          -301,720          +277,280           +29,280
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................      (11,981,303)      (12,956,781)      (13,044,088)      (+1,062,785)         (+87,307)

                Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses.........................         (295,119)         (317,693)         (316,521)         (+21,402)          (-1,172)
Limitation on transportation research.........................  ................  ................         (445,000)        (+445,000)        (+445,000)
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................      (26,603,806)      (27,042,994)      (27,400,000)        (+796,194)        (+357,006)
        Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............         (-58,528)  ................  ................         (+58,528)  ................
    Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)...................       (3,058,000)       (4,341,700)       (4,326,700)      (+1,268,700)         (-15,000)
        Innovative transportation solutions program (RABA)....  ................          (45,000)          (45,000)         (+45,000)  ................
        Alternative transportation grant prog (RABA)..........  ................         (100,000)         (100,000)        (+100,000)  ................
        Border infrastructure construction prog (RABA)........  ................          (56,300)          (71,300)         (+71,300)         (+15,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, RABA......................................       (3,058,000)       (4,543,000)       (4,543,000)      (+1,485,000)  ................

        Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............          (-6,728)  ................  ................          (+6,728)  ................
    Authorized transfer to FMCSA..............................  ................         (-22,837)         (-23,897)         (-23,897)          (-1,060)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, limitation on obligations.....................      (29,661,806)      (31,563,157)      (31,919,103)      (+2,257,297)        (+355,946)

    (Exempt obligations)......................................       (1,069,000)         (955,000)         (955,000)        (-114,000)  ................
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................      (28,000,000)      (30,000,000)      (30,000,000)      (+2,000,000)  ................

Emergency Relief Program (Highway Trust Fund) (contingent               720,000   ................  ................         -720,000   ................
 emergency appropriation).....................................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................           -1,584   ................  ................           +1,584   ................
Appalachian development highway system........................          279,963   ................          350,000           +70,037          +350,000
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................             -649   ................  ................             +649   ................
State infrastructure banks (rescission).......................  ................  ................           -5,750            -5,750            -5,750
Value pricing project (rescission)............................  ................  ................           -9,231            -9,231            -9,231
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Federal Highway Administration...................          279,963   ................          350,000           +70,037          +350,000

          Contingent emergency................................          720,000   ................  ................         -720,000   ................

          (Limitations on obligations)........................      (29,661,806)      (31,563,157)      (31,919,103)      (+2,257,297)        (+355,946)
          (Exempt obligations)................................       (1,069,000)         (955,000)         (955,000)        (-114,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources.........................      (31,730,769)      (32,518,157)      (33,224,103)      (+1,493,334)        (+705,946)

          ATB rescissions.....................................         (-65,256)  ................  ................         (+65,256)  ................

          ATB rescissions.....................................           -2,233   ................           -9,231            -6,998            -9,231

          Rescission..........................................  ................  ................           -5,750            -5,750            -5,750
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................      (31,663,280)      (32,518,157)      (33,209,122)      (+1,545,842)        (+690,965)

          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety (limitation on obligations administrative          (92,194)         (139,007)         (105,000)         (+12,806)         (-34,007)
 expenses)....................................................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................            (-202)  ................  ................            (+202)  ................
    Rescission................................................  ................  ................           -6,665            -6,665            -6,665
National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................         (177,000)         (204,837)         (204,837)         (+27,837)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (177,000)         (182,000)         (183,059)          (+6,059)          (+1,059)
        Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............            (-389)  ................  ................            (+389)  ................
        Rescission of contract authority......................  ................  ................           -2,333            -2,333            -2,333
    Authorized transfer from FHWA:
        Border-State grants...................................  ................          (18,000)          (18,000)         (+18,000)  ................
        State commercial driver's license.....................  ................           (4,837)           (4,837)          (+4,837)  ................
        Motor carrier safety assistance grants................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, RABA......................................  ................          (22,837)          (22,837)         (+22,837)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, limitation on obligations.................         (177,000)         (204,837)         (205,896)         (+28,896)          (+1,059)
                                                               =========================================================================================
          Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin...........  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................

              (Limitations on obligations)....................         (269,194)         (343,844)         (310,896)         (+41,702)         (-32,948)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total budgetary resources.....................         (269,194)         (343,844)         (310,896)         (+41,702)         (-32,948)
          ATB rescissions.....................................            (-591)  ................  ................            (+591)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................         (268,603)         (343,844)         (310,896)         (+42,293)         (-32,948)

        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research.......................................          116,876           122,000           132,000           +15,124           +10,000
Operations and research (Highway trust fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................          (72,000)          (72,000)          (72,000)  ................  ................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................          (72,000)          (72,000)          (72,000)  ................  ................
    Rescission of contract authority..........................  ................  ................           -1,516            -1,516            -1,516
National Driver Register (Highway trust fund).................            2,000             2,000             2,000   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and research.......................         (190,876)         (196,000)         (204,484)         (+13,608)          (+8,484)

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................             -261   ................  ................             +261   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................            (-158)  ................  ................            (+158)  ................
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................         (213,000)         (223,000)         (223,000)         (+10,000)  ................
    (Limitation on obligations):
        Highway safety programs (Sec. 402)....................         (155,000)         (160,000)         (160,000)          (+5,000)  ................
        Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405).......          (13,000)          (15,000)          (15,000)          (+2,000)  ................
        Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec.           (36,000)          (38,000)          (38,000)          (+2,000)  ................
         410).................................................
        State highway safety data grants (Sec. 411)...........           (9,000)          (10,000)          (10,000)          (+1,000)  ................
            Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission........            (-469)  ................  ................            (+469)  ................
            Rescission of contract authority..................  ................  ................             -469              -469              -469
                                                               =========================================================================================
              Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin....          118,876           124,000           134,000           +15,124           +10,000

                  (Limitations on obligations)................         (285,000)         (295,000)         (295,000)         (+10,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Total budgetary resources.................         (403,876)         (419,000)         (429,000)         (+25,124)         (+10,000)

          ATB rescissions.....................................            (-627)  ................  ................            (+627)  ................

          ATB rescissions.....................................             -261   ................  ................             +261   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................         (402,988)         (419,000)         (429,000)         (+26,012)         (+10,000)

                Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations.........................................          101,717           111,357           111,357            +9,640   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................             -224   ................  ................             +224   ................
    Offsetting collections....................................  ................          -41,000   ................  ................          +41,000
Railroad research and development.............................           25,325            28,325            30,325            +5,000            +2,000
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -56   ................  ................              +56   ................
    Offsetting collections....................................  ................          -14,000   ................  ................          +14,000
Rhode Island Rail Development.................................           17,000   ................  ................          -17,000   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -37   ................  ................              +37   ................
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment project (advance                      20,000            20,000            20,000   ................  ................
 appropriations, fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, fiscal
 year 2003) \1\...............................................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -44   ................  ................              +44   ................
    Rescission................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Next generation high-speed rail...............................           25,100            25,100            40,000           +14,900           +14,900
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -55   ................  ................              +55   ................
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation................................           20,000   ................           20,000   ................          +20,000
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -44   ................  ................              +44   ................
West Virginia Rail development................................           15,000   ................  ................          -15,000   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -33   ................  ................              +33   ................
National Rail Development and Rehabilitation program..........  ................  ................           12,000           +12,000           +12,000

Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.          521,476           521,476           521,476   ................  ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................           -1,147   ................  ................           +1,147   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration..................          743,978           651,258           755,158           +11,180          +103,900

          ATB rescissions.....................................           -1,640   ................  ................           +1,640   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................          742,338           651,258           755,158           +12,820          +103,900

                Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses.......................................           12,800            13,400            13,400              +600   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -28   ................  ................              +28   ................
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit               (51,200)          (53,600)          (53,600)          (+2,400)  ................
 Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Administrative expenses.......................          (63,972)          (67,000)          (67,000)          (+3,028)  ................

Formula grants................................................          669,000           718,400           718,400           +49,400   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................           -1,360   ................  ................           +1,360   ................
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund)(limitation on obligations)       (2,676,000)       (2,873,600)       (2,873,600)        (+197,600)  ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................          (-5,887)  ................  ................          (+5,887)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Formula grants................................       (3,343,640)       (3,592,000)       (3,592,000)        (+248,360)  ................

University transportation research............................            1,200             1,200             1,200   ................  ................
University transportation research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass             (4,800)           (4,800)           (4,800)  ................  ................
 Transit Acct) (limitation on obligations)....................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              (-3)  ................  ................              (+3)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, University transportation research............           (6,000)           (6,000)           (6,000)  ................  ................

Transit planning and research.................................           22,200            23,000            23,000              +800   ................
Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass                 (87,800)          (93,000)          (93,000)          (+5,200)  ................
 Transit Account) (limitation on obligations).................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Transit planning and research.................         (110,000)         (116,000)         (116,000)          (+6,000)  ................

    Rural transportation assistance...........................           (5,250)           (5,250)           (5,250)  ................  ................
    National Transit Institute................................           (4,000)           (4,000)           (4,000)  ................  ................
    Transit cooperative research..............................           (8,250)           (8,250)           (8,250)  ................  ................
    Metropolitan planning.....................................          (52,114)          (55,422)          (55,422)          (+3,308)  ................
    State planning............................................          (10,886)          (11,578)          (11,578)            (+692)  ................
    National planning and research............................          (29,500)          (31,500)          (31,500)          (+2,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................         (110,000)         (116,000)         (116,000)          (+6,000)  ................

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -49   ................  ................              +49   ................
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation       (5,016,600)       (5,397,800)       (5,397,800)        (+381,200)  ................
 of contract authorization)...................................
Capital investment grants.....................................          529,200           568,200           568,200           +39,000   ................
Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit          (2,116,800)       (2,272,800)       (2,272,800)        (+156,000)  ................
 Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Capital investment grants.....................       (2,646,000)       (2,841,000)       (2,841,000)        (+195,000)  ................

    Fixed guideway modernization..............................       (1,058,400)       (1,136,400)       (1,136,400)         (+78,000)  ................
    Buses and bus-related facilities..........................         (529,200)         (568,200)         (568,200)         (+39,000)  ................
    New starts................................................       (1,058,400)       (1,136,400)       (1,136,400)         (+78,000)  ................
    New starts (general funds)................................  ................  ................          100,000          +100,000          +100,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (2,646,000)       (2,841,000)       (2,841,000)        (+195,000)  ................

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................           -1,274   ................  ................           +1,274   ................
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit                 (350,000)  ................  ................        (-350,000)  ................
 Account) (liquidation of contract authorization).............
Job access and reverse commute grants.........................           20,000            25,000            25,000            +5,000   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -44   ................  ................              +44   ................
    (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on           (80,000)         (100,000)         (100,000)         (+20,000)  ................
     obligations).............................................
Trust fund share of expenses (limitation on obligations) (ATB           (-8,492)  ................  ................          (+8,492)  ................
 rescission)..................................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants.........          (99,956)         (125,000)         (125,000)         (+25,044)  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Federal Transit Administration...................        1,254,400         1,349,200         1,449,200          +194,800          +100,000

          (Limitations on obligations)........................       (5,016,600)       (5,397,800)       (5,397,800)        (+381,200)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total budgetary resources.........................       (6,271,000)       (6,747,000)       (6,847,000)        (+576,000)        (+100,000)

          ATB rescissions.....................................         (-14,382)  ................  ................         (+14,382)  ................

          ATB rescissions.....................................           -2,755   ................  ................           +2,755   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................       (6,253,863)       (6,747,000)       (6,847,000)        (+593,137)        (+100,000)

         Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)....           13,004            13,345            13,345              +341   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -29   ................  ................              +29   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net total...............................................           12,975            13,345            13,345              +370   ................

         Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs:
    Hazardous materials safety................................           18,750            21,217            21,217            +2,467   ................
    Emergency transportation..................................            1,831             1,897             1,897               +66   ................
    Research and technology...................................            4,816             4,760             4,760               -56   ................
    Program and administrative support........................           10,976            14,059            14,059            +3,083   ................
    Adjustment................................................  ................               60                60               +60   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, research and special programs.................           36,373            41,993            41,993            +5,620   ................

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -79   ................  ................              +79   ................
    Offsetting collections....................................  ................          -12,000   ................  ................          +12,000
Pipeline safety:
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................           36,556            46,286            47,278           +10,722              +992
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................            7,488             7,472            11,472            +3,984            +4,000
    Pipeline safety reserve...................................           (3,000)  ................  ................          (-3,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pipeline safety program (incl reserve)........          (47,044)          (53,758)          (58,750)         (+11,706)          (+4,992)

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -19   ................  ................              +19   ................
Emergency preparedness grants:
    Emergency preparedness fund...............................              200               200               200   ................  ................
    Limitation on emergency preparedness fund.................          (14,300)          (14,300)          (14,300)  ................  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Research and Special Programs Admin..............           80,617            83,951           100,943           +20,326           +16,992

          ATB rescissions.....................................              -98   ................  ................              +98   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total.........................................           80,519            83,951           100,943           +20,424           +16,992

                  Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses.........................................           48,450            50,614            50,614            +2,164   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................             -106   ................  ................             +106   ................
    (By transfer from FTA)....................................           (1,000)           (2,000)           (2,000)          (+1,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net total...............................................          (49,344)          (52,614)          (52,614)          (+3,270)  ................

                 Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           17,954            18,457            18,457              +503   ................
    Offsetting collections....................................             -900              -950              -950               -50   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net total...............................................           17,054            17,507            17,507              +453   ................

    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -37   ................  ................              +37   ................

              Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Office of airline information (Airport and Airway Trust Fund).  ................            3,760             3,760            +3,760   ................

                      General Provisions

Amtrak Reform Council (Sec. 326)..............................              750               785               420              -330              -365
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................               -2   ................  ................               +2   ................
Muscle Shoals, Tuscumbia, and Sheffield (Sec. 375)............            5,000   ................  ................           -5,000   ................
Valley trains and tours (Sec. 376)............................            1,000   ................  ................           -1,000   ................
Miscellaneous highways (Sec. 378).............................        1,145,000   ................  ................       -1,145,000   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................           -2,519   ................  ................           +2,519   ................
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (Sec. 379).....................          600,000   ................  ................         -600,000   ................
Surface Transportation projects...............................  ................  ................           20,000           +20,000           +20,000
Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 106-554):
    Huntsville International Airport (sec. 1104)..............            2,500   ................  ................           -2,500   ................
    Southeast Light Rail Extension Project (sec. 1105)........            1,000   ................  ................           -1,000   ................
    Newark-Elizabeth rail link project (sec. 1107)............            3,000   ................  ................           -3,000   ................
    Commercial remote sensing products and spatial information            4,000   ................  ................           -4,000   ................
     technologies (sec. 1109).................................
    Rural farm-to-market roads (sec. 1121)....................            2,400   ................  ................           -2,400   ................
    Buses and bus facilities, A&M; University (sec. 1123)......              500   ................  ................             -500   ................
    Highway Trust Fund, various projects (sec. 1128)..........            8,700   ................  ................           -8,700   ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission....................           -1,333   ................  ................           +1,333   ................
West Douglas Road Extension...................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, General provisions...............................        1,769,996               785            20,420        -1,749,576           +19,635
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Net total, title I, Department of Transportation........       18,426,918        17,094,110        17,810,278          -616,640          +716,168

              Appropriations..................................      (18,326,012)      (17,425,110)      (18,146,662)        (-179,350)        (+721,552)

              Rescissions.....................................        (-619,094)        (-331,000)        (-332,066)        (+287,028)          (-1,066)

              Rescission of contract authority................  ................  ................          (-4,318)          (-4,318)          (-4,318)

              Contingent emergency............................         (720,000)  ................  ................        (-720,000)  ................

          (By transfer).......................................           (1,000)           (2,000)           (2,000)          (+1,000)  ................

          (Limitations on obligations)........................      (38,432,600)      (40,899,801)      (41,222,799)      (+2,790,199)        (+322,998)

          (Rescissions of limitations on obligations).........         (-87,896)  ................  ................         (+87,896)  ................

          (Exempt obligations)................................       (1,069,000)         (955,000)         (955,000)        (-114,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total budgetary resources.....................      (57,840,622)      (58,948,911)      (59,988,077)      (+2,147,455)      (+1,039,166)
                                                               =========================================================================================
                  TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

  Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................            4,795             5,015             5,015              +220   ................
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................              -11   ................  ................              +11   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net total...............................................            4,784             5,015             5,015              +231   ................

             National Transportation Safety Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           62,942            64,480            70,000            +7,058            +5,520
    Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................             -139   ................  ................             +139   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net total...............................................           62,803            64,480            70,000            +7,197            +5,520
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title II, Related Agencies.......................           67,587            69,495            75,015            +7,428            +5,520
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Grand total.............................................       18,494,505        17,163,605        17,885,293          -609,212          +721,688

              Appropriations..................................      (18,393,749)      (17,494,605)      (18,221,677)        (-172,072)        (+727,072)

              Rescissions.....................................        (-619,244)        (-331,000)        (-332,066)        (+287,178)          (-1,066)

              Rescission of contract authority................  ................  ................          (-4,318)          (-4,318)          (-4,318)

              Contingent emergency............................         (720,000)  ................  ................        (-720,000)  ................

          (By transfer).......................................           (1,000)           (2,000)           (2,000)          (+1,000)  ................

          (Limitation on obligations).........................      (38,432,600)      (40,899,801)      (41,222,799)      (+2,790,199)        (+322,998)

          (Rescissions of limitations on obligations).........         (-87,896)  ................  ................         (+87,896)  ................

          (Exempt obligations)................................       (1,069,000)         (955,000)         (955,000)        (-114,000)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net total budgetary resources.....................      (57,908,209)      (59,018,406)      (60,063,092)      (+2,154,883)      (+1,044,686)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding provided in Public Law 106-113.