You are here

Report

Report

From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]


104th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 104-631 _______________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1997 _______ June 19, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed _______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Wolf, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T [To accompany H.R. 3675] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997. INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT _______________________________________________________________________ Page number Bill Report Narrative summary of Committee action...................... 1 2 Program, project, and activity............................. 3 Title I--Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary.................... 2 4 Coast Guard................................ 6 13 Federal Aviation Administration............ 11 34 Federal Highway Administration............. 16 65 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration......................... 18 101 Federal Railroad Administration............ 21 113 Federal Transit Administration............. 26 126 Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation............................ 34 167 Research and Special Programs Administration......................... 35 168 Office of Inspector General................ 36 173 Bureau of Transportation Statistics........ 174 Surface Transportation Board............... 37 174 Title II--Related Agencies: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board....................... 37 176 National Transportation Safety Board....... 38 176 Panama Canal Commission.................... 178 Title III--General Provisions...................... 38 179 Title IV--Miscellaneous Highway Provisions......... 55 181 House Report Requirements: Inflationary impact statement.............. 181 Rescissions................................ 182 Transfers of funds......................... 182 Changes in existing law.................... 184 Appropriations not authorized by law............... 189 Comparison with budget resolution.......... 189 Five-year projections of outlays........... 190 Financial assistance to state and local governments............................ 190 Tabular summary of the bill................ 192 Summary of the Bill The accompanying bill would provide $12,460,311,000 in new budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the Department of Transportation and related agencies, a decrease of $167,604,627 below the $12,627,915,627 requested in the budget. The Committee has also recommended limitations on obligations for a number of programs that are, for the most part, financed by multi-year contract authority in legislative acts. The total of the limitations on obligations for these programs is $22,422,450,000. This is $367,160,000 above the levels enacted in fiscal year 1996, and $630,922,000 below the levels requested in the budget. An additional $2,055,000,000 is estimated to be obligated for federal-aid highway programs exempt from the obligation limitation in the bill. The total recommended obligational authority (new budget authority, limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations) amounts to $36,937,761,000. This is $263,755,021 more than comparable fiscal year 1996 enacted levels, and $58,328,627 less than the budget request. Major Recommendations Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill are: (1) A provision providing for total obligations, including exempt obligations, of $19,605,000,000 for federal-aid highways; (2) A provision providing for $1,300,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports; (3) An appropriation of $4,900,000,000 for operations of the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of $254,288,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level, including funds to provide a net increase of 250 additional air traffic controllers, 100 additional airline operations inspectors, 54 additional air worthiness inspectors, 75 additional engineers and pilots, and 29 additional manufacturing certification inspectors; (4) An appropriation of $2,609,100,000 for operating expenses of the Coast Guard, an increase of $30,109,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level; (5) An appropriation of $462,000,000 for grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), to cover operating losses and capital expenses, and an appropriation of $80,000,000 for high-speed rail trainsets and facilities; (6) A total of $2,052,925,000 for the Federal Transit Administration's formula grants program, including $400,000,000 for transit operating assistance; (7) A provision providing for obligations of not to exceed $1,665,000,000 for the discretionary grants program of the Federal Transit Administration; (8) An appropriation of $200,000,000 for construction of the Washington, D.C. metrorail system; (9) A total of $204,637,000 for the Office of the Secretary, $28,926,000 below fiscal year 1996 and $28,535,000 below the budget request; (10) The bill includes a total of $51,300,000 in offsetting collections for Coast Guard, Acquisition, construction, and improvements; Federal Aviation Administration, Operations; Research and Special Programs Administration, Research and special programs; and Bureau of Transportation Statistics, airline statistics; and (11) The bill includes $2,400,000 for a National Civil Aviation Review Commission. Tabular Summary A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 1996 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 1997 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end of this report. Committee Hearings The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects provided for in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1997. These hearings are contained in eight published volumes totaling approximately 10,000 pages. The Committee received testimony from officials of the executive branch, Members of Congress, officials of the General Accounting Office, officials of state and local governments, and private citizens. The bill recommendations for fiscal year 1997 have been developed after careful consideration of all the information available to the Committee. Program, Project, and Activity During fiscal year 1997, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants, Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each ``budget item'' that is listed under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. Safety Programs In this bill, the Committee has worked hard to protect funding for essential safety-related programs of the Department of Transportation and the independent agencies. This has been difficult, but not impossible, given the budget constraints faced by the Federal Government this year. In some cases, funds have been added to the administration's request for safety- related activities. However, if, in the judgment of departmental officials any of the Committee's recommendations would significantly harm transportation safety, or if unanticipated safety needs arise during the course of the appropriations process, the Committee welcomes discussions with the administration to adjust individual funding levels and provide the funding needed. The bill also allows significant flexibility through the reprogramming process, which requires no further legislative action. The Committee will work with administration officials to reprogram funds for safety programs if that should be required. TITLE I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Salaries and Expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $56,189,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 55,376,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 53,816,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -2,373,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -1,560,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $2,365,352 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative reductions, and $78,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The bill provides $53,816,000 for salaries and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary (OST). This is $2,373,000 below the level enacted last year, and $1,560,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee recommendation assumes the following reductions from the budget --------------------------------------------------------------------------- estimate: Reductions in staff: -2 public affairs specialists....................... -$150,000 -2 congressional affairs officers................... -150,000 -2 attorney advisors................................ -200,000 -1 staff assistant, immediate office of the deputy secretary......................................... -60,000 -10 procurement analysts, office of acquisition..... -1,000,000 Reductions in staff.--The Committee recommendation eliminates a number of positions in the office of the secretary, including 2 public affairs specialists (-$150,000), 2 congressional affairs officers (-$150,000), 2 attorney advisors (-$200,000) and 1 staff assistant in the immediate office of the deputy secretary (-$60,000). In light of severe budget constraints and government downsizing, it is the Committee's belief that these positions can be eliminated without affecting the core responsibilities, functions and duties of the department. The Committee recommendation also eliminates 10 procurement analysts from the office of acquisition and grants management. While the Committee once supported the department's intended aggressive initiative to improve acquisition oversight at the departmental level, the Committee now questions the value added by limited, informal secretarial overviews. For example, the Coast Guard indicated to the Committee that within the past year no formal oversight reviews of its major acquisitions were performed. Further, the FAA, which is responsible for the vast majority of the department's major acquisitions, was provided new acquisition authorities over the past year, and as a result, the administrative offices of the secretary have little if any oversight role. Electronic tariff filing.--The bill includes a provision that permits the Office of the Secretary to credit $1,000,000 in user fees to support the electronic tariff filing system. Hispanic serving institutions.--The Committee applauds the Department of Transportation on its efforts to enhance educational and career opportunities for minority students in the areas of science, technology and transportation matters. The Committee acknowledges the activities of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), university transportation centers (UTCs), and the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) in this regard. The Committee strongly encourages the department, especially in its planning and research components (including, but not limited, to OSDBU, UTCs, and RSPA), to include participation by Hispanic serving institutions in any current or future plans to increase its pre-designated or targeted research, development and education funds. GENERAL PROVISIONS Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), similar to provisions in past Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which limits the number of political and Presidential appointees within the Department of Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 1997 is 107 personnel, which is an increase of seven personnel from the fiscal year 1996 ceiling. The budget estimate included 117 personnel. The bill specifies that no political or Presidential appointee may be detailed outside the Department of Transportation. Advisory committees.--As in previous years, the Committee has again limited the funds used for the expenses of advisory committees of the Department of Transportation. This year the Committee has limited to $850,000 the expenses of advisory committees, the same as enacted in fiscal year 1996. Office of Civil Rights Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $6,554,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 5,574,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 5,574,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -980,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... \1\ Excludes reductions of $927,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative reductions, and $9,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The Committee recommends $5,574,000 for the office of civil rights, the same level as the budget estimate and $980,000 below last year's appropriation. In fiscal year 1995, the management of internal civil rights activities was consolidated in the office of the secretary with transfer authority provided in the ``salaries and expenses'' account. Reductions from the previous year's appropriations are associated with one-time start-up costs that are no longer needed. The appropriated level will support 76 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years. The office of civil rights is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and ensuring full implementation of civil rights and equal opportunity precepts in all of the department's official actions and programs. Transportation Planning, Research, and Development Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $8,220,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 7,919,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 3,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -5,220,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -4,919,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $301,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative reductions, and $13,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. This appropriation finances those research activities and studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities in the formulation of national transportation policies. The overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private firms. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for this appropriation, which represents a decrease of $5,220,000 below the funding level provided for fiscal year 1996. The recommended level holds transportation and planning studies to $2,757,000 (-$51,000) and permits the annualization and other pay-related costs for 17 FTEs, as requested in the budget. The Committee has included $100,000 to continue the department's ongoing analysis of impacts on Mexico and the United States related to motor carrier impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The recommendation deletes funding for planned trade promotion activities which should be provided by the Department of Commerce. The recommended level reflects elimination of further funding for the transportation automated procurement system (TAPS) (-$2,511,000) and the docket management system (DMS) (-$1,100,000). The TAPS pilot test program and evaluation have yet to be completed within the office of the secretary and, as a result, further departmental conversion and full implementation are premature. While the Committee agrees that further improvements may be desirable, they must be deferred due to the high outlays associated with this account and the tight budget constraints facing Congress. The recommended level deletes funding for the development of GPS augmentation (-$1,000,000), holds ``other costs'' to the 1996 level (-$257,000), and assumes the transfer of aviation information management to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Transportation Administrative Service Center Limitation, fiscal year 1996 \1\........................ ($103,149,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \2\................... (124,812,000) Recommended in the bill \3\............................. (124,812,000) Bill compared with: Limitation, fiscal year 1996........................ (+21,663,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... (--) \1\ Excludes reductions of $7,506,000 to comply with working capital fund and awards provisions. \2\ Proposed without limitation. \3\ In fiscal year 1997, the limitation on transportation administrative service center expenses is also addressed in a general provision (-$10,000,000). The Committee has agreed with the budget request to create a transportation administrative service center (TASC) to finance common administrative services that are centrally performed in the interest of economy and efficiency in the department. The fund is to be financed through negotiated agreements with the department's operating administrations, and other governmental elements requiring the center's capabilities. The Committee, however, has denied the department's request to eliminate all appropriations language and has instead included a limitation on activities financed through the TASC at the level requested in the budget. In addition, the Committee has included two language provisions. The first provision limits activities transferred to the transportation administrative service center to only those approved by the agency modal administrator; the second would limit special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements presented to and approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. To ensure smooth operations and accountability of the TASC in its nascent stages of development and organization, the Committee directs the department to submit with the department's Congressional budget submission an approved annual operating plan of the TASC and quarterly status reports for the Committee's review. Quarterly reports and approvals of the Secretary's management council shall also be provided to the Committee. The Committee does not view the TASC as an opportunity to increase the number of departmental administrative staff. The Committee directs the department not to hire any new staff above a GS-12 level for the TASC in fiscal year 1996 until after the director of the TASC is hired. In addition, the department is not to hire any TASC staff in fiscal year 1997 in excess of the end-of-year, on-board level in fiscal year 1996. General provision.--The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 321) which provides that amounts budgeted for the transportation administrative service center in this bill are reduced, on a pro rata basis, to the limitation level of $114,812,000. Payments to Air Carriers (liquidation of contract authorization) (airport and airway trust fund) Liquidation of contract Limitation on authorization obligations Appropriation, fiscal year 1996. ($22,600,000) ($22,600,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997........................... (21,922,000) (21,922,000) Recommended in the bill......... (10,000,000) (10,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996....................... (-12,600,000) (-12,600,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (-11,922,000) (-11,922,000) The essential air service program was created by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to continue air service to communities that had received federally mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that meet certain criteria. Subsidies, ranging from $4 to $322 per passenger, currently support air service to 74 communities (excluding Alaska) and serve about 600,000 passengers annually. This program was established to provide a smooth phaseout of federal subsidies to airlines that service small airports. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the essential air service program. The recommendation is $12,600,000 below last year's level and $11,922,000 below the budget estimate. The House-passed budget resolution called for the termination of this program. The Committee has not imposed a legislative local matching requirement, as was proposed by the House last year. The Committee, however, directs the Office of the Secretary to give preference to those communities that provide a local cost share without unduly disadvantaging the most rural communities. Tuscaloosa, Alabama.--The Committee is aware that the carrier providing service to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, has proposed to discontinue service in fiscal year 1996. Because Tuscaloosa Municipal Airport is currently benefiting from the essential air service program, the Committee urges the department to work with the carrier to ensure continued operations. The following table lists the projected subsidized air service points in fiscal year 1997: CURRENTLY SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Estimated daily Current mileage to enplanement annual Subsidy per States/communities nearest hub at EAS subsidy passenger (S, M. or point (YE 3/ rates (June L) 31/95) 1, 1996) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama: Tuscaloosa.............................................. 61 32.1 (\2\) ........... Arizona: Kingman................................................. 103 10.5 $94,663 $14.40 Page.................................................... 274 23.3 129,560 8.87 Prescott................................................ 103 37.8 94,663 4.00 Arkansas: El Dorado/Camden........................................ 108 11.1 474,453 68.15 Harrison................................................ 139 10.0 412,931 66.05 Hot Springs............................................. 54 14.9 412,931 44.34 Jonesboro............................................... 71 10.5 474,453 71.98 California: Cresent City............................................ 233 15.2 151,450 15.91 Merced.................................................. 118 22.1 182,121 13.14 Visalia................................................. 202 17.0 182,121 17.16 Colorado: Cortez.................................................. 253 27.0 92,976 5.49 Lamar................................................... 162 4.4 190,987 69.93 Hawaii: Kamuela................................................. 39 5.6 215,361 61.30 Illinois: Mt. Vernon.............................................. 92 6.3 (\2\) ........... Sterling/Rock Falls..................................... 105 4.1 (\2\) ........... Iowa: Ottumwa................................................. 92 5.9 268,410 72.64 Kansas: Dodge City.............................................. 156 14.9 113,693 12.19 Garden City............................................. 209 25.4 190,987 12.01 Goodland................................................ 190 3.0 190,987 102.79 Great Bend.............................................. 116 6.0 113,693 30.24 Hays.................................................... 175 16.6 113,693 10.92 Liberal/Guymon.......................................... 162 10.5 190,987 28.95 Topeka.................................................. 76 22.9 102,362 7.13 Maine: Augusta/Waterville \3\.................................. 71 21.5 288,516 42.92 Bar Harbor.............................................. 164 16.9 259,243 24.57 Rockland................................................ 79 14.8 259,243 28.02 Michigan: Ironwood/Ashland........................................ 218 13.4 (\2\) ........... Minnesota: Fairmont................................................ 153 3.9 247,771 100.39 Fergus Falls............................................ 185 13.5 146,508 17.38 Mankato................................................. 75 5.1 247,771 77.04 Missouri: Cape Girardeau.......................................... 133 20.4 164,027 12.85 Fort Leonard Wood....................................... 130 14.5 196,606 21.69 Kirksville.............................................. 158 8.5 224,382 42.24 Montana: Glasgow................................................. 279 6.4 303,956 76.07 Glendive................................................ 223 2.7 511,909 308.19 Havre................................................... 251 4.9 439,972 143.41 Lewistown............................................... 129 3.7 439.972 189.32 Miles City.............................................. 145 3.2 511,909 257.76 Sidney.................................................. 273 7.2 511,909 113.86 Wolf Point.............................................. 295 4.7 303,956 103.70 Nebraska: Alliance................................................ 242 2.7 346,863 203.68 Chadron................................................. 301 2.7 346,863 207.33 Hastings................................................ 160 2.8 317,496 183.95 Kearney................................................. 186 10.1 317,496 50.04 McCook.................................................. 259 3.3 657,724 322.73 Norfolk................................................. 109 11.2 (\2\) ........... Nevada: Ely..................................................... 236 7.4 508,759 109.74 New Hampshire: Keene................................................... 56 7.2 382,283 84.67 New Mexico: Alamogordo/Holloman AFB................................. 92 12.7 166,705 20.91 Clovis.................................................. 106 15.0 200,332 21.31 Silver City/Hurley/Deming............................... 163 11.2 263,458 37.62 New York: Massena................................................. 149 20.5 132,540 10.34 Ogdensburg.............................................. 127 10.0 132,540 21.15 Watertown............................................... 69 15.8 132,540 13.44 North Dakota: Devils Lake............................................. 403 12.4 208,119 26.81 Dickinson............................................... 313 11.9 141,502 18.95 Jamestown............................................... 304 10.3 208,119 32.20 Oklahoma: Enid.................................................... 91 12.0 301,400 40.28 Ponca City.............................................. 88 13.7 301,400 35.24 Pennsylvania: Oil City/Franklin....................................... 91 27.0 89,916 5.32 South Dakota: Brookings............................................... 211 5.6 247,771 70.61 Mitchell................................................ 245 3.6 247,771 110.32 Yankton................................................. 159 9.0 268,875 47.78 Texas: Brownwood............................................... 153 7.1 372,426 83.58 Utah: Cedar City.............................................. 257 19.1 292,882 24.55 Moab.................................................... 241 6.0 367,713 98.69 Vernal.................................................. 171 19.2 194,466 16.18 Vermont: Rutland................................................. 67 10.4 382,283 58.54 Virginia: Staunton................................................ 108 31.4 225,029 11.46 Washington: Ephrata/Moses Lake...................................... 122 26.3 177,628 10.80 West Virginia: Beckley................................................. 186 12.0 137,229 18.25 Princeton/Bluefield..................................... 145 15.6 137,229 14.09 Wyoming: Worland................................................. 164 8.3 145,239 27.86 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The above list of communities is based on currently available data, and is subject to change for a number of reasons. Subsidy rates change as their two-year terms expire throughout the year. In addition, air carriers submit passenger traffic data on a quarterly basis. Changes in both subsidy rates and traffic levels will of course change subsidy-per-passenger calculations. Further, some communities currently receiving subsidy-free service may require subsidy in the future while some currently subsidized communities may attain profitability and no longer require subsidy. Finally, Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activities Statistics. \2\ Rate under negotiation. \3\ Enplanements based on less than a full year's passenger data annualized. Payments to Air Carriers (airport and airway trust fund) (Rescission of contract authorization) Rescission, fiscal year 1996............................ -$16,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... -16,678,000 Recommended in the bill................................. -28,600,000 Bill compared with:..................................... Rescission, fiscal year 1996........................ -12,600,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -11,922,000 The bill includes a rescission of contract authority of $28,600,000. This rescission removes contract authority which is not available for obligation due to annual limits on obligations. A similar rescission of $16,000,000 was made in fiscal year 1996. Payments to Air Carriers (rescission) Rescission, fiscal year 1996............................ -$6,786,971 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... -1,133,373 Recommended in the bill................................. -1,133,000 Bill compared with: Rescission, fiscal year 1996........................ +5,653,971 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +373 The bill includes a rescission of balances of general funds from prior years. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, section 419, included a subsidy program to ensure scheduled air service to specified communities. Prior to fiscal year 1992, funding for this subsidy was provided from the general fund. Starting in fiscal year 1992, this program has been funded from the airport and airway trust fund. For the past several years, balances have been carried forward in the general fund account. These balances are no longer required as the program is now funded from the trust fund account. Rental Payments Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $135,200,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\................... 137,581,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 127,447,000 Bill compared with:..................................... Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -7,753,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -10,134,000 \1\ Rental payments for the Federal Highway Administration are separately budgeted but reimbursed to this account. The bill provides $127,447,000 in a consolidated appropriation for rental payments to the General Services Administration (GSA). These funds are used to pay GSA for headquarters and field space rental and related services. In addition to these consolidated funds, the bill provides that $17,294,000 shall be provided to GSA from the Federal Highway Administration's ``Limitation on general operating expenses''. This brings total funding to $144,741,000. The Committee has been concerned for some time over the spiraling growth in these expenses, and has accordingly limited to 8,580,000 square feet the amount of space that the department may lease from the GSA. The Committee notes that fiscal year 1995 through 1997 space utilization rates are higher than in prior years because the department has not been able to release space back to the General Services Administration proportional to workforce reductions. These reductions have involved several individual office locations which have heretofore not allowed the department to capture contiguous blocks of space that can be released. However, in response to evaluations of the Nassif building's heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems and the health and comfort of its occupants, the department now anticipates extensive cleaning of the Nassif building. Because of the significant disruption that this will cause, the department will relocate employees beginning in May 1996 and continuing throughout the summer. This presents the department a significant, unexpected opportunity to consolidate its space requirements in the Nassif building, reduce its space utilization rates in fiscal year 1997, and release unused space to the General Services Administration. The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 326) that will permit the Secretary to transfer funds from salaries and expenses to ``Rental payments'' to cover space utility charges and other related expenses in excess of the amounts provided in the bill. Minority Business Resource Center Program Limitation on Appropriation direct loans Appropriation, fiscal year 1996........ $1,900,000 ($15,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...... 1,900,000 (15,000,000) Recommended in the bill................ 1,900,000 (15,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.... ............. ................ Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.. ............. ................ The minority business resource center of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects. Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were funded by the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made by the Credit Reform Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal year 1993 a separate appropriation was proposed in the President's budget only for the subsidy inherently assumed in those loans and the cost to administer the loan program. The recommendation fully funds the budget request, which provides a limitation on direct loans of $15,000,000 and subsidy and administrative costs totaling $1,900,000, the same levels as last year. Minority Business Outreach Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $2,900,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 2,900,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 2,900,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... \1\ Excludes reduction of $4,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. This appropriation provides contractual support to assist minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects that involve Federal spending. It also provides grants and contract assistance that serve DOT-wide goals and not just office of the secretary purposes. The Committee has provided $2,900,000, the same level as provided in fiscal year 1996 and included in the budget estimate. COAST GUARD Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter Service and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of the Navy in time of war. The Committee recommends a total program level of $3,708,319,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 1997. This is $42,405,000 (1.1 percent) less than the budget estimate, and $32,931,000 (1 percent) more than the fiscal year 1996 program level. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ---------------------------------- Recommended in 1996 enacted\1\ 1997 estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operating expenses........................................... $2,278,991,000 $2,637,850,000 $2,609,100,000 Acquisition, construction, and improvements.................. 362,375,000 411,600,000 358,000,000 Offsetting collections....................................... ............... -20,000,000 -20,000,000 Rescissions.................................................. ............... ............... -3,755,000 Environmental compliance and restoration..................... 21,000,000 25,000,000 21,000,000 Alteration of bridges........................................ 16,000,000 2,000,000 16,000,000 Retired pay.................................................. 582,022,000 608,084,000 608,084,000 Reserve training............................................. 62,000,000 65,890,000 65,890,000 Research, development, test, and evaluation.................. 18,000,000 20,300,000 19,000,000 Port safety development...................................... 15,000,000 ............... ............... Boat safety.................................................. 20,000,000 ............... 35,000,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................. 3,375,388,000 3,750,724,000 3,708,319,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes $300,000,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996, reductions to comply with working capital fund and administrative provisions, and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. Operating Expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $2,578,991,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \2\................... 2,637,850,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 2,609,100,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... + 30,109,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... - 28,750,000 \1\ Includes $300,000,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996. \2\ Includes $118,500,000 for defense-related activities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- budget by mission category The following data is based on the Coast Guard budget submission and summarizes, by Coast Guard mission, the expected resources to be provided for each major Coast Guard mission for fiscal years 1995 through 1997. Because of the nature of the service's accounting systems and unknown changes in operational needs, these figures are estimates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1995 actual 1996 estimate 1997 estimate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Search and rescue................................... $385,326,000 $383,716,000 $390,573,000 Aids to navigation.................................. 524,180,000 499,113,000 513,058,000 Marine safety....................................... 330,467,000 311,998,000 320,129,000 Marine environmental protection..................... 235,711,000 236,494,000 241,719,000 Enforcement of laws and treaties.................... 947,567,000 952,636,000 974,216,000 Ice operations...................................... 91,082,000 90,669,000 94,016,000 Defense readiness................................... 110,505,000 101,304,000 104,139,000 ----------------------------------------------------------- Total......................................... 2,624,838,000 2,575,930,000 2,637,850,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends a total of $2,609,100,000 for operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 1997. This is $28,750,000 (one percent) below the budget request, and $30,109,000 above the fiscal year 1996 program level. The following table compares the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the fiscal year 1997 estimate, and the recommended level by program, project and activity: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The recommended reduction from the budget estimate includes the following adjustments: Change Excessive funding for maintenance....................... -$14,307,000 District offices........................................ -3,689,000 Miscellaneous supplies.................................. -3,700,000 Ammunition and small arms............................... -2,000,000 Offset for boating safety grant increase................ -304,000 Non-operational travel.................................. -1,000,000 Professional training and education..................... -2,000,000 Maintenance and Logistics Command administration........ -1,750,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................... -28,750,000 pay and allowances The bill includes $1,597,856,000 for pay and allowances of Coast Guard military and civilian personnel, the same amount as included in the President's budget. The bill includes funds for a 3.0 percent pay raise for both military and civilian personnel, as requested. Within the amount provided, the bill includes all funds requested for special pays for military personnel. depot level maintenance The bill includes $361,937,000 for depot level maintenance, a reduction of $14,307,000 from the budget estimate. The budget assumed approval of a proposed reprogramming during fiscal year 1996 involving the transfer of maintenance funds to other Coast Guard activities, and requested restoration of those funds to the base funding for maintenance in fiscal year 1997. Since the reprogramming has neither been approved by the department, the Senate, nor the House at this late point in the fiscal year, the Committee believes the Coast Guard should continue using those funds for maintenance, as originally appropriated. With this action, the $14,307,000 is excess to requirements in fiscal year 1997. Operations And Support The bill includes $405,636,000 for operations and support, which is $13,765,000 (3.5 percent) more than the level provided for fiscal year 1996. This budget activity funds operations of medium- and high-endurance cutters, area offices, district offices, air stations, maintenance and logistics commands, and other operational units. Maintenance and logistics command administration.--The Committee recommends $121,663,000, a reduction of $1,750,000 below the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints. The Committee has attempted to allocate reductions to administrative activities such as these in order to preserve funding, to the maximum extent possible, for high priority operational support activities. the recommended funding level is 1.8 percent below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. District offices.--The Committee recommendation of $54,037,000 provides an increase of 1.5 percent to handle non- pay inflationary cost increases. The President's budget requested $57,726,000, an increase of 8 percent. The Committee believes this level of funding will be sufficient, especially considering the Coast Guard is in the process of eliminating two district offices as part of its overall streamlining plan. Ammunition and small arms.--The Committee recommendation of $2,667,000 is $2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee understands that, due to recent changes in the Coast Guard's military readiness plans, a permanent decrease in the requirement for ammunition and small arms is justified. Coast Guard Auxiliary.--The Committee is supportive of efforts to increase the use of the Coast Guard Auxiliary to supplement active duty military and civilian personnel in carrying out vital Coast Guard missions. In that regard, the Committee is disturbed to note that the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1997 budget reduces funding for Auxiliary support, just at the time the Auxiliary is being asked to do more. The fiscal year 1997 budget reduces those funds by 13 percent, from $11,500,000 to $10,000,000. According to the Coast Guard, Auxiliary-responded search and rescue cases declined by 16 percent between fiscal years 1993 and 1995. The Committee is concerned that, with boating activity now bouncing back from the recession of a few years ago and the Coast Guard downsizing, there will be a widening gap between the boating public's needs and the services provided. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to provide additional funding for Auxiliary support, above the $10,000,000 shown in the President's budget, if at all possible during the year. Supervisory span of control.--Currently, the government- wide supervisory span of control is approximately 1 manager for every 7 employees. The goal of the national performance review (NPR) is to double that, to reach a level of 1 manager for every 14 employees. Currently, the Coast Guard employs 1 officer (including chief warrant officers) for each 3.9 enlisted employees. This is far lower than the level achieved government-wide in the civilian workforce or expected under NPR initiatives. While the Committee notes the Coast Guard's opinion that such measures should not be applied to a military workforce, the Committee also notes that the Coast Guard's officer-to-enlisted ratio is lower than any other military service (excluding the Air Force, which does not keep comparable records). As streamlining consolidates activities both geographically and organizationally, there is significant opportunity to reduce layers of middle management and supervision, thereby improving the supervisory span of control and lowering overall costs. The Committee urges the Coast Guard to examine this situation as the service implements its ongoing streamlining program. Mackinaw.--The bill includes the requested funding of $5,872,000 for continued operation and maintenance of the icebreaking cutter Mackinaw during fiscal year 1997. A recent study of Great Lakes icebreaking by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center concluded that the Coast Guard's annual expenditure of $8,800,000 in icebreaking on the Great Lakes saves American industry approximately $78,000,000 each year. Abandoned barges, Houston, TX.--The bill includes $2,000,000 for Coast Guard removal of abandoned barges in the Houston ship channel and the San Jacinto River, and the Coast Guard is directed to use such funds only for that purpose. Multi-mission small boat stations.--Funding has been provided to keep in operation all existing multi-mission small boat Coast Guard stations. The Committee expects no stations to be closed. Defense readiness activities.--The Coast Guard's operating budget request, and the Committee recommendation, provide total funding of $328,000,000 for drug interdiction activities during fiscal year 1997. In order to bolster specific anti-drug operations, the Committee directs that, within the amount provided, the following specific allocations be provided: Outboard motors--riverine operations.................... $2,000,000 Boston whalers, hovercraft, and maintenance............. 12,000,000 Shoreline monitoring.................................... 10,000,000 HU-25 falcon jet operations............................. 10,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 34,000,000 The Committee recommendation is based upon recent findings of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee as discussed in House Report 104-486 (March 19, 1996). The Committee believes these are high priority initiatives. The balance of drug interdiction funding (90 percent of the total) is to be distributed at the discretion of the Coast Guard Commandant. Recruiting And Training Support The bill includes $66,429,000 for recruiting and training support, a reduction of $2,206,000 (3 percent) below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, and $2,000,000 below the budget request. This budget activity funds recruiting and training activities including support for the Coast Guard Academy and Coast Guard training centers in Yorktown, Virginia; Petaluma, California; and Cape May, New Jersey. Coast Guard-Wide Centralized Services And Support The bill includes $182,246,000 for Coast Guard-wide centralized services and support, an increase of $5,114,000 (2.9 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level and no change from the budget request. This budget activity finances certain Coast Guard units managed at headquarters and bills for items such as telecommunications and workers compensation, which are paid centrally by headquarters. Account-Wide Adjustments The Committee recommends account-wide reductions totaling $5,004,000, as discussed below. Miscellaneous supplies.--The Coast Guard budgets for such items as dining supplies, office supplies, periodicals, commissary supplies, and shore facility housekeeping items in a budget category called miscellaneous supplies. Given the significant downsizing under way in the Coast Guard, the Committee believes these costs should be going down. However, the Coast Guard requested a 6 percent increase in this area. The Committee recommendation holds those costs to the fiscal year 1996 level of $61,229,000. The Committee has reviewed the Coast Guard's lengthy list of routine in-house publications, and believes the service could start by reviewing costs in that area. Boat safety administration offset.--During consideration of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1995, the Coast Guard indicated its willingness to forgo their administrative drawdown from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund in order to provide additional funding for boating safety grants. In this way, funds for boat safety could be raised without taking funds from sport fish restoration activities. In fiscal year 1996, the trust fund contribution to Coast Guard operating expenses was $20,000,000. While the Committee considered transferring the full $20,000,000 from Coast Guard ``Operating expenses'' to boating safety grants in order to finance the higher level of funding in the latter program, the Committee recommendation instead retains the majority of those funds in operating expenses, for the service to maintain and improve boating safety across the country. The Coast Guard proposed a significant increase in funding for boating safety grants, while at the same time restoring the full trust fund contribution to their general fund operating budget. Given the 50 percent increase in total funding for boating safety grants in fiscal year 1997 (from $30,000,000 to $45,000,000), the Committee believes this modest reduction will be more than offset by a lower level of required activity due to the success of state public information and education activities funded by boating safety federal grants. Non-operational travel.--The Committee received a disturbing report from the DOT Inspector General this year regarding travel by senior officials in the department. Some of this travel was taken by Coast Guard officials, including the apparently routine use of actual expenses to go to conferences and meetings. The Committee has seen no evidence that Coast Guard policy or monitoring efforts have changed as a result of these IG findings. Given this issue, as well as the reduced numbers of Coast Guard personnel from downsizing efforts, the Committee believes non-operational travel should be declining. The Committee recommends $48,935,000 for non-operational travel, a reduction of $1,000,000 below the budget estimate and approximately the same as the level provided for fiscal year 1996 ($49,005,000). Although travel costs are expected to experience some inflationary growth in fiscal year 1997, the Committee believes closer monitoring of travel expenses will enable the Coast Guard to engage in all necessary travel during the coming fiscal year. Bill Language Executive order 12839.--The bill specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both military and civilian employment for the purpose of complying with executive order 12839. This provision has been included in the bill for several years without change. General Provision Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San Francisco.--The bill continues as a general provision (Sec. 313) language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil rigs could be built if lease sale 119 goes forward. Under this revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language prohibiting the implementation of this regulation. Conveyance of Light Station, Montauk Point, New York.--The bill includes a general provision (Sec. 339) which requires the Secretary of Transportation to convey to the Montauk Historical Association the U.S. Government's interest in Light Station Montauk Point, located in Montauk, New York. Relating to this matter, the bill incorporates by reference and in their entirety the provisions of section 423 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, as passed the House of Representatives on May 9, 1995. Although this conveyance has been approved by the House of Representatives, final Congressional action on the Coast Guard Authorization Act has been delayed. To ensure the timely conveyance of this property without further delay, the Committee believes it important to include such a provision in this bill. Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $362,375,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\................... 411,600,000 Recommended in the bill \1\............................. 358,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\................. -4,375,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\............... -53,600,000 \1\ Excludes proposed asset sales. The bill includes $358,000,000 for the capital acquisition, construction, and improvement programs of the Coast Guard for vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and related administrative expenses, of which $20,000,000 is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund. Of the total provided, $9,600,000 represents offsets from proposed sale of Coast Guard assets. In addition, the bill includes a proposal to sell Coast Guard property in Wildwood, New Jersey, which is estimated to add another $20,000,000 in offsetting collections. Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes language distributing the total appropriation by budget activity and providing separate obligation availabilities appropriate for the type of activity being performed. The Committee continues to believe that these obligation availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term unobligated balances. Committee Recommendation The following table compares the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the fiscal year 1997 estimate, and the recommended level by program, project and activity: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Vessels The Committee recommends $205,600,000 for vessels, an increase of $38,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 1996. Approximately 60 percent of this amount ($124,000,000) is to continue production of the Coast Guard's new seagoing and coastal buoy tenders, which the Committee considers a high priority due to the age of the current buoy tender fleet. Seagoing buoy tender (WLB).--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 to purchase one additional seagoing buoy tender, a reduction of $9,500,000 from the amount requested. Last year, the Congress provided $65,000,000 for two vessels. While supportive of this program, the Committee is disturbed to note the significantly increased unit sailaway costs budgeted for the full production oceangoing buoy tenders. Since the current contractor is producing 2 ships for approximately $32,000,000 each in fiscal year 1996, it strains credibility to believe that the same ship--built to the same design--will cost almost twice as much in the coming fiscal year, especially after going through a new competition. The Coast Guard believes that full and open competition will result in much higher costs for the first full production vessel. To the contrary, the Committee believes the competition should result in savings, particularly since five vessels are already under contract and all contractors are being required to build to the same specification. The bill provides $50 million for this vessel, still a large increase over the amount provided for each vessel in fiscal year 1996. Coastal buoy tender (WLM).--The Committee recommends $74,000,000 for this program, a reduction of $6,000,000 from the level requested. The Committee notes that as of March 31, 1996, this program had an unobligated balance of $91,600,000. Buoy boat replacement (BUSL).--The Committee recommends no funding for the stern loading buoy boat (BUSL) in fiscal year 1997, a reduction of $8,500,000 from the budget request. The Coast Guard planned to obligate the fiscal year 1996 funds in fiscal year 1997, then put an additional five boats under contract at some future time during the year. Given the slippage in this program due to termination of the boatbuilding contract last year, the $9,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 funds (to build five boats) provides sufficient work to maintain this program during fiscal year 1997. The Committee will consider additional funds next year, after experience has been gained on these first five production models. 82-foot coastal patrol boat (CPB).--The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for continued replacement of the 82-foot coastal patrol boat, a reduction of $2,800,000 from the budget request. The modest reduction reflects the large unobligated balance in this program. When combined with the $9,985,000 in fiscal year 1995 funds planned for obligation in August 1996, the Coast Guard will have $44,985,000 to sustain the boatbuilding effort throughout the following fourteen months. The Committee is very supportive of this program, and believes that this level of funding is sufficient to run an economical program. Surface search radar.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for this project, a reduction of $4,600,000 due to budget constraints. While a worthwhile project, there is no compelling justification to significantly raise this funding above the $3,500,000 provided for fiscal year 1996. Aircraft The Committee recommends $18,300,000 for aircraft, an increase of $6,300,000 (53 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. Global positioning system installation.--The Committee recommends $1,900,000, the same level of funding as provided in fiscal year 1996. The Coast Guard requested $2,900,000. HC-130 engine conversion.--The Committee recommends $6,800,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget request. No funds were provided in fiscal year 1996. This project seeks to improve the reliability and maintainability of the C-130's T56 engine by upgrading it from the series II version to the series III version. The budget proposed to produce and install 22 of the required 52 kits in fiscal year 1997. While a meritorious program, the Committee believes this can be phased in at a slower overall pace due to budget constraints and the need to fund higher priority activities. HH-65 kapton rewiring.--The Committee recommendation of $3,500,000 is $1,500,000 above the budget request. According to the Coast Guard, kapton wiring in the HH-65 helicopter poses a serious safety risk to Coast Guard flight crews. There have been 13 in-flight fires in the past 4 years due to kapton wiring, including 5 resulting in total loss of power to the aircraft. Even though the Coast Guard stated ``this safety of flight issue will escalate with time as the kapton wiring continues to decompose'', the service proposed a slow, lengthy program to address the issue. The Committee recommends a faster replacement schedule, applying some of the savings from other programs to accelerate a fleet-wide fix for this serious safety problem. VC-11A sale.--The Committee has reduced the request by $600,000 in recognition of funds credited to this appropriation from the recent sale of the VC-11A aircraft. HU-25 sale.--The Committee's recommendation assumes that at least $1,000,000 in offsetting collections are credited to this appropriation in fiscal year 1997 from sale of Coast Guard HU- 25 (Falcon) jet aircraft. The service is pursuing the sale of some of this inventory, but has assumed no financial resources resulting therefrom. Other Equipment The Committee recommends $39,900,000 for other equipment, a reduction of $6,800,000 below the budget estimate. Vessel traffic service (VTS) system 2000.--The bill includes no funding to continue this program, a reduction of $6,000,000, and rescinds $3,755,000 in unobligated prior year funding. In addition, the bill includes a limitation prohibiting funds from being used to continue the VTS 2000 program. It is the Committee's firm intention that this program be terminated by the Coast Guard, and that the service immediately begin exploration of low-cost, off-the-shelf alternatives to VTS 2000 in cooperation and close coordination with affected port authorities, waterway operators, and other system users. The Committee's recommendation is based on the following: GAO testimony that, after several years of study, the Coast Guard does not know how many VTS 2000 systems will be needed, and will not know for at least four more years; Evidence that low-cost private and federal VTS systems are operating today with similar performance to that envisioned for VTS 2000; Testimony that economic benefits of the system are not clearly established in many of the locations under consideration; GAO's statement that ``we did not find widespread support for VTS 2000 among the interviewed stakeholders at the eight ports where we conducted site visits * * * many who opposed VTS 2000 said the proposed system would likely be more expensive than necessary for their port''; and Coast Guard's continued slippage of the program schedule, and their ongoing evaluation of how to finance the system's high operating costs in a declining budget environment, make the program's future prospects highly questionable. In summary, this system lacks the support of the communities in which it would need to be installed, appears to be gold-plated in design, and involves an unnecessarily high cost in both acquisition and operations. The GAO recommended that, given the high development cost and the large number of proposed sites that show relatively low net benefits, the Coast Guard ``determine whether the safety benefits of VTS 2000 can be achieved more inexpensively by installing other VTS systems''. The Committee agrees. The Committee urges the Coast Guard to develop a follow-on program as soon as possible, in order to prevent further delay. Personnel management information system/joint uniformed military pay system II.--The Committee believes this upgrade to the Coast Guard's payroll and accounting system can be phased over a longer period of time in order to fund higher priority initiatives within the resources available. The Committee recommends $800,000, half of the $1,600,000 included in the budget request. No funds were provided in fiscal year 1996. Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation Facilities The Committee recommends $47,950,000 for shore facilities, a reduction of $11,550,000 below the budget estimate. Coast Guard Yard ship handling facility.--The Committee recommends $3,950,000 for this project, a reduction of $1,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee believes given the long-term nature of the requirement meant to be addressed by this project, the overall work can be phased in a more gradual manner. Support Center Portsmouth, VA sandblasting facility.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000, a reduction of $550,000 from the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints. San Juan, PR base consolidation.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget estimate. This is the first year of a multiyear, $24,400,000 project to upgrade and consolidate Coast Guard base facilities in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Noting the long-term nature of this project and past schedule difficulties in the family housing project in Puerto Rico, the Committee believes the existing schedule may be unattainable, and that a slower pace of funding will not undermine attainment of the overall project's goals. Upolu Point, HI offset from sale.--The Coast Guard advised the Committee this year that the General Services Administration is preparing to sell the former Loran station at Upolu Point, Hawaii. There is evidence that the sale of this property could result in significant offsetting collections being credited to the Coast Guard's appropriation, lessening their need for new budget authority. The Committee bill assumes an offset of $8,000,000 from the sale of this property. Personnel and Related Support The bill includes $46,250,000 for AC&I personnel and related support, an increase of $1,550,000 (3.5 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, and a reduction of $750,000 from the budget estimate. Given the program reductions in this bill, the Coast Guard's requirement for acquisition personnel will be less than budgeted. For example, the President's budget includes 20 staff years to manage the VTS 2000 program, which has been terminated in this bill. Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Coast Guard is directed to continue submission of the quarterly acquisition reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Coast Guard is to continue including with each such report an up-to- date listing of unobligated balances by acquisition project and by fiscal year, a Congressional direction first implemented in fiscal year 1996. Bill Language Wildwood, NJ asset sale.--The bill includes language requested by the administration allowing proceeds from the sale of property in Wildwood, New Jersey to be credited to this appropriation as offsetting receipts, and stipulating that such proceeds shall be included in the budget baseline required by the Budget Enforcement Act. This provision saves $20,000,000 in budget authority and outlays. Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision first enacted in fiscal year 1996 crediting to this appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast Guard's surplus real property. This provision was requested in the President's budget. Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (Rescissions) Rescissions, fiscal year 1996........................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................................... Recommended in the bill................................. -$3,755,000 Bill compared with: Rescissions, fiscal year 1996....................... -3,755,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -3,755,000 The bill includes a rescission of $3,400,000 from the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (P.L. 104-50), and a rescission of $355,000 from the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-331). These represent the unobligated balances from the ``VTS 2000'' Program, which is being terminated. Discussion of this recommendation is under ``Acquisition, construction, and improvements''. Environmental Compliance and Restoration Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $21,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 25,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 21,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -4,000,000 The Committee recommends $21,000,000 to bring Coast Guard facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and environmental regulations; to conduct facilities response plans; to develop pollution and hazardous waste minimization strategies; to conduct environmental assessments; and to conduct necessary program support. These funds permit the continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed to environmental problems. The recommended funding level is the same as the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, and a decrease of $4,000,000 below the requested level. The recommendation fully funds the requested levels for site-specific cleanup and restoration projects ($15,500,000). A table comparing the recommendation to the budget estimate follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Activity estimate recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cleanup and restoration projects............ $15,500,000 $15,500,000 Environmental compliance.................... 3,834,000 2,500,000 Personnel................................... 5,666,000 3,000,000 --------------------------- Total................................... 25,000,000 21,000,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sites to be addressed.--The funds in this bill are sufficient to finance the budgeted amount of $15,500,000 for cleanup and restoration projects at specific sites. The sites for which funds are included are as follows: Project site Amount Support Ctr Kodiak, AK (RCRA consent order)............. $3,200,000 Support Ctr Elizabeth City, NC (RCRA part B permit)..... 2,530,000 Air Station Cape Cod, MA (Installation restoration)..... 2,120,000 Air Station Brooklyn, NY (JP-4 fuel farm soil/ groundwater)........................................ 700,000 Agency-wide, initial assessment surveys................. 850,000 Agency-wide, aids to navigation (ATON) battery cleanup.. 4,000,000 Air Station Traverse City, MI........................... 350,000 Coast Guard Academy, CT................................. 195,000 Training Ctr Petaluma, CA............................... 185,000 Air Station Miami, FL................................... 175,000 Support Ctr Alameda, CA................................. 175,000 Air Station San Francisco, CA........................... 125,000 Group San Diego, CA..................................... 120,000 Station Depoe Bay, OR................................... 115,000 Reserve Training Ctr Yorktown, VA....................... 100,000 Station Wilmette Harbor, IL............................. 75,000 Station Neah Bay, WA.................................... 75,000 Station Humboldt Bay, CA................................ 70,000 Base Ketchikan, AK...................................... 65,000 Loran Station, Kodiak, AK............................... 50,000 Coast Guard Yard, Baltimore, MD......................... 50,000 Loran Station, Tok, AK.................................. 40,000 Loran Station, St. Paul, AK............................. 40,000 Air Station Clearwater, FL.............................. 35,000 Station Siuslaw River, OR............................... 30,000 Station Juneau, AK...................................... 30,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................... 15,500,000 Allocation of reductions.--The Committee expects the Coast Guard to allocate the reduction, to the maximum extent possible, against program administrative support and general training activities. In this way, funds can be made available for identified environmental compliance problems at specific sites. Alteration of Bridges Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $16,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 2,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 16,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +14,000,000 The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. The Committee does not agree with the approach taken by the 103rd Congress and supported by the administration, that highway bridges and combination rail/highway bridges should be funded out of the Federal Highway Administration's discretionary bridge account. This approach is unfair to some states which, under existing highway formulas, have a more difficult time competing for discretionary bridge grants and are therefore less likely to apply. In addition, the purpose of altering these bridges is to improve the safety of marine navigation under the bridge, not to improve surface transportation on the bridge itself. Since in some cases, there are unsafe conditions on the waterway beneath a bridge which has an adequate surface or structural condition, Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program. The Coast Guard believes programs such as alteration of bridges and boating safety grants are a lower overall priority, and should not compete with the Coast Guard's operating budget for resources. The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for three bridges. Each of the bridges for which funds are recommended is authorized and has been issued an order to alter by the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Committee's specific recommendation is as follows: Committee Bridge and location recommendation Burlington, IA, Burlington Northern RR Bridge........... $2,000,000 Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier HW Bridge.................. 7,000,000 New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue RR/HW Bridge............ 7,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................... 16,000,000 Retired Pay Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $582,022,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 608,084,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 608,084,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +26,062,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... The Committee has approved the budget estimate of $608,084,000 for retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also included are payments to members of the former Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman's family protection plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. This compares to an appropriation of $582,022,000 for fiscal year 1996, an increase of 4.5 percent. Reserve Training Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $62,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 65,890,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 65,890,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +3,890,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... This appropriation provides for the training of qualified individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in the performance of peacetime missions. The program activities fall into the following categories: 1. Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for three categories of non-prior service trainees. 2. Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted personnel. 3. Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training facilities. 4. Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve forces program. The bill includes $65,890,000 for reserve training. The amount recommended represents an increase of $3,890,000 (6 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 level and will support a selected reserve of approximately 8,000 personnel. Assessment for operating expenses.--The Coast Guard testified this year that they ``assess'' the reserve training appropriation for estimated operating and maintenance services incurred at active duty units in support of the reserve program. Given the small size of the reserve training appropriation, the Committee wishes to ensure the reserves are not assessed inappropriate charge-backs to the Coast Guard operating budget. The Coast Guard is requested to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than December 31, 1996 describing the methodology used to calculate such assessments. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $18,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 20,300,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 19,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +1,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -1,300,000 The bill includes $19,000,000 for applied scientific research and development, test and evaluation projects necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this amount, $5,020,000 is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation for the various research areas: COAST GUARD RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION [Fiscal year 1997] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year Program area 1996 1997 House enacted estimate recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Improve Search and Rescue Capability............................... $932,000 $1,872,000 $1,872,000 -------------------------------------------- Search planning................................................ 100,000 185,000 185,000 Search process, platforms and sensors.......................... 400,000 1,245,000 1,245,000 Personnel...................................................... 432,000 442,000 442,000 ============================================ Waterways Safety and Management.................................... 2,189,000 1,385,000 1,385,000 -------------------------------------------- Waterways management........................................... 400,000 0 0 Advanced vessel traffic systems/services....................... 275,000 300,000 300,000 Integrated navigation systems.................................. 450,000 150,000 150,000 Short range aids to navigation................................. 200,000 50,000 50,000 Personnel...................................................... 864,000 885,000 885,000 ============================================ Marine Safety...................................................... 2,700,000 3,825,000 3,825,000 -------------------------------------------- Marine safety research......................................... 200,000 385,000 385,000 Human factors analysis......................................... 1,050,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 Fire safety for commercial vessels............................. 750,000 1,245,000 1,245,000 Personnel...................................................... 700,000 995,000 995,000 ============================================ Ship Structure Committee........................................... 0 437,000 223,000 -------------------------------------------- Support for Committee.......................................... 0 400,000 186,000 Personnel...................................................... 0 37,000 37,000 ============================================ Marine Environmental Protection.................................... 1,354,000 1,791,000 2,291,000 -------------------------------------------- Planning, management and training.............................. 150,000 0 0 Oil pollution response......................................... 625,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 Personnel health and safety.................................... 75,000 0 0 Port demonstration project..................................... 0 0 0 OPA90 regional grant program................................... 0 0 0 Aquatic nuisance species control............................... 0 200,000 700,000 Personnel...................................................... 504,000 516,000 516,000 ============================================ Maritime Law Enforcement........................................... 1,229,000 791,000 791,000 -------------------------------------------- Surveillance................................................... 725,000 0 0 Vessel search.................................................. 0 200,000 200,000 Off the shelf technology....................................... 0 75,000 75,000 Personnel...................................................... 504,000 516,000 516,000 ============================================ Servicewide Safety and Environmental Compliance.................... 2,318,000 2,652,000 2,452,000 -------------------------------------------- Cutter fire safety technology.................................. 586,000 0 0 Pollution prevention........................................... 500,000 700,000 500,000 Aviation engineering support................................... 0 0 0 Vessel loss exposure and risk analysis methodology............. 620,000 1,325,000 1,325,000 Personnel...................................................... 612,000 627,000 627,000 ============================================ Human Resource Management Effectiveness............................ 100,000 147,000 147,000 -------------------------------------------- Training techniques and technologies........................... 100,000 0 0 Staffing standards development................................. 0 0 0 Personnel...................................................... 0 147,000 147,000 ============================================ Command, Control, Computers and Intelligence....................... 928,000 1,014,000 928,000 -------------------------------------------- Information systems............................................ 280,000 0 0 Advanced communications systems................................ 0 350,000 264,000 Personnel...................................................... 648,000 664,000 664,000 ============================================ Technology Base.................................................... 500,000 1,600,000 550,000 -------------------------------------------- Future technology assessment................................... 0 400,000 0 Coast Guard standard cost model................................ 0 100,000 100,000 Select projects................................................ 300,000 800,000 200,000 Personnel...................................................... 200,000 300,000 250,000 ============================================ R&D Personnel, Program Support, and Operations..................... 5,750,000 4,786,000 4,536,000 -------------------------------------------- Admin/support personnel and related costs...................... 2,850,000 2,571,000 2,321,000 Support and operations......................................... 1,600,000 1,685,000 1,685,000 R&D management info system development......................... 450,000 250,000 250,000 Modernization of F&SFD test facilities......................... 850,000 280,000 280,000 ============================================ Total appropriation........................................ 18,000,000 20,300,000 19,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ship Structure Committee.--The Committee continues to believe that much of the Coast Guard's support for the ship structure committee is not needed, given financial constraints. Some of the planned activities include development of robotics technology and weldable primers for shipyard construction; development of alternative stiffening systems for double skin tankers; and development of risk assessment methods associated with the use of polymer matrix composites. The Committee believes these activities can be sufficiently carried out by the shipbuilding and boatbuilding industries. The recommendation for this program is $223,000, a reduction of $214,000 from the budget request. Last year the Committee recommended no funding for this program. Servicewide safety and environmental compliance.--The recommended level holds funds for the pollution prevention activity to the fiscal year 1996 level. Overall funding recommended is 5.8 percent above fiscal year 1996. Advanced communications systems.--The reduction of $86,000 is due to budget constraints. Technology base.--The recommendation provides $550,000, an increase of $50,000 (10 percent) over the amount provided for fiscal year 1996, but a reduction of $1,050,000 from the budget request. The Committee continues to believe such activities are of a low priority. Ballast water management program.--Of the funds provided under ``aquatic nuisance species control'', $700,000 is only for the ballast water management program. Research and development personnel.--The reduction of $250,000 is due to budget constraints. This reduction in management support is consistent with the reductions in program activities in the bill. Boat Safety (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $20,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................................... Recommended in the bill................................. 35,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +15,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +35,000,000 The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended, provide for the transfer of highway trust fund revenue derived from the motor boat fuel tax, excise taxes on sport fishing equipment, and import duties on fishing tackle and yachts to the aquatic resources trust fund. The Secretary of the Treasury estimates the amounts to be so transferred and appropriations are authorized from the fund for recreational boating safety assistance and other programs as authorized by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended, and Public Law 98-369 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984). These funds are used primarily to provide grants to states to help enforce boating safety laws and to expand boating education programs. The bill includes an appropriation of $35,000,000 for the boat safety program. When combined with an additional $10,000,000 in permanent indefinite appropriations from the Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-587), total program funding of $45,000,000 is provided for fiscal year 1997. This is an increase of 50 percent over the total funding of $30,000,000 provided for fiscal year 1996. This program provides between 15 and 20 percent of total boating safety expenditures when state and federal resources are combined. Once again this year, the Committee cannot support the Coast Guard's proposal to convert this program to mandatory spending. According to an April 1993 study by the National Transportation Safety Board, recreational boating accidents result in the highest number of transportation fatalities annually after highway accidents. Over 900 people are killed each year in boating accidents, and over 350,000 are injured, more than 40 percent of which require treatment beyond first aid. The number of boats, especially high speed boats, is increasing each year. The Safety Board still includes boating safety on their list of ``most wanted'' safety improvements. Federal support and direction will be needed to ensure implementation of initiatives raised in the Safety Board's study as well as to continue other boating safety activities. Loss of authorized funding.--In this year's hearing, the Coast Guard stated a major concern that unless the boating safety program is funded at the authorized level, those resources are lost forever, because a provision in the authorization statute requires they be reallocated to the sport fish restoration program and spent in the same fiscal year. The Committee acknowledges that this feature of the boating safety grants program is unlike the financing of other trust fund safety programs. In those cases, as with general fund authorizations, funds not appropriated remain authorized for appropriation in a future fiscal year. The Committee notes that the boating safety program is up for reauthorization in fiscal year 1998, and encourages the department and the Coast Guard to recommend elimination of this provision in the statute. Such a change would prevent the diversion of funds intended for boating safety programs to sport fishing activities. Discretionary grant program.--The bill includes language providing that $5,000,000 of the total amount is available only for issuance of discretionary grants to states and other appropriate entities for the targeted improvement of boating safety across the country. At the present time, all boating safety grant funds are distributed by formula. Perhaps because of this, the Coast Guard is not active in using grant funds to provide incentives for poorer-performing states to make improvements in their boating programs. This is in contrast to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration, all of which use their discretionary grants programs to facilitate improvements in safety. The Committee believes it is time for the Coast Guard to take a more active role in promoting and shaping improvements in boating safety in the various states. The boating public looks to the Coast Guard for leadership in boating safety, and this is one way the Coast Guard can demonstrate that leadership. With the recommended increase of 50 percent in total funding, the time is right to begin a discretionary grant element of the overall program in fiscal year 1997, since formula funds will increase without regard to creation of the discretionary grants program. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to determine, through public input, appropriate criteria for the discretionary grants program, in consultation with the states and other interested parties. In addition, the Coast Guard is to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than March 15, 1997, outlining the objectives of the discretionary grant program and the criteria upon which decisions will be made. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the safety and development of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations in fiscal year 1997. The grants-in-aid for airports program, however, will be financed under contract authority with the program level established by a limitation on obligations contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes reinstatement of the aviation ticket tax and other related aviation taxes in time to prevent shutdown or significant curtailment of FAA's trust fund-financed activities. The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 1997 amounts to $8,155,000,000, including a $1,300,000,000 limitation on the use of contract authority. This is $52,331,000 (1 percent) above the President's request level and $61,343,000 below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended in 1996 enacted\1\ 1997 estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operations............................................. $4,645,712,000 $4,918,269,000 $4,900,000,000 User fees.............................................. ................. -150,000,000 -30,000,000 Facilities and equipment............................... 1,934,883,000 1,788,700,000 1,800,000,000 Research, engineering, and development................. 185,698,000 195,700,000 185,000,000 Grants-in-aid for airports \2\......................... 1,450,000,000 1,350,000,000 1,300,000,000 Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program............... 50,000 ................. ................. -------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................ 8,216,343,000 8,102,669,000 8,155,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund and awards provisions, and Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 and 1996 rescission in facilities and equipment. \2\ Limitation on obligations. Aviation Trust Fund Spending This year the Committee has had to make a judgment about whether the aviation taxes used to finance the majority of FAA's programs will be available to provide financial resources during fiscal year 1997. These taxes expired on December 31, 1995. During fiscal year 1996, the FAA has been utilizing the airport and airway trust fund's unobligated balance. Although this balance is sufficient to finance FAA activities throughout fiscal year 1996, it is estimated that the trust fund will be depleted in January 1997. Trust fund resources finance approximately 75 percent of the FAA's budget, including the entire capital improvement program, airport development grants, and half of the agency's operating budget. Although some have suggested that user fees could be collected in place of the aviation taxes, the FAA has only requested authority to collect $150,000,000 in new user fees next year--a fraction of total required trust fund spending. It is clear that without restoration of the aviation taxes, the FAA would not be able to carry out its responsibilities during the coming year. If the FAA's budget were financed entirely from the general fund, the agency could proceed to operate its programs without disruption, and without the fear of a systemwide shutdown should the aviation taxes not be reinstated. However, since the Committee is not allocated general fund budget authority for the airport development (AIP) program, such a recommendation would by necessity include no funds for that important program. Secondly, such levels of funding from the general fund are not authorized, and run counter to the objectives of the Congress in establishing the airport and airway trust fund. The Committee realizes this is the only course which, at the present time, could guarantee a full budget for the FAA next year. However, given the issues presented by this approach, the Committee has decided to assume timely resumption of the aviation taxes, prior to January 1997. National Civil Aviation Review Commission The bill includes $2,400,000 for activities of a National Civil Aviation Review Commission. On October 30, 1986, Public Law 99-591 established a Presidentially-appointed Aviation Safety Commission. This panel released a final report in April 1988, and made several recommendations to improve aviation safety in this country. It has now been a decade since issuance of this report, and serious concerns have once again arisen over the adequacy of aviation safety in this country. Although FAA statistics show that, in the aggregate, the U.S. has the safest aviation system in the world, a number of accidents, incidents, Inspector General reports, and media investigations over the past three years raise questions about certain aspects of FAA's regulatory oversight in the area of safety. For example, the DOT Inspector General has been warning about the use of fraudulent or undocumented aircraft parts for many years, but the FAA has been slow to act. FAA inspectors have inadequate training and do not utilize management systems which would enable them to focus resources on the highest safety needs or ensure effective follow-up action on past deficiencies. These problems have been made worse over the past few years due to increased air travel and the emergence of a large number of ``start-up'' air carriers, often operating with slim financial margins and aggressive pricing. Secondly, over the past eighteen months the Department has put forth the view that the FAA's long-term budget requirements are too great to be satisfied through the annual appropriations process. The agency forecasts the need for significant annual increases in its operating budget due to incorporation of newer and more costly technologies, additional staffing resulting from increased air travel, and higher maintenance requirements for air traffic control equipment as the system expands and equipment ages. Although the administration supports moving the FAA out of the appropriations process through collection of user fees, this proposal has a number of serious problems. To date, however, there has been no complete and independent audit of the agency's most likely budget requirements, and the FAA itself has decided not to update the 1995 financial projections on which the current policy decisions are being made. Lastly, the FAA continues to experience schedule slippage and cost overruns on its major development programs, even as the agency is working to implement the major new changes in acquisition polices and procedures provided in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996. This is especially troublesome given the FAA's declining budget requests for facilities and equipment over the past two years. Cost growth in the past occurred in an expanding budget environment, thereby lessening its impact. In the future, cost overruns will have a more harmful effect, because the budgetary competition is more severe. Therefore, the Committee believes it is time for a comprehensive, independent review of FAA safety oversight, financial prospects and options, and acquisition policy. The bill includes a general provision (Sec. 338) which appropriates $2,400,000 for activities of the Commission, to include an independent and objective contract audit of FAA's long-range financial requirements. The Committee will work with the authorizing committee over the coming weeks to establish a legislative authorization for this critical effort. The Committee believes that this review will set the stage for new aviation policy directions in the next century, with the objective of providing a more effective and stable FAA and a greater degree of confidence among the flying public in the safety of our aviation system. Additional Funds For Safety And Capacity Enhancement Programs The bill includes a total of $139,584,000, above the budget estimate, for new operational activities, air traffic control equipment and systems, site preparation and installation, and research to improve aviation safety and airway capacity around the country. Once again this year, in setting priorities for this bill the Committee has placed the strongest emphasis on maintaining, and improving wherever possible, transportation safety around the nation. Because of significant concerns over the past year regarding the state of aviation safety, the Committee feels strongly that additional funding emphasis should be placed on new safety-related capabilities and equipment. Among other things, this equipment will provide controllers, pilots, and airline dispatchers a more accurate and up-to-date understanding of dangerous weather conditions and provide a clearer picture of potential conflicts between aircraft maneuvering on airport surfaces. The bill includes additional funds to maintain the schedule for satellite navigation systems development, which promises improvement in both aviation safety and systemwide capacity. The programs for which the Committee recommends additional funding, and the associated increases above requested levels, are as follows: Program Name Amount FAA Operations: Aviation safety reporting system.................... $1,000,000 Facilities and Equipment: Wide area augmentation system for GPS (WAAS)........ 34,000,000 National satellite test bed for GPS................. 11,500,000 Surface movement advisor build II................... 2,000,000 Spectrum auction impact............................. 45,000,000 Ground to air replacement radios.................... 20,000,000 Loran-C upgrades.................................... 5,650,000 NAS equipment installation.......................... 5,100,000 Automated weather observing system (AWOS)........... 1,000,000 Research, Engineering, and Development: Local area augmentation system for GPS (LAAS)....... 5,427,000 Aviation weather research........................... 6,589,000 Human factors safety research....................... 2,318,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total........................................... $139,584,000 The Committee directs the FAA to pursue these improvements aggressively as a high priority. While the administration has proposed substantial user fees to help resolve problems in the FAA's budget, the Committee believes that even within existing resources, the highest priority should be placed on replacement of aging and antiquated safety equipment. According to departmental and agency officials, the air traffic control system is becoming increasingly debilitated by old, antiquated equipment. While much of the old equipment is scheduled for replacement over the next two or three years with systems already under contract, the Committee's recommended funding level would accelerate efforts to revitalize the technological state of the ATC system in this country by providing additional funds to get systems procured and installed in the field more quickly than under current schedules. Included in the bill are funds to begin immediately installing air traffic safety equipment which is currently warehoused due to lack of funds. Operations (Including Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $4,645,712,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 4,918,269,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 4,900,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +254,288,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -18,269,000 This appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, airports, medical, engineering and development programs. The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) administration of the research and development program; and (6) administration of the federal grants-in-aid program for airport construction. Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends $4,900,000,000 for FAA operations, an increase of $254,288,000 (5.5 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 1996. This compares to a level of $4,918,269,000 in the President's budget request. The recommendation fully funds the request for air traffic controllers and aviation safety inspectors. User fees.--The bill assumes the collection of $30,000,000 in additional user fees, and specifies that those fees may only be collected for services to aircraft flying in U.S.-controlled airspace but without takeoff or landing points in the United States. These ``overflight'' fees have the support of FAA and the administration. Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar for dollar basis as the fees are received and credited. The Committee has not approved the extensive and unspecified fee proposal in the President's budget request. The Committee is not generally supportive of new fees based on current evidence, and believes that much more justification is required before the FAA could transition to an all user fee- financed system. Many of the fees proposed by the administration appear to resemble not fees, but taxes. The FAA even admitted in this year's budget hearing that there is no cost accounting system in the agency today which provides an adequate basis for allocating costs fairly among system users-- a key test for delineating fees from taxes. With the authority requested by the administration, the FAA could easily become a ratemaking agency once again, with the administrator spending significant time and energy negotiating fee rates among the various sectors of industry. This is time better spent on improving safety and system capacity. Furthermore, since some of the proposed fees disproportionately harm one industry sector relative to another, these ratemaking decisions could upset the delicate competitive balance in the airline industry today, undermining the high level of competition which resulted from airline deregulation. The Committee is also concerned that, where aviation user fees have been instituted around the world, cost control has been very difficult. Until these and other concerns are addressed, the Committee cannot support the extensive imposition of aviation user fees. A breakdown of the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Budget activity -------------------------------------------------------- 1996 enacted 1997 estimate 1997 recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air traffic services................................... $3,623,132,000 $3,827,137,000 $3,816,471,000 Aviation regulation and certification.................. 437,848,000 487,911,000 487,289,000 Civil aviation security................................ 67,453,000 71,921,000 71,921,000 Airports............................................... 41,328,000 45,367,000 43,367,000 Research and acquisition............................... 75,781,000 78,034,000 78,034,000 Commercial space transportation........................ 5,757,000 6,169,000 6,049,000 Administration......................................... 324,809,000 332,499,000 329,865,000 Staff offices.......................................... 67,624,000 69,230,000 66,430,000 Account-wide adjustments............................... 0 0 +574,000 -------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................ 4,643,732,000 4,918,269,000 4,900,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity are discussed below. Air Traffic Services The Committee recommends $3,816,471,000 for air traffic services, an increase of $193,339,000 (5.3 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The recommendation provides a net increase of 250 additional air traffic controllers, of which 200 are expected to be assigned to FAA's en route centers. The recommendation also provides an increase of $68,038,000 (8.9 percent) in field maintenance. The Committee believes these increases are needed as air traffic activity continues to increase, and as FAA struggles to maintain both old and modernized air traffic control systems simultaneously. Adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows: Program Change Air Traffic Subactivity: Air traffic details................................. -$3,500,000 DOL wage determinations............................. -500,000 Aviation safety reporting system.................... +1,000,000 ATM facility lease, Herndon, VA (transfer from F&E). +3,300,000 Systems Maintenance Subactivity: Air traffic systems maintenance training (transfer). -2,366,000 Leased Telecommunications Subactivity: WAAS support (transfer to F&E)...................... -8,600,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total........................................... -10,666,000 Air traffic details.--The FAA estimates that approximately 450 air traffic controllers (about 3 percent of the workforce) are currently detailed outside the controller workforce (CWF) and not available for controlling air traffic. These details cost the FAA an estimated $33,750,000 each year. The Committee believes the agency should not have so many controllers on detail in overhead positions outside the CWF, at the same time the agency is requesting large increases in controller staffing to handle air traffic requirements. The Committee's recommendation reduces these detail positions by approximately ten percent, resulting in a savings of $3,500,000. Department of Labor wage determinations for level one towers.--Several years ago, Congress and the FAA worked together to establish the contracting out program for level one towers. The DOT Inspector General, the national performance review, the FAA, and the Congress all agreed that this program could result in significant cost savings without affecting safety or efficiency. Last year, however, the Committee was advised that the Department of Labor was preventing the FAA from realizing these savings by establishing both retroactive and prospective wage determinations, even though the Service Contract Act allows waivers from those provisions. This was causing lengthy delays and raising program costs. The FAA asked the Department of Labor to waive the requirements of that process, but their request was denied. At the initiative of the Senate, Congress directed FAA to cease conducting these wage determinations; however, the agency ignored that direction, and has instead been negotiating with the Department of Labor over an acceptable solution. The Committee finds this situation unacceptable. The FAA testified this year that wage determinations raise costs in the contracted out towers by an average of sixty percent, undermining the cost savings which are the primary reason for the program. Therefore, the bill assumes FAA receives from the Department of Labor a waiver from meeting the requirements of the Service Contract Act at all contract tower locations where there are five or fewer employees. Because freeing the FAA from this restraint will result in lower cost operations, the Committee also recommends a reduction of $500,000. Aviation safety reporting system.--For many years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has managed the aviation safety reporting system (ASRS). The ASRS provides a means for pilots, air traffic controllers, and other users of the airway system to file safety-related incident reports anonymously. NASA collects and analyzes the data, and produces regular reports on the most relevant safety issues. Ignoring the recommendations of a 1994 study by the National Academy of Public Administration, the FAA's fiscal year 1997 budget still underfunds this critical safety program. The Committee recommends $3,400,000, an increase of $1,000,000. ATM facility lease, Herndon, VA.(transfer)--The Committee's recommendation transfers $3,300,000 to the operations appropriation from facilities and equipment in order to more accurately reflect the nature of the costs being incurred. FAA has been including costs to lease the air traffic management facility in Herndon, Virginia in the F&E budget even though the facility has been in operation for some time. Leases for operational facilities such as this one should be included in the operating budget of the agency. Air traffic systems maintenance training (transfer).--The Committee believes that training costs should be included under ``human resource management'' in order to provide stronger management control and oversight. The FAA has instead allowed managers of the major lines of business to include supplementary funds for training in their own budgets. The Committee recommends a transfer of $2,366,000 from this budget activity to human resource management. Wide area augmentation system support (transfer).--The Committee transfers the $8,600,000 budgeted for wide area augmentation system (WAAS) telecommunications support from the operating budget to facilities and equipment. This system is still under development. All costs should be borne by the F&E appropriation at this time. Weather observations, El Paso International Airport.-- During the FAA hearing this year, several Members expressed concern over the reliability of weather reporting performed by the automated surface observing system (ASOS) in the absence of contract weather observers. During this hearing, it was noted that some airports may be experiencing false readings due to construction or meteorological activities. The Committee is especially concerned about false readings that have occurred at El Paso International Airport (EPIA). The Commitee expects the FAA to reinstate contract weather observers at EPIA and continue to provide contract weather observation at this facility. Milwaukee General Mitchell Airport.--The Committee is aware that General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin has experienced power outages to the ASR-9 radar system. Due to public safety concerns, the Committee directs the FAA to take necessary measures to determine the cause of these outages. To help ensure that recent power outages do not recur, the Committee expects the FAA to consider options for correcting the problem, including installing a power conditioning system, and report back to the Committee in a timely manner with actions taken. aviation regulation and certification The Committee recommends $487,289,000 for aviation regulation and certification, a reduction of $622,000 from the budget request but an increase of $49,441,000 (11.3 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The recommendation funds 5,295 staff years, an increase of 367 above fiscal year 1996. The bill fully funds the requested employment increases for clerical/administrative support (+152), airworthiness inspectors (+54), airline operations inspectors (+100), certification engineers and pilots (+75), and manufacturing certification inspectors (+29). The Committee sees evidence that this additional staffing is needed, even considering the significant increases in staffing provided over the past two years. Office of rulemaking.--The Committee recommends a reduction of $622,000 in the office of rulemaking. Over the past year, the FAA-commissioned ``Challenge 2000'' study team took a comprehensive look at FAA's regulatory process and found significant inefficiencies. The FAA requested $3,464,000 for this office in fiscal year 1997, an increase of 9.7 percent. Given the findings of the ``Challenge 2000'' study and the Committee's view that only essential regulations should be undertaken, the Committee recommends $2,842,000, a 10 percent reduction from the fiscal year 1996 level. Expanded parameter flight data recorders.--The Committee does not believe the FAA has worked as diligently as possible to encourage the retrofit of expanded parameter flight data recorders (FDRs) into existing aircraft. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) testified before the Committee this year that these improved FDRs provide critical data to the NTSB in their investigation of aviation crashes and incidents. Therefore, the Committee directs FAA to work closely with NTSB over the coming year to develop a plan for the retrofit of expanded parameter FDRs into commercial aircraft. Flight and duty time regulations.--The Committee directs the FAA to closely examine the impact of its proposed new flight and duty time regulations on part 135 on-demand air charter operators. In particular, the Committee is concerned about the effect of these new regulations on those operators providing critical transportation services such as emergency medical services, organ donor/procurement flights, emergency responses to natural disasters, just-in-time critical transportation for business emergencies, and carriage of lifesaving vaccines, drugs, and medical professionals and specialists. The Committee is concerned that the advanced notice requirements and duty time restrictions could hamper safety and endanger lives if pilots are unable to respond quickly in an emergency. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to review this issue thoroughly, and ensure in its promulgation of these regulations that safety is not compromised in any way. Safety of ATR aircraft.--The Committee requests the FAA to further review the safety and airworthiness of the ATR-47 and ATR-72, to make certain the aircraft are safe to fly in the conditions in which they are being flown, and to report back to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 1, 1996. civil aviation security The Committee recommends $71,921,000 for civil aviation security, the same as the budget request. The recommendation represents an increase of $4,468,000 (6.6 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 1996. Explosive detection canine programs.--The Committee is concerned that there may exist duplicative and unnecessary canine explosive detection programs in the Federal Government. Furthermore, universal guidelines and standards are not available for these various programs. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to establish a joint canine explosives detection program with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) at either Washington National or Dulles International Airports, or both, in order to foster cooperation between the two explosives detecting canine programs. The FAA and BATF shall submit a joint report on the results of this activity to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by April 1, 1997. airports The Committee recommends $43,367,000 for administration of the FAA airports program, an increase of $2,039,000 (4.9 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The budget included $45,367,000, an increase of 9.8 percent. The Committee recommendation holds staffing to the fiscal year 1996 level. The budget included an additional 26 staff years for this program. Given the declining resource levels for the airport grants program and no new programmatic initiatives proposed by the FAA, the Committee believes additional staffing for this office is not justified. Expanded East Coast Plan.--The Committee directs the FAA to work with affected representatives from the New York-New Jersey region, including appropriate citizens groups, to develop the most feasible and cost-effective noise mitigation solution for the expanded East Coast plan. Although the FAA promulgated a final environmental impact statement in 1995 for the expanded East Coast plan, this has not satisfactorily addressed the concerns of citizens in the State of New Jersey, and further analysis of noise mitigation remedies seems appropriate. research and acquisition The Committee recommends $78,034,000 and 697 staff years for research and acquisition, the same as the budget request. The recommendation represents an increase of $2,253,000 (3 percent) and one staff year above the fiscal year 1996 enacted levels. This activity finances the planning, management, and coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs. commercial space transportation The Committee recommends $6,049,000 for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), a reduction of $120,000 below the budget request. The fiscal year 1996 enacted level for this office was $5,757,000. The Committee notes the large number of vacancies in the licensing and safety division, as well as the large number of support staff in this office. Because of this, the Committee believes the additional three positions requested in the fiscal year 1997 request are not adequately justified. Staffing levels are held at the fiscal year 1996 level. The Committee views with concern the lack of progress made by the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the issuance of regulations for launch site operators. Launch operations are to begin at three of the nation's five spaceports in less than twelve months, yet proposed regulations for launch site operators have not yet been published. The continued lack of such regulations will have an adverse impact upon both the nation's spaceports and the commercial launch and satellite industries they support. The Committee therefore requires that OCST issue launch site operator regulations as soon as possible, but not later than ninety days after enactment of this Act. The Committee is also concerned over the allocation of resources with OCST. The primary duty of this office, as provided in the Commercial Space Transportation Act of 1984, is to license launches and launch site operators. However, a disproportionate amount of the resources in OCST, including personnel and travel funding, are being allocated to non- licensing functions. The Committee therefore directs the office to shift its resources in fiscal year 1997 to provide a larger share of overall staffing to licensing activities. administration The Committee recommends $329,865,000 for administration, an increase of $5,056,000 (1.6 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The President's budget requested $332,499,000. The recommendation includes $78,380,000 for the FAA to reimburse the Department of Labor for workers' compensation claims. This is the same as the budget estimate. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed below. Air traffic systems maintenance training (transfer).--The recommendation to transfer $2,366,000 to this activity was previously discussed, under ``Air Traffic Services''. Mid-America aviation resource consortium.--The Committee expects the FAA to continue the agency's commitment to the Mid- American Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) in Minnesota, and has included $1,700,000 in the bill for this purpose. By all accounts, MARC has been a great success--training en route controllers in a cost-effective manner, increasing the number of minority and women controllers, and assisting the FAA in training controllers, among other things, on new equipment. The Committee urges the FAA and MARC to work together on developing a long-term plan for training en route controllers. These funds are to be used in Minnesota to support the air traffic controller training program and to continue research for the FAA. Since funds were already budgeted to train these students at the FAA's own in-house facility, the Committee's recommendation does not provide increased funding, but redirects a portion of the planned work to the MARC activity. Personnel system streamlining.--The budget request includes $52,230,000 for the FAA to administer its human resource management system, including conduct of staffing analyses, career planning activities, recruitment, pay and benefits administration, and labor relations oversight and management. Given the streamlined personnel systems being designed now by the FAA pursuant to the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 1996, the Committee believes some efficiencies in program administration are available. For example, the FAA no longer has to follow many of the lengthy and detailed rules, procedures, and guidelines of the Office of Personnel Management which apply to the civilian workforce generally. The Committee recommends a reduction of 10 percent in this activity. staff offices The Committee recommends $66,430,000 for certain headquarters staff offices funded in this budget activity, a reduction of $1,194,000 (1.8 percent) below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The President's budget included $69,230,000, an increase of 2.4 percent. Specific adjustments to the President's budget are discussed below. Workers compensation program oversight.--The Committee's recommendation provides $200,000 in funding, not included in the request, for more intensive monitoring of long-term workers compensation cases, similar to a program instituted by the U.S. Postal Service. The FAA has 3,497 former employees receiving workers compensation, including 1,158 who are at least 60 years old. These mandatory payments impact the FAA's budget particularly hard, relative to other federal agencies. For example, an air traffic controller's average workers compensation payment is $39,000, which is 73% more than the government-wide average of $22,500. By comparison, government- wide, civil service retirement costs federal agencies approximately $18,800 per person. FAA's fiscal year 1997 budget for workers compensation is $78,380,000--enough to hire an additional 1,000 controllers above the levels in the President's budget. The increase alone for fiscal year 1997 is $2,833,000 (+3.8%). The recommendation provides short-term resources to try to lower these costs, which should pay dividends in two years, when the Department of Labor's fiscal year 1997 workers compensation bills are submitted to the FAA for reimbursement. The increase provides enough resources for the FAA to establish a small office (5 staff years), or alternately, to conduct the work by contract. Headquarters staffing.--The 584 staff years budgeted for FAA headquarters appears excessive, based upon a review of specific position listings. The Committee reduces this by 5 percent (29 staff years), resulting in savings of $2,000,000. In distributing these reductions, the Committee directs that no reductions be allocated against FAA's overseas offices, including those in London, Brussels and Singapore, since these offices already sustained significant reductions specific to overseas offices in fiscal year 1996. Foreign affairs administrative support increase.--Each year, the FAA pays the Department of State for their administrative support of FAA's overseas offices. In fiscal year 1996, the Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act required the Department of State to use a new formula in calculating these assessments, which requires them to charge agencies the fully allocated cost. Since submission of the budget, the FAA's estimate of required funding in fiscal year 1997 for foreign affairs administrative support has declined by $1,000,000 due to more recent estimates. These funds are no longer needed by the FAA in the coming year. Accountwide Adjustments The Committee recommends accountwide adjustments resulting in a net increase of $574,000 above the budget estimate. These adjustments are discussed below. Permanent change of station moves.--According to the DOT Inspector General, FAA's controls over ``return rights'' permanent change of station (PCS) moves within the continental United States is very weak. For example, even though return rights are designed to give priority to federal employees stationed overseas who want to return to the continental United States, FAA has been using about 70 percent of these high- priority PCS moves to move people from within the continental U.S. to Washington, D.C. and Oklahoma City. In addition, the FAA has never fully realized savings from recommendations made years ago in the home sale relocation service. The Committee now understands that FAA has established a working group to study areas of possible savings in administration of PCS moves. The recommended reduction of $2,700,000 assumes that through the efforts of this working group, FAA can reduce costs to $40,000 per move, down from estimated fiscal year 1997 cost of $48,859. The Committee believes much of this could be realized from more judicious use of the home sale service. Pay incentives.--After the fiscal year 1997 budget request was submitted, the FAA announced a new pay incentive program for personnel in certain hard-to-staff air traffic facilities. This decision resulted in a significant amount of unbudgeted costs which the FAA has now committed to pay its employees. Given this commitment, without appropriation of these funds, FAA will have to reprogram other funds from equipment maintenance, controller hiring, or other areas. This would cause disruption to those activities, and possibly delay in implementation of the new pay incentives. The Committee recommendation fully funds that initiative for fiscal year 1997, an increase of $15,300,000 above the budget estimate. OST reimbursables.--For fiscal year 1997, the FAA is budgeting $8,500,000 for reimbursables to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Reimbursable agreements are documents signed by the agency at the request of OST, where the agencies agree to be assessed for initiatives perceived to be of common benefit to the whole department. This includes such things as ``National Transportation System outreach'', the OST diversity education program, the DOT newsletter, and GPS oversight. Many of these activities appear to provide little or no benefit to the FAA. Given budget constraints, the Committee believes FAA's contribution to all of these activities is no longer affordable. The recommended level allows $7,500,000, a reduction of 11.7 percent. National airspace system (NAS) handoff.--The President's budget requests an additional $90,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 to operate and maintain new NAS systems and equipment. The Committee's detailed review of each of these items raises questions over the justification for some elements of the request. For example, FAA requests $605,000 to support ``high visibility programs'' including the Potomac, Atlanta, and Northern California metroplex facilities. However, none of these facilities are planned for commissioning during fiscal year 1997, so these funds are clearly premature. The Committee understands that new NAS systems are being commissioned, and therefore the bill includes the large majority of this increase. The recommendation provides $81,174,000, a reduction of 9.8 percent from the budget estimate, but significantly more to maintain new systems than the agency has for the current year. ``Other'' travel.--This account funds travel for conferences, meetings, and similar activities. Given the travel issues discovered this year by the Inspector General and a declining workforce, the Committee believes this category of travel should be going down. However, the budget includes an increase of 6.7 percent (from $16,638,000 to $17,757,000). The recommended level of $16,007,000 represents a reduction of 3.8 percent. Advisory committees.--The recommendation of $353,400 holds these costs to approximately the fiscal year 1996 level of $340,200. The President's budget requested $803,400. bill language Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee bill includes the limitation requested in the President's budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United States. The FAA budget includes no funding to operate such stations during fiscal year 1997. Second career training program.--Once again this year, the Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for the second career training program. This prohibition has been in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included in the President's budget request. Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5 U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and as requested by the administration in the fiscal year 1997 President's budget. Passenger manifests.--The bill continues the limitation (Sec. 316) contained in previous appropriations Acts prohibiting the Department of Transportation from issuing a final rule on an international passenger manifest program that only applies to U.S. carriers. The Department has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking which would require U.S. airlines to compile manifests for international flights that include the name of the passenger, the name of a next of kin and an emergency contact number. The Committee believes that if the Department anticipates that this regulation will be beneficial to U.S. citizens flying internationally, then it should apply to both U.S. and foreign flag carriers. The Committee believes that imposing such a regulation only on U.S. airlines could provide a competitive advantage to foreign flag carriers that will not have to bear the costs associated with implementation of the regulation or cope with the operational irregularities and passenger inconvenience resulting from passengers being confronted with the requirement to confirm this additional information prior to boarding international flights. O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill continues the general provision (Sec. 319) enacted beginning in fiscal year 1995 which prohibits funding to implement or enforce regulations that would result in slot allocations for international operations to any carrier at O'Hare Airport in excess of the number of slots allocated to and scheduled by that carrier as of the first day of the 1993-1994 winter season, if that international slot is withdrawn from an air carrier under existing regulations for slot withdrawals. Since slots are all reallocated at the beginning of the winter season, it is believed that the FAA can easily implement the provision. The following definitions continue to apply to this provision: (a) ``air carrier'' shall be as defined in section 1301(3) of title 49 of the U.S. Code App.; (b) ``foreign air carrier'' shall be as defined in section 1301(22) of title 49 of the U.S. Code App.; and (c) ``slot'' shall be defined as the operational authority to conduct instrument flight rule takeoffs and landings as further regulated in subparts K and S of part 93 of title 14 of the code of federal regulations. Facilities and Equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $1,934,883,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 1,788,700,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 1,800,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -134,883,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +11,300,000 This account is the principal means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities. This account also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace system. Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,800,000,000 for this program, which represents an increase of $11,300,000 above the President's budget, but a decrease of $134,883,000 (7 percent) below the level provided in fiscal year 1996. The bill provides that of the total amount recommended, $1,583,000,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 1999, and $217,000,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is available until September 30, 1997. These obligation availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts. The following chart shows the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation for each of the projects funded by this appropriation: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Funding Shortfalls The Committee is disturbed that this year the FAA submitted a budget request clearly insufficient in several critical areas. Because of a lack of funds in the FAA's request, the Committee has added funding for replacement of ground-to-air radios, re-engineering of air traffic control equipment due to sale of radio frequency spectrum, and for continued development of the global positioning system. Without additional funds for safety and capacity-enhancement projects such as these, system outages would continue at an alarming rate, the global positioning system development would be delayed, and FAA would in all likelihood have to disrupt other programs to locate resources for reprogramming in mid-year. The Committee understands the FAA had their budget request for facilities and equipment reduced by $119,147,000 during the administration's internal budgeting process. The Committee hopes that in future years, such extensive modification by the Congress is not required. additional funds for safety and capacity The bill includes $124,250,000 above the budget request for accelerated development and installation of new air traffic control equipment to improve airway safety and capacity. In fiscal year 1996, the appropriations conference report provided an additional $133,900,000 in facilities and equipment for the same purpose. Once again this year, the Committee has placed the highest priority on improving aviation safety. The Committee's recommendations reduce, wherever possible, funding for administrative and non-safety related programs in order to provide this increased funding for safety initiatives. engineering development, test, and evaluation En route automation.--The recommended level of $89,155,000 reflects program savings of $10,000,000 from advanced automation system (AAS) termination liability costs and a reduction of $7,345,000 in the advanced en route automation (AERA) project due to a lack of justification. The recommendation allows total funding of $23,655,000 for continued development of AERA. Wide area augmentation system (WAAS) for GPS.--The Committee recommends $117,100,000 for continued development of the wide area augmentation system (WAAS) for the global positioning system. The President's budget requested $74,500,000 for this program. The recommendation transfers all funding from budget activity two to more properly reflect the fact that this program is still under engineering development. Since submission of the budget, the WAAS program has experienced significant and disturbing problems. The prime contract was terminated by the FAA, and FAA has announced an intention to proceed with another contractor. The FAA also advised the Committee that total program costs might increase significantly from the current programmed level of $516,500,000. The Committee is concerned that these cost increases may not be affordable unless the FAA begins submitting budget requests higher than the levels proposed for the past two fiscal years. In the near term, the FAA advised the Committee that without an additional $34,000,000 in funding for fiscal year 1997, the program schedule would slip by one year. The recommended level provides adequate funding to fully fund this program and maintain the current schedule. In addition, the recommendation transfers $8,600,000 from FAA's operating budget to pay for leased telecommunications costs for the WAAS program. Since this program is still in development, the Committee believes such costs should be in the F&E appropriation. The Committee considered a proposal to terminate the WAAS program and implement an upgraded version of the National Satellite Test Bed. The Committee believes that before such a significant step is taken on this critical program, FAA should have a chance to get the WAAS program back under control. However, the Committee is recommending additional funding for the NSTB, as a backup option should the restructured WAAS program encounter any further cost or schedule problems. National satellite test bed.--The Committee recommends $11,500,000 in a separate budget line for continued implementation of the national satellite test bed (NSTB). This is an essential test facility for the WAAS program, and provides a potential ``insurance policy'' should the WAAS prime contract run into further problems. FAA officials advise the Committee that without an additional $11,500,000 in fiscal year 1997, the date for the NSTB signal in space will slip indefinitely, resulting in significantly increased risk to the WAAS development contract. In addition, avionics manufacturers will not have the data needed to begin development of WAAS avionics equipment. These are critical activities for full development and acceptance of global positioning system technology. Therefore, the Committee recommends full funding for NSTB development. Remote maintenance monitoring system.--The Committee recommends deferral of the National Infrastructure Management System (NIMS) due to inadequate justification. The Committee understands that, if implemented, this system would result in large-scale relocations of FAA maintenance personnel. The Committee is not convinced that this is a high priority at this time, and believes the capital and operating costs to centralize airways facilities personnel may prove as unaffordable as the FAA's previous plan to consolidate air traffic facilities. This results in a reduction of $11,600,000 below the budget request. Terminal automation.--The Committee recommends $43,500,000 for terminal automation systems development, a reduction of $7,100,000 below the budget request. The recommendation allows $30,000,000 for the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) prime contract, $7,500,000 for technical assistance, and $4,000,000 for field support. The Committee continues to support the STARS program, and believes this is sufficient funding to maintain the current program schedule. In addition, the recommendation includes $2,000,000, not included in the budget estimate, to maintain the schedule for build two of the surface movement advisor project. This project was declared a high priority of the appropriations conferees last year. However, the FAA proposed to reduce funding in fiscal year 1997 for this important program. Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends no funding for this project, a reduction of $23,300,000 from the budget request. In hearing testimony this year, FAA officials could not estimate the total cost of this program, could not state how many ASR-11 systems would ultimately be required, and could not explain why so much development funding is required for a system described as ``commercial off the shelf'' technology. In addition, the Inspector General reported last year that the FAA's benefit-cost analysis for this program was seriously flawed. Until concerns such as these are properly addressed, the Committee believes program funding should be deferred. Weather systems processor.--The Committee understands that the FAA Joint Requirements Council has recently decided to terminate this program due to a re-estimate of requirements and a recognition that part 121 air carrier aircraft are now required to be equipped with airborne windshear detection equipment. The Committee also understands that a final determination as to the program's viability will be made by the Administrator. Should the Administrator reverse the Council's decision on the weather processor, the Committee is open to reconsidering funding of this program in conference. Pending a decision by the Administrator, the funds for this program were not included for fiscal year 1997. Therefore, funds for this program will not be required in fiscal year 1997. This results in a savings of $8,055,000. Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment Air traffic operations management.--The recommendation provides the same funding level as appropriated for fiscal year 1996, a reduction of $1,650,000 below the budget estimate. ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements.--The Committee recommends $62,083,700, an increase of 5 percent above the fiscal year 1996 appropriation, but a decrease of $9,576,000 from the budget estimate. This program has a large unobligated balance of prior year funds, including funds as far back as fiscal year 1994. Given the backlog in this program, the Committee believes a smaller increase is appropriate. Traffic flow management.--The Committee recommends $30,960,000 for this program, a reduction of $9,400,000 from the budget estimate. The recommended adjustments include a transfer of $3,300,000 to the operations appropriation for the facility lease for the FAA traffic flow management facility in Herndon, Virginia. This is an operational facility, and its lease is clearly an operating expense for the FAA. The recommendation also defers the proposed new national contract for traffic flow management system development and integration due to lack of justification, resulting in a reduction of $6,100,000. Spectrum auction impact.--The Committee was very disturbed to find out that recent sale of portions of the radio frequency spectrum includes frequencies currently used by air traffic control safety and communications equipment. Spectrum now designated to be transferred to the private sector in less than three years would deny FAA its continued use of long range radars used to track aircraft across the United States. FAA would also lose communications frequencies currently used to transfer operational air traffic control data from site to site, including radar data. To meet the scheduled turnover date of these frequencies without losing critical air traffic control capabilities requires immediate and significant funding attention. The FAA advises the Committee that $45,000,000 is needed in fiscal year 1997 to re-engineer the agency's long range radar systems and low density radio communications links. An additional $40,000,000 may be required next year. The Committee's recommendation fully funds this requirement. The Committee also believes that radio spectrum supporting aeronautical safety-of-life services should be specifically exempted from any future spectrum sales, or alternately, that FAA should be reimbursed for their costs associated with transfer of radio spectrum from the proceeds of such sales. Replacement of air traffic control facilities.--The Committee recommends $74,400,000 for replacement of aging air traffic control towers, as requested in the President's budget. The recommendation provides funds for the following locations: Location Amount Santa Barbara, CA....................................... $2,502,000 Syracuse, NY............................................ 25,000 Covington, KY........................................... 481,000 Louisville, KY.......................................... 9,750,000 St. Paul, MN............................................ 115,000 Worcester, MA........................................... 633,000 Salt Lake City, UT...................................... 7,180,000 Islip, NY............................................... 367,000 Bangor, ME.............................................. 250,000 Portland, OR............................................ 7,526,000 Dallas (Addison), TX.................................... 640,000 Moses Lake, WA.......................................... 871,000 Mobile (Brookley), AL................................... 200,000 Merrill, AK............................................. 5,202,000 Salina, KS.............................................. 184,000 Newport News, VA........................................ 74,000 Roanoke, VA............................................. 578,000 Newburgh, NY............................................ 25,000 Everett, WA............................................. 104,000 Salt Lake City, UT (TRACON)............................. 2,289,000 Little Rock, AR......................................... 850,000 St. Louis, MO (ATCT).................................... 1,130,000 Champaign, IL........................................... 25,000 Bedford, MA............................................. 820,000 Albany, NY.............................................. 1,917,000 Allentown, PA........................................... 225,000 San Juan, PR............................................ 3,659,000 Chicago, (O'Hare), IL................................... 3,659,000 Helena, MT.............................................. 90,000 Montgomery, AL.......................................... 104,000 Windsor Locks, CT....................................... 9,393,000 Houston (Hobby), TX..................................... 25,000 Fort Smith, AR.......................................... 1,295,000 Houston (Intercontinental), TX.......................... 1,335,000 Roswell, NM............................................. 1,966,000 Los Angeles, CA......................................... 3,987,000 Minneapolis, MN......................................... 550,000 San Diego, CA........................................... 1,975,000 Chicago (Midway), IL.................................... 680,000 St. Louis (ASDE), MO.................................... 553,000 Pontiac, MI............................................. 677,000 Boston (TRACON), MA..................................... 1,110,000 Abilene, TX............................................. 693,000 East St. Louis, IL...................................... 25,000 Seattle (ATCT), WA...................................... 645,000 Riverside, CA........................................... 202,000 Richmond, VA............................................ 525,000 Savannah, GA............................................ 288,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................... 74,400,000 Metroplex control facilities.--The Committee recommends total funding of $22,800,000 for new or expanded metroplex control facilities, the same as the budget estimate. The following table compares the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the fiscal year 1997 estimate, and the Committee recommendation for each project: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Location -------------------------------- Committee 1996 enacted 1997 estimate recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced planning............................................... $2,000,000 .............. .............. Dallas/Fort Worth............................................... 13,000,000 .............. .............. Potomac......................................................... 10,400,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 Northern California............................................. 3,800,000 8,700,000 2,700,000 Atlanta......................................................... 3,800,000 500,000 3,500,000 Chicago......................................................... 1,000,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 Southern California............................................. 2,000,000 5,700,000 5,700,000 Denver.......................................................... .............. 4,000,000 4,000,000 ----------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... 36,000,000 22,800,000 22,800,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee's recommendation increases funding for Potomac and Atlanta, similar to last year's recommendation, in order to maintain the schedule for these high benefit-to-cost sites. The recommendation reduces funds for the Northern California facility, in order to keep this project in line with other locations which have higher net benefits. The Committee continues to believe that ATC facility consolidation will lead to savings in the FAA's operating budget, a conclusion supported by the FAA's 1995 report to Congress on facility consolidation. Given the FAA's own statements about future budget shortfalls, it is hoped the agency will show more support for consolidation projects in future budget requests, in order to achieve those savings as soon as possible. Employee safety/OSHA and environmental compliance standards.--The Committee recommends $21,000,000, the same level as provided for fiscal year 1996. The President's budget requested $36,924,000, an increase of 76 percent. GRR/GRT radio replacement.--The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for replacement of FAA's current GRR/GRT radios. These air-to-ground radios are 20 to 30 years old and are breaking down at an alarming rate. Mean time between failure is now estimated to be only 6,000 hours for these radios. Approximately every 7 minutes one of these units is failing somewhere in the United States. On an average day, there are 216 failures. The FAA is currently under contract to purchase replacement radios (designated CM-200). These radios have a projected mean time between failure of 84,000 hours, and come with a 10-year warranty. Although FAA plans to develop a new digital radio, the FAA estimates a new digital radio procurement to cost $950,000,000. Given the agency's budget outlook, this program is almost certainly unaffordable. Furthermore, the FAA's schedule does not call for a full replacement of the existing radios until the year 2010. The Committee believes the agency cannot afford the high costs of maintaining the existing radios until that time. The FAA's benefit-cost analysis for this program stated that ``overall, the cost savings and benefits to procure the remaining radios . . . by far outweigh the high maintenance costs and projected failure rates of the [existing] radios . . . The alternatives other than to buy additional . . . radios would be far too costly, inefficient, and not practical to consider''. Given these findings, the Committee believes the FAA should expeditiously pursue replacement of these aging radios. Automated weather observing system (AWOS).--The bill includes $1,000,000 for additional procurement and installation of the automated weather observing system. Loran-C upgrades.--The Committee recommends $5,650,000 for upgrades to the Loran-C navigation system. Of this amount, $650,000 is for implementation of an automatic blink system (ABS). Last year, the appropriations conferees directed FAA to expedite development of ABS. Despite this, FAA has not moved forward during fiscal year 1996 on this project. The Committee is disappointed the FAA has ignored this direction, and intends that such directions be followed. While the FAA's position is that Loran-C and other navigation systems will be replaced ultimately by GPS technology, it is apparent by FAA's inability to fully fund either the wide area or local area GPS augmentation programs in the fiscal year 1997 budget that GPS implementation has funding and schedule risks. In addition, the recent wide area contract termination raises additional risks that GPS development and implementation will see continued delays. For these reasons, the Committee believes it prudent to begin upgrading the existing Loran-C network, and provides $5,650,000 for this purpose. Air navigation facility/ATC system support.--Based on a review of this year's hearing data, the Committee believes FAA has not been utilizing these funds for the purposes justified before Congress in annual budget submissions. Therefore, the Committee recommends no further funding, a reduction of $4,800,000 from the budget request. The program was appropriated $2,500,000 in fiscal year 1996. Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment NAS management automation program.--The Committee defers this project due to low priority and budget constraints, a reduction of $1,300,000 from the budget estimate. No funds were provided for fiscal year 1996. Hazardous materials management.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints. Computer based instruction.--The recommendation provides $3,500,000, a reduction of $3,500,000 from the budget estimate. The Committee recommendation terminates the interactive video training (IVT) project, based on the Inspector General's findings that the project is not cost effective. In testimony before the Committee this year, the Inspector General stated ``FAA cannot support its basic assumptions in its cost-benefit analyses and refuses to use available actual data which demonstrates the video training system is not cost effective . . . it is clear from our audit that program managers decided they wanted a video training system, they would do whatever was necessary to develop that capability, and they would do whatever was necessary to obtain services from their preferred sources.'' FAA's response to the IG report does not adequately assure the Committee that these issues have been resolved. Mission Support Technical services support contract.--The Committee recommends $71,000,000 for this program, an increase of $5,100,000 above the budget estimate. The FAA testified this year that significant amounts of ATC equipment are either warehoused or otherwise waiting for installation funding. According to the FAA, approximately $26,000,000 of equipment is currently warehoused, and there is a shortfall of another $26,000,000 for other equipment. The FAA testified this year that, excluding the prior year backlog, F&E-funded installations are 28 percent short of requirements for the coming year. These systems include runway lighting, approach lighting, runway visual range equipment, and navigational aids. This equipment would provide immediate improvements in the safety, capacity, and efficiency of the airway system in this country. The Committee is very disturbed that the FAA has not been adhering to the full funding principle in its procurement of equipment, leading to this embarrassing problem. The Committee believes it makes little sense to procure additional systems which, when delivered, have to be stored due to inadequate funds for installation, checkout and commissioning. The Committee recommendation provides an additional $5,100,000 to address the significant installation backlog. Permanent change of station moves.--The Committee recommends $5,500,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 below the budget estimate. Last year, the Inspector General issued a highly critical report revealing serious weaknesses in FAA's management of F&E-funded permanent change of station moves. In addition, the Committee is concerned that FAA has expanded the scope of F&E-funded PCS moves beyond necessary levels. Several years ago, in order to assist in ATC facility consolidation, the Committee agreed with the FAA that PCS moves related to facility closures or commissionings could be funded from the F&E appropriation. Now, however, FAA is pursuing only minimal consolidation, and using these funds for PCS moves related to control tower closures and special projects. Given the abuses revealed by the IG report and the abandonment of the original consolidation plan, the Committee believes it appropriate to return to the original policy of financing many such moves from the operating appropriation. Personnel and Related Expenses The Committee recommends $217,000,000 for acquisition personnel and related expenses, the same as the budget request. This is an increase of $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. Combined with the additional funding provided for the technical services support contract, increased resources are being provided for FAA to address the backlog of installation requirements around the country for new and upgraded air traffic control systems and equipment. Research, Engineering, and Development (airport and airway trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $185,698,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 195,700,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 185,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -698,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -10,700,000 The accompanying bill includes $185,000,000 for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system and to increase its safety and capacity to meet air traffic demands of the future, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act. This appropriation also finances the research, engineering and development needed to establish or modify federal air regulations. Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends $185,000,000, a reduction of $698,000 below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level and $10,700,000 below the President's budget request. This year, the Committee received testimony documenting extensive equipment outages and safety concerns in the national airspace system. While still the safest airway system in the world, aviation accidents in 1994 and 1996 highlight the need for more rapid implementation of advanced safety technologies, especially those related to forecasting and detection of hazardous weather conditions such as windshear. The high percentage of accidents and incidents due to human error call for a sustained, high priority research program to address human factors issues. In some cases, these priorities have necessitated reductions in other research programs. A table showing the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows: RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT [Fiscal year 1997] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Program name -------------------------------- House Change to 1996 enacted 1997 estimate recommended estimate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- System development and infrastructure........... $10,000,000 $16,822,000 $13,260,000 -$3,562,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- System planning and resource management..... 2,000,000 4,857,000 1,860,000 -2,997,000 Technical laboratory facility............... 8,000,000 6,765,000 6,200,000 -565,000 Center for Advanced Aviation System Development................................ 0 5,200,000 5,200,000 0 =============================================================== Capacity and air traffic management technology.. 37,200,000 40,570,000 32,388,000 -8,182,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Air traffic management technology........... 3,500,000 6,757,000 4,000,000 -2,757,000 Oceanic automation program.................. 8,000,000 6,539,000 6,539,000 0 Runway incursion reduction.................. 4,000,000 2,766,000 2,766,000 0 System capacity, planning and improvements.. 9,000,000 8,950,000 8,950,000 0 Cockpit technology.......................... 6,700,000 5,584,000 3,000,000 -2,584,000 General aviation/vertical flight technology. 2,600,000 3,894,000 3,000,000 -894,000 Modeling, analysis, and simulation.......... 3,400,000 4,133,000 4,133,000 0 Automation system design.................... 0 1,947,000 0 -1,947,000 =============================================================== Communications, navigation and surveillance..... 23,000,000 20,371,000 21,000,000 629,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Communications.............................. 10,000,000 10,798,000 6,000,000 -4,798,000 Navigation.................................. 13,000,000 9,573,000 15,000,000 5,427,000 Surveillance................................ 0 0 0 0 =============================================================== Weather......................................... 6,493,000 6,411,000 13,000,000 6,589,000 Airport technology.............................. 6,000,000 6,000,000 5,200,000 -800,000 =============================================================== Aircraft safety technology...................... 37,978,000 38,999,000 34,994,000 -4,005,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Aircraft systems fire safety................ 0 6,993,000 6,993,000 0 Advanced materials/structural safety........ 2,000,000 3,065,000 3,065,000 0 Propulsion and fuel systems................. 3,400,000 3,779,000 3,779,000 0 Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.. 4,173,000 2,063,000 2,063,000 0 Aging aircraft.............................. 20,000,000 13,889,000 13,889,000 0 Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research................................... 2,705,000 3,094,000 2,705,000 -389,000 Fire research............................... 5,700,000 0 0 0 Aviation safety risk analysis............... 0 6,116,000 2,500,000 -3,616,000 =============================================================== System security technology...................... 36,045,000 36,055,000 33,558,000 -2,497,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Explosives and weapons detection............ 29,000,000 27,398,000 27,397,000 0 Airport security technology integration..... 1,000,000 2,258,000 2,258,000 0 Aviation security human factors............. 2,549,000 5,039,000 2,542,000 -2,497,000 Aircraft hardening.......................... 3,496,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 0 =============================================================== Human factors and aviation medicine............. 23,682,000 23,682,000 26,000,000 2,318,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors.............................. 11,182,000 10,898,000 11,500,000 602,000 Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.................................... 10,000,000 8,606,000 10,500,000 1,894,000 Aeromedical research........................ 2,500,000 4,178,000 4,000,000 -178,000 =============================================================== Environment and energy.......................... 3,800,000 3,800,000 3,600,000 -200,000 Innovative/cooperative research................. 1,500,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 -1,000,000 =============================================================== Total appropriation....................... 185,698,000 195,700,000 185,000,000 -10,700,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- System Development and Infrastructure System planning and resource management.--Among other things, this activity publishes the RE&D Plan, develops the RE&D budget submission, and provides management and scheduling support for the RE&D program. The Committee recommendation allows the fiscal year 1996 level of $660,000 for personnel and $1,200,000 for support of the Radio Technical Commission on Aeronautics (RTCA). Total funding is 7 percent below the fiscal year 1996 level. Technical laboratory facility.--The Committee recommends a reduction of 8 percent due to budget constraints, and to fund higher priority activities. This program provides institutional funding for certain research and development laboratories at the FAA Technical Center in New Jersey. Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology Air traffic management technology.--Given the need to fund higher priority safety research, the Committee believes that traffic flow management and collaborative decision-making research can be slowed. The recommendation still allows a $500,000 (14 percent) increase over the fiscal year 1996 funding level, versus the 93 percent increase proposed. Cockpit technology.--Like the item above, this research would develop long-term capacity enhancements to the traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS). This research can be slowed to address higher priority safety research in human factors and weather. The Committee recommends $3,000,000, a reduction of $2,584,000 from the budget estimate. General aviation/vertical flight technology.--The recommendation allows an increase of 15 percent versus the 50 percent increase requested. The reduction is due to budget constraints. Automation system design.--Among other things, one product of this new effort would be to develop an econometric model of air traffic management system acquisitions. This is a low priority activity, given budget constraints and higher priorities. Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Communications.--This program is poorly justified and duplicates much of the work done in F&E. The recommendation provides $6,000,000, a reduction of $4,798,000 below the budget request. Navigation.--This program develops GPS augmentations for civil navigation. Inexplicably, early in 1996 the FAA deferred development of the local area augmentation system (LAAS), despite the very positive benefit-to-cost ratio and the strong support of industry and general aviation for early development of LAAS technology. Additional funding of $5,427,000 is provided to maintain the schedule for LAAS development, including $1,000,000 for a government-industry partnership with the airline industry for development of LAAS minimum operational performance standards. Weather The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for weather safety research. This compares to $6,493,000 provided for fiscal year 1996 and $6,411,000 in the President's budget request. Included in the increase is $5,000,000 provided for the weather research program coordinated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. The Committee and Congress added funds in the facilities and equipment appropriation in fiscal year 1996 for this project, but for the second year in a row the President's budget requests deep reductions. This research is strongly supported by the aviation industry and by a recent report of the National Academy of Sciences, which urged FAA to take a national leadership role in aviation weather improvements. In addition, the bill provides $1,589,000 for project socrates, which involves innovative research into clear air turbulence and wake vortex surveillance using laser-doppler field sensing technology. Airport Technology The Committee recommends $5,200,000, a reduction to the budget request of $800,000 (13 percent). The reduction is due to budget constraints. The request would have funded new initiatives such as ``advisory circulars on planning ground access'', a ``computer active training curriculum'', and a study of ``regional airport habitat''. Funds have been transferred to higher priority safety activities. Aircraft Safety Technology Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research.--The Committee's recommendation provides $2,705,000, the same funding level as appropriated for each of the past two years. The budget requested an increase to $3,094,000. Aviation safety risk analysis.--This program has been split out from the Aging Aircraft program. The objective of the program is to improve ``FAA and industry measurement of and accountability for safety performance through risk assessment, operational indicators, and the shared use of safety-related data''. It's far from clear why FAA should be doing this rather than industry. The justifications appear vague and duplicative with programs such as the aviation safety analysis system (ASAS) and SPAS. The recommendation allows $2,500,000 instead of the $6,116,000 requested. System Security Technology Aviation security human factors.--The Committee recommendation of $2,542,000 provides approximately the fiscal year 1996 level, versus the 98 percent increase requested. Some of the activities do not appear to address human factors issues. For example, ``evaluation of detection systems involving emerging technologies'', and ``optimization of combined detection technologies through component integration within futuristic screener stations'' do not appear to be related to human factors. Human Factors and Aviation Medicine Overall, the recommendation provides an increase of $2,318,000 (10 percent) above fiscal year 1996. The budget proposed no increase. Human factors are far and away the greatest cause of aviation accidents. For this reason, the Committee continues to believe the FAA should place a high priority on funding for this activity, even if other areas must be reduced. Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors.-- The recommendation provides an increase of $318,000 (3 percent) above fiscal year 1996, just enough to keep up with the projected rate of inflation. Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The recommendation provides an increase of $500,000 (5 percent) above fiscal year 1996. This addresses human factors problems experienced by air traffic controllers and FAA maintenance personnel. Aeromedical research.--The recommendation includes a minor reduction of $178,000 (4 percent) due to budget constraints. The recommended level still provides an increase of 60 percent over the fiscal year 1996 level. Environment and Energy The Committee recommends $3,600,000. The reduction of $200,000 (5 percent) is due to budget constraints. Innovative and Cooperative Research The Committee recommends $2,000,000, a 33 percent increase over the fiscal year 1996 level, but a reduction of $1,000,000 to the budget request. The reduction is due to budget constraints, and the need to fund higher priority activities in aviation weather, GPS development, and human factors safety research. General Provision Federally-funded research and development center.--The bill continues a general provision enacted beginning in fiscal year 1995 (Sec. 320) which caps staffing at the FAA's existing federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC) to no more than 335 members of the technical staff. The Committee is pleased with changes made by the FAA and FFRDC management over the past two years to address the earlier concerns, and believes that these changes provide a stronger, more productive FFRDC relationship. The Committee's review of ongoing FFRDC programs indicates the agency is getting a better product because of these changes. Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................($1,500,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (1,500,000,000) Recommended in the bill................................. (1,500,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996............(.......................) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..........(.......................) The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of $1,500,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and development, noise compatibility and planning, the military airport program, reliever airports, and other authorized activities. This is the same funding as requested in the President's budget, and same level as provided for fiscal year 1996. Limitation On Obligations The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $1,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. This is $50,000,000 (4 percent) below the President's budget request and $150,000,000 (10 percent) below the fiscal year 1996 level. As set forth in the authorizing statute, the obligation limitation will be distributed as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- Project -------------------------------------------------------- 1996 enacted 1997 estimate 1997 recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Entitlements: Primary airports................................... $428,226,519 $373,235,433 $353,641,246 Cargo airports (3.5%).............................. 38,945,243 31,917,154 29,121,503 Alaska supplemental................................ 10,672,557 10,528,980 10,528,980 States (12.5%)..................................... 159,148,385 142,486,919 134,701,143 Carryover entitlements............................. 91,056,641 100,000,000 100,000,000 Discretionary set-asides: Noise (12.5%)...................................... 181,250,000 148,423,874 140,313,690 Reliever airports (5%)............................. 48,000,000 59,369,550 56,125,476 Commercial service (1.5%).......................... 21,750,000 17,810,865 16,837,643 System planning (.75%)............................. 10,875,000 8,905,432 8,418,821 Military airport program (2.5%).................... 26,000,000 29,684,775 28,062,738 Returned entitlements: Non-hub airports................................... 58,186,123 58,649,725 55,570,720 Non-commercial service............................. 29,093,061 29,324,862 27,785,360 Small hubs......................................... 14,546,531 14,662,431 13,892,680 Other discretionary: Capacity/safety/security/noise..................... 249,187,455 243,750,000 243,750,000 Remaining discretionary............................ 83,062,485 81,250,000 81,250,000 -------------------------------------------------------- Total limitation................................. 1,450,000,000 1,350,000,000 1,300,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Multi-year commitments.--To the maximum extent possible, in allocating discretionary funds the FAA shall, as a top priority, fund projects in the final phase of multi-year commitments. The Committee believes this will maximize the effectiveness of previously-appropriated discretionary funds. General Provisions Sixth runway, Denver International Airport.--The bill retains the general provision (Sec. 324) enacted beginning in fiscal year 1995 which prohibits funding for planning, engineering, design, or construction of a sixth runway at the new Denver International Airport, unless the FAA administrator determines, in writing, that safety conditions warrant obligation of such funds. The Committee remains unconvinced at this time that the runway is a high priority, and that such a project could be managed effectively given the past management history of the overall project. Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program The bill includes a zero obligation limitation on borrowings during fiscal year 1997 under the aircraft purchase loan guarantee program, as requested in the President's budget. This is scored as a mandatory program for budgetary purposes. Administrative Services Franchise Fund The Committee does not recommend inclusion of bill language, proposed by the administration, which would have authorized the FAA to establish an administrative services franchise fund. The Committee has approved the creation of a department-level Transportation Administrative Service Center in the Office of the Secretary. It is unclear at this time why such entities are required at both the departmental and agency levels, and why the FAA should be the only DOT agency with such an authorization. Furthermore, the proposed language is legislative in nature. The FAA is encouraged to submit this proposal to the appropriate legislative committees for their review. Should the FAA provide convincing evidence that such an entity will save significant administrative costs, the Committee will consider such a proposal in future years in coordination with the authorizing committee. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The Federal Highway Administration provides financial assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and highways, enforces federal standards relating to interstate motor carriers and the highway transport of hazardous materials, and provides technical assistance to other agencies and organizations involved in the road building activities. Title 23 U.S.C. and other supporting legislation provide authority for the various activities of the Federal Highway Administration. Most of the funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations provided in appropriations Acts. Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of $19,682,425,000 would be provided for the activities of the Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 1997. This is $287,307,000 below the fiscal year 1996 level. This reduction is attributed to changes in the funding levels for the exempt programs, funding that is pre-determined by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program 1996 enacted \1\ 1997 estimate 1997 recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-aid highways \2\.................................. $17,550,000,000 $17,714,000,000 $17,550,000,000 Highway-related safety grants \2\ \3\..................... 11,000,000 ................ ................ Motor carrier safety grants \2\........................... 77,225,000 85,000,000 77,425,000 Alameda Corridor project.................................. ................ 58,680,000 ................ State infrastructure banks................................ ................ 250,000,000 ................ Exempt federal-aid programs............................... 2,331,507,000 1,314,802,000 2,055,000,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... 19,969,732,000 19,422,482,000 19,682,425,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. \2\ Limitation on obligations. \3\ Proposed to be funded from NHTSA's Highway Traffic Safety Grants in fiscal year 1997. CENTRAL ARTERY/THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL Over the past several years, the Committee, the Department's Inspector General and the General Accounting Office (GAO) have conducted a series of hearings, audit reports, briefings and advisory memoranda presenting numerous concerns regarding the costs, management, federal oversight and financing of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel in Boston, Massachusetts. Project description.--The Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project will build or reconstruct about 7.5 miles of urban highways in Boston--about half of them underground. The project will (1) extend Interstate 90 east, mostly in tunnels, through South Boston, under Boston Harbor (through the Ted Williams Tunnel) to East Boston and Logan International Airport; (2) replace the Central Artery--an elevated portion of Interstate 93 through downtown Boston--with an underground roadway; and (3) replace the I-93 bridge over the Charles River. Project costs.--At a cost of over $1,000,000,000 a mile, the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project is one of the largest, most complex, and most expensive highway construction projects ever undertaken. The project, originally estimated to cost $2,500,000,000 in 1985 is likely to grow in cost to more than $10,000,000,000. As the GAO reported in its May 1996 review: Massachusetts' official estimate of the total cost of the Central Artery/Tunnel project is $7.8 billion. However, that estimate excludes over $1 billion in costs that were included in previous estimates and does not account for the effects of inflation. Our analysis shows that the project's costs would total over $10.4 billion if the excluded costs and inflation were considered. This estimate was also supported by Secretary Pena during his testimony before the Committee on April 18, 1996. The Secretary reiterated the Federal Highway Administration's position that the total cost for this project is $10,400,000,000. Financing the project.--Nearly two years after the first draft financial plan was submitted to FHWA, the department and Massachusetts have just recently agreed on a finance plan that details a range of funding and cost-to-complete scenarios. These scenarios indicate that available state and federal funding may not be sufficient to complete the Central Artery/ Third Harbor Tunnel project as scheduled by 2004. Although the amount of federal funding that will be available in fiscal year 1998 and beyond is not known, shortfalls exist under all scenarios modeled in the finance plan. The state faces challenges to both maintain its commitment to its statewide road and bridge improvement program and build the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. The Committee is also concerned that the project still faces several risks that could increase its costs further, including aggressive cost containment goals that may be difficult to meet, legal challenges that threaten the schedule, and construction uncertainties in a densely populated, historic urban area. Other items.--The department's Inspector General has documented a number of troubling inefficiencies with the project, including underutilized value engineering recommendations that could have resulted in significant savings; rights-of-way, easements and leasehold rights that were acquired unnecessarily; change order control which lacked constant attention and established criteria against which the validity of changes were judged; and the use of uniformed police officers to direct traffic at project construction sites instead of civilian flaggers and mechanical devices that could save significant costs. It had been the Committee's intent to limit expenditures on the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel in fiscal year 1997; however, considerable progress has been made by both the Federal Highway Administration and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts over the past several months which have addressed some of the Committee's concerns. These actions lessen the need to withhold federal funds from the project at this juncture. Specifically: (1) The department's Inspector General, the GAO and FHWA have all independently verified that the estimated total costs of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project will be $10,400,000,000. Both the FHWA and the GAO noted that it was important that Massachusetts fully disclose the total estimated cost of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. A full disclosure of the project's total costs provides the only basis for the Congress, state leaders, and the public to understand the extent of the federal and state investment in the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. Full disclosure is also the only means of providing a consistent baseline for measuring changes in the cost of the project over time. To that end, Massachusetts has agreed to reflect total costs as well as costs-to-complete in the most recent finance plan amended June 1996. (2) The Commonwealth will be required to update the finance plan annually on October 1 of each year until the project is completed. In addition, Massachusetts will be required to prepare additional finance plan updates any time significant changes occur in project costs and/or revenue assumptions. Monthly management reports being prepared for the project will provide the information to judge when and if significant changes occur in these assumptions. This intense scrutiny is justified given the size and cost of the project and is permitted under provisions of 23 CFR 1.5, which authorize the administrator to require that the state furnish such information as deemed desirable in administering the federal- aid program. (3) As a prerequisite to FHWA's concurrence in the award of advance construction contracts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts now must demonstrate that it has sufficient cash, binding contracts with third parties, and/or unencumbered bonding authority to cover contract costs. (4) The Commonwealth has committed to pay for the costs of uniformed police traffic details with state resources and will not seek federal reimbursement for these costs. The Inspector General had estimated that the use of civilian flaggers instead of uniformed police officers could save approximately $27,000,000 in federal funds. The Committee will continue to work with the department and Massachusetts to monitor the project's costs and financial assumptions to advance the project during fiscal year 1997. The Committee wishes to reiterate, however, that Congress indicated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that the funding provided for interstate construction and the $2,500,000,000 provided specifically for the Central Artery/ Third Harbor Tunnel project are intended to be the final contributions for construction under the Interstate program. Accordingly, Massachusetts must accept the risks associated with potential cost overruns and possible reductions in future federal-aid apportionment levels, particularly as related to Massachusetts' extensive use of advance construction. The department is directed to submit periodic updates of the finance plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Inspector General, and the General Accounting Office for review and to inform the Committee of any circumstances which will have the effect of increasing costs on the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. The Committee received the following correspondence from Secretary Kerasiotes regarding the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Miller Highway.--The Committee has continued a prohibition (sec. 330) on the use of funds for the improvement of Miller Highway in New York City. Limitation on General Operating Expenses Limitation, fiscal year 1996............................ ($509,660,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (652,905,000) Recommended in the bill................................. (510,981,000) Bill compared with: Limitation, fiscal year 1996........................ (+1,321,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... (-141,924,000) \1\ Excludes reductions of $15,661,000 to comply with working capital fund and administrative provisions, and $756,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The limitation controls spending for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to conduct and administer the federal-aid highway program and most other federal highway programs. The limitation includes a number of contract programs, such as highway research, development and technology, intelligent transportation systems, rural technical assistance, and minority business enterprises. In addition, administrative costs for highway-related safety grants are transferred to the limitation. The Committee recommends a limitation of $510,981,000. This amount is $1,321,000 more than the fiscal year 1996 level of $509,660,000, and it is $141,924,000 less than the budget estimate. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1997 budget proposal for the Federal Highway Administration included an increase in the statutory cap on funds authorized to be set aside for research and administration of the federal-aid highway program for fiscal year 1997 from 3.75 percent of core program funds to 4.75 percent of such funds. The FHWA's fiscal year 1997 budget proposal requests an additional $160,000,000 over the fiscal year 1996 level for research and technology programs funded from the general operating expenses portion of the administrative takedown. These funds would principally be used for research and technology programs, notably model deployment of intelligent transportation systems. The Committee does not have the authority to provide for this one-time increase in the percentage of sums authorized to be withheld from federal-aid highway apportionments for research programs and administration of the highway programs. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 limitation, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1997 Program 1996 enacted 1997 estimate recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Administrative expenses (excl. OMC): Salaries and expenses.................................... $174,198,000 $178,523,000 $176,269,000 Travel................................................... 9,813,000 9,813,000 9,813,000 Transportation........................................... 673,000 673,000 673,000 Rent, communications and utilities....................... 25,706,000 26,688,000 25,738,000 Printing................................................. 92,000 92,000 92,000 TASC..................................................... 18,786,000 19,542,000 19,542,000 Supplies................................................. 2,204,000 2,204,000 2,204,000 Equipment................................................ 3,512,000 3,512,000 3,512,000 Other.................................................... 11,504,000 11,504,000 11,504,000 Procurement savings...................................... ............... -3,000,000 -3,000,000 Civil rights transfer.................................... 809,000 809,000 809,000 Motor carrier safety administrative expenses................. 46,000,000 49,500,000 49,127,000 Contract programs/research & development: Highway R&D.............................................. 53,969,000 81,638,000 65,725,000 ITS...................................................... 105,002,000 223,760,000 115,000,000 Technology deployment.................................... 12,499,000 14,846,000 13,499,000 National Advanced Driving Simulator...................... ............... 4,000,000 ............... Long term pavement performance........................... 8,308,000 ............... ............... Local rural technical assistance......................... 2,866,000 4,100,000 2,866,000 National Highway Institute............................... 4,327,000 6,000,000 4,327,000 Minority business enterprise............................. 9,506,000 10,000,000 9,506,000 International transportation............................. 475,000 500,000 475,000 Rehabilitation of TFHRC.................................. ............... 500,000 500,000 Russian technical assistance program..................... 380,000 400,000 ............... Truck dynamic test facility.............................. 713,000 ............... ............... Transportation investment analysis....................... ............... 1,906,000 ............... Federal lands-containment cleanup........................ ............... 2,500,000 2,500,000 South African program.................................... ............... 400,000 ............... International scanning activities........................ ............... 800,000 ............... Cost allocation study.................................... 1,901,000 1,695,000 300,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................. \1\ 493,243,000 652,905,000 510,981,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes reductions of $15,661,000 to comply with working capital fund and administrative provisions, and $756,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. administrative expenses The Committee recommends a total of $296,279,000 for administrative expenses. This amount is $2,226,000 more than provided in fiscal year 1996 and $3,581,000 less than the budget estimate. The recommendation assumes a reduction of 57 full time equivalent positions for a total of 3,245. The Committee recommendation includes $49,127,000 for motor carrier safety operations, not including the $7,390,000 in the research, development and technology program. Salaries and expenses adjustment.--The Committee has not provided supplemental funds requested for civil rights activities (-$2,254,000). Sufficient funds were provided in the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for these activities and are also included within the amounts provided for fiscal year 1997. In no way shall this adjustment affect the Federal Highway Administration's ongoing civil rights activities in fiscal year 1997. Rent.--Consistent with the Committee's recommendation to reduce the department's overall utilization of space, the Committee has reduced the FHWA's request for rental payments to $17,294,000. These funds are budgeted in this account and reimbursed to ``Rental payments'' in the office of the secretary. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS The Committee recommends $49,127,000 for motor carrier safety operations, not including the funding of $7,390,000 for research, which is included in the research, development, and technology line. This is an increase of $3,127,000 above the 1996 enacted level. The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request for this appropriation: Reduce funding for new outreach and educational initiatives by 15 percent........................... -$73,000 Decrease expenditures on new computer equipment by 10 percent............................................. -50,000 Hold travel to 10 percent increase...................... -250,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Net change to budget estimate..................... -373,000 Outreach and educational initiatives.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for outreach and educational initiatives instead of the $473,000 requested. As part of these initiatives, the office of motor carriers (OMC) planned to develop a hazardous materials manual that would educate carriers on the regulations; however, this manual was developed in 1994 and 1995 and only technical updates should be needed at this point. Computer equipment.--The Committee has provided $220,000 to procure new computer equipment instead of the $270,000 requested. Although portable electronic hardware is very important for inspectors to conduct their work in the most efficient manner possible, the Committee could not provide a 114 percent increase due to budgetary constraints. With this increase, OMC was planning on upgrading portable printers and laptops, and purchasing scanners. The Committee suggests that OMC place a priority on upgrading older equipment before procuring new scanners that inspectors do not currently use. Travel.--The Committee recommends $2,200,000 for travel, which is $200,000 more than enacted in fiscal year 1996. The office of motor carriers is seeking a 23 percent increase in its travel funds, although this increase is not fully justified. As such, the Committee recommends a 10 percent increase for travel. Safety rating process.--The Committee is pleased to learn FHWA is seeking to restructure its safety rating system through a zero-based review designed to improve safety while reducing paperwork. The Committee strongly recommends the new safety determination process for motor carriers be based primarily on motor carrier performance in lieu of the current emphasis on paperwork compliance. The Committee believes safety fitness should be based on accurate, up-to-date motor carrier performance data, including reportable accident rates per million miles. The Committee requests that FHWA develop, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, a pilot project, preferably in the midwest, that would allow carriers identified as having problems through the commercial vehicle information system to be given an opportunity to proactively address issues before being subjected to sanctions. The Committee suggests the midwest because we have been advised of some problems within this area. Rather than FHWA proceeding with the normal adverse rating process and enforcement action, a third party safety service, approved in advance by FHWA would intercede and work with the carrier to improve performance. The carrier's time and money will be focused on gaining compliance rather than defending past actions. The Committee directs that any costs associated with the safety service be paid by the motor carrier and, if the carrier's performance did not improve, the Committee expects FHWA to then proceed with its full range of enforcement actions. CONTRACT PROGRAMS The limitation on general operating expenses includes a total of $214,698,000,000 for contract programs. This represents an increase of $14,752,000 from fiscal year 1996 and a decrease of $138,347,000 from the budget estimate of $353,045,000. Although the recommendation represents a significant reduction below the budget estimate, the FHWA's contract programs have grown considerably over the last few years. As recently as three years ago, the contract programs of the Federal Highway Administration were at the $100,000,000 level. The Committee believes that sufficient funds have been provided for the Federal Highway Administration to continue its ongoing efforts in highway research, technology and development programs without jeopardy. Within the Committee recommendation, funding levels remained unchanged from the fiscal year 1996 enacted levels for local technical assistance, National Highway Institute, disadvantaged business enterprises, and international transportation. No changes from the budget estimate are recommended for rehabilitation to the Turner- Fairbanks facility and for the clean-up of contaminated federal lands of the FHWA. HIGHWAY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY The Committee recommends $65,725,000 for highway research, development, and technology programs. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program level, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee recommendations for the various research areas: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1997 Program 1996 program 1997 estimate recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Safety.......................................................... $8,335,000 $8,768,000 $8,768,000 Pavements....................................................... 8,791,000 23,200,000 19,000,000 Structures...................................................... 12,558,000 22,000,000 13,558,000 Environment..................................................... 5,317,000 5,593,000 5,317,000 Right-of-way.................................................... 408,000 322,000 322,000 Policy.......................................................... 5,401,000 5,681,000 5,401,000 Planning........................................................ 5,769,000 8,300,000 5,969,000 Motor carrier................................................... 7,390,000 7,774,000 7,390,000 ----------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... 53,969,000 81,638,000 65,725,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Safety.--The Committee recommends $8,768,000 for highway safety research and development, the same as the budget estimate and $433,000 above last year's level. The combination of ISTEA and general operating expenses (GOE) funds will result in a safety research and development program of not less than $12,768,000 of new contract authority. Pavements.--The Committee recommends $19,000,000 for pavements research and development. Within the Committee's allowance is $10,000,000 which was requested for the long term pavement and performance program (LTPP), including funds for data analysis. The LTPP is entering a new phase requiring substantial data analysis that will provide the framework for improved pavement maintenance. The Committee agrees with FHWA that support for the LTPP should be the highest priority in the pavements research and development program. The LTPP will result in substantial benefits to the states. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for exploratory research, a new initiative that reflects the recommendations of the National Science and Technology Council and is consistent with the general recommendations of the Transportation Research Board for increased emphasis on exploratory highway research. The Committee notes that post-tensioned concrete pavement may offer a design that produces a stronger pavement using less concrete. The FHWA is encouraged to continue its research and evaluation on post-tensioned concrete pavements in fiscal year 1997. The FHWA has conducted extensive research on winter maintenance activities over the years including ice and snow removal equipment, chemicals for melted ice, and strategies and concepts for keeping roads clear during winter storms. A recent initiative involves anti-icing. Anti-icing is a revolutionary new strategy for preventing a strong bond from forming between snow or frost and the pavement surface. Salts and other chemicals are prewetted or applied in liquid form just before the snow or ice begins to form. One such chemical is calcium magnesium acetate (CMA), a non-corrosive, environmentally-sound substance made from corn. The FHWA is urged to support continued research and development of CMA as a non-corrosive anti-icer and test the use of CMA on new concrete and metal surface on bridges in Chicago. Structures.--The Committee recommends $13,558,000 for structures research and development, which represents an increase of $1,000,000 over the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, and $8,442,000 below the budget estimate. An increase is justified to advance the work in several areas, including bridge management disciplines, high performance materials, and non-destructive evaluation. As part of the fiscal year 1996 research program, FHWA was able to obtain significant cost sharing with the private sector in response to a solicitation on structures research. Not only is this partnering essential in light of limited research funds, but the private sector's involvement will accelerate the ultimate deployment of these new technologies into practice. The Committee fully supports this approach for leveraging federal resources with private sector support and expects that this strategy will be incorporated whenever possible throughout FHWA's research and development program. The Committee would especially welcome cost sharing in the high performance materials activity and will carefully consider the success of these efforts in future funding decisions. Environment.--Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee recommends $5,317,000, the same level of funding as provided in fiscal year 1996. Right-of-way.--The Committee recommendation makes no change to the budget estimate of $322,000. Policy research.--The Committee recommends $5,401,000, the same amount as provided last year. Planning.--The Committee recommends $5,969,000 for planning research and directs that at least $2,000,000 of section 6005 funds be used to deploy TRANSIMS, an advanced travel modeling project. This project will yield substantial benefits to state governments and metropolitan planning organizations and is co- funded with support from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Transit Administration, and intelligent transportation system funds. Although there is general agreement that TRANSIMS is the highest priority in the planning research area, the Committee is concerned about that the current and planned expenditures for this project. FHWA estimates that an additional $13.2 million is needed to complete this project. The FHWA administrator, after consultation with other supporting agencies, is requested to submit a letter to both House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before April 1, 1997, detailing how costs could be better contained, paying particular attention to reducing laboratory overhead charges, or alternatively, reducing costs by funding less expensive contractors for portions of this project. Motor carrier.--Because of budgetary limitations and inadequate justification of portions of the request, the Committee recommends a level of $7,390,000 for motor carrier research. This is the same amount as provided in 1996 and should provide sufficient funding to continue all ongoing projects. During the past few years, this program has grown between 13 and 22 percent per year. A sizable infusion of funding is also provided to motor carrier research activities under FHWA's ITS/CVO program and the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP). Both of these accounts have seen significant growth over the past few years. Intelligent transportation systems (ITS).--For intelligent transportation systems, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate totals $336,760,000, of which $223,760,000 is requested through the general operating expenses limitation and $113,000,000 from ISTEA. This is an increase of nearly $133,000,000 above the $203,829,000 provided in fiscal year 1996, or an increase of 79 percent. Nearly all of the increase can be attributed to the $100,000,000 request for model deployment of the integrated intelligent transportation infrastructure that has been identified and developed over the five-year course of the program. The ITS program has grown significantly over the past several years. The General Accounting Office noted before the Committee this year that total funding for the program has increased from $22,000,000 in 1991 to a high of $246,000,000 in 1992; the program was funded at $203,829,000 in fiscal year 1996. Total funding for the six-year period (fiscal years 1991- 1996) is $1,040,000,000. Similarly, the total number of ITS projects has grown measurably each year. The number of projects has increased from 41 in 1991 to 305 in 1996. The following charts illustrate the growth in appropriations, the number of projects in the ITS program, and the number of federally-funded intelligent transportation systems studies and demonstrations by state: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The budget suggests that the ITS program is moving into a new arena, emerging from an exploratory first phase of ITS research and development to a second phase that gives equal priority to mainstream deployment and a commitment to well- defined long term research. Though the Committee is supportive of the department's ongoing research and development efforts in the ITS area, an increase of nearly $133,000,000, or almost 79 percent, cannot be supported one year prior to the reauthorization of part B of title VI of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, particularly as the ITS program moves from a research and development phase to mainstream deployment. In addition, the Committee notes that section 104(a) of title 23, U.S.C., authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to deduct up to 3.75 percent of certain sums authorized prior to apportionment for the administration of federal-aid highways and for conducting highway research and development activities. Contrary to permanent law, the budget assumed an increase of one percentage point for fiscal year 1997 to fund principally the expanded ITS research, development and deployment programs. Such a request is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations. The following table depicts the 1996 program level, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee's recommendation for the intelligent transportation systems program by activity: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1997 Program 1996 program 1997 estimate recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intelligent transportation systems: Research and development................................. $49,916,000 $42,935,000 $27,000,000 AHS/Advance crash avoidance.............................. 14,000,000 30,700,000 20,000,000 Architecture and standards............................... ............... 7,050,000 5,000,000 Operational tests........................................ 31,052,000 28,125,000 53,000,000 Evaluations.............................................. ............... 4,000,000 2,000,000 Mainstreaming............................................ ............... 950,000 ............... Model deployment......................................... ............... 100,000,000 ............... Program support.......................................... 10,034,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total, intelligent transportation systems.............. 105,002,000 223,760,000 115,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research and development.--The Committee recommends a total of $27,000,000 for ITS research and development, which is $22,916,000 below the enacted level of $49,916,000 and $15,935,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee is concerned about the expenses of the traffic management laboratory and directs a substantial reduction in this area. For commercial vehicle operations (CVO) research and development, the Committee recommends $6,000,000, including the $5,100,000 requested for the SAFER/MCSAP sites. FHWA should endeavor to keep the primary focus of the CVO program on safety considerations, to continue progress on the development of vehicle- and carrier-specific SAFER systems, to improve the communications between the roadside and the SAFER and MCMIS information systems, and to use this advanced technology at as many MCSAP sites as possible. For crash avoidance research, the Committee recommends $10,000,000. These funds, together with the funds included under the operational test program and ISTEA funds, will allow for substantial growth in NHTSA's program above the fiscal year 1996 level. Automated highway systems (AHS).--The automated highway systems consortium, assisted by FHWA, has made significant progress in advancing the automated highway systems program. Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 to continue this progress. The Committee's recommendation is $10,700,000 less than included in the budget estimate, but $6,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 1996. To the maximum extent possible, the FHWA and the automated highway systems consortium members shall ensure that the funds provided are spent primarily on advancing new technology and developing and selecting concepts needed for the AHS prototype. The Committee directs FHWA to pursue vigorously efforts to reduce the overhead costs of the AHS consortium and to take steps to minimize the costs of the 1997 demonstration, including associated outreach costs. No ISTEA or GOE funds are provided to test heavy commercial vehicles in the 1997 demonstration or to conduct research or studies relevant to the use of these vehicles in any part of the automated highway system program. Foreseeable budgetary limitations will require the participants to reexamine rigorously the complexity, scope and vehicle mix of the prototype configuration subject to validation testing; and to work towards completion of the initial cooperative agreement within the timeline originally specified. Architecture and standards.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for architecture and standards support, which is $2,050,000 less than included in the budget estimate. The Committee believes it is necessary to reduce expenses associated with the cooperative agreements initiated with the standards developing organizations and those entities maintaining the systems architecture. The Department's efforts to expedite timely and integrated ITS standards development is of fundamental importance. The Committee fully supports FHWA's work with ITS America's council of standards organizations and various standards developing organizations to ensure the proper coordination of standards. The Director of the joint program office should ensure that the council has sufficient resources and authority to support this coordination objective. Operational tests.--The Committee recommends $53,000,000 for operational tests, to be allocated in the following manner: $10,000,000 to advance real-time adaptive traffic control technology; $3,000,000 for advanced vehicle control systems; $10,000,000 for further development of the CVISN and to complete its prototype testing; and $30,000,000 for the integration of intelligent transportation infrastructure (ITI) technologies. Each of these projects is of national significance, is included in the budget estimate, and is consistent with the intent of part B of title VI of ISTEA. The Committee has reviewed the provisions of the solicitation for model tests of ITI technologies and recognizes the care and attention that went into the design of the solicitation. Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee was unable last year to provide sufficient funds for this initiative, which seeks to realize the synergistic benefits of many of the ITS technologies working together. The FHWA received a strong response to its initial solicitation regarding the ITI and will be unable to fund several promising projects offered by state and local governments in partnership with the private sector. In fact, FHWA expects to be able to fund only two or three projects, but received 23 proposals. The funds recommended herein will allow completion of the projects begun in fiscal year 1996 and the initiation of approximately two or three additional new projects in fiscal year 1997. These projects will expedite the testing of ITI in metropolitan areas that feature fully integrated transportation management systems and strong regional, multimodal traveler information services. In addition to the basic selection framework used in the initial solicitation, FHWA shall award funds to those projects that offer the greatest congestion relief opportunities to the largest number of people, and shall also consider the unique needs and demands of the international southern border regions of the United States, particularly within Texas. Because of budget limitations, the Committee is unable to recommend the entire amount requested for operational testing of important crash avoidance research technologies. The testing of advanced vehicle control systems is judged so important that the Committee expects ISTEA funds will be used to support the new operational test project not funded within the GOE amounts. Evaluations.--Because of budgetary limitations, $2,000,000 is provided for evaluations. Mainstreaming.--No GOE funds are provided for mainstreaming activities because of budgetary limitations. Program management.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for program management, $2,034,000 below the enacted level and $2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The ITS program is becoming more focused, fewer operational tests are being pursued, and the ITS joint program office is better organized and staffed. Broad input by the many ITS stakeholders in the formulation of ITS research, program and deployment priorities and funding is essential. In accordance with title VI (B) of ISTEA and the cooperative agreement regarding the advisory committee charter to ITS America, the Committee encourages the joint program office to consult extensively with this advisory committee in preparation of future budget requests. This review will allow consultation with leaders from the corporate, academic, state, and local communities, thus assisting the FHWA in identifying programmatic and research needs and improving overall management of the ITS program. ISTEA mandated the creation of an information clearinghouse as a repository for technical and safety data resulting from the ITS program. The Department delegated to ITS America that responsibility. The Committee has been informed that key results from ITS programs are not being transferred to the ITS clearinghouse on a timely basis. The result is that parties seeking to advance ITS cannot easily access all available information. The Committee directs the Department to send all ITS-related reports and documents to the clearinghouse immediately upon publication. Technology assessment and deployment.--The Committee recommendation includes $13,499,000, $1,000,000 more than enacted for fiscal year 1996 and $1,347,000 below the level included in the budget estimate. The office of technology application is conducting a multi-faceted and innovative safety deployment activity. To ensure a strong safety program, the Committee directs that $3,560,000 be obtained from GOE and $1,725,000 be obtained from section 6005 funds. In addition, the Committee has included $350,000 to market and field test the setting, posting, and enforcing of appropriate and safe speed limits. With the recent repeal of the national maximum speed limit, states and localities are looking to the Department to provide guidance on how to set appropriate speed limits within their jurisdictions. Partnerships to help state and local governments set appropriate and enforceable speed limits should be accelerated. National advanced driving simulator.--The Committee has not approved funding for the national advanced driving simulator under the GOE account, but recommends that $14,500,000 of ISTEA contract authority be used for this purpose. The Department has repeatedly stated that the national advanced driving simulator is of critical importance to advancing progress on the objectives of the national ITS program. The Committee believes that the national advanced driving simulator is an innovative, high-risk analytical test project that has received limited non-federal cost-sharing. Local technical assistance program (LTAP).--$2,866,000 is recommended for the local technical assistance program, the same level as provided in fiscal year 1996. The Committee objects to the use of local technical assistance funds for the national rural initiative program, which was developed to focus federal programs within each state to address the needs and concerns of rural communities, as it is not directly linked to the purposes of LTAP. Cost allocation study.--The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the cost allocation study. The funds provided will help FHWA develop software, data, and procedures for use by the states in conducting their own highway cost allocation studies. The FHWA was instructed last year to complete truck size and weight analyses within the funds provided in the fiscal year 1996 appropriation. Consequently, no additional funds are recommended for this purpose and the Committee does not judge continued use of section 6005 funds to continue work on truck size and weight issues appropriate. South African program.--The Committee does not believe these international activities should be supported with federal highway trust fund revenue, but rather they should be supported by the Department of State. Technical assistance to Russia.--The Committee does not believe technical assistance to Russia should be supported with federal highway trust fund revenue, but rather they should be supported by the Department of State. Federal lands contamination site clean-up.--The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the environmental clean-up at the materials laboratory site on the Denver federal center. The Committee is disturbed to learn this year that appropriated funds have been used since 1990 to address hazardous waste clean-up activities at the site. At no time was the Committee notified of the problems at the federal center, nor the costs involved with the hazardous waste clean-up. FHWA should note that the Committee has reduced the amount of funds recommended for the contract programs by $2,500,000 in order to pay for these expenses. The Committee is concerned about the adequacy of FHWA's plans to clean-up the variety of environmental releases that have occurred at the Denver federal test facility. The Committee directs FHWA to submit a letter to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before March 31, 1997 outlining its approach to the clean-up, specifying the scope and nature of its legal responsibilities compared to those of the Army Corps of Engineers and the General Services Administration. In addition, the report should include an estimated timeline to fully comply with its responsibilities under applicable state and federal law. Budget submissions.--The Committee acknowledges the increased detail of the fiscal year 1997 GOE budget request. The submittal by the joint program office was especially useful in terms of clearly displaying comparable fiscal year 1996 ITS allocations and activities funded with ISTEA contract authority. The ITS budget documents should serve as a model for the fiscal year 1998 submission of the entire GOE research and technology account. Cathodic protection for bridges.--Cathodic protection has long been recognized and recommended by the FHWA as the only practical system which will stop bridge deck corrosion in chloride contaminated bridge decks. The FHWA has extensively promoted and provided technical assistance in the use of cathodic protection systems through the FHWA demonstration project program since 1975. Recent FHWA economic studies have shown that cathodic protection systems should be considered for use on structurally sound salt-contaminated bridge decks carrying heavy traffic volumes in urban areas where traffic disruption and delay costs resulting from deck replacement or repair are significant. The FHWA is strongly encouraged to continue its program to demonstrate the latest technology in cathodic bridge protection systems when economic studies show that these systems will be cost effective. Recycled materials.--The Committee directs the FHWA to continue its research on the use of recycled materials in concrete pavement and landscaped margins. The potential exists to use large scale quantities of plastic and paper waste as well as microsilica in concrete pavement construction. The Committee believes that a small investment in research could yield large benefits in future years. Border regions infrastructure issues.--The Committee continues to be concerned about the condition and capacity of border crossings and transportation corridors for trade in North America as the United States, Mexico and Canada implement the North America Free Trade Agreement. The Committee notes that in 1993, the Federal Highway Administration issued its report, ``Assessment of Border Crossings and Transportation Corridors for North American Trade,'' which found that arterials leading to and from border crossing sites are ``badly in need of repair and upgrading'' and that federal highway funds had not been sufficiently allocated to meet the infrastructure needs along the borders with Mexico and Canada. In 1994, the Committee requested specific recommendations to address the pressing needs at the borders created by the inadequate levels of funding. A report was released in March 1994, but fell short of providing specific recommendations and did not contain a viable means of financing a wide range of improvements along the borders. The Committee supports efforts by the department to participate in the exchange of technical and professional expertise with other federal agencies and with the governments of Mexico and Canada to enhance transportation projects and improve infrastructure initiatives in these regions, including the intelligent transportation infrastructure border crossing operational tests. Further, the Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to give high priority to transportation needs along the border regions in its grant programs and discretionary funding opportunities and to incorporate border infrastructure development projects within the National Highway System's corridors of national significance. The Committee also expects the Department to consider these needs when providing Congress with its proposal to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Highway-Related Safety Grants (liquidation of contract authorization) (highway trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... ($11,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (2,049,000) Recommended in the bill................................. (2,049,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... (-8,951,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... A liquidating cash appropriation of $2,049,000 is recommended to assist states and localities in implementing the highway safety standards administered by the Federal Highway Administration. These standards cover traffic control devices, highway surveillance, and highway-related aspects of pedestrian safety. The Committee has not provided any limitation on obligations because the budget requested that the highway- related safety grant program be combined with NHTSA's section 402 program. Federal-Aid Highways (liquidation of contract authorization) (highway trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.................. ($19,200,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................ (19,800,000,000) Recommended in the bill.......................... (19,800,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.............. (+600,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997............ ..................... The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $19,800,000,000 for the federal-aid highways program. This is identical to the budget request and $600,000,000 more than the fiscal year 1996 appropriation level. An estimated $3,100,000,000 of the recommended liquidating cash appropriation is to continue the construction of the interstate highway system. The balance of the funds is primarily for payments to the states for the national highway program, the surface transportation program, interstate maintenance, interstate substitutions, bridge replacement and rehabilitation, the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program, certain planning and research programs, emergency relief, and the administrative costs of the Federal Highway Administration as discussed under the limitation on general operating expenses. federal-aid highways programs Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new construction of roads. State highway departments have the authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The federal government provides financial support for construction and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary with the type of road. There are almost four million miles of public roads in the United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The federal government provides grants to states to assist in financing the construction and preservation of about 945,000 miles (24 percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes. Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of total U.S. Highway traffic. Federal-aid highways funds are made available through the following major system-related programs: National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized--and the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS). This 160,000-mile road system is the culmination of years of effort by many organizations, both public and private, to identify routes of National significance. It includes all Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic highway connectors, and is estimated to carry up to 70 percent of commercial truck traffic and 40 percent of all vehicular traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of the NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The Federal share for the NHS is 80 percent, except for the Interstate portion where it is generally 90 percent, with an availability period of 4 years. Surface transportation program.--ISTEA also established the Surface Transportation Program (STP). The 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 for with STP funds are not restricted to Federal- aid highways but may be on any public road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the transfer of funds from other programs and by equity adjustments 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 Secondary funding. The Federal share for the STP program is 80 percent with a 4-year availability period. Each state receives an amount in addition to its regular apportionments so that its total funding reaches a legislative percentage established in ISTEA. This additional amount is called ``hold harmless.'' Hold harmless funds are used as if they are STP funds except that only one-half of the funds received are subject to set-asides and sub-state distribution requirements of the STP. Each state is also guaranteed that its apportionments for the current fiscal year and its allocations for the previous fiscal year will be an amount that is at least equal to 90 percent of the state's contributions to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. The additional amount is called the ``90 percent of payments guarantee.'' Funds are distributed in the same manner as Hold Harmless funds. Interstate construction.--The designation of a 40,000-mile interstate system was authorized by Congress in 1944 to serve the needs of national defense, to link the nation's largest cities, and to connect with key Canadian and Mexican highways at suitable border points. Since 1944, the system has gradually been expanded, now encompassing 42,794 miles of designated routes. From December 1994 to December 1995, an additional 15 miles of the interstate system were opened to traffic. This brings the total number of miles open to traffic as of December 31, 1995, to 42,764 miles, or 99.9 percent of the total system. In addition, the remaining 30 miles included 25 miles under construction and 5 miles under design development and right-of- way acquisition. Funding authorization for this program terminated in FY 1995. Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This program is continued by the ISTEA to provide assistance for bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges. Bridges on Indian reservation roads are given special attention--besides the inventorying and inspection of these bridges, one percent of a state's annual bridge apportionment is to be used for such eligible projects. Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP. Interstate maintenance.--This program, established by ISTEA, basically replaces the I-4R program. It finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, and resurface 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. Interstate system reimbursement.--This program established by ISTEA provides a new category of funding for the purpose of reimbursing states for their cost of constructing segments of the interstate system without Federal assistance in the early days of the interstate construction program. Funds are used as STP funds, except that one-half of the amount received by a state is not subject to the set-asides or sub-state distribution rules of that program. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air quality in non-attainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide. 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. If a state has no non-attainment areas, the funds may be used as if they were STP funds. Federal lands highways.--This program, authorizations for which are through four categories prior to ISTEA, are now provided through three categories: Indian reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways category). Funds are allocated on the basis of relative needs except that the forest highway portions of public lands highways and Indian reservation roads are allocated by administrative formula. Minimum allocation.--Each state is guaranteed an amount so that its percentage of total apportionments in each fiscal year of interstate construction, interstate maintenance, interstate substitution, national highway system, bridge program, surface transportation program, scenic byways, and safety belt and motorcycle helmet grants, plus allocations received in the prior year, must not be less than 90 percent of the state's percentage of estimated Highway Trust Fund contributions. The contributions used in the calculation are from two years prior to the current fiscal year--the latest year for which data are available. 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. ISTEA modified previous law slightly; the territorial limitation was raised to $20,000,000 per fiscal year, and the number of days a state or territory has to make emergency repairs in order to receive 100 percent federal share was increased to 180 days. The January 1996 flooding in the mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Northwest states caused considerable damage to Federal-aid highways with estimated repair costs far exceeding available emergency program funding. To help meet immediate emergency needs, FHWA borrowed funds from the interstate discretionary account (as authorized in title 23 U.S.C.). Subsequently, in P.L. 104-134, the Congress approved supplemental funding to cover the above emergency expenses. highway trust fund financing mechanism The highway trust fund was originally established in the U.S. Treasury in accordance with provisions of the Highway Revenue of 1957, as amended (23 U.S.C. 12 note). It has been extended several times, most recently by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240). Amounts equivalent to taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, special motor fuels, tires, commercial motor vehicles, and truck use are designated by the Act to be appropriated and transferred from the general fund of the Treasury to the trust fund. These transfer are made at least monthly on the basis of estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury, subject to adjustments in later transfers based on the amount of actual tax receipts. Amounts available in the fund in excess of outlay requirements are invested in public debt securities and interest thereon is credited to the fund. There are also credited to the fund repayable advances from the general fund, as authorized and made available by law, to meet outlay requirements in excess of available revenues during a portion of a fiscal year, if necessary. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 established a mass transit account within the trust fund to be funded by one-ninth of the excise tax collections under sections 4041 and 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) imposed after March 31, 1983. The funds from this account are used for expenditures in accordance with section 21 of the Federal Transit Act. Subsequent legislation has increased the total federal tax levied on each gallon of gasoline to 18.3 cents, of which 12 cents is applied to the highway account, and 2 cents to the mass transit account. Amounts required for outlays to carry out the federal-aid highway program are appropriated to the Federal Highway Administration. Other charges to the trust fund are made by the Secretary of the Treasury for transfers of certain taxes to the land and water conservation fund and to the aquatic resources trust fund, for refunds of certain taxes, repayment of advances from the general fund, and for the interest on advances. The amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in the 1982 STAA related to the highway trust fund require that before an apportionment is made, the Secretary of the Treasury must determine that adequate revenues will be available to meet these expenditures within 24 months after the close of the fiscal year for which the apportionment is made. highway trust fund spending versus receipts In recent years, there has been much discussion about alleged shortfalls in the amount spent by the federal government for highway programs compared to the amount of highway user taxes it collects. Charges have been made that highway spending has been set significantly below the level of taxes being collected in an effort to make the federal deficit smaller. A closer examination of expenditures and receipts shows that this is not the case. As can be seen from the table in this section, total highway trust fund (highway account) outlays have exceeded trust fund tax receipts in 13 of the 21 years since 1976. Because of this, the federal-aid highway program has contributed roughly $16,487,000,000 to the budget deficit during this time period. Part of the confusion results from a failure to distinguish between the unexpended and unobligated balances in the trust fund. For example, there will be an estimated $9,400,000,000 cash balance in the highway trust fund's highway account at the end of fiscal year 1995. Following is a description of this situation contained in a May 1989 GAO report: According to FHWA, the balance in the Highway Account has often been misunderstood, with many believing that the balance represents excess cash that will not be needed to pay commitments. This view, however, is not an accurate portrayal of the Highway Account balance since these funds are, in fact, needed to pay outstanding commitments. It should also be noted that he Highway Trust Fund exists only as an accounting record. User taxes are actually deposited in the U.S. Treasury and amounts equivalent to these taxes are transferred to the Trust Fund as needed. How the Trust Fund functions becomes clearer when it is compared with an individual's charge account. For discussion purposes, assume that an individual has $1,000 in cash from previous monthly paychecks but also has outstanding charges amounting to over $1,500. In this case, the $1,000 in cash cannot be considered excess because it is needed to pay the incoming charges. On the other hand, the individual is also not in a deficit situation since at he end of the month his or her $900 paycheck will be available to help pay the outstanding charges. This scenario is repeated in each succeeding month. Thus, the cash the individual has on- hand plus a future paycheck helps to ensure there will be sufficient funds to pay all outstanding charges. Similarly, according to FHWA Office of Policy Development data, the Highway Account had a balance of $9 billion at the end of fiscal year 1988, which is analogous to the $1,000 cash- on-hand. At the same time, these FHWA data show that unpaid commitments (charge account balance) amounted to almost $31 billion; $22 billion more than the account balance. This situation, however, is acceptable under a reimbursable system because, although commitments to make payment have been made, payment is not made until the states submit actual bills for completed work at a later date. In the interim, revenues, like the individual's paycheck in the previous example, continue to accrue in the Highway Account. The Committee also notes that cumulative highway account tax receipts since 1957 are expected to total approximately $320 billion and cumulative highway outlays are expected to total approximately $329 billion by the end of fiscal year 1986. The principal reason for current cash balance is the interest paid to the fund from the general fund of the Treasury. These intragovernmental transfers from the general fund to the trust fund have exceeded $20 billion since the highway trust fund was established in 1957. However, such transfers have no effect on the federal deficit. This mechanism is explained in a February 1990 Congressional Research Service report as follows: While specific taxes and premiums are often levied on segments of the population to help cover a trust fund program's expenditures, trust funds also receive ``income'' from the government--i.e., ``credit'' from one government account to another--or what in essence is paper income. No economic resources are moved, no actual money collected. Following is a table of federal highway trust fund spending compared to receipts for fiscal years 1976 to 1996: HIGHWAY TRUST FUND STATUS (HIGHWAY ACCOUNT) [In millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust fund Interest Fiscal year Income Expenditure balance Tax receipts income ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1976............................ $6,000 $6,520 $9,077 $5,413 $587 TQ.............................. 1,690 1,758 9,009 1,676 14 1977............................ 7,302 6,147 10,164 6,709 593 1978............................ 7,567 6,058 11,673 6,905 662 1979............................ 8,046 7,155 12,565 7,189 857 1980............................ 7,647 9,212 10,999 6,620 1,027 1981............................ 7,434 9,174 9,260 6,305 1,129 1982............................ 7,822 8,035 9,047 6,743 1,079 1983............................ 8,853 8,838 9,062 7,777 1,076 1984............................ 11,533 10,384 10,212 10,507 1,026 1985............................ 12,906 12,756 10,361 11,800 1,106 1986............................ 13,305 14,180 9,486 12,251 1,054 1987............................ 12,728 12,802 9,412 11,793 935 1988............................ 13,645 14,038 9,019 12,836 809 1989............................ 15,134 13,602 10,551 14,358 776 1990............................ 13,453 14,375 9,629 12,472 981 1991............................ 15,303 14,686 10,246 14,494 809 1992............................ 16,572 15,518 11,300 15,664 908 1993............................ 16,863 16,641 11,523 16,046 817 1994............................ 15,414 19,011 7,927 14,660 754 1995............................ 20,967 19,472 9,421 20,419 548 1996 estimate................... 22,270 20,384 11,307 21,622 648 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................... 262,454 260,746 .............. 244,259 18,195 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- limitation on obligations Limitation, fiscal year 1996..................... \1\($17,550,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................ (17,714,000,000) Recommended in the bill.......................... (17,550,000,000) Bill compared with: Limitation, fiscal year 1996................ (--) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997........... (-164,000,000) \1\Excludes reductions of $15,888,500 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $1,146,000 to comply with Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. -The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal year 1997 federal-aid highway obligations to $17,550,000,000, the same level as provided in fiscal year 1996. An additional $2,055,000,000 is estimated to be obligated for federal-aid highways exempt from the obligation limitation in the bill. Therefore, total fiscal year 1997 obligations for federal-aid highways will be $19,605,000,000. -The Committee has denied the request to: (1) place separate obligation limitations on various appropriated and contract-authority funded demonstration projects; (2) place the bonus program under the federal-aid highways limitation; (3) include a set-aside of $30,000,000 for highway and highway safety construction; (4) include a set-aside of $15,000,000 for the Symms Recreational Trails program; (5) include a set-aside of $20,000,000 for a construction skill training program; (6) include a set-aside of $15,000,000 for a congestion pricing program; and (7) restrict funding for the timber bridge program. -A tabular summary of the programs exempt from the obligation limitation follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program 1996 enacted 1997 proposed Recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emergency relief.......................................... $291,340,000 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 Minimum allocation........................................ 802,961,000 659,802,000 659,802,000 ISTEA demos............................................... 1,047,718,000 555,000,000 1,054,198,000 Bonus limitations......................................... 189,488,000 ................ 241,000,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... 2,331,507,000 1,314,802,000 2,055,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although the following table reflects an estimated distribution of obligations by program category, the bill includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain federal-aid highways spending. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAM ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Program ----------------------------------------------------- 1996 enacted 1997 estimate 1997 recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject to limitation: National highway system............................... $3,277,151 $3,012,518 $3,012,518 Surface transportation program........................ 4,306,633 5,443,030 5,421,254 Bridge program........................................ 2,515,200 2,312,107 2,312,107 Interstate maintenance................................ 2,515,200 2,438,466 2,438,466 Interstate system reimbursement....................... 1,820,593 1,673,621 1,673,621 Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement..... 950,984 861,078 861,078 Donor state bonus..................................... 475,030 430,957 430,957 Intelligent transportation systems.................... 103,447 113,000 113,000 Federal lands highways................................ 437,626 425,768 425,768 Administration and research........................... 618,509 753,205 610,981 Applied research and technology....................... 41,236 41,000 41,000 Miscellaneous programs................................ 68,081 74,250 74,250 Funding restoration................................... 266,522 135,000 135,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, limitation.............................. 17,533,676 17,714,000 17,550,000 Exempt from limitation: Emergency relief: Regular program................................... 236,838 100,000 100,000 Supplemental...................................... 54,502 ................ ................ Minimum allocation.................................... 802,961 659,802 659,802 Federal-aid highways demos............................ 1,047,718 555,000 1,054,198 Bonus limitation...................................... 189,488 ................ 241,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, exempt.................................. 2,331,507 1,314,802 2,055,000 ===================================================== Grand total, Federal-aid highways................. 19,897,695 19,028,802 19,605,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A list of the federal highway programs under the limitation follows: Interstate Construction. Interstate Maintenance. Interstate Gap Closing. Interstate 4R. Interstate Discretionary--Construction. Interstate Discretionary--4R Maryland. Interstate Discretionary--4R. Interstate Discretionary--Apportioned. Interstate Discretionary--Discretionary. Rail-Highway Crossings on Any Public Road. Hazard Elimination. Combined Road Plan. Consolidated Primary. Rural Secondary. Urban System. Highway Planning and Research. Public Lands. Indian Reservation Roads. Parkways and Park Highways. Forest Highways. Special Urban High Density. Special Bridge Replacement. Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation--Apportioned, Discretionary, and Talmadge Bridge. Franconia Notch. Bypass Highway Demonstration. Urgent Supplemental Bridges. Los Angeles Freight Transportation Demo, CA-131(a). Baton Rouge Interchange Congestion, Demo, LA-131. Louisville Primary Connector Accel. Demo, KY-131(e). Vermont Certification Demo-131(f). Devils Lake Erosion Demo, ND-131(g). Bridge Over Intracoastal Waterway Demo, FL-131(h). Idaho Truck Safety/Railroad Elimination Demo-131(i). Acosta Bridge, Florida. Administration. Studies (Sections 158, 159, 164 & 165 under P.L. 100- 17). Demonstration Projects--149(d). Strategic Highway Research Program. Operation Lifesaver. Congestion Pricing Pilot. National Highway System. Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement. Surface Transportation Program. Interstate Substitution. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality. Donor State Bonus. Metropolitan Planning. Apportionment Adjustment. Model Intermodal Transportation Plans. Transportation Assistance Program. Seismic Research and Development. Fundamental Properties of Asphalt. Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship. Timber Bridge Research and Demonstration. Intelligent Transportation Systems. Ferry Boat Construction. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. University Transportation Centers. University Research Institute. Scenic Byways Technical Assistance. Scenic Byways Interim Program. Tax Evasion Project. Safety Belt/Helmet Incentive Grants. Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures. International Truck Registry Uniformity. Applied Research and Development Program. Border Crossings. Infrastructure Investment Commission. High Speed Rail Corridor Crossings. Administration of obligation limitation.--The bill includes language regarding the administration of this obligation limitation. The provision provides for an equitable distribution of the available obligational authority based upon the funds apportioned by legislative or administrative formula and upon funds allocated without a formula. In making such a distribution, it is intended that discretionary and other non- formula fund allocations also be considered in the distribution of obligational authority. If these allocations are unknown at the time obligational authority is initially made available to the states, an estimated fair proportion of obligational authority should be reserved for distribution at the appropriate time. Under the provision, total first quarter obligations are limited to 12 percent, sufficient authority is provided to prevent lapses, funds are to be redistributed after August 1, 1997, and amounts authorized for administrative expenses, the federal lands program, the intelligent transportation systems program, and amounts made available under sections 1040, 1047, 1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023 and 6024 of Public Law 102-240 and 49 U.S.C. 5316, 5317 and 5338 are not to be distributed. The Committee believes that there is adequate legislative history with respect to the intentions of the Congress in enacting annual limitations on obligations. The Committee is reiterating, however, the language on pages 25 and 26 of House Report 94-1221 stating that this limitation should not be used by the Secretary as discretionary authority to distort the priorities established in federal highway legislation. The Committee expects the Secretary to control obligations in accordance with Congressional intent and directs that the Department of Transportation continue to provide, on a monthly basis, a report on the cumulative amount of obligations by state for each program in the federal-aid highways and highway safety construction program categories. This report should include the amount of unobligated contract authority available to each state for each program, as well as a complete description of any actions taken by the Department or the Office of Management and Budget for the purpose of complying with this obligation limitation. Interstate-95.--The Committee believes that the reconstruction, restoration and rehabilitation of the interstate system is necessary to ensure the safety on the nation's highways, to foster intermodalism and commerce, to strengthen the role of transportation in economic growth, to promote technology advancement, to protect the environment, and to support communities through improved access and mobility. The Committee encourages the Federal Highway Administration to work with the states along I-95 to continue their investment in the rehabilitation of the interstate system, and to consider the impact on mobility and commerce if such investment is not maintained. Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) amendments.--The Committee is concerned that some states have moved to amend their STIP plan without giving appropriate notice or seeking appropriate comment from local elected officials with jurisdiction over transportation planning. The Committee notes that existing regulations require such notice and comment before revising a statewide transportation improvement program or STIP. The Committee recommends that the Federal Highway Administration not release funds to a state transportation agency until the aforementioned requirements are met. Federal lands.--Over the years, the Committee has expressed its concern about several parkways and park roads that are in need of improvement to eliminate longstanding hazardous road conditions. Fatality and vehicle accident rates of these roads are far above the national average because of their steep grades, sharp curves and inadequate climbing and deceleration lanes. Further, the hazardous conditions of these roads are compounded by flooding, heavy snowfalls and other inclement weather conditions which negatively affect the quality of the roads and roadbeds themselves. The Committee believes that the Federal Highway Administration should direct its attention to assuring the timely completion of needed improvement projects that pose significant safety problems and directs the FHWA to report to the Committee within sixty days of enactment of this Act on how it plans to address these problems. Belford Ferry terminal.--The Committee directs the FHWA to review the impacts to the environment and to boater safety that would result from the construction and operation of a ferry terminal in Comptons Creek in Middletown, New Jersey, and to report any potential impacts to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. An assurance of no negative impacts must be received by the Committee before the department may release any funds for the permitting, design, or construction of a ferry terminal in Comptons Creek in Middletown, New Jersey. Southern Potomac River crossing.--As part of the Woodrow Wilson draft environmental impact statement, an initial analysis was performed on the potential demand for a southern river crossing ten and fifteen miles south from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. These crossings were drawn from the first regional transportation plan prepared in the 1960s. This analysis showed that there was a substantial demand for a southern crossing that could reduce future demand on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge crossing by approximately ten percent in 2020. Because of the interstate nature of this traffic, the FHWA, in consultation with the state of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia, is asked to identify the issues that need to be addressed to provide for these, or other possible southern crossings, that would affect traffic on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge crossing and meet future regional traffic demand. FHWA should report its findings back to Congress within ninety days of enactment of this Act. intelligent transportation systems The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to distribute funds for intelligent transportation systems to the following programs: Utah advanced traffic management system................. $3,000,000 Hazardous materials intermodal monitoring system (NIER). 3,000,000 Houston, Texas.......................................... 2,400,000 Texas Transportation Institute.......................... 600,000 Inglewood, California................................... 1,000,000 Minnesota Guidestar..................................... 5,900,000 Moorhead, Minnesota..................................... 100,000 I-10 Mobile, Alabama Causeway........................... 4,000,000 National Transportation Center, Oakdale, New York....... 4,000,000 Nashville, Tennessee traffic guidance system............ 1,000,000 Operation Respond, Maryland............................. 1,000,000 Green light CVO project, Oregon......................... 5,000,000 Pennsylvania Turnpike................................... 4,000,000 National Capital region congestion mitigation........... 5,000,000 Advanced transportation weather information system, University of North Dakota.......................... 1,000,000 Minnesota Guidestar.--Minnesota Guidestar continues to lead in ITS research. The Committee commends those efforts and urges Guidestar to continue to develop strong partnerships with the private sector to serve as an example to other communities. The Committee has included $5,900,000 for this project. Up to 25 percent of this amount may be made available to the University of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies and the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs to support education, research and training aspects of the project. Moorhead, Minnesota.--The Committee has included $100,000 for ITS safety-related activities for automobile/rail conflicts in Moorhead, Minnesota. National Transportation Center, Oakdale, New York.--The Committee has included $4,000,000 for the National Transportation Center in Oakdale, New York, which shall be available only for a NAFTA intermodal transportation center. Advanced transportation weather information system, University of North Dakota.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the advanced transportation weather information system at the University of North Dakota. The Committee understands that this system will be commercialized and, in this context, directs the system's managers to provide a plan to FHWA for phasing out federal support of this program. I-5 Joint Powers Authority.--The Committee recognizes interstate 5, from Orange County to Los Angeles County, as an intermodal transportation corridor for which ISTEA funding and fiscal year 1995 transportation appropriations have been provided. Furthermore, the Committee recognizes that significant transportation capacity increases can be achieved within this corridor by using intermodal and intelligent transportation technologies instead of relying solely on conventional improvements. The Committee directs the FTA, FHWA and the ITS joint program office to coordinate with and provide assistance to the I-5 Consortium Cities Joint Powers Authority and the California State Department of Transportation in the design of a comprehensive transportation solution to the corridor. The Committee directs the agencies to report on the design plan and its progress to the department. estimated fiscal year 1997 obligation limitation The following table portrays estimated 1997 activity by state for the Federal-aid highways program under the obligation limitation recommended in the bill: State Estimated distribution Alabama................................................. $270,881,218 Alaska.................................................. 204,210,358 Arizona................................................. 196,623,391 Arkansas................................................ 175,531,892 California.............................................. 1,407,810,254 Colorado................................................ 199,550,979 Connecticut............................................. 353,976,008 Delaware................................................ 77,556,766 District of Columbia.................................... 78,997,146 Florida................................................. 599,468,910 Georgia................................................. 403,887,764 Hawaii.................................................. 121,854,616 Idaho................................................... 105,798,066 Illinois................................................ 661,070,063 Indiana................................................. 341,854,241 Iowa.................................................... 198,168,927 Kansas.................................................. 205,245,252 Kentucky................................................ 225,968,030 Louisiana............................................... 235,947,826 Maine................................................... 91,646,153 Maryland................................................ 265,826,755 Massachusetts........................................... 691,300,055 Michigan................................................ 467,462,764 Minnesota............................................... 252,556,263 Mississippi............................................. 183,673,772 Missouri................................................ 357,024,338 Montana................................................. 155,010,646 Nebraska................................................ 139,227,928 Nevada.................................................. 104,680,987 New Hampshire........................................... 85,639,022 New Jersey.............................................. 479,336,096 New Mexico.............................................. 169,258,849 New York................................................ 1,045,729,335 North Carolina.......................................... 399,616,648 North Dakota............................................ 102,166,673 Ohio.................................................... 595,041,508 Oklahoma................................................ 228,002,136 Oregon.................................................. 202,969,037 Pennsylvania............................................ 661,494,004 Rhode Island............................................ 85,935,380 South Carolina.......................................... 211,336,171 South Dakota............................................ 111,492,837 Tennessee............................................... 325,982,686 Texas................................................... 985,982,463 Utah.................................................... 125,812,946 Vermont................................................. 78,587,598 Virginia................................................ 341,742,613 Washington.............................................. 324,480,965 West Virginia........................................... 158,975,102 Wisconsin............................................... 292,008,163 Wyoming................................................. 111,394,365 Puerto Rico............................................. 76,204,035 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Subtotal.......................................... 15,972,000,000 Administration.......................................... 532,000,000 Federal Lands........................................... 426,000,000 Reserve................................................. 620,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 17,550,000,000 Right-of-Way Revolving Fund (Limitation on Direct Loans) (Highway Trust Fund) Limitation, fiscal year 1996...................(.......................) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..............(.......................) Recommended in the bill........................(.......................) Bill compared with: Limitation, fiscal year 1996...............(.......................) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..........(.......................) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 authorized $300,000,000 for the establishment of a right-of-way revolving fund. The fund is used to make interest-free cash advances to the states for the purpose of purchasing right-of-way parcels in advance of highway construction and thereby preventing the inflation of land prices from causing a significant increase in construction costs. The initial legislation for this program required the states to construct the highway and reimburse the revolving fund within seven years from the date of the advance. This provision was necessary to assure that the fund would be replenished and allow advances to be made to other states requiring right-of-way acquisition. Since the 1968 Act, the 1973 Highway Act extended the required time limit for construction to ten years and the 1976 Highway Act extended the time limit indefinitely, if deemed necessary by the Secretary. When right-of-way acquisition has been made and highway construction is initiated, the state becomes eligible for federal grants under the various federal-aid highways programs. At the point when progress payments are made to the state for construction, the state in turn reimburses the revolving fund for advances made to the state for right-of-way acquisition. Using this method of funding, all reimbursements made to the revolving fund may be reallocated to other states requiring advances. The right-of-way revolving fund was terminated in 1996. The program continues, however, to be shown for reporting purposes as balances remain outstanding. Like the budget request, a prohibition on further obligations is recommended for 1997. Motor Carrier Safety Grants (liquidation of contract authorization) (highway trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... ($68,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (74,000,000) Recommended in the bill................................. (74,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... (+6,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... The motor carrier safety grants program (MCSAP) is intended to assist states in developing or implementing national programs for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and regulations concerning motor safety. The major objective of this program is to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified states for the development of programs to enforce the federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic. The Committee recommends the budget request of $74,000,000 in liquidating cash for this program. limitation on obligations The Committee recommends a $77,425,000 limitation on obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This provides an increase of $200,000 over the 1996 level and a decrease of $7,575,000 below the budget request. The recommendation provides the following allocation among MCSAP activities: MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal years ---------------------------------- Recommended in 1996 estimate 1997 request the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic grants to states....................................... $58,000,000 $63,537,500 $59,800,000 Traffic enforcement.......................................... 6,900,000 9,000,000 7,200,000 Hazardous materials training................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Research and development..................................... 500,000 500,000 500,000 Public education............................................. 850,000 500,000 500,000 CDL enforcement.............................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Truck and bus accidents...................................... 1,750,000 2,000,000 1,750,000 Uniformity grants............................................ 3,450,000 3,450,000 2,500,000 Uniformity working groups.................................... 450,000 450,000 350,000 Commercial vehicle information system........................ 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 Drug interdiction assistance program \1\..................... 500,000 0 0 Administrative expenses...................................... 825,000 1,062,500 825,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................. 77,225,000 85,000,000 77,425,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Drug interdiction assistance is an eligible activity under the basic grants to states. committee recommendations Basic grants.--The Committee recommends $59,800,000 for motor carrier basic grants to the states, an increase of $1,800,000 over the fiscal year 1996 level and a decrease of $3,737,500 from the budget. Each year, funding for the motor carrier safety grant program has increased substantially. This year, the budget requested a 10 percent increase in this program, without states planning to take on any new activities. The Committee has reduced this level of funding to a 3 percent increase, which should allow states to improve on their current level of roadside inspections, while taking into account normal inflationary costs. Assistance to border states.--The Committee directs that, within the basic grant program, no less than $750,000 shall be provided to states along the Mexican border to ensure the safety of trade-related commercial vehicle traffic once restrictions along the U.S.-Mexican border are reduced. Out-of-service orders.--In fiscal year 1994, 20 percent of the drivers and vehicles that were placed out-of-service (OOS) violated those orders. In fiscal year 1995, this percentage declined to 12.2 percent. The Committee applauds the office of motor carrier's (OMC) efforts to reduce the number of drivers and vehicles that disobey these orders. However, the Committee believes a 12 percent violation rate is still too high. Therefore, the Committee directs that $550,000 of the funds available under the basic grant program be used to develop innovative technologies to help reduce the OOS problem even further. The Committee is aware of one innovative program in West Virginia that has significantly improved driver compliance with OOS orders. Specifically, West Virginia has designed and tested a new inspection form that includes a warning statement on the back of the form highlighting the consequences of violating an OOS order. The state's violation rate declined from 25 percent to 4 percent after this countermeasure was implemented. Based on the success of the West Virginia project, FHWA should prepare a document, with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and the states, that warns drivers of the ramifications of violating an OOS order. Some of the funds provided within the $550,000 recommendation shall be used to cover printing costs associated with this form. Traffic enforcement.--The Committee has reduced the budget estimate of $9,000,000 for traffic enforcement by $1,800,000. This level is $300,000 more than enacted in 1996. This increase will allow the OMC to continue work begun in 1996 that targeted ten states with the highest number of commercial vehicle fatalities. These ten states account for 48.8 percent of the fatalities nationwide. Truck and bus accidents.--The Committee recommends $1,750,000 for truck and bus accidents, which is the same amount as provided in fiscal year 1996. Last year, the funding was used to assure that the SAFETYNET system was operating nationwide and involve all states in using this system. Prior to the end of fiscal year 1996, these targets were met, and all states are currently uploading data. Therefore, the Committee has not provided the requested increase. The 1997 funding should be sufficient to increase the number of truck and bus accidents reported and improve the quality of the report. Uniformity grants.--The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for uniformity grants, which is $950,000 less than requested. All 48 states required to join the International Registration Plan (IRP) and 45 states required to join the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) have done so. Because this has been achieved earlier than required and the uniformity grants is a mature program, the Committee believes that less funding is necessary for this program in fiscal year 1997. Uniformity grants working group.--The Committee recommends $350,000 for the uniformity grants working group, which is $100,000 less than requested because states joined IRP and IFTA earlier than the end of fiscal year 1996 deadline. As such, the working group will not need to provide technical assistance to states as they complete requirements. Administrative takedown.--The Committee has held the administrative takedown to the 1996 level of $825,000. This is a reduction of $237,500 from the budget request. The Committee directs that no more than $100,000 be used to fund the Challenge program. In the past, OMC has used up to $332,569 to fund this program, which severely reduces the amount of funding available for state-related training activities. By reducing the amount of funding available for the Challenge program, OMC will be able to preserve its administrative takedown resources for its intended purpose. The Committee continues to believe that the Challenge program is an important effort. However, this competition could be funded in part, or wholly, with corporate and industry support. As such, the Committee directs OMC to submit a letter to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that discusses mechanisms to make the Challenge program self- supporting by fiscal year 1999. This letter should be issued by February 1, 1997. Travel.--In the past, OMC has held its important meetings in conjunction with the CVSA conferences because most inspectors and state motor vehicle personnel attend CVSA conferences. This reduces or eliminates the need for motor carrier personnel to travel to a variety of other meetings. The Committee has been informed that OMC is now considering holding separate federal grant meetings, which would require extensive travel by motor carrier personnel. The committee directs OMC to continue to combine these types of meetings with CVSA conferences as a means to control travel costs in these austere budgetary times. Alameda Corridor Project Loan Program Loan subsidy Limitation on appropriation direct loans Appropriation, fiscal year 1996. .................. .................. Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997........................... $58,680,000 ($400,000,000) Recommended in the bill......... .................. .................. Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996....................... .................. .................. Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... -58,680,000 (-400,000,000) The Committee has not provided loan principal of up to $400,000,000 for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority within the FHWA's portfolio, as included in the budget estimate. The Committee has provided $400,000,000 in loan principal under ``Direct loan financing program'' within the Federal Railroad Administration. State Infrastructure Banks Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... $250,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................................. Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -250,000,000 The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 authorized up to ten pilot states to test state infrastructure banks which have the potential to provide greater flexibility to support the financing of projects by using federal-aid funds for revolving loans and other forms of nontraditional financial assistance for both public and private entities developing eligible transportation projects. To date, the department has selected the following states to test the use of state infrastructure banks: Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Florida, South Carolina and Virginia. Two additional states are expected to be selected soon. The Committee has rejected the administration's proposal to expand the state infrastructure program to include additional states and to provide $250,000,000 in highway trust fund revenue to capitalize the banks. The program request is unauthorized; the pilot program is still in its very nascent stages, and any further expansion of the program should be considered in the context of the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. NHTSA's programs currently are authorized under three major laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act; (2) Chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code; and (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICS). The first law provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting research, including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the national driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations were subsequently established for the NDR under the National Driver Register Act of 1982. Title 23 U.S.C. chapter 4 provides for coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402) to be carried out with the states together with supporting highway safety research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section 410) to make grants to states to implement and enforce drunk driving prevention programs. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 included amendments to title 23. It reauthorized section 402 formula grants, provided for modified section 410 alcohol- impaired driving countermeasures grants, and authorized new section 153 safety belt and motorcycle helmet grants. Section 153(j) grants were concluded in fiscal year 1994 and replaced by section 153(h) sanction provisions. ISTEA also authorized additional funding for the national driver register and for an expanded drug recognition expert training program. Title 23 was subsequently amended by provisions in the National Highway System (NHS) Designation Act, 1995. The national maximum speed limit was repealed, thus allowing states to set their own speed limits. Penalty transfer provisions of section 153 were repealed for states failing to enact motorcycle helmet usage laws. In addition the NHS Designation Act requires states to enact ``zero tolerance'' alcohol laws to qualify for the section 410 basic grant rather than the supplemental grant previously. Failure to do so within three years would result in a five percent reduction in federal highway grants in fiscal year 1999 and ten percent in succeeding years. The National Driver Register was reauthorized for fiscal year 1995 and 1996. The third law (MVICS) provides for the establishment of low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects, automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. This law also established the Secretary's responsibility, which was delegated to NHTSA, for the administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards. A 1992 amendment to the MVICS established automobile content labeling requirements. The Committee recommends new budget authority and obligation limitations for a total program level of $299,372,000 for NHTSA programs and activities in fiscal year 1997. This is $19,071,000 more than was provided in fiscal year 1996. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Program ------------------------------------ Recommended in 1996 enacted \1\ 1997 estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operations and research................................... $125,201,000 $158,513,000 $132,272,000 Highway traffic safety grants \2\......................... 155,100,000 \3\193,600,000 \3\167,100,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... 280,301,000 352,113,000 299,372,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. \2\ Limitation on obligations. \3\ Includes highway-related safety grants program previously funded in FHWA. TRAFFIC SAFETY TRENDS In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest number of highway fatalities despite an increasing amount of travel on the roadways. This trend reversed itself in 1993, with traffic fatalities increasing to 40,150, or 900 more fatalities than in 1992. The latest NHTSA data indicates fatalities in 1995 were 41,700, or 1,550 higher than the 1993 level. Likewise, the overall fatality rate leveled off to 1.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled since 1993. The following charts show these safety trends. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Operations and Research (Including Highway Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $125,201,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 158,513,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 132,272,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +7,071,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -26,241,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $2,840,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $206,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The Committee recommends a total of $132,272,000 for NHTSA operations and research in fiscal year 1997. This represents an increase of $7,071,000 above the level provided in fiscal year 1996 and $26,241,000 below the budget request. Approximately 40 percent of the reduction from the budget estimate involves a transfer of funding for the national advanced driving simulator to the Federal Highway Administration. The bill specifies that $81,895,000 shall be derived from the general fund and $50,377,000 shall be derived from the highway trust fund. In addition, the bill includes language to limit a portion of the obligational availability of the operations and research appropriations to a three-year period. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year -------------------------------------------------- Recommended in 1996 enacted\1\ 1997 estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Safety performance........................................... $12,255,000 $ 14,364,000 $12,864,000 (Positions).............................................. (95) (95) (95) Safety assurance............................................. 18,197,000 20,244,000 19,518,000 (Positions).............................................. (103) (103) (103) Highway safety............................................... 44,417,000 49,153,000 43,993,000 (Positions).............................................. (203) (203) (203) Research and analysis........................................ 44,437,000 67,964,000 49,699,000 (Positions).............................................. (132) (132) (132) Office of the administrator.................................. 3,820,000 3,816,000 3,876,000 (Positions).............................................. (41) (41) (41) General administration....................................... 8,838,000 9,130,000 8,830,000 (Positions).............................................. (90) (90) (90) Grant administration reimbursement........................... -6,158,000 -6,158,000 -6,158,000 Accountwide adjustments...................................... -605,000 ............... -350,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................. 125,201,000 158,513,000 132,272,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions of $2,840,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $206,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request for this appropriation: Safety performance: Delete funding for fuel economy EIS................. -$1,500,000 Safety assurance: Minor reduction in vehicle safety compliance........ -186,000 Hold odometer fraud to 1996 level................... -40,000 Delete funding for domestic labeling program........ -500,000 Highway safety: Fund two injury control communities instead of four. -900,000 Reduce funding for target population education...... -137,000 Reduce funding for new state and communities program evaluation........................................ -900,000 Delete funding for new rail-highway demonstration... -3,000,000 Increase speed and unsafe driving prevention........ +200,000 Delete funding for state and community programs..... -423,000 Research and analysis: Reduce funding for biomechanics..................... -1,000,000 Reduce new crash avoidance efforts.................. -3,000,000 Fund NADS through ITS program....................... -10,500,000 Reduce new initiatives under data analysis.......... -465,000 Reduce increase in state data program............... -800,000 Reduce funding for PNGV............................. -2,500,000 Office of the administrator: Increase funding for international harmonization.... +60,000 General administration: Reduce funding for strategic planning............... -200,000 Reduce contracts under economic analysis............ -100,000 Accountwide adjustments: Reduction in training............................... -50,000 Hold non-pay inflation to 1.5 percent increase...... -300,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Net change to the budget estimate............... -26,241,000 Fuel economy.--The Committee recommends decreasing the fuel economy program by $1,500,000. NHTSA has not adequately addressed the need for developing an environmental impact statement for fuel economy standards over multiple model years. If NHTSA wishes to alter fuel economy standards, the Committee believes that the agency should continue to establish corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, as it has done in the past, for only one to two model years at a time. In developing standards in this manner, the agency can prepare environmental assessments in-house and will not require an expensive contract program to develop an EIS. The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 323) that prohibits funds from being used to prepare, prescribe, or promulgate CAFE standards for automobiles that differ from those previously enacted. The limitation does not preclude the Secretary of Transportation, in order to meet lead time requirements of the law, from preparing, proposing, and issuing a CAFE standard for model year 1999 automobiles that is identical to the CAFE standard established for such automobiles for model year 1998. Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The bill includes a provision prohibiting any agency funded in this Act from planning, finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking which would require passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling resistance. Vehicle safety compliance.--The Committee has reduced the budget request of $6,033,000 for vehicle safety compliance by $186,000. This funding was to be used to test compressed natural gas (CNG) tanks. Although this is a new standard for NHTSA, there are very few CNG tanks on the market to date. Due to budget constraints, the Committee suggests postponing this test until next year. Odometer fraud.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee has held odometer fraud to $60,000, which is the same level as enacted in 1996. Vehicle domestic content labeling.--The Committee has denied the requested $500,000 for vehicle domestic content labeling. This is a new initiative for NHTSA, in which the agency planned to audit four car lines and two manufacturers to determine the domestic content of their vehicles. Safe communities injury control program.--The Committee has provided $900,000 for the safe communities injury control program, which is $900,000 less than requested. Last year, Congress provided sufficient funding to establish two injury control programs. The Committee believes that injury control is a very important objective. Currently, there are more than 5 million injuries attributed to automobiles accidents per year-- including many which could have been prevented. One means to reduce these injuries is for local communities to take more responsibility for preventing these traffic-related injuries and to partner with the health care community. As such, the Committee has provided sufficient funding to allow NHTSA to establish two additional injury control programs to evaluate the effectiveness of the safe communities approach in reducing traffic related injuries and fatalities. Rail-highway crossing.--The Committee has denied the $3,000,000 funding request for a new rail-highway crossing program. This initiative sought to provide communities with grants to support crossing safety and trespasser prevention programs. Much of this funding request was to be used for salaries within the grant program. Although the Committee believes that this type of program is a worthy initiative, a similar program is already in place through Operation Lifesaver. Furthermore, section 402 grants can be used for rail-highway crossing activities, as well. Developing a community-based grant program within NHTSA's highway safety program would be duplicative. If the program is to be effective, it should be focused on the state level, where Operation Lifesaver already has at least one grade crossing group in 49 of the 50 states. These groups are funded through the federal government and by private contributions. Speed and unsafe driving.--The Committee recommends $756,000 for speed and unsafe driving prevention activities, which is $200,000 more than requested. The National Highway System (NHS) Designation Act of 1995 returned regulation of speed limits to the states. To date, 18 states have raised their speed limits, although not uniformly. A fact sheet released by NHTSA shows that excessive speed is a factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes. As vehicle speed increases, so does the severity of the crashes. Preliminary data in three states has tied a rise in traffic fatalities to speed increases. For example, Missouri recorded a 28 percent increase in traffic deaths in April 1996 compared with last year. As part of the NHS Designation Act, a safety report must be submitted to Congress by September 30, 1997 that identifies the costs to states of deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes and the benefits associated with the repeal of the national speed limit. NHTSA has not requested any funding for this study; however, due to its importance and the anecdotal information about the impact of states increasing their speed limits, the Committee has appropriated $200,000 to assure that NHTSA has adequate funds available to monitor the costs and benefits associated with the repeal of the national speed limit. State and community program evaluations.--The Committee has reduced funding for this new initiative from the $1,000,000 requested to $100,000. This funding should be sufficient to continue analyzing the effectiveness of breath alcohol ignition interlock devices to determine if these devices are successful in preventing drunk drivers from becoming repeat offenders. If additional funding is available after completing this evaluation, state and community representatives should examine other innovative initiatives as well. Bicycle safety program.--Each year in the United States, there are over 580,000 bicycle injuries. Of this amount, there are approximately 800 fatalities and between 20,000 and 50,000 bicycle injuries serious enough to require hospitalization or rehabilitation. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 are the most common victims of bicycle injury head trauma, since they rely most on bicycles for their principal mode of transportation and often lack on-road bicycle experience. Greater efforts are necessary to insure that children are trained to be safe bicyclists. A recent national bicycling and walking study resulted in a recommendation to reduce the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or injured by 10 percent. To meet this objective, the Committee directs NHTSA to more vigorously promote bicycle safety and training. The Committee urges NHTSA to collaborate with organizations that are working on bicycle safety initiatives, including those implementing bicycle safety and training programs, as well as with institutes conducting human factors research relating to bicycle safety measures. Other highway safety programs.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee is holding the target population increase to 20 percent instead of 31 percent and is not funding the evaluation initiative for state and community programs. In the past, these evaluation initiatives have been funded from the administrative takedown. Biomechanics.--The Committee has provided $6,450,000 for biomechanics, which is $560,000 more than enacted in fiscal year 1996 but $1,000,000 less than requested. A privately funded initiative will finance three new biomechanics centers. These centers will conduct research on highway traffic and impact injuries, and will expand the early warning system that identifies problems in vehicle design. Results from work conducted by these centers will be shared with NHTSA and its four biomechanics centers. Providing additional funds for NHTSA to expand its biomechanics efforts would duplicate these privately funded efforts. The Committee is deeply concerned about the number of children who have been killed by airbags when seated in infant car seats positioned in the right front seat of an automobile with an airbag. Because of these fatalities, there is a need to develop and implement methods to prevent further incidents. As part of the funding for biomechanics, the Committee directs NHTSA to provide $200,000 for research on child safety seats and their interaction with airbags. This funding should be used to conduct a comprehensive, interdisciplinary study involving pediatric trauma experts, engineers, and epidemiologists on means to prevent additional deaths and injuries. Research is already being conducted in this area, emphasizing an interdisciplinary approach, by Children's Hospital in Philadelphia in conjunction with the University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering. The Committee strongly supports the highway traffic injury work being undertaken by the William Lehman Injury Research Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital and by the New Jersey College of Medicine. These centers, in consortium with two other centers, have been working to study motor vehicle crash injury data and identify patterns of injuries that occur as a result of specific crashes. Ultimately, this data should help NHTSA, the automobile manufacturers, and the insurance industry deploy new safety devices to reduce or prevent these injuries. Crash avoidance.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the new crash avoidance initiative, which is $3,000,000 less than requested. NHTSA planned to conduct research on a variety of topics, including anti-lock braking systems, vehicle rollovers, tire performance, and enhanced rear vision. This work was to be conducted in addition to the crash avoidance efforts being jointly undertaken with FHWA's Intelligent Transportation System's Joint Program Office. The majority of this funding should be used to address NHTSA's most pressing concern--anti-lock braking systems (ABS). Recently, some insurance companies removed discounts on premiums for cars that have ABS because these systems have not been as effective in avoiding crashes as expected. Specifically, data has shown that, although ABS is slightly effective in helping avoid multi-vehicle crashes on wet roads, crashes into fixed objects, off-road accidents, and rollovers have increased. NHTSA has begun research to determine if the reduced effectiveness is caused by people who do not use the system as directed or if there are generational differences in older anti-lock braking systems that cause it to work inefficiently. NHTSA also planned to conduct dynamic rollover research on sport utility vehicles. Since these vehicles account for about 40 percent of new vehicle sales, some of the funding should be used to conduct rollover research and identify modifications to enhance stability in sport utility vehicles. National advanced driving simulator (NADS).--The Committee has not provided any funding for NADS under this program. Instead, the Committee is fully funding this initiative through contract authority provided to FHWA's Intelligent Transportation System's Joint Program Office. The Committee was pleased to see that other modal administrations have agreed to help fund the development of the simulator and plan to use the simulator once it is completed. NHTSA should continue to work on raising the cost share from non-DOT sources, such as other federal agencies who plan to use the simulator once it is developed. The Committee is concerned about the escalating costs to develop and build NADS. Since its inception, costs for NADS have risen by 54 percent. The Committee believes that NHTSA should have done a better job at controlling some of the non- inflationary cost increases and directs NHTSA to closely monitor these costs as the development progresses. In the future, NHTSA should make every effort to employ cost reduction options. The Committee directs the department to reexamine the business arrangements with the University of Iowa to reduce participation costs. The Committee does not believe that it is appropriate that government users be charged the same rates as other users of the NADS given the Federal Government's sizable financial contribution (two-thirds of the total) to this project. Data analysis program.--The Committee has provided $1,635,000 for the data analysis program, instead of $2,100,000 as requested. This funding level allows for a 15 percent increase instead of the 48 percent increase requested. State data systems.--The Committee has reduced the state data systems program by $800,000 to a level of $3,050,000. At this level, NHTSA will still be able to provide grants to at least six new states to link crash and medical databases. NHTSA has already funded this type of linkage with seven other states. Statistical results from these original states showed that people who do not use their safety belts or motorcycle helmets and are involved in crashes incur greater medical expenses than those who use these safety devices. As a result of this information, Maine implemented a safety belt law as a means to reduce its medical costs. The Committee believes that if other states link their crash and medical databases, these states may move to primary seat belt laws, increase penalties related to drunk driving, or maintain a lower speed limit. Any improvements in state laws pay for itself through reduced medical costs alone. Partnership for new generation of vehicles (PNGV).-- The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for PNGV, which is $2,500,000 less than requested. Automobile manufacturers, in conjunction with the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Interior, are developing technologies for a new generation of vehicles that may be three times more fuel efficient than current vehicles. NHTSA's participation in this activity is important to address critical safety issues; however, this cannot be done until the most promising technologies that will go into the PNGV are chosen. However, according to a recent National Academy of Sciences study, systems analysis for PNGV has been delayed by 12-18 months. The study also concluded that the PNGV does not currently have the necessary systems analysis tools to adequately support technology selection, which is scheduled for 1997. Because of concerns raised by the National Academy of Sciences, the Committee has not fully funded NHTSA's PNGV request. Instead, the Committee has provided sufficient funds to allow NHTSA to begin acquiring the necessary computer equipment to develop advanced computer models that evaluate the crashworthiness of conceptual designs and their safety compatibility with contemporary vehicles. The Committee deferred funding for infrastructure analysis because the department has not made a convincing case for conducting this work without knowing which technologies will be contained in the prototype vehicle. International harmonization.--The Committee has provided $246,000 for international harmonization instead of $186,000 as requested. Until recently, vehicle safety standards and regulations were developed with a domestic focus; however, as industry has become more regulated and competitive, efforts to achieve global compatibility of regulations, especially in the occupant protection field, have become increasingly important. In November 1995, the United States and the European Union began an effort to aggregate the research priorities of various motor vehicle producing regions in an attempt to come to agreement on a harmonized global research agenda. The United States has begun similar efforts under the North American Free Trade Agreement and with the Asian Pacific Economic Forum. These efforts should reduce duplication of research efforts and help emerging markets adopt current vehicle safety standards. In addition, NHTSA's office of international harmonization is working to reduce or eliminate incompatibilities among various safety regulations. Because there has been a major increase in the need for NHTSA to participate in harmonization activities since the budget proposal was developed, the Committee is providing additional funding for these activities. Strategic planning.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee has funded the strategic planning initiative at $125,000, which is $200,000 less than requested. Economic analysis.--The Committee has held funding for economic analysis at the fiscal year 1996 level of $75,000. Due to budget constraints, the Committee has not provided funding to develop a method of quantifying the psycho-social effects of motor vehicle injuries. Accountwide adjustment.--The Committee has reduced funding for training activities by $50,000 and reduced the agency's non-pay inflationary adjustment by $300,000 so that every administration within the Department of Transportation has a 1.5 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment. NHTSA had requested a 3 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment in its fiscal year 1997 budget request. -General provision.--The Committee includes a general provision (sec. 332) that enables the Secretary of Transportation to administer and implement the exemption provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as requested. These provisions have, for more than 20 years, exempted sellers of large trucks from the odometer disclosure regulation because vehicles weighing over 16,000 pounds often travel more than 15,000 miles per month, and over the years, their odometers may turn over several times. Most purchasing decisions with respect to these vehicles are based on service and maintenance records rather than odometer readings. Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... ($155,100,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\................... (191,000,000) Recommended in the bill <SUP>1.......................... (167,100,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... (+12,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... (-23,900,000) \1\ Includes the Highway-Related Safety Grants program previously funded under FHWA. The Committee recommends $167,100,000 to liquidate contract authorizations for state and community highway safety grants (23 U.S.C. 402), safety belt and motorcycle helmet use grants (23 U.S.C. 153), alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (23 U.S.C. 410), and section 211(b) of the National Driver Register Act of 1982, as amended, and section 209 of Public Law 95-599, as amended. The recommendation represents an increase of $12,000,000 over the 1996 level but $23,900,000 less than requested. Limitation on Obligations As in past years and recommended in the budget request, the bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. The bill includes separate obligation limitations with the following funding allocations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year Recommended in 1996 enacted 1997 estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 402.................................................. $127,700,000 <SUP>1 $166,200,000 <SUP>1 $138,700,000 Section 410.................................................. 25,000,000 25,000,000 26,000,000 National Driver Register..................................... 3,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................... 155,100,000 193,600,000 167,100,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <SUP>1 Merges FHWA's and NHTSA's section 402 formula grant programs. Section 402 formula grants.--These grants are awarded to states for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries. The states may use the grants to implement programs to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed limits; encourage proper use of occupant protection devices; reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce school bus crashes; improve police traffic services; improve emergency medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and improve traffic record systems. The grants also provide additional support for state data collection and reporting of traffic deaths and injuries. This year, the administration has requested combining FHWA's section 402 program with NHTSA's section 402 program. The Committee approves this merger of programs because it should streamline the grants management process, reduce administrative expenses, and simplify states' interactions with the agencies. An obligation limitation of $138,700,000 is included in the bill, which is $27,500,000 less than requested. This limitation includes $127,700,000 for NHTSA's section 402 grant program and $11,000,000 for FHWA's section 402 grant program. Language is included in the bill limiting funds available for federal grants administration to $5,268,000 for NHTSA and $150,000 for FHWA. NHTSA has been working to modify and improve the current highway safety program management system. The agency has developed a new process for the administration of highway safety grants which provides the states with more flexibility and responsibility. A pilot program began in 16 states in fiscal year 1996. These states did not submit highway safety plans, but instead developed performance-based systems that placed an emphasis on results. In fiscal year 1997, 40 states will be prioritizing how they spend their grant money based on specific state problems instead of through issues identified in a highway safety plan. Because this new management process will give states more freedom to determine the best expenditures of limited highway safety grant dollars, the Committee has decided not to earmark scarce federal resources to specific section 402 programs, such as youth or safe communities. The Committee believes that states can best determine their needs. Even though the Committee did not earmark funds for specific section 402 programs, this does not preclude states from using its grant funding for, among other things, safe communities, alcohol safety, or youth programs. This lack of earmarking does not prejudice the safe communities project from receiving consideration for funding in future appropriations bills. The Committee continues to recommend that rail-highway grade crossing safety issues be considered as an eligible activity under the states' safe communities programs during 1997. Currently, there are approximately 500 deaths per year from rail-highway grade crossing accidents. Although Operation Lifesaver promotes grade crossing education and safety programs in 49 of the 50 states, some communities may have a high level of risk and should be encouraged to use section 402 funds to reduce these tragic deaths and injuries. The bill continues to carry language that prohibits the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs, or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or private buildings or structures. Section 410 alcohol-impaired countermeasures grants.-- Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants are provided to states that qualify by adopting specified laws and program measures to reduce safety problems stemming from driving while impaired by alcohol and other drugs. The program, first enacted in 1988, was subsequently restructured in 1991 in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act to expand the eligibility requirements and increase incentive funds. The program's eligibility requirements and funding procedures were further amended in Public Law 102-388. Basic grants are issued for achieving criteria that include administrative driver's license revocation actions within stated time frames, lower blood-alcohol content (BAC) laws, statewide police roadside checkpoints, effective under age impairment deterrence, mandatory sentences for repeat offenders, and programs that are financially self-sufficient. Supplemental grants are provided to states that adopt additional specified measures, including 0.02 BAC laws for drivers under age 21, license plate confiscation, laws against open alcohol containers in vehicles, and mandatory BAC testing by police of suspected DWI offenders. The bill includes an obligation limitation of $26,000,000 for the section 410 program, an increase of $1,000,000 above the budget request. In fiscal year 1996, between 30 and 36 states qualified for section 410 grants. In fiscal year 1997, between 38 and 41 states are expected to qualify. The budget estimate did not request any additional funding for these new states. As such, these states will receive only 55 percent of the maximum allowable grant, a decline of 8 percent from fiscal year 1996. Because of the importance this Committee places on reducing drug and alcohol impaired driving habits within states and local communities, the Committee has provided additional funding to support the new states, which have recently passed administrative license revocation laws or lowered blood alcohol levels, without penalizing states currently participating in this grant program. The bill also includes language providing that $500,000 of section 410 funds be available for technical assistance to the states, as requested. National driver register.--The bill includes an obligation limitation of $2,400,000 for the national driver register (NDR), the same level as requested. The national driver register program assists state motor vehicle administrators in communicating effectively and efficiently with other states to identify problem drivers (i.e., drivers whose licenses are suspended or revoked for certain serious traffic offenses, including vehicle operation under impairment by alcohol and other drugs). FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry, as well as managing the high speed ground transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical plant are also administered by the FRA. The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal year 1997 is $710,654,000. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Program 1996 enacted Fiscal year Recommended in level \1\ 1997 estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office of the administrator.................................... $14,018,000 $16,883,000 $16,469,000 Railroad safety................................................ 49,919,000 51,864,000 51,407,000 Railroad research and development.............................. 24,550,000 24,565,000 20,341,000 Northeast corridor improvement program......................... 115,000,000 200,000,000 0 High-speed rail trainsets and facilities....................... 0 80,000,000 80,000,000 Next generation high speed rail................................ \2\ 24,205,000 26,525,000 19,757,000 Rhode Island rail development.................................. 1,000,000 10,000,000 4,000,000 Direct loan financing program.................................. 0 0 58,680,000 Direct loan limitation......................................... 0 0 (400,000,000) Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation \3\.......... 635,000,000 638,500,000 462,000,000 Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation................................. 10,000,000 0 0 ------------------------------------------------ Total...................................................... 873,692,000 1,048,337,000 712,654,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. \2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $5,000,000. \3\ Includes mandatory passenger rail service payments. Office of the Administrator Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $14,018,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 16,883,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 16,469,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +2,451,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -414,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $354,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions. This account provides funds for executive direction and administration, policy support, passenger and freight services salaries and expenses, and contractual support. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,469,000 to continue the Office of the administrator and passenger and freight service assistance functions. This is an increase of $2,451,000 above the 1996 enacted level. The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request for this appropriation: Disallow civil rights ``add back''............................ -$144,000 Reductions in staff........................................... -270,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Net adjustment to budget estimate......................... -414,000 Civil rights.--The Committee has reduced the budget request by $144,000, which was requested to ``add back'' funding for civil rights activities. Sufficient funds for civil rights activities were provided within the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1996. The Committee believes that additional funding is not necessary in fiscal year 1997. In no way shall this adjustment offset FRA's civil rights activities in fiscal year 1997. Reductions in staff.--The Committee recommendation eliminates five positions in the office of the administrator. Eleven staff positions have been vacant since 1995. Of these, five duplicate other positions within the office. It is the Committee's belief that these positions can be eliminated without affecting core responsibilities, functions, and duties of the FRA. These reductions have been made to the following positions: Emergency response financial analyst.......................... -$96,000 Two trial attorneys........................................... -74,000 Office of acquisition and grant service contract specialist... -53,000 Administrative service support specialist..................... -47,000 The Committee further directs FRA not to fill these positions during fiscal year 1996 since funding is not being made available to continue employment in fiscal year 1997. Ravenna, Ohio connection.--The Committee directs FRA to study, in conjunction with Amtrak, the State of Ohio, and affected freight railroads, the feasibility of constructing a railway connection in Ravenna, Ohio that would restore Amtrak service to the cities of Youngstown and Ravenna and provide service to New Castle, Pennsylvania. Such a connection would allow for greater flexibility in rail travel between these metropolitan areas in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of the total funds appropriated to this account, not less than $200,000 shall be used to conduct this feasibility study and should address among other items, closure or safety enhancements to a highway-rail grade crossing located at the site. It is the intention of the Committee that should the $200,000 for the study not be fully spent, any excess funds could be spent on an environmental assessment of the Ravenna connection, provided that state and/ or local funds have also been pledged. Railroad Safety Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $49,919,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 51,864,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 51,407,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +1,488,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -457,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $291,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $70,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The federal role in the railroad safety program is to protect railroad employees and the public by ensuring the safe operation of passenger and freight trains. The authority to accomplish this role is found in the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (as amended), the Department of Transportation Act, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Greatly expanded railroad safety authority was granted the FRA under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988. The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $51,407,000 for railroad safety programs in fiscal year 1997. This is an increase of $1,488,000 above the level provided in fiscal year 1996 and a reduction of $457,000 below the level proposed in the budget estimate. Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows: Provide a 10 percent increase for communications, utilities, and miscellaneous........................ -$107,000 Reduce costs associated with new rail advisory committee -150,000 Hold printing and reproduction costs to 10 percent increase instead of a 26 percent increase........... -15,000 Hold other services to 5 percent increase............... -185,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Net adjustment to budget.......................... -457,000 Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous.--The Committee recommends $798,000 for communications, utilities, and miscellaneous expenses. FRA had requested a 25 percent increase in this program; however, due to budget constraints, the Committee has provided only 10 percent. Part of this funding was to be used to procure pagers for inspectors. The Committee suggests that this cost could be deferred. Railroad advisory committee.--The Committee recommends $50,000 for the railroad advisory committee instead of the $200,000 requested. When other advisory committees are established within the department, they have not required such a significant level of funding. Therefore, the Committee has reduced funding for this new initiative to be comparable to other advisory committees. In addition, given the ceiling in the bill on funding for advisory committees, it is unlikely this committee would achieve such a high level of support. Printing and reproduction.--The Committee has provided $102,000 for printing and reproduction, which is a 10 percent increase over last year's enacted level, instead of the 26 percent increase requested. Other services.--Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee has reduced the budget request of $4,823,000 for other services by $185,000. This is 5 percent above the fiscal year 1996 level. bill language The Committee has included language that will allow FRA to reimburse states employees' travel and per diem costs when directly supporting federal railroad safety programs, such as regulatory development and compliance-related activities. States are playing an increasingly important role in a variety of safety activities. In the past, funds have been appropriated for reimbursement of travel and per diem costs incurred by state employees attending federal training sessions. This language would broaden eligible reimbursement activities so that states could work with FRA in drafting, interpreting, and applying safety standards and participate in regulatory developments as they apply to high speed rail. Railroad Research and Development Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $24,550,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 24,565,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 20,341,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -4,209,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -4,224,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $435,000 to comply with working capital fund and administrative provisions and $34,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The railroad research and development appropriation finances contract research activities as well as salaries and expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and administrative functions. The objectives of this program are to reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and enforcement activities. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,341,000 for fiscal year 1997, which represents a $4,224,000 decrease below the budget estimate. Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows: Reductions in new program initiatives due to fiscal constraints......................................... -$2,725,000 Delete funding for maglev initiative.................... -1,000,000 Hold environmental program to 1996 level................ -400,000 Hold administration to 1996 level....................... -59,000 Decrease funding due to unobligated balances............ -640,000 Increase funding for Operation Lifesaver................ +600,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Net adjustment to budget estimate................... -4,224,000 New program initiatives.--The Committee has reduced the budget request of $7,116,000 for new research and development program initiatives by $2,725,000. None of this reduction should be applied to ongoing safety-related research and development activities. Each year, FRA begins or expands a variety of research and development activities, which are not continued in the following year. In addition, in this year's budget request, there are new initiatives that are duplicative of ongoing industry efforts, such as those related to the ergonomics of advanced train control. In a tight budgetary environment, the Committee cannot afford to stop and start research activities or duplicate industry efforts. To prevent future occurrences like this, FRA should develop and share with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a five-year plan for its railroad research and development activities that highlights its long-term initiatives and explains how they differ from industry activities. This plan should be submitted not later than April 1, 1997. Enabling technologies for maglev.--The Committee has deleted funding for the new maglev initiative (-$1,000,000). This initiative sought to combine Air Force, Navy, and NASA technology to develop a high speed booster for satellites and the space shuttle using magnetic levitation. Due to the uncertain prospects for commercialization of maglev technology and the unclear transportation-related purpose of this planned activity, the Committee has deleted funding for this program. Environmental program.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for environmental issues, which is the same amount as provided in 1996. This is $400,000 less than requested. The request did not adequately justify why such a large increase was necessary in this program. Administration.--The Committee has provided $2,130,000 for administration. FRA is reducing its number of full-time employees within its research and development program, and as such, the Committee is reducing the request by $59,000. Unobligated balances.--FRA has $1,400,000 in unobligated balances currently in this program due to pending contract delays and changing technical requirements. About half of this funding is programmed for environmental cleanup; however, FRA could not adequately explain when or for what purpose the remaining funds would be used. The Committee has reduced the railroad research and development program by $640,000 to take into account these unobligated balances. Operation Lifesaver.--The United States has over 168,000 public highway-rail intersections. About 60 percent have only passive warning devices. Because most intersections do not depend on train activated warning devices, the potential for tragedies is significant. Every year, approximately 500 people are killed in highway-rail grade crossing accidents. These accidents are considered the most significant safety issue for both the passenger rail and freight industry. The Committee has provided $900,000 for Operation Lifesaver, which is $600,000 more than requested. Operation Lifesaver has been very successful in working with states and communities to better educate people about the risks at highway-rail grade crossings and actively working to reduce these needless fatalities. The Committee believes that this increase in funding is imperative for the Department of Transportation in conjunction with Operation Lifesaver, to achieve a 50 percent reduction in railroad crossing accidents and fatalities by the year 2004. Of this additional funding, $500,000 should be provided to Operation Lifesaver's current state assistance grant program, which works directly with states to reduce grade crossing fatalities and prevent trespassing. The remaining funds should be used to help distribute some of Operation Lifesaver's most powerful public service messages, such as ``Highways and Dieways'', to the top ten highway-rail grade crossing accident states and update federal education efforts. In addition, FRA should consider allowing Operation Lifesaver discretion on how to spend its available funds so that it can better respond to time-sensitive situations or when designated funds are no longer needed for a specific project. Northeast Corridor Improvement Program Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $115,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 200,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................................. Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -115,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -200,000,000 \1\ Excludes reduction of $6,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. Title VII of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act) authorized $2,500,000,000 for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. That Act was later amended to add a list of projects to be funded in the event the total amount of authorized funding became available. This project list was again amended in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988 to authorize new safety-related projects which the Committee initiated in the aftermath of the Chase, Maryland, Conrail-Amtrak accident. Currently, the program includes a major upgrade of the north end of the corridor to improve running speeds between New York City and Boston, including electrification of the rail line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston. The program also includes routine upgrade and rehabilitation of the south end of the corridor between Washington, D.C. and New York City. The Committee recommends no funding for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program in fiscal year 1997 because of a large backlog of existing funds at Amtrak for this program. However, this does not prejudice the project from receiving consideration for funding in future appropriations bills. Congress has appropriated $753,000,000 for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, of which Amtrak still has not expended $466,000,000. These funds can be used to fund improvements to the corridor, including electrification, track and related infrastructure, trainsets, facilities, and environmental mitigation during fiscal year 1997. Last year, Amtrak stated that it had $405,900,000 remaining from its federal appropriations that could be used for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. At that time, Congress greatly reduced funding for this program because of these high balances. Since then, Amtrak has not been able to spend down these balances because Amtrak had to terminate its original electrification design contract and experienced additional slippage in both the electrification and high speed rail procurements. In addition, as partial settlement in termination of the original electrification design contract, the prime contractor paid Amtrak approximately $88,000,000. For these reasons, over the past year, the balances have continued to grow. The Committee has sought, under difficult budgetary pressures this year, to provide enough funding for Amtrak to continue to operate a national passenger rail system without major disruptions and to provide capital funds which are essential to Amtrak's long-term viability. The Committee recognizes the critical importance of completing the work between New York and Boston to achieving the goal of eliminating Amtrak's federal operating subsidies by the year 2002. The Committee believes that goal cannot be achieved without the procurement of the new high-speed trainsets and facilities. However, the Committee can not agree to fund electrification, high speed trainsets, and routine expenses in the corridor while such high balances remain. After reviewing Amtrak's projected spending for the Corridor through the end of fiscal year 1997, the Committee believes that Amtrak can manage its cash flow needs with previously appropriated funds. The Committee imposes no restrictions on Amtrak's ability to use its capital funding for northeast corridor expenses, if they are of sufficient priority. Recapitalization on the southern end of the corridor.-- Amtrak is in the process of recapitalizing the southern end of the corridor in order to maintain operations at 125 miles per hour. Currently, this is estimated to cost over $3 billion. The Committee recognizes Amtrak's responsibility as owner of the northeast corridor for maintaining the safe and reliable condition of the rail line. However, Amtrak operates just nine percent of the trains between New York and Washington, D.C. Applying the ``user pays'' principle, which is so much a part of transportation financing in this country, the Committee believes it is essential that commuter authorities, which operate the majority of the trains, increase their financial contribution for recapitalizing the rail line. The Committee encourages Amtrak to develop joint funding agreements with the individual commuter authorities and report on the status of these efforts to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by February 1, 1997. High-speed track and equipment standards.--Operation of trains over 110 miles per hour requires specific waivers from FRA. The Committee is concerned that FRA has not yet developed track or equipment standards for high speed rail. The uncertainty regarding these standards has added risk to the trainset procurement and complicates the efforts of Amtrak and other potential high speed operators to upgrade track and signal systems for faster operations. The Committee believes that FRA should work with Amtrak, the railroad industry, and research specialists to develop generic high speed equipment and track standards or rules of particular applicability where warranted. FRA should report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by March 1, 1997 on the status of its efforts in this area and its schedule for promulgating these standards. High-Speed Rail Trainsets and Facilities Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... $80,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 80,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +80,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... The Committee is fully funding the request for high-speed rail trainsets and facilities. On March 15, 1996, Amtrak awarded a competitive, multi-year contract to launch high speed rail service on the northeast corridor by late 1999. These trainsets are designed to offer enhanced high-speed service of up to 150 miles per hour on the northeast corridor between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts. As part of this award, the federal government has been asked to provide funding for high speed rail maintenance facilities because private financing is uncertain at this time. Amtrak has told the Committee that without funding for the maintenance facilities, the entire procurement of high-speed rail trainsets would be in jeopardy. Fully funding this request will assure the high speed rail vendor that the Committee strongly supports the high speed rail project and that the facilities to maintain the trainsets will be available when they are delivered. The Committee expects that this funding will be a one-time cost and does not plan on providing additional funding to construct these facilities in future years. Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program Section 511 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 1997 consistent with the budget request. Next Generation High-Speed Rail Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 <SUP>1 2................ $24,205,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 26,525,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 19,757,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -4,448,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -6,768,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $54,000 to comply with working capital fund and administrative provisions, and $24,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. \2\ Includes $5,000,000 made available from the highway trust fund. The next generation high-speed rail program funds the development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the program authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 for similar purposes. The Committee recommends $19,757,000 from the general fund for this program, which is $6,768,000 less than requested. Adjustments in total program funding from the budget estimate are as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year ---------------------------------- Committee 1996 enacted 1997 request recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Positive train control....................................... $9,000,000 \2\ $6,579,000 \2\ $6,079,000 Non-electric locomotive...................................... 9,000,000 9,000,000 7,000,000 Grade crossing and innovative technologies................... 4,500,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 Track and structure technologies............................. ............... 3,000,000 ............... Planning technology.......................................... 1,250,000 1,518,000 1,250,000 Administration............................................... 455,000 428,000 428,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................. \1\ 24,205,000 26,525,000 19,757,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes $5,000,000 made available from the highway trust fund. \2\ Excludes $1,421,000 in contract authority remaining in the trust fund not subject to limitation. Advanced train control.--The Committee has provided $6,079,000 for advanced train control, which is $500,000 less than requested. This reduction is appropriate because of delays in testing advanced train control devices in the Pacific Northwest. The Committee is also aware of a railroad merger that may have the potential to affect how advanced train control devices are tested in the Midwest. Non-electric locomotive.--The Committee has reduced funding for the non-electric locomotive initiative by $2,000,000. None of this reduction should be applied to the Transportation Test Center or the advanced locomotive propulsion project. Instead, the reduction should be applied to FRA's program to upgrade turbine locomotives within the State of New York. The Committee believes that, at this reduced level, there is ample funding to continue the development of high speed diesel or turbine locomotives, which could be used on other high speed rail corridors currently under consideration. However, FRA should not be funding the retrofit of twenty year old railcars or locomotives, which are no longer manufactured within the United States, and thus, cannot be procured for use on other corridors seeking to develop high speed rail. The development of rolling stock that railroads might acquire is a more appropriate role for private industry. Grade crossing and innovative technologies.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for grade crossing and innovative technologies, which is $500,000 more than enacted in fiscal year 1996. Reductions were made to the request for three reasons. First, this program is experiencing delays in its contract awards, leaving unobligated balances available for use in fiscal year 1997. Second, other portions of the Department of Transportation's budget fund a number of these efforts. For example, some of these technologies are receiving funding through the FHWA's section 130 program. Third, FRA has not adequately justified its increase in low-cost innovative technologies. Other reductions.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee has deferred funding for FRA's new track and structures initiative (-$3,000,000) and has held planning technology to the 1996 enacted level (-$268,000). Trust Fund Share of Next Generation High-Speed Rail (liquidation of contract authorization) (highway trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... ($7,118,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (2,855,000) Recommended in the bill................................. (2,855,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation fiscal year 1996...................... (-4,233,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... Section 1036 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 establishes a program of research, development, and demonstrations of high-speed ground transportation technologies, and provides $5,000,000 in contract authorization for each of fiscal years 1993 through 1997. The budget proposed bill language which has the effect of creating a new high-speed ground transportation program financed by both the general fund and the highway trust fund. The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $2,855,000 for the high-speed ground transportation program in fiscal year 1997. This is $4,233,000 less than enacted in fiscal year 1996. Rhode Island Rail Development Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $1,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 10,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 4,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +3,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -6,000,000 The Committee is providing $4,000,000 for the Rhode Island rail development project, which is $3,000,000 above the 1996 enacted level. Language in the 1995 and 1996 Department of Transportation Appropriations Acts require that the project have state matching funds. However, the state has had difficulty in matching federal appropriations. To date, the state has only obligated $800,000 of the $6,000,000 appropriated in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Also, the state has experienced a one-year delay in issuing bonds to fund its portion of the project. Last year, Rhode Island expected to seek a bond to fund this project in the fall of 1995. This has now slipped until November 1996. The Committee is uncertain that matching funds will be available unless the bond issue is approved. In the interim, the National Highway System Designation Act allows the State of Rhode Island to commit all or some of its $5,800,000 Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) yearly apportionment for freight rail improvements in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The State plans to do so once the final environmental impact statement and record of decision are complete. The Committee believes that this funding should be sufficient for work planned in fiscal year 1997, especially if the bond referendum is approved. The Committee is concerned about a variety of safety issues surrounding this project. Specifically, Rhode Island is considering a partial build of the rail line. The partial build would lay four sidings to shift double stacked freight cars away from Amtrak operations; however, freight trains would not operate solely on dedicated sidings but instead would move on and off the northeast corridor. The operation of high-speed passenger trains and slower, freight trains on the same tracks presents the potential for accidents. Although freight trains operate in the same rights of way with Amtrak throughout the country, on the northeast corridor passenger trains are operating at twice the speed of freight. Following the tragic accident at Chase, Maryland, Amtrak imposed a number of restrictions on freight operations along the northeast corridor. One, in particular, was a prohibition on the operation of double stack freight cars on the main line. This prohibition remains in effect today; however, these are the type of railcars that Rhode Island proposes to operate along a portion of the corridor. The Committee believes this safety issue must be addressed by the FRA as part of its review of the final environmental impact statement and issuance of a record of decision. Direct Loan Financing Program Loan subsidy Limitation on appropriation direct loans Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..... ................ ................ Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997... ................ ................ Recommended in the bill............. $58,680,000 ($400,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996. +58,680,000 (+400,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997........................... +58,680,000 (+400,000,000) The Committee recommends $58,680,000 for direct loans not to exceed $400,000,000 consistent with the purposes of section 505 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority to continue the Alameda Corridor project. The administration requested funding for this project within the Federal Highway Administration. The bill also specifies terms and conditions of the loan payback and loan administration. The Alameda Corridor project consolidates 90 miles of rail operations into a single 20-mile facility to provide rail access to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The project is to eliminate 200 at-grade crossings and widen Alameda Street, which runs parallel to the rail corridor. Disbursements of the loan shall be made over a three year period. Both in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, no more than $140,000,000 shall be made available. In fiscal year 1999, $120,000,000 shall be made available for the project. These disbursements are consistent with the corridor's planned construction schedule. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................\1\ $635,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... \2\ 638,500,000 Recommended in the bill................................. \2\ 462,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -173,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -176,500,000 \1\ Includes $120,000,000 for mandatory payments. \2\ Includes $142,000,000 for mandatory payments. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a private/public corporation created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia to operate a national rail passenger system. Amtrak started operation on May 1, 1971. The Committee recommends a total funding level of $462,000,000 for grants to Amtrak to cover operating losses and capital expenses in fiscal year 1997. The total funding recommended in the bill compares to $635,000,000 for comparable expenses in fiscal year 1996. status of amtrak Amtrak continues to face serious economic and financial challenges. Significant progress was made during fiscal year 1995 to improve Amtrak's bottom line. During that year, Amtrak radically restructured its management process by decentralizing to three strategic business units, eliminated or reduced the frequency of a number of routes, and undertook a number of cost containment strategies. These efforts allowed Amtrak to end fiscal year 1995 with a cash surplus. The Committee commends the actions taken by Amtrak and most notably its President in its restructuring efforts. However, in fiscal year 1996, Amtrak continues to face the same economic and financial challenges, and the corporation has not been able to make significant progress in improving its bottom line. Anticipated legislative reforms, such as contracting out and labor reforms, have not occurred. Without these reforms, Amtrak may not be able to reduce its operating expenses sufficiently to become independent of federal operating subsidies by the year 2002. In addition, Amtrak incurred over $10,000,000 in unexpected costs during the blizzard of 1996 because Amtrak personnel worked around the clock to clear tracks and rights of way, clear switches, maintain signals, and perform electronic surveillance of the catenary system. Many of these actions went beyond Amtrak's normal procedures, and were done to provide the traveling public with, in many cases, the only mode of transportation operating in severe weather conditions. Finally, as a result of corporate restructuring and route and service adjustments Amtrak made in fiscal year 1995, the corporation has just emerged from a very expensive and disruptive period. Continuing to keep Amtrak operating with a positive cash flow may not be possible during fiscal year 1996. In fact, the latest monthly financial performance report notes that Amtrak may end the fiscal year with a negative cash flow of $55,800,000. On the positive side, in March, 1996, Amtrak signed a multi-year contract to procure 18 high speed trainsets for use along the Northeast Corridor. Once these trainsets are operating, Amtrak estimates that it will have 3,000,000 additional riders per year between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts. Amtrak believes that these riders will help the corporation achieve a net positive cash balance of $150,000,000 per year. This will greatly enhance Amtrak's ability to operate without federal subsidies in the long-term. operating expenses The Committee's recommendation provides $342,000,000 for Amtrak's operating losses in fiscal year 1997, as requested by the administration. This is a reduction of $63,000,000 from the 1996 enacted level. The budget resolution calls for a phase-out of federal operating assistance to Amtrak by the year 2002. The Committee has fully funded the administration's request of $200,000,000 for routine operating expenses. Last year, as part of Amtrak's operating expenses, the Committee provided $100,000,000 for long-term restructuring and transition costs. In fiscal year 1997, the budget did not request funding for long-term transition expenses. Also, the Committee has provided $142,000,000 for mandatory passenger rail service payments. This is the same amount as included in the budget estimate. These payments are made by Amtrak to the railroad retirement fund and the railroad unemployment insurance account. Should the requirement for these funds be less than anticipated, as has occurred in the past, Amtrak has the flexibility to use those funds for other purposes, rather than await further Congressional action. capital expenses The Committee's recommendation provides $120,000,000 for Amtrak's capital program in fiscal year 1997. This is $110,000,000 less than enacted in 1996 and $176,500,000 less than the budget estimate. The reduction is due to severe budget constraints facing the Committee. In addition, $80,000,000 is provided for high speed trainset maintenance facilities under a separate account, which is also a capital investment. Consistent with the budget estimate and actions taken in fiscal year 1996, the availability of funds is delayed until July 1, 1997. This funding will allow Amtrak to cover its debt service costs. Pennsylvania Station redevelopment.--No capital funding has been provided for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project, consistent with Amtrak's grant request. A recent DOT Inspector General report noted that: The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation, which was formed in 1995 to manage the project, is obtaining a revised estimate of the cost of the project, which will include requirements not reflected in the original $315,000,000 estimate. * * * Some examples of items not included are the street level entrances to the Farley Building, widening of the 33rd Street connector to 36 feet, and boarding zones in Amtrak's concourse at the Farley Building. * * * The revised estimate is expected to significantly exceed the original estimate and could adversely impact federal, state, and city funding commitments, as well as private investors. In view of the unresolved project costs and in a time of declining federal resources, the Committee will not provide additional funding for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project until the cost estimates are revised, a new schedule is developed, and written, binding commitments are secured from all funding sources. If the cost estimates are significantly above the original estimate, Amtrak, in conjunction with FRA, and the city and state of New York should prepare a financial plan identifying funding resources for the project and any viable alternatives. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), were transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transit Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers the federal financial assistance programs for planning, developing and improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas. Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations provided in appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are required for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority as well as for portions of certain other accounts. The total recommended for FTA for fiscal year 1997 is $4,050,792,000, including $732,867,000 in direct appropriations and $3,317,925,000 in limitations on the use of contract authority. The total recommended is $633,000 below the fiscal year 1996 program level, due entirely to reductions in administrative activities. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended in Program 1996 enacted\1\ 1997 estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Administrative expenses................................ $42,000,000 $43,652,000 $41,367,000 Formula grants \2\..................................... 2,052,925,000 2,151,972,000 2,052,925,000 Discretionary grants \3\............................... 1,665,000,000 1,799,000,000 1,665,000,000 Transit planning and research.......................... 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 University transportation centers...................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 Washington Metro....................................... 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 Violent crime reduction program........................ ................. 10,000,000 ................. -------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................ 4,051,425,000 4,296,124,000 4,050,792,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. \2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $1,110,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 and $1,930,850,000 in fiscal year 1997 estimate and $1,652,925,000 in Committee recommendation. \3\ Limitation on obligations. Administrative Expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $42,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 43,652,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 41,367,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -633,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -2,285,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $1,278,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions. The bill includes a total of $41,367,000 for administrative expenses of the Federal Transit Administration, a decrease of $633,000 from the 1996 enacted level. This amount should provide sufficient funds for FTA's personnel and support requirements. The recommendation should fund 512 full time equivalent staff years, including two additional community planners and two general engineers in the regional offices. The recommendation includes the following adjustments to the budget --------------------------------------------------------------------------- request: Disallow civil rights add-back.......................... -$725,000 Reduce amounts available for organizational training.... -500,000 Allow 2 regional community planners instead of 4........ -130,000 Eliminate director of the office of communications and external affairs and executive assistant positions.. -150,000 Undistributed reductions that can be offset by the use of unrestricted authorities......................... -780,000 Disallow civil rights add-back.--The Committee has not restored additional funds requested for civil rights activities (-$725,000). Sufficient funds were provided in FTA's operating budget for fiscal year 1996 and are included within the amounts provided for fiscal year 1997. In no way shall this adjustment affect the FTA's ongoing civil rights activities in fiscal year 1997. Organizational training.--The Committee has learned that the FTA contracted for a training program entitled ``Meeting the Challenge of Change.'' The Committee questions the nature and benefit of this training course, which appears likely to generate fear and encourage conflict. The course description states that ``perhaps the greatest resistance [to the course] is a fear of having project team leaders ask probing questions'' and ``because the problems are actual and because people disagree about them, conflicts can occur.'' Last year, the Committee learned of other similar non-technical training within the department and sought to eliminate such training from the department by including bill language (which is again included in this bill) that prohibited training which, among other items, was likely to induce high levels of psychological stress or attempted to change the participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace. The Committee believes the ``Challenge of change'' training may violate the letter or intent of this provision, and should not be continued within the FTA. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced funding for organizational training by $500,000. The Committee believes that sufficient funds are included within the amounts appropriated to provide adequate technical training to FTA staff. Office of communications and external affairs.--The Committee has learned that over the past year the office of the administrator lost two employees, the director of communications and external affairs and an executive assistant, and that these positions are currently vacant. In light of severe budget constraints and government downsizing, it is the Committee's belief that the functions and responsibilities of this office are unnecessary at this time and can be accommodated within the office of public affairs. The Committee has deleted these two positions in fiscal year 1997 and directs the administrator not to fill these positions in fiscal year 1996. Unrestricted authorities.--An account entitled ``unrestricted cash'' was created prior to 1972 when funds were appropriated in a lump-sum, single appropriation to the ``urban mass transportation fund.'' Balances in this fund are the result of credits from deobligating old projects that have been closed out, and currently total nearly $780,000. The Committee has learned that this account has been used by FTA to fund administrative costs of the agency, principally to pay for activities reduced or denied by Congress. Accordingly, the Committee has taken an undistributed reduction in the salaries and expenses account and directs the FTA to deplete all remaining balances in the unrestricted cash account. Information technologies.--The recommended level fully funds the department's request for information technology activities, and includes sufficient funds to continue the development and implementation of the electronic grant making and management system. WMATA oversight.--The Committee has continued a general provision (sec. 329) that requires FTA oversight of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) be conducted from FTA's Washington metropolitan offices. The FTA has considered transferring the oversight of WMATA to the regional office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With such a transfer, all significant decisions would inevitably be referred to FTA headquarters. This appears to make little sense since WMATA is located in the nation's capital and literally a few blocks from the Department of Transportation's Washington headquarters. The FTA shall continue to allocate two full-time equivalent staff positions in the FTA's Washington, DC offices to conduct management and oversight of WMATA. To ensure high-quality, professional oversight, the Committee directs that the individuals assigned to conduct such oversight have significant, long-term institutional knowledge of WMATA and its operations. 3(j) report.--The Committee is disturbed that the annual 3(j) report has not been transmitted to Congress in a timely manner this year. In fact, at the time of this writing, the final report for 1996 has yet to be transmitted to Congress. The 3(j) report, or the ``Report on Funding Levels and Allocations of Funds,'' is to provide the Department of Transportation's recommendations to Congress for allocation of funds to be made available under 49 U.S.C. 5309 (formerly Section 3 of the Federal Transit Act) for construction of new fixed guideway systems and extensions for fiscal year 1997. This report is required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(3). This annual report provides critical information in support of the budget recommendations. Without the timely transmittal of this report, Congress is unable to fully consider the judgment of the FTA regarding the allocation of section 3 new start funds. The Federal Transit Administration is directed to submit the 1997 3(j) report to Congress not later than April 1, 1997. Should this report be significantly late next year, the Committee may have to consider taking stronger action. Formula Grants ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appropriation Limitation (General Fund) (Trust Fund) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..... $942,925,000 ($1,110,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997... 221,122,000 (1,930,850,000) Recommended in the bill............. 400,000,000 (1,652,925,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996. -542,925,000 (+542,925,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997............................... +178,878,000 (-277,925,000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee recommends $2,052,925,000 for formula grants. This is the same level provided in fiscal year 1996 and $99,047,000 below the budget estimate. Formula grant funds are available for capital and operating assistance to both urbanized and non-urbanized areas, and for capital assistance to organizations providing service to elderly and disabled persons. Transit operating assistance.--Numerous transit authorities and Members of Congress communicated to the Committee the hope that transit operating subsidies could be increased to $500,000,000, as requested in the budget estimate. Unfortunately, budgetary limitations preclude the Committee from providing this level of funding. The Committee has, however, been able to hold transit operating assistance to the level of $400,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1996. In addition, the Committee has included bill language that would provide transit operating assistance to urbanized areas of less than 200,000 in population no less than seventy-five percent of the amount of operating assistance such areas were eligible to receive under Public Law 103-331. This ``hold-harmless'' provision was included in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996. Further, the Committee has continued bill language that, in the distribution of the limitation on operating assistance to urbanized areas that had a population under the 1990 decennial census of 1,000,000 or more, instructs the Secretary to direct each area to give priority consideration to the impact of reductions in operating assistance on smaller transit authorities operating within the area, and to consider the needs and resources of such transit authorities when the limitation is distributed among all transit authorities operating in that area. This provision, too, was carried in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 1996. The Committee recognizes that many transit operators throughout the country have responded to federal transit operating assistance reductions by reducing their overhead costs, streamlining their operations, raising fares, and adjusting state and local support for transit operations. Faced with reductions in federal operating assistance, transit providers have put in place business-like controls. The Committee is concerned, however, that any further, immediate reductions in transit operating assistance could be detrimental to transit providers and the communities that they serve. Many transit agencies are still determining how to respond to last year's reductions and sufficient time is necessary to modify service or secure additional revenue, either from fare increases or state, local or other sources. The Committee encourages the FTA to work with transit providers and their associations to identify ways to reduce their dependency on federal transit operating assistance, as federal fiscal limitations may necessitate further reductions in transit operating assistance in the future. Bus overhauls.--The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 amended 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1) (B) and (C) to remove the requirement that bus rehabilitation or bus manufacturing must extend the economic life of the bus, thereby making bus overhauls eligible for capital assistance, effective March 31, 1996. The intent of this provision was to provide transit operators with increased flexibility to use federal funds in the most effective manner, remove the bias towards purchasing new equipment rather than maintaining existing equipment (much of which was acquired with federal funds), and make federal highway and transit funding requirements more consistent. This change has helped to ameliorate the impact of federal operating assistance reductions enacted last year. The Committee expects that this change in permanent law will continue to provide bus operators with greater flexibility in how they manage and maintain federally-funded assets since fiscal year 1997 will be the first full year in which bus overhauls are eligible for capital assistance. The Committee and the administration estimate that this change in permanent law could make eligible for capital grants as much as $200,000,000 a year in rebuilding costs. The Committee encourages the FTA to explore further changes in the definitions of capital eligibility to make eligible more maintenance costs and to place FTA's programs more in line with the highway program under which all preventive maintenance is eligible as a capital expense. These recommendations should be included as part of the department's Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorization proposals. Flexibility funding provisions.--Capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under the Federal Transit Act and publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals and facilities are eligible expenses under the surface transportation program (STP). Public transportation facilities and equipment and intermodal transportation facilities and systems, where it can be demonstrated they are likely to contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality standard, are eligible expenses for the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program (CMAQ). Funds made available for these programs may be ``flexed.'' The Committee has included $5,421,254,000 for STP and $861,078,000 for CMAQ under the highway obligation limitation. Flexible funds transferred from the FHWA to the FTA have increased significantly since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), especially from the STP and CMAQ programs. The FTA reports that $2.1 billion in flexible funding from STP and CMAQ programs has been transferred to transit and intermodal projects since ISTEA's passage, indicating that transit systems, metropolitan planning organizations, and state departments are successfully using the flexibility provided to them in ISTEA. FLEXIBLE FUNDING TRANSFERS TO FTA/FHWA AND OBLIGATIONS [As of April 30, 1996, in millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ------------------------------------------------ Cumulative 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FHWA transfers to FTA: CMAQ............................................ $177.0 $298.4 $317.0 $484.1 $200.4 $1,476.9 STP............................................. 25.2 146.9 183.2 200.3 110.9 666.5 Interstate substitute........................... 100.0 0.1 83.3 83.3 0 266.7 FHWA earmarks/FAUS.............................. 1.6 23.8 26.2 34.1 13.9 99.6 ----------------------------------------------------------- Total transfers to FTA........................ 303.8 469.2 609.7 801.8 325.2 2,509.7 =========================================================== Carryover from previous year (including recoveries/ adjustments): CMAQ............................................ n/a 55.8 65.8 98.2 87.6 .......... STP............................................. n/a 4.4 25.3 113.6 31.2 .......... Interstate substitute........................... n/a 0 0 0 0 .......... FHWA earmarks/FAUS.............................. n/a 0 9.9 20.2 4.8 .......... ----------------------------------------------------------- Total carryover............................... n/a 60.2 101.0 232.0 123.6 * .......... =========================================================== Available to FTA: CMAQ............................................ 177.0 354.2 382.8 582.3 288.0 .......... STP............................................. 25.2 151.3 208.5 313.9 142.1 .......... Interstate substitute........................... 100.0 0.1 83.3 83.3 0 .......... FHWA earmarks/FAUS.............................. 1.6 23.8 36.1 54.3 18.7 .......... ----------------------------------------------------------- Total available to FTA........................ 303.8 529.4 710.7 1,033.8 448.8 .......... =========================================================== Obligated by FTA: CMAQ............................................ 121.2 289.0 259.7 494.4 92.9 1,257.2 STP............................................. 20.8 125.7 114.8 280.2 78.1 619.6 Interstate substitute........................... 100.0 0.1 83.3 83.3 0 266.7 FHWA earmarks/FAUS.............................. 1.6 13.8 16.0 49.4 8.4 89.2 ----------------------------------------------------------- Total obligated by FTA........................ 243.6 428.6 473.8 907.3 179.4 2,232.7 =========================================================== Pending obligation (carryover): CMAQ............................................ 55.8 65.2 123.1 87.9 195.1 .......... STP............................................. 4.4 25.6 93.7 33.7 64.0 .......... Interstate Substitute........................... 0 0 0 0 0 .......... FHWA Earmarks/FAUS.............................. 0 10.0 20.1 4.9 10.3 .......... ----------------------------------------------------------- Total pending obligation...................... 60.2 100.8 236.9 126.5 269.4 .......... =========================================================== FTA Urbanized area formula transfers to FHWA........ 0 0 0 2.2 0.6 2.8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Note.--Carryover includes current year recoveries/adjustments from prior year(s) obligations/transfers. The Committee encourages the Federal Transit Administration to work with transit authorities to maximize the full potential of the flexible funding provisions of ISTEA. Formula grant apportionments.--The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) made a number of major changes in the formula grants program of the FTA. As indicated, the Federal Transit Act still provides formula allocated programs of capital and operating assistance for urbanized areas under section 9 and for non-urbanized areas under section 18. However, as a result of ISTEA, the section 16(b)(2) program of grants for services to elderly and disabled persons is now distributed by a statutory formula rather than by a discretionary administrative formula, and thus becomes a part of the FTA's formula grants program. In addition, the rural assistance program is now part of the authorization for transit planning and research and is described under that heading. The amount recommended is to be distributed as follows: Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These areas would receive $1,700,711,794 (not including the one-half percent set-aside). This is the same level as provided last year. Urbanized areas under 200,000 in population.--These areas would receive $181,083,494 (not including the one-half percent set-aside) to be distributed 50 percent based on population and 50 percent based on population density. This is the same level as provided last year. Non-urbanized areas.--These areas would receive $109,522,477. These funds are distributed based on non- urbanized area population. This is the same level as provided last year. Elderly and disabled.--The section 16(b)(2) program would receive $51,600,613, the same level provided last year. The ISTEA made the following changes in the elderly and disabled program: (1) the former administrative allocation is not statutory; (2) eligibility is expanded to public authorities that coordinate elderly and disabled services; (3) project eligibility is expanded to cover certain capital costs in operating contracts; and (4) vehicles purchased under this program may be leased to public authorities and may be used for meals-on-wheels service. Fiscal Year 1997 Section 9 Formula Apportionments AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS OVER 1,000,000 IN POPULATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Operating Urbanized area Total assistance apportionment limitation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Atlanta, GA....................... $26,817,559 $2,817,569 Baltimore, MD..................... 23,204,741 4,509,748 Boston, MA........................ 50,644,877 8,467,028 Chicago, IL-Northwestern IN....... 127,741,850 23,457,893 Cincinnati, OH-KY................. 9,063,899 2,442,814 Cleveland, OH..................... 16,032,068 4,469,540 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX............. 24,340,425 4,008,037 Denver, CO........................ 14,523,333 2,736,257 Detroit, MI....................... 23,978,803 9,922,644 Ft Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Bch, FL.......................... 13,984,435 3,403,116 Houston, TX....................... 28,758,487 4,211,604 Kansas City, MO-KS................ 6,505,811 2,069,850 Los Angeles, CA................... 124,174,916 26,465,555 Miami-Hialeah, FL................. 25,684,752 3,887,455 Milwaukee, WI..................... 11,818,078 2,532,863 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.......... 16,637,898 3,377,190 New Orleans, LA................... 10,801,022 3,063,597 New York, NY-Northeastern NJ...... 406,850,866 61,292,372 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA......................... 8,157,164 1,946,012 Philadelphia, PA-NJ............... 73,179,576 14,754,704 Phoenix, AZ....................... 14,037,692 2,182,056 Pittsburgh, PA.................... 20,377,775 4,404,259 Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA......... 14,745,816 2,040,724 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA...... 11,150,092 1,166,383 Sacramento, CA.................... 8,565,435 1,613,097 San Antonio, TX................... 13,043,690 2,122,548 San Diego, CA..................... 23,432,494 3,386,799 San Francisco-Oakland, CA......... 74,695,800 9,017,750 San Jose, CA...................... 19,017,840 3,063,813 San Juan, PR...................... 18,639,279 3,482,258 Seattle, WA....................... 32,662,432 2,861,557 St. Louis, MO-IL.................. 15,881,361 4,446,206 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL............................... 10,831,020 2,420,798 Washington, DC-MD-VA.............. 63,763,063 7,828,278 ------------------------------------- Total....................... 1,383,744,349 239,872,373 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS 200,000 TO 1,000,000 IN POPULATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Operating Urbanized area size Apportionment assistance limitation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Akron, OH......................... $3,736,080 $1,068,223 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY....... 4,864,554 1,036,060 Albuquerque, NM................... 3,692,529 715,983 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ. 2,931,154 1,083,235 Anchorage, AK..................... 1,511,993 353,514 Ann Arbor, MI..................... 2,386,685 454,205 Augusta, GA-SC.................... 1,310,449 361,822 Austin, TX........................ 7,393,658 681,375 Bakersfield, CA................... 2,384,858 444,280 Baton Rouge, LA................... 1,924,133 593,692 Birmingham, AL.................... 3,325,133 1,090,569 Bridgeport-Milford, CT............ 4,040,575 946,815 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY......... 8,281,621 2,779,198 Canton, OH........................ 1,320,640 523,119 Charleston, SC.................... 1,998,963 495,970 Charlotte, NC..................... 4,023,137 597,902 Chattanooga, TN-GA................ 1,642,349 450,735 Colorado Springs, CO.............. 2,399,143 447,449 Columbia, SC...................... 1,898,749 506,333 Columbus, GA-AL................... 1,223,820 379,379 Columbus, OH...................... 7,506,563 2,105,697 Corpus Christi, TX................ 2,371,945 398,138 Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA- IL............................... 1,940,995 518,039 Dayton, OH........................ 8,169,875 1,341,289 Daytona Beach, FL................. 1,451,094 359,735 Des Moines, IA.................... 1,779,745 504,542 Durham, NC........................ 1,812,465 370,789 El Paso, TX-NM.................... 5,837,708 825,225 Fayetteville, NC.................. 1,006,431 341,222 Flint, MI......................... 2,829,503 701,838 Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL......... 1,492,273 262,047 Fort Wayne, IN.................... 1,284,453 500,447 Fresno, CA........................ 3,464,017 673,470 Grand Rapids, MI.................. 2,765,112 711,831 Greenville, SC.................... 1,455,563 344,063 Harrisburg, PA.................... 1,523,933 519,625 Hartford-Middletown, CT........... 6,140,853 1,054,496 Honolulu, HI...................... 15,027,536 1,305,970 Indianapolis, IN.................. 5,707,339 1,754,741 Jackson, MS....................... 1,272,926 414,816 Jacksonville, FL.................. 5,308,992 929,739 Knoxville, TN..................... 1,492,505 413,520 Lansing-East Lansing, MI.......... 2,190,438 533,804 Las Vegas, NV..................... 7,501,837 633,660 Lawrence-Haverhill, MA-NH......... 2,318,374 392,260 Lexington-Fayette, KY............. 1,315,247 595,036 Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR. 1,774,108 475,798 Lorain-Elyria, OH................. 860,153 358,920 Louisville, KY-IN................. 7,314,901 1,792,128 Madison, WI....................... 3,342,537 457,794 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX...... 914,994 380,331 Melbourne-Palm Bay, FL............ 2,330,785 323,361 Memphis, TN-AR-MS................. 6,167,177 1,660,925 Mobile, AL........................ 1,576,959 462,840 Modesto, CA....................... 1,961,853 455,526 Montgomery, AL.................... 1,030,778 470,960 Nashville, TN..................... 3,588,752 770,071 New Haven-Meriden, CT............. 6,223,604 1,063,941 Ogden, UT......................... 1,980,219 321,567 Oklahoma City, OK................. 3,418,996 1,065,815 Omaha, NE-IA...................... 3,870,992 1,093,065 Orlando, FL....................... 8,185,392 804,301 Oxnard-Ventura, CA................ 3,702,682 623,767 Pensacola, FL..................... 1,275,912 348,591 Peoria, IL........................ 1,505,966 485,694 Providence-Pawtucket, RI-MA....... 10,771,222 2,183,415 Provo-Orem, UT.................... 1,713,308 374,328 Raleigh, NC....................... 1,819,820 335,902 Reno, NV.......................... 2,552,837 387,233 Richmond, VA...................... 4,055,596 889,706 Rochester, NY..................... 4,910,430 1,426,222 Rockford, IL...................... 1,306,678 446,955 Salt Lake City, UT................ 8,694,258 1,128,032 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL............ 2,509,822 582,302 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA......... 2,089,012 800,237 Shreveport, LA.................... 1,844,740 484,985 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI....... 1,600,889 529,802 Spokane, WA....................... 3,895,169 514,098 Springfield, MA-CT................ 4,005,242 934,026 Stockton, CA...................... 2,043,641 616,738 Syracuse, NY...................... 3,458,976 875,658 Tacoma, WA........................ 6,827,947 715,757 Toledo, OH-MI..................... 3,748,515 1,034,105 Trenton, NJ-PA.................... 3,284,201 913,035 Tucson, AZ........................ 5,719,638 764,985 Tulsa, OK......................... 3,071,498 724,300 West Palm Bch-Boca Raton-Delray Bch, FL.......................... 8,702,731 762,335 Wichita, KS....................... 2,125,079 626,604 Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD-PA........... 4,013,746 926,743 Worcester, MA-CT.................. 2,236,935 534,935 Youngstown-Warren, OH............. 1,680,810 824,093 ------------------------------------- Total....................... 316,967,445 67,177,823 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO STATE GOVERNORS FOR URBANIZED AREAS 50,000 TO 200,000 IN POPULATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Operating Urbanized area size Apportionment assistance limitation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ $3,401,244 $1,970,561 ------------------------------------- Anniston, AL.................. 328,073 231,980 Auburn-Opelika, AL............ 263,213 129,622 Decatur, AL................... 300,407 152,422 Dothan, AL.................... 252,318 133,304 Florence, AL.................. 351,519 235,002 Gadsden, AL................... 310,683 233,057 Huntsville, AL................ 986,250 504,984 Tuscaloosa, AL................ 608,781 350,190 ===================================== Alaska: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 0 0 ===================================== Arizona: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 540,055 206,966 ------------------------------------- Yuma, AZ-CA (AZ).............. 540,055 206,966 ===================================== Arkansas: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,299,521 798,674 ------------------------------------- Fayetteville-Springdale, AR... 358,644 168,344 Fort Smith, AR-OK (AR)........ 488,214 275,251 Pine Bluff, AR................ 329,925 269,436 Texarkana, TX-AR (AR)......... 122,738 85,643 ===================================== California: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 19,905,828 6,801,253 ------------------------------------- Antioch-Pittsburg, CA......... 1,125,722 345,636 Chico, CA..................... 491,513 185,098 Davis, CA..................... 596,669 213,010 Fairfield, CA................. 724,672 255,671 Hamet-San Jacinto, CA......... 604,590 195,698 Hesperia-Apple Valley- Victorville, CA.............. 771,277 265,938 Indio-Coachella, CA........... 365,579 126,070 Lancaster-Palmdale, CA........ 1,297,316 162,437 Lodi, CA...................... 507,895 175,169 Lompoc, CA.................... 311,924 107,558 Merced, CA.................... 554,543 188,067 Napa, CA...................... 579,437 266,728 Palm Springs, CA.............. 721,877 180,689 Redding, CA................... 417,401 149,645 Salinas, CA................... 1,098,409 423,192 San Luis Obispo, CA........... 520,168 179,409 Santa Barbara, CA............. 1,699,290 700,123 Santa Cruz, CA................ 878,677 376,707 Santa Maria, CA............... 799,435 227,014 Santa Rosa, CA................ 1,550,013 449,066 Seaside-Monterey, CA.......... 1,041,576 521,884 Simi Valley, CA............... 985,926 306,429 Vacaville, CA................. 598,530 206,423 Visalia, CA................... 683,652 225,542 Watsonville, CA............... 376,635 129,889 Yuba City, CA................. 600,962 236,597 Yuma, AZ-CA (CA).............. 2,140 1,564 ===================================== Colorado: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 3,667,841 1,839,230 ------------------------------------- Boulder, CO................... 816,151 412,508 Fort Collins, CO.............. 679,774 294,588 Grand Junction, CO............ 387,035 189,506 Greeley, CO................... 543,695 283,630 Longmount, CO................. 495,465 170,885 Pueblo, CO.................... 745,721 488,113 ===================================== Connecticut: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 12,184,535 4,543,229 ------------------------------------- Bristol, CT................... 578,107 297,793 Danbury, CT-NY (CT)........... 2,051,384 492,302 New Britain, CT............... 1,082,503 626,111 New London-Norwich, CT........ 871,093 533,937 Norwalk, CT................... 2,172,122 676,464 Stamford, CT-NY (CT).......... 2,753,664 1,016,038 Waterbury, CT................. 2,675,662 900,584 ===================================== Delaware: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 276,710 95,414 ------------------------------------- Dover, DE..................... 276,710 95,414 ===================================== Florida: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 8,433,534 3,152,975 ------------------------------------- Deltona, FL................... 280,411 96,684 Fort Pierce, FL............... 671,719 205,216 Fort Walton Beach, FL......... 651,145 258,405 Gainsville, FL................ 834,486 351,847 Kissimmee, FL................. 388,678 134,039 Lakeland, FL.................. 853,097 345,542 Naples, FL.................... 561,454 146,868 Ocala, FL..................... 377,154 147,105 Panama City, FL............... 566,005 234,999 Punta Gorda, FL............... 370,133 127,629 Spring Hill, FL............... 282,947 97,565 Stuart, FL.................... 493,695 170,246 Tallahassee, FL............... 951,271 393,861 Titusville, FL................ 272,308 93,895 Vero Beach, FL................ 344,868 118,916 Winter Haven, FL.............. 534,163 230,158 ===================================== Georgia: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 3,692,411 2,169,758 ------------------------------------- Albany, GA.................... 457,351 316,131 Athens, GA.................... 438,495 197,454 Brunswick, GA................. 252,338 87,007 Macon, GA..................... 819,733 542,798 Rome, GA...................... 257,245 149,674 Savannah, GA.................. 1,072,531 689,903 Warner Robins, GA............. 394,718 186,791 ===================================== Hawaii: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 981,352 475,852 ------------------------------------- Kailua, HI.................... 981,352 475,852 ===================================== Idaho: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,942,265 809,759 ------------------------------------- Boise City, ID................ 1,188,500 469,898 Idaho Falls, ID............... 426,054 146,933 Pocatello, ID................. 327,711 192,928 ===================================== Illinois: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 8,896,560 5,371,412 ------------------------------------- Alton, IL..................... 480,795 372,784 Aurora, IL.................... 1,346,571 723,464 Beloit, WI-IL (IL)............ 61,449 25,498 Bloomington-Normal, IL........ 774,567 382,645 Champaign-Urbana, IL.......... 1,093,066 616,763 Crystal Lake, IL.............. 438,876 151,340 Decatur, IL................... 615,288 446,782 Dubuque, IA-IL (IL)........... 14,332 8,765 Elgin, IL..................... 971,352 636,793 Joliet, IL.................... 1,123,162 953,579 Kankakee, IL.................. 440,809 262,596 Round Lake Beach-McHenry, IL- WI (IL)...................... 639,654 209,575 Springfield, IL............... 896,639 580,828 ===================================== Indiana: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 5,188,859 3,063,742 ------------------------------------- Anderson...................... 419,406 303,284 Bloomington................... 625,861 287,968 Elkhart-Goshen................ 627,268 288,505 Evansville, IN-KY (IN)........ 1,162,011 712,185 Kokomo........................ 422,358 265,091 Lafayette-West Lafayette...... 839,675 439,016 Muncie........................ 617,265 435,588 Terre Haute................... 475,015 332,105 ===================================== Iowa: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 2,824,750 1,777,815 ------------------------------------- Cedar Rapids, IA.............. 877,838 542,576 Dubuque, IA-IL (IA)........... 427,278 302,695 Iowa City, IA................. 505,789 207,305 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (IA)..... 467,145 311,588 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA...... 546,700 413,651 ===================================== Kansas: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,371,506 759,970 ------------------------------------- Lawrence, KS.................. 519,362 217,653 St. Joseph, MO-KS (KS)........ 4,287 3,866 Topeka, KS.................... 847,857 538,451 ===================================== Kentucky: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,080,971 635,567 ------------------------------------- Clarksville, TN-KY (KY)....... 131,900 73,054 Evansville, IN-KY (KY)........ 161,971 45,056 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH (KY)......................... 322,997 218,446 Owensboro, KY................. 464,103 299,011 ===================================== Louisiana: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 3,201,384 1,868,922 ------------------------------------- Alexandria, LA................ 467,173 326,140 Houma, LA..................... 328,608 192,233 Lafayette, LA................. 808,324 428,989 Lake Charles, LA.............. 649,311 413,989 Monroe, LA.................... 617,396 393,577 Slidell, LA................... 330,572 113,994 ===================================== Maine: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,393,299 808,464 ------------------------------------- Bangor, ME.................... 286,299 152,758 Lewiston-Auburn, ME........... 332,675 215,633 Portland, ME.................. 711,338 409,648 Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH- ME (ME)...................... 62,987 30,425 ===================================== Maryland: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,549,420 751,514 ------------------------------------- Annapolis, MD................. 504,649 228,635 Cumberland, MD-WV (MD)........ 268,399 180,307 Frederick, MD................. 364,129 125,567 Hagerstown, MD-PA-WV (MD)..... 412,243 217,005 ===================================== Massachusetts: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 6,136,422 4,010,979 ------------------------------------- Brockton, MA.................. 1,120,942 966,707 Fall River, MA-RI (MA)........ 1,093,285 628,972 Fitchburg-Leominster, MA...... 443,045 265,581 Hyannis, MA................... 316,380 109,085 Lowell, MA-NH (MA)............ 1,387,552 997,173 New Bedford, MA............... 1,202,384 695,995 Pittsfield, MA................ 286,398 211,988 Taunton, MA................... 286,436 135,478 ===================================== Michigan: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 5,236,571 3,283,763 ------------------------------------- Battle Creek, MI.............. 437,352 313,820 Bay City, MI.................. 488,593 343,896 Benton Harbor, MI............. 353,412 211,224 Holland, MI................... 396,640 136,779 Jackson, MI................... 488,324 327,621 Kalamazoo, MI................. 1,054,514 614,106 Muskegon, MI.................. 643,210 414,697 Port Huron, MI................ 423,310 218,257 Saginaw, MI................... 951,216 703,363 ===================================== Minnesota: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,866,159 1,090,931 Duluth, MN-WI (MN)............ 454,115 358,439 Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN (MN).... 262,574 152,304 Grand Forks, ND-MN (MN)....... 57,547 37,533 La Crosse, WI-MN (MN)......... 28,190 12,455 Rochester, MN................. 512,199 287,183 St. Cloud, MN................. 551,534 243,017 ===================================== Mississippi: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 1,602,131 906,680 ------------------------------------- Biloxi-Gulfport, MS........... 991,926 552,169 Pascagoula, MS................ 301,051 188,450 Hattiesburg, MS............... 309,154 166,061 ===================================== Missouri: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 2,207,764 1,205,239 ------------------------------------- Columbia, MO.................. 435,869 222,473 Joplin, MO.................... 306,100 158,607 Springfield, MO............... 1,028,265 512,465 St. Joseph, MO-KS (MO)........ 437,530 311,694 ===================================== Montana: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,469,715 865,821 ------------------------------------- Billings, MT.................. 566,809 332,854 Great Falls, MT............... 528,563 324,442 Missoula, MT.................. 374,343 208,525 ===================================== Nebraska: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,633,875 783,608 ------------------------------------- Lincoln, NE................... 1,563,196 747,115 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (NE)..... 70,679 36,493 ===================================== Nevada: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 0 0 ===================================== New Hampshire: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 1,984,105 930,889 ------------------------------------- Lowell, MA-NH (NH)............ 4,061 1,136 Manchester, NH................ 831,770 425,529 Nashua, NH.................... 665,139 270,768 Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH- ME (NH)...................... 483,135 233,456 ===================================== New Jersey: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 1,503,324 1,162,152 ------------------------------------- Atlantic City, NJ............. 1,083,553 913,408 Vineland-Millville, NJ........ 419,771 248,744 ===================================== New Mexico: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 818,642 346,371 ------------------------------------- Las Cruces, NM................ 454,759 185,079 Santa Fe, NM.................. 363,883 161,292 ===================================== New York: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 4,542,091 2,887,397 ------------------------------------- Binghamton, NY................ 1,140,084 753,963 Danbury, CT-NY (NY)........... 15,453 4,225 Elmira, NY.................... 468,155 328,474 Glens Falls, NY............... 321,942 163,510 Ithaca, NY.................... 324,929 112,051 Newburgh, NY.................. 421,930 203,473 Poughkeepsie, NY.............. 886,320 630,599 Stamford, CT-NY (NY).......... 105 109 Utica-Rome, NY................ 963,173 690,993 ===================================== North Carolina: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population....................... 7,373,638 3,807,386 ------------------------------------- Asheville, NC................. 569,150 313,739 Burlington, NC................ 412,871 238,562 Gastonia, NC.................. 604,541 363,032 Goldsboro, NC................. 313,952 162,993 Greensboro, NC................ 1,300,253 686,529 Greenville, NC................ 361,483 124,657 Hickory, NC................... 344,754 173,702 High Point, NC................ 581,384 357,277 Jacksonville, NC.............. 561,304 205,012 Kannapolis, NC................ 405,213 207,368 Rocky Mount, NC............... 323,920 111,702 Wilmington, NC................ 529,813 259,914 Winston-Salem, NC............. 1,065,000 602,897 ===================================== North Dakota: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 1,432,692 694,941 ------------------------------------- Bismarck, ND.................. 413,127 217,303 Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN (ND).... 597,489 285,401 Grand Forks, ND-MN (ND)....... 422,076 192,237 ===================================== Ohio: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 3,939,229 2,454,959 ------------------------------------- Hamilton, OH.................. 814,205 413,830 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH (OH)......................... 207,340 123,238 Lima, OH...................... 444,989 296,760 Mansfield OH.................. 429,618 297,105 Middletown, OH................ 559,808 286,086 Newark, OH.................... 341,085 171,899 Parkersburg, WV-OH (OH)....... 50,507 31,162 Sharon, PA-OH (OH)............ 33,305 20,995 Springfield, OH............... 647,550 453,628 Steubenville-Werton, OH-WV-PA (OH)......................... 232,963 194,158 Wheeling, WV-OH (OH).......... 177,859 166,098 ===================================== Oklahoma: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 613,120 386,416 ------------------------------------- Fort Smith, AR-OK (OK)........ 10,756 6,655 Lawton, OK.................... 602,364 379,761 ===================================== Oregon: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 3,197,413 1,425,107 ------------------------------------- Eugene-Springfield, OR........ 1,505,093 725,646 Longview, WA-OR (OR).......... 10,010 5,369 Medford, OR................... 465,142 194,556 Salem, OR..................... 1,217,168 499,536 ===================================== Pennsylvania: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 8,358,601 5,129,718 ------------------------------------- Altoona, PA................... 571,009 408,051 Erie, PA...................... 1,468,909 929,251 Hagerstown, MD-PA-WV (PA)..... 5,032 3,855 Johnstown, PA................. 526,559 437,207 Lancaster, PA................. 1,328,081 607,678 Monessen, PA.................. 361,422 211,581 Pottstown, PA................. 342,971 118,272 Reading, PA................... 1,550,306 1,108,504 Sharon, PA-OH (PA)............ 240,111 184,335 State College, PA............. 499,732 250,976 Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV-PA (PA)......................... 1,745 681 Williamsport, PA.............. 418,909 277,812 York, PA...................... 1,043,815 591,515 ===================================== Puerto Rico: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 7,721,593 3,312,130 ------------------------------------- Aguadilla, PR................. 675,534 245,837 Arecibo, PR................... 631,202 284,696 Caguas, PR.................... 1,653,033 615,765 Cayey, PR..................... 488,741 168,563 Humacao, PR................... 422,994 145,877 Mayaguez, PR.................. 908,804 453,778 Ponce, PR..................... 2,022,366 1,056,142 Vega Baja-Manati, PR.......... 918,919 341,472 ===================================== Rhode Island: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 491,500 246,288 ------------------------------------- Fall River, MA-RI (RI)........ 112,673 54,179 Newport, RI................... 378,827 192,109 ------------------------------------- South Carolina: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population....................... 2,081,439 1,013,149 ------------------------------------- Anderson, SC.................. 279,937 158,795 Florence, SC.................. 287,937 166,525 Myrtle Beach, SC.............. 301,955 104,116 Rock Hill, SC................. 320,612 149,201 Spartanburg, SC............... 558,898 319,995 Sumter, SC.................... 332,100 114,517 ===================================== South Dakota: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 1,033,499 523,345 ------------------------------------- Rapid City, SD................ 329,153 177,805 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (SD)..... 9,229 4,219 Sioux Falls, SD............... 695,117 341,321 ===================================== Tennessee: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 1,599,519 887,865 ------------------------------------- Bristol, TN-Bristol, VA (TN).. 149,507 90,241 Clarksville, TN-KY (TN)....... 364,523 167,264 Jackson, TN................... 275,910 148,661 Johnson City, TN.............. 420,576 228,788 Kingsport, TN-VA (TN)......... 389,003 252,911 ===================================== Texas: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 14,810,109 7,687,065 ------------------------------------- Abilene, TX................... 525,437 322,174 Amarillo, TX.................. 974,572 544,163 Beaumont, TX.................. 670,292 436,937 Brownsville, TX............... 974,252 343,413 Bryan-College Station, TX..... 652,589 248,808 Denton, TX.................... 352,510 121,550 Galveston, TX................. 373,934 263,556 Harlingen, TX................. 478,817 213,740 Killeen, TX................... 915,846 322,616 Laredo, TX.................... 1,156,685 440,079 Lewisville, TX................ 406,942 140,316 Longview, TX.................. 400,380 205,890 Lubbock, TX................... 1,140,263 634,745 Midland, TX................... 499,605 258,553 Odessa, TX.................... 554,243 408,081 Port Arthur, TX............... 604,596 418,221 San Angelo, TX................ 519,529 269,195 Sherman-Denison, TX........... 260,056 197,337 Temple, TX.................... 295,237 147,551 Texarkana, TX-AR (TX)......... 238,233 142,859 Texas City, TX................ 633,267 308,822 Tyler, TX..................... 495,199 272,311 Victoria TX................... 343,283 202,360 Waco, TX...................... 747,850 436,203 Wichita Falls TX.............. 596,492 387,585 ===================================== Utah: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 296,007 102,073 ------------------------------------- Logan, UT..................... 296,007 102,073 ===================================== Vermont: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 519,406 244,385 ------------------------------------- Burlington, VT................ 519,406 244,385 ===================================== Virginia: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 3,447,788 2,010,460 ------------------------------------- Bristol TN-Bristol, VA(VA).... 106,438 54,597 Charlottesville, VA........... 495,759 258,207 Danville, VA.................. 281,530 182,428 Fredericksburg, VA............ 330,524 113,974 Kingsport, TN-VA (VA)......... 20,095 15,609 Lynchburg, VA................. 471,637 290,441 Petersburg, VA................ 597,908 414,079 Roanoke, VA................... 1,143,897 681,125 ===================================== Washington: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 3,258,223 1,441,915 ------------------------------------- Bellingham, WA................ 383,883 178,042 Bremerton, WA................. 743,653 218,876 Longview, WA-OR (WA).......... 324,826 172,874 Olympia, WA................... 578,567 220,296 Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA.. 603,572 328,900 Yakima, WA.................... 623,722 322,927 ===================================== West Virginia: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population......... 2,504,108 1,811,406 ------------------------------------- Charleston, WV................ 1,007,361 668,361 Cumberland, MD-WV (WV)........ 12,048 10,483 Hagerstown, MD-PA-WV (WV)..... 3,043 2,443 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH (WV)......................... 565,572 434,965 Parkersburg, WV-OH (WV)....... 363,736 275,348 Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV-PA (WV)......................... 156,494 128,467 Wheeling, WV-OH (WV).......... 395,854 291,339 ===================================== Wisconsin: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 6,855,105 3,935,089 ------------------------------------- Appleton-Neenah, WI........... 1,255,293 655,709 Beloit, WI-IL (WI)............ 269,074 155,628 Duluth, MN-WI (WI)............ 117,861 94,707 Eau Claire, WI................ 491,680 237,885 Green Bay, WI................. 953,399 506,229 Janesville, WI................ 361,849 194,329 Kenosha, WI................... 658,857 483,440 La Crosse, WI-MN (WI)......... 523,056 276,146 Oshkosh, WI................... 456,482 282,563 Racine, WI.................... 1,071,608 621,866 Round Lake Beach-McHenry, IL- WI (WI)...................... 381 99 Sheboygan, WI................. 430,088 238,772 Wausau, WI.................... 319,477 187,716 ===================================== Wyoming: State apportionment and limitation for areas 50,000 to 200,000 in population............ 717,661 461,199 ------------------------------------- Casper, WY.................... 329,209 247,399 Cheyenne, WY.................. 388,452 213,800 ===================================== Total....................... 181,083,494 92,949,803 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FISCAL YEAR 1997 SECTION 5310 ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES APPORTIONMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Allocation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama............................................. $895,048 Alaska.............................................. 170,260 American Samoa...................................... 51,782 Arizona............................................. 793,269 Arkansas............................................ 635,877 California.......................................... 4,695,021 Colorado............................................ 623,112 Connecticut......................................... 708,934 Delaware............................................ 239,252 District of Columbia................................ 237,736 Florida............................................. 3,179,523 Georgia............................................. 1,150,268 Guam................................................ 130,927 Hawaii.............................................. 294,868 Idaho............................................... 300,943 Illinois............................................ 2,067,652 Indiana............................................. 1,101,400 Iowa................................................ 680,976 Kansas.............................................. 576,528 Kentucky............................................ 859,231 Louisiana........................................... 861,898 Maine............................................... 367,552 Maryland............................................ 865,809 Massachusetts....................................... 1,231,723 Michigan............................................ 1,774,060 Minnesota........................................... 877,525 Mississippi......................................... 618,758 Missouri............................................ 1,116,448 Montana............................................. 278,985 Nebraska............................................ 416,763 Nevada.............................................. 318,980 New Hampshire....................................... 303,270 New Jersey.......................................... 1,471,769 New Mexico.......................................... 370,735 New York............................................ 3,364,457 North Carolina...................................... 1,303,391 North Dakota........................................ 242,670 Northern Marianas................................... 51,628 Ohio................................................ 2,156,316 Oklahoma............................................ 746,261 Oregon.............................................. 696,245 Pennsylvania........................................ 2,578,386 Puerto Rico......................................... 662,273 Rhode Island........................................ 330,982 South Carolina...................................... 722,508 South Dakota........................................ 259,270 Tennessee........................................... 1,050,534 Texas............................................... 2,661,781 Utah................................................ 347,858 Vermont............................................. 220,373 Virgin Islands...................................... 132,526 Virginia............................................ 1,091,465 Washington.......................................... 982,480 West Virginia....................................... 537,338 Wisconsin........................................... 1,002,330 Wyoming............................................. 192,659 ------------------- Total....................................... 51,600,613 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FISCAL YEAR 1997 SECTION 5311 NONURBANIZED AREA FORMULA APPORTIONMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Apportionment ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama............................................. $2,614,842 Alaska.............................................. 389,929 American Samoa...................................... 55,577 Arizona............................................. 1,199,198 Arkansas............................................ 2,090,458 California.......................................... 5,102,125 Colorado............................................ 1,089,100 Connecticut......................................... 987,916 Delaware............................................ 246,461 Florida............................................. 3,279,871 Georgia............................................. 3,823,177 Guam................................................ 158,215 Hawaii.............................................. 429,093 Idaho............................................... 865,683 Illinois............................................ 3,507,552 Indiana............................................. 3,388,215 Iowa................................................ 2,179,334 Kansas.............................................. 1,733,591 Kentucky............................................ 2,861,780 Louisiana........................................... 2,366,899 Maine............................................... 1,142,121 Maryland............................................ 1,425,883 Massachusetts....................................... 1,528,114 Michigan............................................ 4,138,393 Minnesota........................................... 2,381,406 Mississippi......................................... 2,323,943 Missouri............................................ 2,773,725 Montana............................................. 701,271 Nebraska............................................ 1,058,130 Nevada.............................................. 345,463 New Hampshire....................................... 914,696 New Jersey.......................................... 1,307,822 New Mexico.......................................... 1,028,146 New York............................................ 4,603,691 North Carolina...................................... 4,890,479 North Dakota........................................ 518,622 Northern Marianas................................... 51,504 Ohio................................................ 4,978,848 Oklahoma............................................ 2,128,406 Oregon.............................................. 1,689,973 Pennsylvania........................................ 5,553,957 Puerto Rico......................................... 1,659,697 Rhode Island........................................ 212,610 South Carolina...................................... 2,447,709 South Dakota........................................ 632,159 Tennessee........................................... 3,159,713 Texas............................................... 6,671,035 Utah................................................ 479,212 Vermont............................................. 565,205 Virgin Islands...................................... 120,972 Virginia............................................ 2,801,392 Washington.......................................... 1,962,900 West Virginia....................................... 1,669,031 Wisconsin........................................... 2,883,889 Wyoming............................................. 403,344 ------------------- Total......................................... 109,522,477 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ University Transportation Centers Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $6,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 6,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 6,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... The Committee has approved the budget request of $6,000,000 for the university transportation centers program. ISTEA added three centers to the ten previously established. These centers conduct research, training, and development activities related to the transportation of passengers and property. The Regional Centers and their focus areas are: Region I--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Strategic Management of Transportation Systems. Region II--City University of New York, Regional Mobility and Accessibility Investment Strategies. Region III--Pennsylvania State University, Advanced Technologies in Transportation Operations and Management. Region IV--University of North Carolina, Transportation Safety. Region V--University of Michigan, Commercial Highway Transportation. Region VI--Texas A&M State University, Mobility for Regional Development. Region VII--Iowa State University, Midwestern and Rural Transportation Policy, Planning, and System Management. Region VIII--North Dakota State University, Rural and Non- Metropolitan Transportation. Region IX--University of California, Berkeley, Improving Accessibility for All. Region X--University of Washington, Operations Management and Planning. The National Centers are: National Center for Transportation and Industrial Productivity at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, National Center for Transportation Management, Research & Development at Morgan State University, and Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center at the University of Arkansas. Transit Planning and Research Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $85,500,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 85,500,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 85,500,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... The Committee recommends a total of $85,500,000 for the planning and research, training, and human resources programs of the FTA. This level is the same level as appropriated in fiscal year 1996 and as requested in the budget. The bill contains language specifying that $39,500,000 shall be available for the metropolitan planning program, $4,500,000 for the rural transit assistance program, $8,250,000 for the transit cooperative research program, $22,000,000 for the national program, $8,250,000 for the state program and $3,000,000 for the National Transit Institute. Continued support in fiscal year 1997 is provided for a number of important, ongoing initiatives including: Hennepin Community works program, Hennepin County, Minnesota........................................... $500,000 Project ACTION (Accessible Community Transportation in our Nation)......................................... 2,000,000 Advanced technology transit bus......................... 6,500,000 Fuel cell bus technology................................ 6,500,000 Advanced transportation and alternative fueled technologies consortia program...................... 3,000,000 Southeast Iowa, Iowa commuter feasibility study......... 50,000 Santa Barbara Transportation Institute.................. 500,000 Advanced transportation and alternative fueled technologies consortia program.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the advanced transportation technologies program. The Committee intends this level of funding to support the ongoing advanced transportation technologies projects undertaken by the CALSTART consortium. Trust Fund Share of Expenses (liquidation of contract authorization) (highway trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................($1,120,850,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (1,920,000,000) Recommended in the bill................................. (1,920,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... (+799,150,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997........(.........................) For fiscal year 1997, the Committee has provided $1,920,000,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of transit expenses. This appropriation is liquidating cash necessary to pay the vouchers the FTA expects in fiscal year 1997. Discretionary Grants (limitation on obligations) (highway trust fund) Limitation, fiscal year 1996............................($1,665,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (1,799,000,000) Recommended in the bill................................. (1,665,000,000) Bill compared with: Limitation, fiscal year 1996.............(.........................) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... (-134,000,000) The bill includes language limiting to $1,665,000,000 obligations for the discretionary grants program. This represents no change from the 1996 enacted level and a reduction of $134,000,000 from the budget estimate. The Committee has adhered to the requirements of ISTEA that direct that of the funds made available under this heading, forty percent be available for rail modernization, forty percent be available for new start discretionary grants, and twenty percent be available for buses and bus-related facilities. The budget estimate did not adhere to this statutory requirement. The following table shows the fiscal year 1996 limitation, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1996 enacted 1997 request Recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed guideway modernization........................... $666,000,000 $725,000,000 $666,000,000 Buses and bus facilities............................... 333,000,000 274,000,000 333,000,000 New starts............................................. 666,000,000 800,000,000 666,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................ 1,665,000,000 1,799,000,000 1,665,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.-- The Committee has redistributed unallocated new start funds from projects which were funded in previous fiscal years that are not likely to obligate those funds in fiscal year 1996. Funds made available in the fiscal year 1994 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and previous Acts are available for reallocation in fiscal year 1997 as availability for these discretionary funds is limited to three years from enactment. In addition, $744,000 of funds made available for the New Bedford/Fall River project in the 1995 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act has been reallocated as the project is being funded from other resources, and $47,322,000 from the Chicago Central Area Circulator project which has been cancelled. The following amounts have been reallocated from various projects to new starts funding for fiscal year 1997: Fiscal year 1992: Detroit............................................. $4,890,000 San Jose-Gilroy..................................... 4,000,000 Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail........................ 1,620,000 Fiscal year 1995: New Bedford/Fall River.............................. 744,000 Chicago Central Area Circulator balances................ 47,322,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 58,576,000 Therefore, a total of $58,576,000 has been reprogrammed to the new systems account, increasing the available funding from $666,000,000 to $724,576,000. Seattle-Tacoma--The Committee has reprogrammed, without prejudice, unobligated balances of $1,620,000 for the Seattle- Tacoma commuter rail project. In previous years, the Committee appropriated funds to establish commuter rail service over existing railroad rights-of-way in the heavily congested Puget Sound area, including the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett corridor. The Committee notes that a Regional Transportation Authority has been created which could operate such service and that the legislature of the State of Washington has enacted legislation permitting city governments to construct, operate, and maintain passenger rail systems. The Committee anticipates a local ballot regarding commuter rail service in the corridor in the fall of 1996 and encourages project sponsors to seek federal assistance once the local referendum is approved. bus and bus facilities The Committee recommends $333,000,000 for bus purchases and bus facilities, including maintenance garages. Bus systems are expected to play a vital role in the mass transportation systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates that approximately 95 percent of the areas that provide mass transit service do so through bus transit only and over 60 percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus. The Committee believes that the $333,000,000 recommended under this heading, together with other appropriations that are available for bus projects, should provide the funding necessary to retain existing bus riders as well as to attract new riders who currently use private automobiles. Under ISTEA, the federal share for most bus projects is 80 percent. However, the federal share increases to 90 percent for the incremental costs of bus-related equipment needed to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Technology introduction.--The Committee has not provided additional funds to accelerate the prototype delivery and testing of the advanced technology transit bus (ATTB), to incorporate ATTB technologies to produce a trolley bus, or to retrofit off-wire trolley buses. Sufficient funds to continue research and development of the ATTB in accord with the original schedule have been provided under the transit planning and research account. Moreover, the Committee believes the bus and bus facilities account is to provide assistance to transit authorities to meet their capital needs and to assist them in complying with federal requirements such as the Clean Air Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, not to provide supplemental funds for FTA's research program. Michigan reprogramming.--The Committee approves the FTA's May 6, 1996 reprogramming request relating to fiscal year 1996 capital discretionary bus funds to the State of Michigan. The recommended amount for buses and bus-related facilities includes the following allocations: State of Arizona: Sun Tran maintenance facility....................... $2,000,000 State of Arkansas, buses and bus facilities............. 5,400,000 State of California: Eureka intermodal transportation center............. 1,000,000 Folsom, buses....................................... 500,000 Foothills transit bus maintenance facility.......... 9,500,000 Long Beach, buses and bus facilities................ 2,000,000 Mendocino County, buses............................. 600,000 North Orange County, buses.......................... 200,000 Norwalk, buses and bus facilities................... 2,000,000 Riverside County, buses and bus facilities.......... 1,000,000 San Francisco, buses................................ 8,550,000 San Ysidro border intermodal center................. 1,400,000 Santa Barbara metropolitan transit district, buses and bus facilities................................ 3,000,000 Santa Cruz metropolitan transit district, bus facility.......................................... 2,000,000 Sonoma County, park-and-ride facilities............. 1,600,000 Yolo County, buses.................................. 2,000,000 State of Colorado: Fort Collins and Greeley, buses..................... 1,000,000 State of Connecticut: Bridgeport, buses and bus facilities................ 2,000,000 State of Delaware, buses and bus facilities............. 4,000,000 State of Florida: Palm Beach County, intermodal facility.............. 2,000,000 Lynx, buses......................................... 5,000,000 Metropolitan Dade County, buses and bus facilities.. 5,000,000 Volusia County, buses............................... 2,000,000 Ybor, buses and bus facilities...................... 1,000,000 State of Georgia: Chatham, bus facility............................... 2,120,000 MARTA, buses........................................ 4,000,000 State of Iowa, buses and bus facilities................. 19,000,000 State of Illinois: Chicago, buses and bus facilities................... 10,000,000 Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 10,000,000 State of Indiana: Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 7,500,000 South Bend intermodal facility...................... 5,500,000 State of Kansas, buses and bus facilities............... 2,000,000 State of Kentucky: Owensboro, vans..................................... 100,000 Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 6,000,000 State of Louisiana, buses and bus facilities............ 20,000,000 State of Massachusetts: Worcester Union Station............................. 3,000,000 South Station intermodal center..................... 1,000,000 Gallager transportation terminal.................... 1,000,000 State of Maryland, buses and bus facilities............. 10,000,000 State of Michigan: Lansing, intermodal facility........................ 1,230,000 SMART, buses and bus facility....................... 2,000,000 Grand Rapids, intermodal facility................... 2,000,000 Flint, bus facility................................. 2,000,000 Kalkaska, buses..................................... 640,000 Dearborn, intermodal facility....................... 1,000,000 Kalamazoo, buses and bus facility................... 1,000,000 Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 2,130,000 State of Minnesota: Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, buses and bus facilities.................................... 12,000,000 State of Missouri: South St. Louis, buses and bus facilities........... 1,750,000 State of Nevada: Clark County, bus facilities........................ 5,500,000 State of New York: Crossroads intermodal station....................... 1,000,000 Elmira, buses and bus facilities.................... 1,000,000 New Rochelle, intermodal facility................... 2,500,000 Syracuse, buses..................................... 4,000,000 Westchester County, bus facilities.................. 500,000 State of North Carolina, buses and bus facilities....... 5,000,000 State of Ohio: Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 25,000,000 Triskett bus garage and facilities (including CITME) 3,000,000 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Altoona (ISTEA earmark)............................. 3,000,000 Armstrong County Mid-County, buses and bus facilities........................................ 262,000 Berks Area Reading Transit, intermodal facility..... 400,000 Cambria County, buses and bus facilities............ 2,058,000 Indiana County, buses............................... 680,000 Lehigh and North Hampton Transportation, buses...... 400,000 Mid Mon Valley Transit, buses....................... 80,000 North Philadelphia intermodal center................ 2,000,000 Scranton, buses and bus facilities.................. 1,500,000 Somerset County, vans............................... 120,000 SEPTA............................................... 16,000,000 Williamsport, buses and bus facilities.............. 4,000,000 Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 2,880,000 State of Tennessee, buses and bus facilities 4,000,000 State of Texas: Corpus Christi, buses and bus facilities............ 1,250,000 El Paso, buses and bus facilities................... 5,000,000 Polk County, buses and bus facilities............... 1,250,000 Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 4,400,000 State of Utah: City of Logan, buses and bus facilities............. 2,000,000 Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 3,000,000 State of Vermont, buses and bus facilities.............. 2,500,000 Commonwealth of Virginia: Reston internal bus system, buses................... 500,000 Virginia Beach, intermodal facility................. 1,000,000 State of Washington: Bremerton, buses and bus facilities................. 4,000,000 Everett intermodal center........................... 4,000,000 Thurston County intercity transit buses............. 1,000,000 Port Angeles, buses and bus facilities.............. 1,500,000 Tacoma Dome......................................... 5,000,000 State of Wisconsin, buses and bus facilities............ 20,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................... 333,000,000 State of Illinois.--The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Illinois Department of Transportation for replacement buses and transit equipment. This amount includes funds for replacement buses for the following transit agencies: $2,240,000 for Champaign-Urbana; $1,344,000 for Madison County; $1,344,000 for Rock Island; $1,400,000 for Springfield; $960,000 for rural paratransit; and $2,666,700 for Pace. In addition, $10,000,000 is provided for a new bus communications system for the Chicago Transit Authority. State of Iowa.--The Committee has provided a total of $19,000,000 for bus and bus facilities within the State of Iowa. Within this total, the Committee has provided $8,822,200 for the Iowa Department of Transportation and includes $10,100 to Region 6; $387,600 to Region 13; $294,800 to Region 14; $328,800 to Region 15; and $249,600 to Region 16. In addition, $61,400 is to be available for bus replacement for Ottumwa; $866,700 for buses and bus replacements for Fort Dodge; $1,069,700 for buses for Iowa City; $1,490,000 for buses for Des Moines; $1,490,000 for park and ride lots for Cedar Rapids; and $5,200,000 for an intermodal center for Sioux City. State of Louisiana.--The Committee has included $20,000,000 for buses and bus-related facilities in the State of Louisiana to be distributed as follows: $1,195,000 for Alexandria; $1,603,000 for Baton Rouge; $2,405,000 for Jefferson Parish; $912,000 for Lafayette; $376,000 for Lake Charles; $1,168,000 for Louisiana DOTC; $360,000 for Monroe; $10,932,000 for New Orleans; and $1,049,000 for Shreveport. State of Michigan.--The Committee has included a total of $12,000,000 for buses and bus facilities within the State of Michigan, which includes $10,000,000 provided by Public Law 102-240. Funds are to be available as follows: $1,230,000 for the intermodal facility in Lansing; $2,000,000 for SMART; $2,000,000 for an intermodal center in Grand Rapids; $2,000,000 for a bus facility in Flint; $640,000 for buses in Kalkaska; $1,000,000 for an intermodal facility in Dearborn; $1,000,000 for Kalamazoo; and $2,130,000 to be distributed by the State. The Committee has also included a provision (Sec. 337) that permits the State of Michigan to use the funds provided in Public Law 102-240 for the purchase of buses and for bus facilities. Fairfax County, Virginia.--Any previously appropriated funds remaining after completion of the Fairfax County park- and-ride facilities may be available for buses in the Dulles Corridor. Alternative fueled vehicles.--In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress expressed its intent that the Federal Government should promote the acquisition and use of alternative fueled vehicles in public transit fleets. In light of this intent, the Committee urges the FTA to give special consideration to grant applications of transit authorities seeking to purchase alternative fueled vehicles. Washoe County, Nevada.--The Committee has not included funding for the Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission. While Washoe County has started to improve its bus fleet, the addition of 17 buses would move the commission into compliance with greater than half of the ADA requirements. Given the limited resources available to the Committee for buses and bus-related facilities, and the fact that many transit districts are struggling to improve their accessibility for the disabled, the Committee was unable to meet the request of Washoe County at this date. The Committee encourages the project sponsors to continue to seek appropriations. State of Wisconsin.--Funds made available in Public Law 103-331 for a multi-modal transit platform shall be available to the State of Wisconsin for the purchase of buses. fixed guideway modernization The Committee recommends $666,000,000 from the discretionary grants program to modernize existing rail transit systems. The funds are to be distributed as follows: New York................................................ $228,317,868 Southwestern Connecticut................................ 30,238,186 Northeastern New Jersey................................. 59,852,995 Chicago/Northwestern Indiana............................ 94,083,037 Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey........................ 68,353,400 Boston.................................................. 46,966,395 San Francisco........................................... 43,346,200 Pittsburgh.............................................. 14,619,242 Cleveland............................................... 10,234,467 Baltimore............................................... 11,252,003 New Orleans............................................. 1,977,169 Los Angeles............................................. 5,163,433 Washington, DC.......................................... 14,498,674 Seattle................................................. 4,716,616 Atlanta................................................. 5,363,201 San Diego............................................... 1,865,716 San Jose................................................ 3,367,284 Providence.............................................. 886,831 Dayton.................................................. 1,415,918 Tacoma.................................................. 170,335 Wilmington.............................................. 278,710 Trenton................................................. 493,550 Lawrence-Haverhill...................................... 432,833 Chattanooga............................................. 17,404 Baltimore............................................... 2,077,988 Minneapolis............................................. 970,638 St. Louis............................................... 134,739 Denver.................................................. 323,695 Norfolk................................................. 341,533 Kansas City............................................. 18,106 Honolulu................................................ 221,697 Harford................................................. 376,909 Madison................................................. 176,241 San Juan................................................ 891,176 Detroit................................................. 165,760 Dallas.................................................. 266,485 Sacramento.............................................. 841,768 Hoston.................................................. 1,413,969 Buffalo................................................. 378,659 Portland................................................ 743,813 Miami................................................... 2,752,667 Phoenix................................................. 997,690 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 661,005,000 \3/4\-percent takedown.......................... 4,995,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total appropriation............................... 666,000,000 new starts The bill includes $666,000,000 of new authority and $58,576,000 of reprogrammed funds for a total of $724,576,000. These funds are available for preliminary engineering, right- of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and construction of new systems and extensions. Though the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act authorizes the federal share for transit programs up to 80 percent of the project costs, the Committee encourages local transit authorities to consider contributing more than the minimum 20 percent required under the law. Such an overmatch would indicate significant local and state support and commitment to a project. Inasmuch as federal assistance for many projects may be declining in the future, an overmatch leverages limited federal funds and may provide the basis for continuing federal support. The funds are to be distributed as follows: Atlanta-North Springs project........................... $66,820,000 Baltimore LRT Extension project......................... 10,260,000 Boston Piers (MOS-2) project............................ 40,181,000 Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project............ 5,500,000 Chicago transit improvements............................ 25,000,000 Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail line project 3,000,000 DART North Central light rail extension project......... 10,000,000 Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project...................... 12,500,000 Dekalb County, Georgia commuter rail project............ 1,000,000 Denver Southwest Corridor project....................... 3,000,000 Florida Tri-County commuter rail project................ 9,000,000 Griffin light rail project.............................. 2,000,000 Houston Regional Bus project............................ 40,590,000 Jacksonville ASE extenstion project..................... 15,300,000 Kansas City Southtown corridor project.................. 1,500,000 Los Angeles--MOS-3 project.............................. 90,000,000 Los Angeles-San Diego rail corridor..................... 1,500,000 MARC Commuter Rail Improvements project................. 27,000,000 Miami-North 27th Avenue project......................... 1,000,000 Memphis, Tennessee Regional Rail plan................... 2,000,000 New Jersey Urban Core/Hudson-Bergen LRT project......... 10,000,000 New Jersey Urban Core/Secaucus project.................. 105,530,000 New Jersey West Trenton commuter rail project........... 1,000,000 New Orleans Canal Street project........................ 8,000,000 New Orleans Desire Streetcar project.................... 2,000,000 New York Queens Connection project...................... 35,020,000 Northern Indiana Commuter Rail.......................... 500,000 Orange County Transitway project........................ 5,000,000 Orlando Lynx light rail project......................... 2,000,000 Portland Westside/Hillsboro Extension project........... 90,000,000 Sacramento LRT Extension project........................ 6,000,000 Salt Lake City-South LRT project........................ 20,000,000 St. Louis St. Clair extension project................... 20,000,000 San Francisco Bay Area projects......................... 35,000,000 BART Extension to the SFO airport San Jose Tasman West LRT project San Diego-Mid Coast Corridor project.................... 3,000,000 San Juan Tren Urbano project............................ 9,500,000 Staten Island-Midtown Ferry service project............. 375,000 Tampa to Lakeland commuter rail project................. 2,000,000 Whitehall ferry terminal, New York, New York............ 2,500,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 724,576,000 Atlanta north line extension.--The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is constructing a 1.9 mile, two-station extension of the North Line from just north of the Dunwoody Station to North Springs. The project is part of the larger North Line extension to the MARTA heavy rail rapid transit system. The segment from Buckhead to Dunwoody is expected to open in June 1996. The initial 5.7-mile segment, from Lenox Station to Buckhead, was constructed without FTA assistance. When the North Springs extension is completed, it 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. A full funding grant agreement (FFGA) was issued for this project in December 1994, providing for a total of $305,100,000 in new starts funding. This includes $29,460,000 in fiscal year 1995 and prior year ISTEA funds (plus $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1991), all of which have been obligated. The Committee recommends $66,820,000 for fiscal year 1997. Baltimore-LRT extension project.--The Mass Transit Administration (MTA) of Maryland is building three extensions of the central light rail transit (LRT) system in metropolitan Baltimore with FTA support. The extensions are a 2-mile, 2- station branch off the LRT main line in Linthicum directly into the Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport terminal, a 5-mile, 5-station extension from Timonium to Hunt Valley, and a quarter-mile, one-station spur off the main line into Pennsylvania Station where Amtrak northeast corridor trains and MARC commuter trains stop. The project is estimated to cost about $106,300,000. ISTEA directed FTA to enter into a FFGA with MTA for the three LRT extensions, and MTA and FTA signed an FFGA in November 1994. The FFGA requires that, contingent upon appropriations, FTA provide MTA with $22,600,000 in fiscal year 1996 and $15,100,000 in fiscal year 1997 new start funds. In fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $15,200,000. The Committee recommends $10,260,000 for fiscal year 1997. Boston piers MOS-2 project.--The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is developing an underground transitway connecting the MBTA's existing transit system with the South Boston Piers area, located at the periphery of the central business district (CBD). This area is slated for future development, and is expected to more than double its existing commercial space by 2010. A 1.5-mile tunnel, to be constructed in two phases, will extend from the existing Boylston Station to the World Trade Center; five underground stations will provide connections to MBTA's red, orange, and green lines. Electric trolleys or dual-mode vehicles will operate in the transitway tunnel and on surface routes in the eastern end of the Piers area. -Phase 1 of the project consists of a 1-mile bus tunnel with three stations located at South Station, Fan Pier, and the World Trade Center. Phase 2 will extend the tunnel to Boylston Station. Parts of Phase 1 are integrally related to construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel highway project now underway. Joint construction will help reduce transitway costs, environmental impacts and construction impacts. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA directs FTA to enter into an FFGA for this project. An FFGA for this project was issued for Phase 1 in November 1994, for $330,730,000; this includes the $92,450,000 provided in fiscal year 1995 and prior years. The fiscal year 1996 budget provided $19,820,000 for this project, to which was added $132,750,000 in reallocated prior year discretionary funds. This leaves $218,320,000 to complete the project. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation includes $40,181,000 for the project. Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project.--This regional line will relieve traffic congestion on Interstate 77 and help with air quality issues in non-attainment areas. Currently, the Ohio Department of Transportation is reviewing existing and proposed land use patterns and impacts, preliminary ridership estimates, and preliminary cost estimates. This phase will be completed by mid-1996. Phase II will complete the analysis by assessing the economic and environmental implications of a commuter rail system, as well as other transportation modes available to meet anticipated travel demand. The Committee has included $5,500,000 for the proposed Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project and commends the Ohio Department of Transportation, as the grantee, for ensuring the project's viability by encouraging a three city, regional line. Chicago transit improvements.--The City of Chicago was developing a $775,000,000 light rail project in downtown Chicago. The Chicago Central Area Circulator was to have a network of 18.5 miles of track and 32 stations and improve congestion and circulation in the central business district. The project was subsequently canceled. Consistent with the City's plans to improve circulation in the central business district, the Committee has provided $25,000,000 for transit improvements in the downtown Chicago area. The projects include: installing a cab signal system for the State Street subway; renovations of the State Street subway continuous station platform; renovation of the CTA subway station mezzanine at the Jackson/Van Buren subway station; mezzanine and platform rehabilitation of the CTA Chicago/State subway station; and design work for Ravenswood/Douglas Branch rehabilitation. Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky rail line project.--The corridor extends from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport through downtown Cincinnati to Paramount King's Island Amusement Park in Warren County, Ohio. This 33- mile corridor paralleling I-71 generally runs in a northeasterly direction, and so is referred to as the Northeast Corridor. The capital cost of the rail alternative is $800,000,000. The project is currently in the system planning studies phase. For fiscal years 1994 through 1996, Congress has appropriated $3,500,000 for the corridor. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee has included $3,000,000. Dallas North Central corridor.--Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) plans to build a North Central Corridor LRT extension beyond the Park Lane Station and their starter system, which is currently under construction. The project is 11.4 miles long with 6 stations, terminating in Plano. The southern 6.8 miles, from Park Lane to the Richardson Transit Center, would be double tracked. The northern 5.5 miles would be single tracked with limited station development. The project is estimated to cost $354,300,000. The project is now in the preliminary engineering phase. A draft environmental impact statement should be ready for circulation the summer of 1996. There is no ISTEA authorization for this project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $5,400,000. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this project. Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project, phase 2.--The RAILTRAN project will provide commuter rail service between Dallas and Fort Worth. This project consists of 25 miles of service between South Irving and Fort Worth. The system is currently in the preliminary engineering phase. Phase 2 is estimated to cost $129,010,000. Congress has appropriated $11,400,000 for this project to date and recommends $12,500,000 for fiscal year 1997. Dekalb County commuter rail project.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the DeKalb County, Georgia light rail project. The project would consist of a preliminary determination of the feasibility and impact of a proposed rail line connecting the Lindbergh Station with the East Lake Station and extending it into south DeKalb to DeKalb College South Station. The preliminary conceptual study will consist of numerous activities including: initial location studies for alignment, stations and maintenance facilities, identify patron estimates; parking needs, and preliminary cost estimates; consider property acquisition and major street and utility relocation; provide preliminary topographic mapping and soil analysis; and at least one initial public session on the preliminary conceptual plan. Denver southwest light rail extension.--The Regional Transit District (RTD) in Denver is developing an 8.7 mile light rail extension from I-25 and Broadway in Denver to Mineral Avenue in Littleton. This double-track line will operate over an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and connect with the Central Corridor light rail in downtown Denver, which opened in October 1994. RTD estimates that it will carry 22,000 passengers a day. The existing Central Corridor line was built entirely without federal assistance, and RTD has $26,000,000 for the Southwest Corridor in its capital reserve. The total federal share for the entire system, including the locally-funded starter line, is less than 50 percent. RTD is seeking a commitment of $120,000,000 in section 3 funds to complete this project. Preliminary engineering and environmental reviews have been completed. No prior year funds have been earmarked for this project, and no funds were provided in fiscal year 1996. FTA issued an FFGA for this project in May 1996. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Denver Southwest light rail extension in fiscal year 1997. Florida Tri-County commuter rail project.--The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 67-mile commuter rail system connecting Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties in Florida. Tri-Rail has been adding service and new stations to meet increasing demands for service. Tri-Rail's five-year capital improvement program includes the addition of a second track on part of the line, rehabilitation of the signal system, station improvements and parking extensions. The capital program is estimated to cost $423,300,000. The project is currently in the preliminary engineering phase. To date, Congress has appropriated $44,300,000, which are being used for station improvements, bridge rehabilitation, and double tracking. The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 1997. Griffin light rail project.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for preliminary engineering for the Griffin line light rail project. The Greater Hartford Transit District is proposing a 9.2 mile light rail line from Union Station in Hartford to Griffin Center Office Park in Bloomfield. The project is estimated to cost $176,000,000. A major investment study is nearing completion. Congress has not appropriated any funds for the project in the past. Houston regional bus project.--The Regional Bus Plan developed by Houston Metro consists of a package of improvements to the existing bus system. It consists of service expansions in most of the region, new and extended HOV facilities and ramps, several transit centers and park-n-ride lots, and supporting facilities. The local share for the project is fifty percent. Section 3035 (uu) of ISTEA directs FTA to negotiate and sign an FFGA for $500,000,000 for this project, provided that a locally preferred alternative for the priority corridor project had been selected by March 1, 1992. This condition has been met, and the FFGA was issued in December 1994, to provide a total of $500,000,000 for this project. This includes $118,900,000 provided in fiscal year 1995 and prior years under ISTEA, as well as $146,070,000 in pre-ISTEA earmarks. All of these funds have been obligated. The fiscal year 1996 budget provided an additional $22,360,000. The FFGA for this project provides $40,590,000 in fiscal year 1997 new starts funds, with the remaining $172,390,000 needed to complete the project to be provided in fiscal years 1998-2000. The Committee recommendation reflects the funding schedule specified in the FFGA. Jacksonville automated skyway express extension project.-- The Committee recommends $15,300,000 to complete the Jacksonville automated skyway express. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) is developing a 0.3 mile extension of the automated skyway express south of downtown Jacksonville, and completion of a maintenance facility. The extension consists of an elevated, double track guideway running from the San Marco to Flagler Station segment, now under construction, through the South Bank business district to the Dupont Station. The final segment totals $25,000,000 for which Congress has appropriated $9,500,000. It is the Committee's understanding that the JTA has contributed $25,000,000 to the Florida Department of Transportation exclusively for the reconstruction of the Fuller Warren Bridge as a condition funding for the Jacksonville ASE. Kansas City, southtown corridor project.--The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) is proposing a 15.2-mile LRT project in the Southtown Corridor. The project would extend from the riverfront and downtown Kansas City south to the Country Club Plaza and to 85th Street and Holmes Road. The project also includes an eastern line from the Country Club Plaza to Watkins Drive and south to 75th Street, KCATA proposes to build the project in phases. The starter project is 5.6 miles in length and runs from the River Market to 51st Street at the southern edge of the Plaza. It is estimated to cost $200,000,000 and would carry 16,800 riders per day in 2010. Section 3035(k) of ISTEA directed the FTA to enter into a multiyear grant agreement in the amount of $5,900,000 with KCATA to provide for the completion of the alternative analyses and preliminary engineering. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $1,500,000. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1997. Los Angeles, MOS-3 Extensions of Metro Rail.--The 23-mile $5,700,000,000 Metro Red Line Rail project is planned as ``minimum operable segments (MOSs) for funding purposes. ISTEA defined MOS-3 to include three Metro Rail extensions including the North Hollywood extension, the East Side extension, and the Mid-City extension. A full funding grant agreement has been signed, committing $1,417,000,000 in funding. To date, Congress has appropriated $440,710,000, including $83,980,000 in fiscal year 1996. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation includes $90,000,000 for the project. The Committee continues to be concerned about a number of irregularities with the construction of the Los Angeles red line. Last year, the Committee learned of problems such as tunnel liner integrity, misalignment of tunnels, a sinkhole in Hollywood Boulevard, improper use of wooden support wedges rather than steel supports, investigations into awards of bids and insurance contracts, and other improper activities. This year, the Committee has learned more about the life expectancy of the tunnel; a potential new alignment planned tunnel in the Mid-City section of the project; further sinkage associated with subway construction mounting potential legal claims against the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA), now totaling almost $2,000,000,000; new charges of claims billings fraud; and an Arthur Anderson report that concluded that the LAMTA has done a poor job overseeing the private engineering firms responsible for LAMTA's designs and that the LAMTA has other oversight deficiencies. The Committee believes that the amount recommended in the bill, in addition to other state and local funding, will be sufficient to further the project while allowing LAMTA, under new leadership to continue to improve its oversight and quality assurance programs. Further, the Committee directs the Federal Transit Administration to continue its aggressive oversight program by retaining the project management oversight staff that were added last year. The Congress and this Committee have recognized the growing trend of states, cities and other municipalities diverting or attempting to divert airport revenue. To counter that trend and to preclude airports from supplementing cities' coffers, Congress included a special provision in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 which stated that none of the funds provided by those Acts should be available to any state or municipality that diverts revenue generated by a public airport in violation of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, as amended. The Committee continues to be concerned about ongoing and proposed diversion of airport revenue. The Los Angeles City Council recently rejected a proposed diversion of $30,000,000 of airport revenues to the City's budget. The Committee appreciates this action and will continue to monitor the actions of the City of Los Angeles--and other municipalities-- to ensure the proper and legal use of airport revenues. Continued attempts to illegally divert revenue from an airport will be considered in all decisions regarding the funding for transportation projects before the Committee. Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor.--The LOSSAN improvements are part of a long-range plan to increase speed, safety and capacity for rail service in the Los Angeles-San Diego rail corridor. The project consists of three grade separation projects along the corridor, including one in the City of Commerce, the City of Fullerton and the City of Solana Beach. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $18,400,000. Project costs total $20,000,000. The project is at the 95 percent design stage and will be ready for construction soon. For fiscal year 1997, $1,500,000 is recommended for the project. MARC commuter rail project.--The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for the MARC commuter rail project in fiscal year 1997. The Mass Transit Administration (MTA) of Maryland is extending the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system to provide service from Point of Rocks to Frederick, Maryland. This extension will provide service from suburban Montgomery and Frederick counties to Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C. The project involves track, signal, station improvements along an existing freight line. The environmental assessment of the Frederick extension has been completed, station sites have been selected, and final design is underway. MARC expects to initiate service on this extension in 1998. ISTEA authorized funds in the amount of $160,000,000 for this project. An FFGA was issued in June 1995, to provide a total of $105,250,000 to complete the project. This includes $13,890,000 provided in fiscal year 1995; an additional $33,360,000 was appropriated in prior years, all of which has been obligated. The fiscal year 1996 budget provided $9,980,000 for this project, leaving $81,480,000 needed to complete the FFGA. Miami-North 27th Avenue corridor.--The Metro-Dade Transit Agency (MDTA) is considering rail, busway, and bus options for improving transportation in the 9.5 mile N.W. 27th Avenue corridor. One alternative is an elevated heavy rail line which would operate in full integration with stage 1 metrorail, connect with major regional educational and sports facilities, and terminate at the Dade/Broward county line. The preliminary capital cost of the rail alternative is $453-$463 million. This includes final design, right-of-way and rolling stock acquisition. A major investment study has been completed. There is no authorization for this project in ISTEA. Congress has appropriated $1,900,000 in fiscal year 1996 which will be used to fund preliminary engineering and preparation of draft and final environmental impact statements. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. Memphis regional rail.--The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) is studying transit options in the corridor between downtown Memphis and the Medical Center. The Medical Center Corridor connects the two largest employment centers in the region. One alternative being studied is an expansion of the 2.2-mile vintage rail trolley that MATA currently operates in downtown Memphis. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $1,700,000 for a regional transit/rail plan. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. New Jersey urban core/Hudson-Bergen LRT.--The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is proposing a 20.5 mile, 33- mile-station light rail transit project along the Hudson River Waterfront in Hudson County. The line would extend from the Vince Lombardi park-n-ride lot in Bergen County to Bayonne, passing through Port Imperail in Weehauken, and New Jersey City. The core of the system would 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 project is a major component of the Urban Core program of interrelated projects defined in ISTEA, designed to significantly enhance mobility in the Northeastern New Jersey area. ISTEA specifically exempted these projects from the FTA section 3 evaluation criteria. New Jersey Transit is seeking a total of $623,990,000 in section 3 funding to complete a 10-mile ``first construction stage'' from Hoboken Terminal to 34th Street in Bayonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey City. A total of $108,990,000 in fiscal year 1995 and prior year funds have been allocated to the Hudson-Bergen LRT, including $19,900,000 in pre-ISTEA earmarks, all of which have been obligated. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 for the Hudson-Bergen LRT project in fiscal year 1997. New Jersey urban core/Secaucus.--As part of its Urban Core program of interrelated projects, New Jersey Transit is constructing a major commuter rail transfer station in Secaucus, at the point where its Main and Bergen Lines intersect with the Northeast Corridor Line. The project consists of a new, three-level transfer station; track, signal and bridge updates; and construction of a new platform and elevated walkway. It will allow commuters on the Main Line, Bergen County Line, Pascack Valley Line, and Port Jervis Line to transfer to Northeast Corridor commuter trains destined to Penn Station in midtown Manhattan or Penn Station in Newark. Located in the Meadowlands, this project is part of a potential public/private partnership which could include a major commercial center. Section 3031 of ISTEA identifies the Secaucus Transfer Station as an element of the New Jersey Urban Core program of projects, and requires FTA to enter into a FFGA for elements that can be fully funded in fiscal years 1992 through 1997. In addition, ISTEA earmarked $634,400,000 for the entire Urban Core program of projects. Section 3031(c) specifically exempts these projects from the project justification requirements. An FFGA was issued for the Secaucus Transfer project in December 1994 to provide a total of $444,260,000 through fiscal year 1998, including $233,180,000 funds already provided in prior year appropriations, all of which has been obligated. The Committee recommends $105,530,000 for fiscal year 1997. West Trenton commuter rail, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the West Trenton commuter rail line. The West Trenton line would provide transit service to southern and central Somerset County as well as the northern and western portions of Mercer County. It is estimated to provide service to 1,750 commuters a day. The service would be offered from West Trenton to Bound Brook, with potential stops at Hopewell and Belle Mead. The train would then join the Raritan Valley line and terminate at Newark. Passengers traveling south could also board SEPTA trains to Philadelphia. New Orleans Canal Street streetcar.--The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is developing a 4.4 mile streetcar project in downtown New Orleans. The Canal Streetcar would extend along the median of Canal Street from the Canal Ferry at the Mississippi River in the Central Business District, through the Mid-City neighborhood, to two outer termini at N. Anthony and Degado Community College/City Park. The capital cost estimate is $92,600,000. The project is currently in the preliminary engineering phase. For fiscal years 1994 through 1996, Congress has appropriated $18,400,000. The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the Canal Street streetcar in fiscal year 1997. New Orleans Desire streetcar line reconstruction.--The Regional Transit Authority seeks to design and construct the fabled Streetcar Named Desire route as a major transit artery. Using the Royal and Bourbon/Dauphine Streets, the four mile line would travel through the historic New Orleans neighborhoods of Bywater, Faubourg Marigny and the Vieux Carre (the French quarter). The Committee has included $2,000,000 for preliminary engineering and design activities. New York Queens connection.--The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is constructing a connection from 63rd Street tunnel to the Queens Boulevard subway lines. The Queens Boulevard Connection consists of approximately \1/ 3\-mile of new tunnel, with corresponding track, signal work, and real estate acquisition. This project will relieve severe overcrowding on the Queens Boulevard subway lines by diverting service from the bottleneck at the 63rd Street Tunnel, allowing the operation of an additional 15 trains per hour between Manhattan and Queens. Approximately \1/3\ of the 60,000 peak passengers currently traveling through the 63rd Street tunnel are expected to use this new route. An FFGA was issued for this project in February 1994 in the amount of $306,100,000. A total of $145,880,000 in fiscal year 1995 and prior year funds has been obligated for this project, and the fiscal year 1996 budget provided an additional $125,200,000. This leaves $35,020,000 required to fulfill the FFGA, which reflects the Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 1997. Northern Indiana commuter rail.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for a major investment study for the Westlake Corridor commuter rail project in Indiana. The Westlake Corridor would be a new commuter rail service that would operate on an abandoned right-of-way that was previously secured by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District. Westlake Corridor would begin in the Lowell/St. John area of central Lake County and travel northward through Munster and Hammond, linking with the existing East/West South Shore railroad line and terminating at Randolph Street Station in Chicago, Illinois. The Westlake Corridor will eventually serve high residential growth areas in south central Lake County, Munster and Hammond. The major investment study will refine the proposed alignment and provide total cost estimates for the project. Orange County transitway project.--The Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) have recently constructed HOV lanes on three Orange County freeways' including I-405, SR-55, and SR-57. Construction of joint HOV/transitway facilities is currently taking place on I-5 and SR-9 and is scheduled to be completed by 2000. Upon completion, the 100-mile transitway/HOV network will encompass all of Orange County's major freeways, with the exception of SR-22. As originally envisioned, the I- 405/SR-55 Transitway and Direct Access Ramps project consisted of the HOV/transitway connector ramps between the I-405 and SR- 55 freeways, 7,759 park-n-ride spaces; and 361 express buses to serve six activity centers. The original project has been scaled back. OCTA now envisions 6,735 park-n-ride spaces and 50 new express buses through the year 2010. The project was not authorized in ISTEA. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $20,300,000. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 for this project. Orlando Lynx light rail project.--In September 1992, the Florida Department of Transportation began developing a multimodal master plan to identify improvements to the Interstate 4 corridor from the Polk/Osceola county line to I-95 in Volusia County. That plan contains a light rail transit (LRT) component which would encompass approximately 24 miles. The minimum operating segment from the Lynx systems plan indicates an LRT from Central Parkway (Altamonte Springs) in Seminole County to the Orlando/Orange County international drive tourist district. The LRT would be located in the median of a reconstructed Interstate 4, or adjacent to an existing railroad corridor. The total cost of the project, including park-n-ride, bus and LRT facilities is approximately $650,000,000 to $800,000,000. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000. Westside light rail project, Portland, Oregon.--The Westside-Hillsboro Light Rail project extends the existing MAX system from the terminus in downtown Portland to downtown Hillsboro. The route includes a three mile twin tube tunnel under the West Hills. The project is 17.7 miles long with 20 stations, 9 park-n-ride lots, and parking spaces for approximately 3,700 automobiles. The project will include 36 low-floor light rail vehicles. Section 3035(b) of ISTEA directs the FTA to enter into a multiyear agreement with the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met) in the amount of $515,000,000 for the segment from downtown Portland to 185th Avenue. Consistent with P.L. 102-143, two extensions were combined into a single $910,000,000 project in December 1994, and Tri-Met entered into a $910,000,000 FFGA with FTA that month. The 1994 FFGA for the Westside-Hillsboro project provides a contingent commitment of new start funds of $74,000,000 to fund one-third of the Hillsboro extension cost. Construction is underway along the entire segment with approximately $619,000,000 committed and $382,000,000 spent through September 1995. Overall, the project is 40 percent complete. The projected revenue service date is 1998. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommends $90,000,000 for this project. Sacramento South corridor.--The Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) is developing an 11.3 mile light rail project on the Union Pacific right-of-way in the South Sacramento Corridor. RT has elected to phase the project to maximize the use of available state and local capital funds and to correspond with available operating funds. Phase 1, known as the Interim Operable Segment (IOS), consists of a 6.3-mile segment of the full project. The segment would operate between downtown Sacramento and Meadowview Road. The estimated capital cost of the IOS is $254,500,000. Phase 2 is estimated to cost an additional $22,000,000. Section 3035 of ISTEA directed FTA to enter into a multiyear grant agreement with RT for $26,000,000 to provide for the completion of alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. Of that amount, $4,000,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 1996 and $6,000,000 is recommended for the Sacramento south corridor in fiscal year 1997. Salt Lake City/south LRT.--The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is implementing a 15-mile light rail (LRT) line from downtown Salt Lake City parallel to I-15 and State Street to suburban areas to the south. The LRT line will operate at-grade on city streets in downtown Salt Lake City (two miles) and in a railroad right-of-way (13 miles) owned by UTA to the suburban community of Sandy. The total cost of this project, including a maintenance facility, vehicles, stations, park-n-ride centers, and finance costs is estimated at $312,500,000. The LRT project is part of the Interstate 15 corridor improvements which include reconstruction of a parallel segment of I-15. Section 3035(f) of ISTEA directed FTA to enter into a multiyear grant agreement with UTA which provides $131,000,000 in new start funds to carry out the construction of the project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $38,600,000 (including $15,520,000 in funds from fiscal years prior to ISTEA) for right-of-way acquisition, engineering, design and construction. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee has included $20,000,000 for the Salt Lake City/South LRT, of which not less than $10,000,000 shall be for related high occupancy vehicle lane and intermodal design costs. St. Louis, St. Clair County, Illinois corridor, MetroLink extension.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is proposing a 24.8 mile light rail line between downtown East St. Louis, Illinois, and the vicinity of Scott Air Force Base. The project would connect with the MetroLink light rail project that opened in July 1993. The adopted alignment variation, which would add up to 2 miles to the project and serve the Belleville Area College, is also being considered. The project is estimated to cost $396,000,000. The preliminary engineering phase of project development has been initiated. This phase will include development of a supplemental draft EIS and a final EIS, which are estimated to be completed by September 1996. The project was not authorized in ISTEA. Through 1996, Congress has appropriated $14,000,000 for the project. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee has recommended $20,000,000. San Francisco area projects.--The Committee recommends a total of $35,000,000 for new start projects in the San Francisco Bay area and has agreed to provide the funds consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Resolution 1876. The San Francisco Bay Area's Rail Extensions Program is a $3,500,000,000 undertaking of interrelated rail projects. The program will extend a total of six rail lines in the San Francisco Bay Area: an extension of four BART lines, extension of the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency's light rail system, and an extension of the CalTrain commuter rail system into downtown San Francisco. Of the six lines, two will be funded with Section 3 new start rail funds, the Tasman light rail extension in Santa Clara County and the BART extension to Colma and continuing to San Francisco International Airport. Section 3032 of the Federal Transit Act provides for multiyear funding for the San Francisco Bay area extension program. It further provides that the Secretary negotiate and execute full funding grant agreements that are consistent with the MTC Resolution No. 1876. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been agreed to by the MTC, the Santa Clara County Transit District, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), and the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), that describes the allocation of available federal funds to each project. The parties to this MOU trust FTA and MTC to work cooperatively to recommend annual appropriations levels needed to meet the funding plan for each project. Should one of the region's two projects not be in a position to fully utilize the federal funds in a given year, the parties to the MOU trust FTA and MTC to continue to recommend necessary appropriation levels as long as there is demonstrated need for this level of funding for either of the region's two projects. San Francisco BART extension to the airport.--Local officials in the San Francisco have proposed a four- station, 6.4-mile extension of the Bay Area Transit (BART) system from Colma to an intermodal station serving the San Francisco International Airport. The route will serve the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, connect with the airport, and continue to Millbrae. The majority of the route is to follow a combination of existing and abandoned railroad rights- of-way. The Committee has provided sufficient resources to continue the BART proposed extension to the San Francisco International Airport during fiscal year 1997. Over the past year, BART and FTA have been working to resolve many of the Committee's concerns. Progress has been made to date; there still remain, however, a number of significant unresolved issues that must be resolved before a long-term financial commitment can be made to this project. For example, the cost estimate of the project is $1,167,000,000. Four assumptions in the finance plan could affect its viability: (1) The project's borrowing costs could grow significantly should BART not receive forecasted appropriation levels--levels that are too optimistic-- over the next seven years. Costs also could be higher than projected if the estimated savings from the design-build approach do not materialize and if escalation is understated. (2) California state law prohibits BART from using its own resources for the purpose of extending service or facilities outside its district. BART must establish a borrowing program because expenses are expected to exceed revenues during the height of construction and produce cash shortfalls of up to $240,000,000. (3) The airport has committed $200,000,000 to the project, however, the airport has not outlined how airport resources could be used for the BART project and what types of activities could be funded. The aerial structure and how the airport will participate have to be reviewed by the FAA to determine the eligibility, the use of airport passenger facility charges and airport improvement programs funds, and whether the airport's participation is consistent with applicable federal law. (4) All of the remaining state and local contributors face financial limitations that have capped their current pledges to the BART project. For example, though the state has committed $98,000,000 to the project, California Transportation Commission officials have said that the transportation capital fund may not have sufficient balances to fully fund the project in the future. In addition, the final environmental impact analysis has not been completed and approved, and may face legal challenges. Given these numerous concerns, the Committee directs the FTA not to execute a full funding grant agreement (FFGA) until the State of California enacts a change in law that will permit BART to use its own revenues for the purposes of extending service or facilities outside its district or another alternative financing program is established, and until the airport determines the source of funds it would use to pay for that portion of the BART project located on the airport's property and the FAA determines that the share of the cost to be borne by the airport and its users is consistent with federal transportation policy and regulation. In addition, when executing an FFGA, the Committee directs that the federal costs of the project not exceed $750,000,000, including all unanticipated contingencies, interest and other financing costs. BART and the project sponsors and financiers must accept the risks associated with all potential cost overruns. The administration and the department have announced its intentions to sign an FFGA for the BART extension airport project. The Committee is disturbed to learn, however, that internal FTA project review and other permitting approval processes have been unjustifiably expedited and that a complete and thorough analysis of the underlying cost estimates, financial plan and ridership estimates by FTA and project management oversight staff may have been compromised. Therefore, the Committee reiterates its directive included in the conference report accompanying the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 that directs the FTA to advise the Committee sixty days prior to executing an FFGA that the aforementioned concerns and those included in last year's conference report have been fully addressed. Tasman.--The Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) is constructing 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. Construction will proceed 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 6.7 miles. The Phase 2 East Extension will complete the project. Section 5328(c)(1)(B) defines the Tasman Corridor project as one element of a program of interrelated projects to be considered together for the purposes of federal requirements, along with the BART extensions to Colma and the San Francisco airport. In addition, Section 3032(c) of ISTEA directs the Secretary to approve the construction of these projects, and Section 3032(e) of ISTEA authorizes $568,500,000 in new starts funds. An additional $12,750,000 was authorized specifically for the Tasman project by ISTEA section 3032(b)(2). Phase 1 is expected to require $90,000,000. This does not include the $93,970,000 provided in fiscal year 1995 and prior years, $33,230,000 remains unobligated. San Diego Mid-Coast corridor.--The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the San Diego Association of Governments are proposing commuter rail improvements, a light- rail line, and high occupancy vehicle lanes in the Mid-Coast Corridor. The corridor extends about 12 miles along the I-5 near the Pacific Ocean from I-8 near Old Town, north to the vicinity of the University of California, San Diego, University Town Centre shopping mall, and Carmel Valley. The commuter rail improvements consist of a new station and parking expansion on the existing Coaster line. The project is estimated to cost $5,700,000. The 10.3 mile Mid-Coast LRT project would extend from Old Town to North University City, and would include 9 stations. The line would connect the Mission Valley and South LRT lines and the Coaster line at the Old Towne Transit Center. An initial phase is proposed from Old Town to Balboa Avenue. The LRT line and supporting bus services are estimated to cost $353,300,000. The proposed HOV lanes would be built by Caltrans in the median of I-5 between Carmel Mountain Road and I-8. Section 3035(g) of ISTEA directed FTA to sign a multiyear grant agreement with MTDB providing $27,000,000 for the completion of alternatives analysis and the final environmental impact statement and to purchase right-of-way. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $4,100,000. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 1997. San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano.--The Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (DPTW), through its Highway and Transportation Authority (HTA), is proposing a 10.7 mile double-track guideway between Bayamon Centro and the Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce in San Juan. Approximately forty percent of the alignment is at or near grade. The remainder, aside from a short below-grade section in the Centro Medico area and underground through Rio Piedras, is generally elevated above roadway rights-of-way. The project is estimated to cost $1,110,000,000. ISTEA does not contain an authorization for this project. To date, Congress has appropriated $12,400,000 for the Tren Urbano project. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation includes $9,500,000 for this project. Staten Island-Midtown ferry service project.--The New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) has proposed constructing of terminals and initiating high speed ferry service between Staten Island and Midtown Manhattan. The service would be provided by privately owned and operated ferries without public operating subsidies. The estimated cost of this project is $12,600,000. The estimate ridership is 4,800 per day. Section 3035(d) of ISTEA directed the FTA to negotiate and sign a multiyear grant agreement for $12,000,000 to carry out capital improvements for the proposed project. Congress appropriated $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1992. During fiscal year 1995, FTA approved a grant in the amount of $250,000 for design and engineering activities only. Funding of $375,000 is recommended by the Committee in fiscal year 1997 for continued design, engineering and construction-related activities. Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail project.--The Hillsborough Area Transit Authority (HART) is undertaking a study of transportation alternatives in the 32-mile corridor between Tampa and Lakeland, Florida. One alternative to be considered is a commuter rail line on existing CSX tracks that parallel I- 4. The commuter rail alternative is estimated to cost approximately $30,000,000. HART is about to undertake a major investment study that will consider alternatives for addressing transportation problems in the I-4 corridor. In fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $500,000 for the corridor. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for this project. Whitehall ferry terminal.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal in New York City. The New York City Department of Transportation and the New York City Economic Development Corporation have proposed the redesign and reconstruction of the Staten Island Ferry's Whitehall terminal in downtown Manhattan. The terminal was largely destroyed by fire in 1991 and ferry service has been operating out of interim facilities since then. The preliminary estimate of the cost of reconstruction is approximately $80,000,000. Currently, 60,000 people use this terminal a day. Preliminary design began in March 1996. Final design is expected to begin in June 1996 and be completed by February 1998. Construction is programmed to begin in late 1998 and will take three years to complete. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $5,000,000. Mass Transit Capital Fund (liquidation of contract authorization) (highway trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................($2,375,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (2,000,000,000) Recommended in the bill................................. (2,000,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996............(.......................) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..........(.......................) \1\ Includes supplemental of $375,000,000 in the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. This liquidating cash appropriation covers obligations incurred under contract authority provided for activities previously discussed under the discretionary grant program. The Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 in liquidating cash for mass transit capital programs. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $200,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 200,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 200,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... The bill includes the budget estimate of $200,000,000 for the construction of the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system. The Committee recognizes that the administration, the transit authority and the state and local governments in the metropolitan Washington region have reached agreement on financing the remaining 13.5 miles of the adopted regional system and are committed to completion of the system on the ``fast track'' schedule. The Committee further recognizes that a reliable federal appropriation is critical to securing the necessary credit arrangement required to keep the ``fast track'' construction program on schedule. The Committee supports the completion of the remaining 13.5 miles and is recommending the budget request to permit WMATA to proceed with the ``fast track'' construction program. Violent Crime Reduction Program (Violent Crime Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... $10,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................................. Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.................................... Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.................. -10,000,000 Section 40131 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorizes $10,000,000 to establish programs for capital improvements and studies to prevent crime in public transportation. The Committee has not funded this new program in fiscal year 1997 given the current budget constraints. Further, a separate categorical program is duplicative and unnecessary as the capital expenses described above are allowable expenses under the formula program. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION The Corporation's operations program consists of lock and marine operations, maintenance, dredging, planning and development activities related to the operation and maintenance of that part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie within the territorial limits of the United States. The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the commercial use and competitive position of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The general language under this heading is the same as the language provided last year and requested in the fiscal year 1997 budget. Continuation of this language in addition to that under the operations and maintenance appropriation will provide the Corporation the flexibility and access to available resources needed to finance costs associated with unanticipated events which could threaten the safe and uninterrupted use of the Seaway. The language permits the Corporation to use sources of funding not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund by Public Law 99-662, but which have been historically set aside for non-routine or emergency use-cash reserves derived primarily from prior-year revenues received in excess of costs; unused borrowing authority; and miscellaneous income. Operations and Maintenance (harbor maintenance trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $10,150,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 10,065,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 10,037,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -113,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -28,000 \1\-Excludes reductions of $586,000 to comply with working capital fund and administrative provisions and $15,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The bill includes an appropriation of $10,037,000 for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. The Committee has reduced the Seaway's non-pay inflationary adjustment by $28,000 so that each operating administration within the department receives a 1.5 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment. The Seaway had requested a 3 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment in its 1997 budget estimate. RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was originally established by the Secretary of Transportation's organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad portfolio. Its diverse jurisdictions include hazardous materials, pipelines, international standards, emergency transportation, and university research. As the department's only multimodal administration, RSPA provides research, analytical and technical support for transportation programs through headquarters offices and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The Committee recommends $55,117,000 in new budget authority to continue the operations, research and development, and grants-in-aid administered by the Research and Special Programs Administration. This is $9,558,000 less than the 1996 amount and $7,280,000 less than the budget estimate. The following table summarizes fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Recommended in Program enacted \1\ estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research and special programs............................. $23,937,000 $28,169,000 $23,929,000 Pipeline safety........................................... 31,448,000 34,028,000 30,988,000 Emergency preparedness training curriculum................ 400,000 200,000 200,000 Emergency preparedness grants \2\......................... 8,890,000 ................ ................ ----------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... 64,675,000 62,397,000 55,117,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. \2\ Limitation on obligations. Research and Special Programs Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $23,937,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 28,169,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 23,929,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -8,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -4,240,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $387,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions. RSPA's research and special programs administers a comprehensive nationwide safety program to (1) protect the nation from the risks inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by water, air, highway and railroad; (2) oversee the execution of the Secretary of Transportation's statutory responsibilities for providing transportation services during national emergencies; and (3) coordinate the department's research and development policy planning, university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy, legal, financial, management and administrative support to RSPA's programs also is provided under this appropriation. The total recommended program level for research and special programs is $23,929,000. This is a decrease of $8,000 below the amount provided in 1996 and a reduction of $4,240,000 below the budget request. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Recommended in enacted \1\ estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazardous materials safety................................ $12,650 ,000 $12,812,000 $12,772,000 (Positions)........................................... (111) (111) (111) Research and technology................................... 3,288,000 7,488,000 3,323,000 (Positions)........................................... (13) (13) (13) Emergency transportation.................................. 1,022,000 993,000 993,000 (Positions)........................................... (7) (7) (7) Program support........................................... 7,388,000 6,876,000 6,841,000 (Positions) \2\....................................... (46) (46) (46) Accountwide adjustment.................................... -411,000 ................ ................ ----------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... 23,937,000 28,169,000 23,929,000 (Positions)....................................... (177) (177) (177) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Does not include reductions of $387,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions. \2\ Includes one position previously funded in aviation information management not transferred to Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request for this appropriation: Hazardous Materials: Delete funding for internship specialist program.... -$40,000 Research and Technology: Hold technology development to 1996 level........... -3,465,000 Reduce funding for technology dissemination by 50 percent........................................... -100,000 Hold technology applications at FY 1996 level....... -600,000 Program Administrative Support: Reduce information resources management............. -35,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Net change to budget estimate....................... -4,240,000 Compliance support.--The Committee has provided $220,000 for compliance support, which is $40,000 less than requested. The Committee has not provided funding for the intern specialist program because it does not see the merit of this program. Technology development.--The Committee recommends $1,266,000 for technology development, which is the same amount as provided in fiscal year 1996. RSPA requested a 271 percent increase in this program without adequately addressing why such growth is necessary for an agency that does not conduct any direct research, but instead is responsible for technology sharing, policy formulation, and research agenda-setting. Technology dissemination.--The Committee has reduced the budget request of $200,000 for technology dissemination by $100,000. In 1996, RSPA spent $75,000 on technology dissemination. Realizing that people are beginning to access the internet for available research information, the Committee has provided a slight increase in funding for technology dissemination activities but does not believe that a 166 percent increase is necessary. Technology application.--The Committee has provided $600,000 for technology applications, which is the same level as funded in 1996. The Committee has not increased funding for this effort because RSPA did not make a compelling case as to why a doubling of the budget was necessary. The Committee understands that in fiscal year 1996, $430,000 of these funds were transferred to the Secretary's office of technology deployment so that this office, in conjunction with the Volpe Center, could work on a variety of transportation information infrastructure issues. However, since the position of director for technology deployment has recently become vacant, the Committee believes that RSPA should begin to undertake these activities directly. According to RSPA, approximately forty to fifty percent of the staff time within RSPA's office of research policy and technology transfer is devoted to coordinating transportation research and technology transfer programs with the office of technology deployment in support of department-wide coordination initiatives. Without having to undertake these coordination efforts, RSPA could more effectively utilize its staff and work on a variety of research projects. The Committee suggests that RSPA review the mission and structure of the intelligent transportation systems joint program office, which has dual reporting responsibility to both the Deputy Secretary and the FHWA Administrator, to determine whether its office of research policy and technology transfer could be redesigned in a similar manner so that it would not duplicate activities with OST's office of technology deployment. RSPA should consider such a structure to better ensure coordination within the operating administrations' research programs and with private sector organizations. Information resources management.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee has provided $435,000 for information resources management, which is $35,000 less than requested. Pipeline Safety (Pipeline Safety Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $28,750,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 31,500,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 28,460,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -290,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.................. -3,040,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $213,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards and administrative provisions, and $65,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to life and property in the transportation of natural gas, petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and administers a grants-in-aid program to state pipeline programs. The bill includes $30,988,000 to continue pipeline safety operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid in fiscal year 1997. This represents a decrease of $460,000 below the level provided in 1996 and a reduction of $3,040,000 below the budget request. The bill specifies that, of the total appropriation, $2,528,000 is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund and $28,460,000 is to be derived from the pipeline safety fund. In addition, the Committee has included language that permits the office of pipeline safety (OPS) to use $1,000,000 from its reserve fund for one-call notification grants. The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request for this appropriation: Hold information systems to 12 percent increase......... -$140,000 Delete funding for nondestructive evaluation............ -900,000 Reduce funding for state grants......................... -500,000 Delete funding for new risk management initiative....... -500,000 Fund one-call through reserve account................... -1,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Net change to budget request........................ -$3,040,000 Information systems.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee has provided $1,350,000 for information and analysis, which is $140,000 less than requested. At this level, the office will be able to begin integrating external data into the OPS information systems and continue its shift to risk management. Nondestructive evaluation.--The Committee has deleted funding for nondestructive evaluation. OPS has recently signed a contract to determine if ``pig'' technology can be used to detect outside force damage. This contract is estimated to cost $2,700,000 from fiscal years 1996-1998. Currently, OPS has $1,700,000 available for the nondestructive evaluation project, which consists of fiscal year 1996 appropriated funds and prior year funding. Although the Committee agrees that completing the nondestructive evaluation project is a critical step in improving government and industry's technical ability to diagnose and characterize defects in pipelines and allocate resources for remedial actions on a prioritized basis, the large amount of prior year funding that has been earmarked for this project reduces the need to fully fund this project in fiscal year 1997, when it will not be completed until the following fiscal year. State grants.--The Committee has reduced the funding for state grants by $500,000. This will provide the same level of funding in fiscal year 1997 as was provided in fiscal year 1996. Even though OPS received $12,000,000 for assistance to states in carrying out pipeline safety programs in 1996, $1,000,000 of this total was earmarked for damage prevention programs. Because the Committee is not providing funding for one-call under the state grant program in fiscal year 1997, the Committee is actually providing a $1,000,000 increase to the state grant programs, which will better fund states' participation in the OPS compliance and inspection programs. Risk management grants.--The Committee has not provided the $500,000 requested for risk management grants to states due to budget constraints. In fiscal year 1997, OPS plans to award risk management demonstration projects to 4-6 participants, which means that risk management programs will only be ongoing in a few states. If these states receive 50 percent of their grant funding from OPS, they should be able to participate in the risk management demonstration projects without adversely affecting their compliance and inspection programs. Instead of funding risk management in the other states, which are not expected to participate directly in the first few years of the risk management program, the Committee has fully funded OPS training initiatives. This will provide state inspectors and other personnel with the necessary training in risk management practices. Until training is completed in most states, it appears to be unnecessary to fund risk management initiatives across the board. One-call notification.--The Committee has not appropriated any funding for one-call notification systems; however, the Committee has provided bill language that allows OPS to use up to $1,000,000 from its reserve fund for this initiative. OPS currently has $18,400,000 in its reserve fund. Each year, OPS uses its reserve to finance various aspects of its program until user fees are collected from the natural gas and the liquid petroleum industries. OPS plans to collect user fees in the first quarter of fiscal year 1997, instead of the second quarter in fiscal year 1996 or the third quarter in fiscal year 1995. This indicates that OPS will not be as dependent on the user fees and could spend down some of its reserve fund without negatively impacting its operations. Emergency Preparedness Grants (emergency preparedness fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $400,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 200,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 200,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -200,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor public sector emergency response training and planning and provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders. The bill includes $200,000, the same amount requested for fiscal year 1997, for activities related to emergency response training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The bill also deletes language, as requested, that specified an obligation limitation for the emergency preparedness grants program. Removing this limitation will allow RSPA to obligate carryover balances and recoveries from prior years, which the language had prohibited in the past. Office of Inspector General salaries and expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $40,238,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 39,771,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 39,450,000 Bill compared with: Appropriaton, fiscal year 1996...................... -788,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -321,000 The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to provide an objective and independent organization that would be more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2) providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of Transportation and to the Congress. The bill provides $39,450,000 for the office of inspector general, a decrease of $788,000 below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The President's budget requested $39,771,000. The bill specifies that none of the funds may be utilized for contract audits. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, audits of specific acquisition programs and acquisition contracts by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) will be financed by the programs themselves, consistent with the Committee's report language last year. The budget proposed cost sharing between the IG and the individual programs for these audit services. The Inspector General should also discontinue inclusion of DCAA report findings in the semi-annual reports of the office of inspector general, since the IG will serve largely as an intermediary for the acquisition of these services, and will no longer finance them directly through the IG budget. Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant budgetary savings. Bureau of Transportation Statistics office of airline information Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $2,200,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 3,100,000 Recommended in the bill..................... ........................... Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -2,200,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -3,100,000 The Committee has not provided $3,100,000 from the airport and airway trust fund to finance the office of airline information within the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). The Committee has included bill language that would permit the BTS to collect up to $3,100,000 in user fees to conduct activities related to airline statistics. The work of the BTS consists of compiling transportation statistics, implementing a long-term data collection system, coordinating information collection, and making statistics available. The Bureau acquired the office of airline information in 1995 from RSPA. The office of airline information collects financial and operational information from U.S. certified airlines. The BTS is directed to prepare a report analyzing aviation statistics fees to be raised from private and government entities. Such analyses shall include a proposed fee schedule, demand elasticity, effect on private business, and any additional proposals to ensure that the aviation statistics program is fully funded from offsetting collections. This report should be forwarded to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than September 1, 1996. The Committee notes that section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 provides an additional $25,000,000 to the BTS, an increase of $5,000,000, or 25 percent, above the 1996 level. These funds are available to compile, analyze, and publish a comprehensive set of transportation statistics to provide timely summaries and totals (including industry-wide aggregates and multi-year averages) of transportation-related information. It is the opinion of the Committee that these funds could be available for the compilation of airline statistics should the BTS be unable to raise sufficient funds to cover the costs of analyzing aviation statistics. The Committee may also consider augmenting the funds available to the BTS through agency reimbursable agreements should the user fee analysis conclude that the fees collected would be insufficient to cover the costs of airline statistics. Surface Transportation Board salaries and expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $8,421,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \2\................... 3,000,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 12,344,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +3,923,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +9,344,000 \1\ Included under section 342 for the successor of the Interstate Commerce Commission. \2\ Represents $15,344,000 in user fees of which a maximum of $3,000,000 would become available as an appropriation and subsequently reduced as offsetting collections are received. The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 1996 by P.L. 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, the Act abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that had previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core rail and certain other provisions to the Board and certain other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway Administration. The Board is specifically responsible for regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non- licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The new law empowers the Board through its exemption authority to promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis and continues intact the important rail reforms of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which have helped substantially improve rail service and the profitability of the railroad industry. The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $12,344,000. This appropriation consists of the following components: Salaries and expenses................................... $11,344,000 Severance costs......................................... 1,000,000 Salaries and expenses.--The Committee has included $11,344,000 to provide for salaries and expenses of 134 staff years in fiscal year 1997. This is $2,923,000 more than was appropriated in fiscal year 1996; however, the Board was funded only for three-quarters of the year. Severance costs.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the statutory liability of severance payments and unemployment compensation costs for former Interstate Commerce Commission and Board employees who were separated from government service by reductions-in-force during fiscal year 1996 and whose payments continue into fiscal year 1997. If the Board does not require the total amount provided for severance costs, the remaining funds should be shifted to the salaries and expenses account. User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request to fund the entire operation of the Surface Transportation Board, or $15,344,000, from the collection of user fees. The budget estimate includes a $3,000,000 appropriation that would be reduced as offsetting collections are received during the fiscal year, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1997 appropriation of not more than $0. Current statutory authority, under the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), grants the Board the authority to collect user fees; however, not to the level provided in the budget estimate. Legislative change to the Board's authorizing statute to mandate an industry assessment program of $15,344,000 would require Congress to enact such authority prior to October 1, 1996, which is not likely. Even assuming that Congress approves legislation that would authorize the Board to recover the full costs of administering its programs, the Board would have to undertake necessary rulemakings to determine the appropriate level of these assessments. These rulemakings could not be completed in a timely manner to ensure adequate funding for the Board in fiscal year 1997. The Board is in the process of updating and changing its user fees. As such, the Board has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that anticipates collecting approximately $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1997. The Committee has included the collection of some or all of these user fees in its calculation of the Board's needs as these user fees will supplement direct appropriations provided for fiscal year 1997. The Committee has retained the bill language which provides that any fees received in excess shall remain available until expended but shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 1997. TITLE II RELATED AGENCIES ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Salaries and Expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $3,500,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 3,540,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 3,540,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +40,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... The Committee recommends $3,540,000 for the operations of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, an increase of $40,000 above the 1996 levels, and the same as the budget estimate. The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance with the standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers Act; ensuring that public conveyances, including rolling stock, are readily accessible to and usable by physically handicapped persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to the elimination of architectural, transportation, communication and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being taken to eliminate these barriers; developing minimum guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards; and providing technical assistance to all programs affected by Title V of the Rehabilitation Act. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Salaries and Expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $38,774,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\................... 42,407,000 Recommended in the bill................................. 42,407,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +3,633,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................................... \1\ The President's budget request was for $40,300,000; however, it was later amended to $42,407,000. Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting special studies, developing recommendations to prevent accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of Transportation. The bill includes an appropriation of $42,407,000 for the NTSB, an increase of $3,633,000 above the 1996 level. This amount is the same as the amended budget request. The amount recommended provides for a full-time equivalent employment (FTE) level of 370, an increase of 20 FTEs. Currently, the Safety Board is participating in the highest level of major accident investigations in its history, with limited resources. During fiscal year 1996, the Safety Board undertook a variety of efforts to readjust to its resources so that it could continue to provide in-depth coverage on a variety of domestic and international aviation accidents, rail accidents, and hazardous materials investigations, in addition to its ongoing investigations on all modes of transportation. In fiscal year 1997, an increase is necessary so that the Safety Board has sufficient resources and personnel available to fully investigate these accidents in a timely manner. The Committee recommends that the Safety Board make every effort to fill its new FTE positions with trained investigators so that it has enough depth within each specialty to cover back-to-back accidents. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program level, the President's fiscal year 1997 request, and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Recommended in bill enacted estimate ------------------------ Program -------------------------------------------------- Staff Budget Staff Budget Staff Budget years authority years authority years authority ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Policy and direction................. 45 $5,506,000 45 $5,694,000 45 $5,694,000 Aviation safety...................... 122 13,439,000 129 14,696,000 129 14,696,000 Surface transportation............... 94 10,290,000 99 11,207,000 99 11,207,000 Research and engineering............. 48 5,485,000 56 6,618,000 56 6,618,000 Administration....................... 31 2,737,000 31 2,831,000 31 2,831,000 Administrative law judges............ 10 1,317,000 10 1,361,000 10 1,361,000 Total.......................... 350 38,774,000 370 42,407,000 370 42,407,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes to deviate in any way from the total FTE allocations or by more than ten percent from the funding allocations listed above. Pilot age.--In 1959, the FAA issued the ``Age 60 Rule'' which prevented pilots from flying air carriers past the age of 60 because of concerns about safety. Since 1959, this rule has been challenged repeatedly, but unsuccessfully. In December 1995, FAA made the ``Age 60 rule'' applicable to commuter operations as well. The Committee directs NTSB to undertake a study that would determine the feasibility of allowing pilots to fly past age 60. Currently 8 countries allow pilots to fly past age 60, although maximum age varies among the countries. This study should review, among other things, (1) pilot age and accident data for commuter aviation pilots in the United States and air carrier pilots flying past age 60 in other countries to determine if there is a relationship between the two variables and (2) new studies, which will be released shortly, that review the effect of pilot age on the multitude of cognitive and physical skills needed to safely operate an air transport aircraft. Also, this report should discuss the feasibility of combining age and performance testing as an alternative to the ``Age 60 rule''. NTSB should provide this report to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations by April 1, 1997. PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION Administrative Expenses and Limitation on Operating and Capital Expenses Limitation on Administrative operating/ expenses capital Limitation, fiscal year 1996...... $50,741,000 ................. Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997. ................. ................. Recommended in the bill........... ................. ................. Bill compared with: Appropriations fiscal year 1996......................... -50,741,000 ................. Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997......................... ................. ................. The Committee has concurred with the budget request to delete the limitation on administrative expenses of the Panama Canal Commission. On February 10, 1996, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 was enacted into law, Public Law 104-106 contained provisions which amended the basic statute governing the structure of the Panama Canal Commission and reconstituted the Commission as a U.S. government corporation. This status as a government corporation is not new for the Canal, as the Commission's predecessor, the Panama Canal Company, operated the waterway between July 1951 and October 1979 as a wholly owned U.S. government corporation in the executive branch. When the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty entered into force in 1979, the Congress established the Commission as an appropriated-fund agency. Under that arrangement, the Commission was subject to annual appropriations by the Congress for all of its operating expense and capital improvements. After a period of demonstrated fiscal responsibility, the Commission, which generates all of its own revenues and operates at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer, was converted from an appropriated fund to a revolving fund. With these latest amendments in February 1996, the Canal has come full circle, returning to the government corporation status under which it operated the Canal for the 28 years immediately preceding the treaty period. Public Law 104-106 does not exempt the agency from oversight by the Congress and Executive Branch. The Commission is subject to all the Congressional review provisions of the Government Corporation Act, including the requirement to submit to Congress its budget proposal. P.L. 104-106 did not repeal the requirement for annual appropriation legislation for the Commission's administrative expenses. Congress retains the ability to review the Commission's budget and the flexibility to exercise appropriate oversight over the Commission's budget and programs. With enactment of P.L. 104-106, the Commission is better positioned to manage the transfer of control over the Canal to the Government of Panama on December 31, 1999. TITLE III GENERAL PROVISIONS (including transfers of funds) The Committee concurs with the general provisions that apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies as proposed in the budget with the following changes: The Committee has not approved the requested deletion of the following sections, all of which were contained in the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers are different): Section 313 prohibits the use of funds for regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety fairway in California. Section 315 prohibits the use of funds to award multi-year contracts for production end items that include certain specified provisions. Section 319 prohibits the use of funds to enforce certain regulations relating to slot management at O'Hare International Airport. Section 320 limits funds to compensate in excess of 335 staff years under the federally-funded research and development contract between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development. Section 321 reduces funding for activities of the Transportation administrative service center of the Department of Transportation and limits obligational authority of the center to $114,812,000. Section 323 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation pursuant to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles as defined in such title, in any model year that differs from standards promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this section. Section 324 prohibits the use of funds to be used for planning, engineering, design or construction of a sixth runway at the new Denver International Airport. Section 327 prohibits the use of funds for any type of training which (a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly on the performance of official duties; (b) could be highly stressful or emotional to the students; (c) does not provide prior notification of content and methods to be used during the training; (d) contains any religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a person's values or lifestyle; or (e) is for AIDS awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights. Section 328 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for activities designed to influence Congress on legislation or appropriations except through proper, official channels. Section 329 requires the Federal Transit Administration's oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to be based in Washington, D.C. Section 330 prohibits the use of funds for the improvement of Miller Highway in New York City, New York. Section 331 limits funds provided in this Act to $850,000 for expenses of advisory committees. The Committee has included the following general provisions as requested with modifications: Section 302 requires fiscal year 1997 pay raises for programs to be absorbed within appropriated levels in this Act or previous appropriations Acts, similar to that contained in the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Committee would not allow pay raises to be absorbed within unexpired unobligated balances of previous appropriations Acts. Section 305 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more than one hundred and seven political and Presidential appointees of the Department of Transportation. Section 310 would be continued with modifications. The Committee continues to limit first quarter obligations to 12 percent. The Committee would not place separate obligation limitations on various appropriated and contract-authority funded demonstration projects, and would not subject the bonus program to the obligation limitation for federal-aid highways programs. Also, the Committee would not set-aside $30,000,000 for highway and highway safety construction programs; $15,000,000 for the Symms Recreational Trails program; $20,000,000 for a construction skills training program; and $15,000,000 for a congestion pricing program. Also, the Committee would not restrict funding for the timber bridge program. Section 325 provides that not to exceed $3,100,000 in expenses of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics necessary to conduct activities related to airline statistics may be incurred but only to the extent such expenses are offset by user fees. The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the budget: (1) pertaining to the Panama Canal Commission; (2) allowing the Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to enter into grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions to collect data on the impact of natural disasters on transportation systems; and (3) allowing transfer authority not to exceed 5 percent between discretionary appropriations in this Act. In addition, the following new general provisions are recommended by the Committee: Section 334 prohibits funds in this Act for a third track on the Metro-North Railroad Harlem Line in Bronxville, New York. Section 335 amends section 5328(c)(1)(E) of title 49, U.S.C., to include the locally preferred alternative for the South/North Corridor project in Oregon. Section 336 allows previous appropriations for the Cleveland Dual Hub corridor project to be available for the Berea Red Line extension project. Section 337 allows the State of Michigan flexibility in distributing Federal discretionary funds for buses and bus facilities. Section 338 provides $2,400,000 for activities of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission. Section 339 requires the Secretary of Transportation to convey to the Montauk Historical Association the U.S. government's interest in Light Station Montauk Point, located in Montauk, New York. TITLE IV MISCELLANEOUS HIGHWAY PROVISIONS The Committee recommends a new title that contains miscellaneous highway provisions, as follows: Section 401 restricts the operations of tandem and other large vehicles on U.S. 15 in the Commonwealth of Virginia from the Maryland border to the intersection of U.S. Route 29. Section 402 amends item 30 of section 1107(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to allow unobligated funds provided for the I-10 West Tunnel reconstruction project to be used for a new bridge over the Mobile River in Alabama. Section 403 amends item 94 of the table contained in section 1107(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 pertaining to the St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, VIPA Molasses Dock intermodal port facility. Section 404 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to enter into an agreement modifying the agreement entered into pursuant to section 356 of Public Law 104-50 to provide an additional line of credit up to $25,000,000 for construction of Orange County toll roads. Section 405 amends Public Law 100-202 relating to the traffic improvement demonstration project in Petoskey, Michigan, to extend the authorization to include the upgrade of existing roads. House of Representatives Report Requirements The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: inflationary impact statement Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the House of Representatives requires that each Committee report on a bill or resolution shall contain a statement as to whether enactment of such bill or resolution may have an inflationary impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national economy. The accompanying bill contains appropriations and other new spending authority totaling $36,937,761,000. Of the amount recommended, about 25 percent is for personnel and operating costs of the various transportation bureaus and agencies. The Committee does not believe that these personnel costs will have a measurable impact on the aggregate rate of inflation. Approximately two percent of the amounts recommended in the bill will finance transportation planning and operating costs for states, cities, and certain private organizations, and one percent will finance various transportation research and development activities. The remaining 72 percent will finance transportation construction and development projects in various parts of the nation. The Committee believes these activities will improve our nation's transportation system. Improved and lower cost transportation can reduce the prices of goods by lowering the costs of production and by improving labor productivity through specialization. The Committee also believes that improved and lower cost transportation provides more producers with the opportunity to sell their products in more markets, thereby enhancing competition and providing consumers with broader choices and lower prices. Consequently, the level of financing provided for transportation construction activities would have an inflationary impact only to the extent that the benefits resulting from lower cost transportation were offset by higher prices resulting from insufficient capacity in the construction industry to meet all of the demands for construction by the public and private sectors. rescissions Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: Office of the Secretary, Payments to air carriers (airport and airway trust fund)..................... -$28,600,000 Office of the Secretary, Payments to air carriers....... -1,133,000 Coast Guard, Acquisition, construction, and improvements -3,755,000 transfers of funds Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. The Committee recommends the following transfers between accounts: Under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Highway Traffic Safety Grants: Provided further, That the unobligated balances of the appropriation ``Highway-related Safety Grants'' shall be transferred to and merged with this ``Highway Traffic Safety Grants'' appropriation. Under section 318 of the general provisions: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds appropriated before October 1, 1993, under chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C., that remain available for expenditure may be transferred to and administered under the most recent appropriation heading for any such section. Under section 326 of the general provisions: The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated in this Act to ``Rental Payments'' for any expense authorized by that appropriation in excess of the amounts provided in this Act. compliance with clause 3 of rule xiii In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991 * * * * * * * TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Part A--Title 23 Programs * * * * * * * SEC. 1107. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS. (a) * * * (b) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out the innovative projects described in this subsection. Subject to subsection (c), there is authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to carry out each such project the amount listed for each such project: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AMOUNT in CITY/STATE INNOVATIVE PROJECTS millions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cadiz, Ohio Construction of 4-lane Limited Access Highway from Cadiz, 20.0 OH to Interstate 70 Interchange at St. Clairsville, OH along U.S. Rt. 250. * * * * * * * Mobile, Alabama For reconstruction of the West Tunnel Plaza Interchange on 15.0 I-10 from Virginia Street to Mobile River Tunnel, Mobile, Alabama and for feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, and construction of a new bridge and approaches over the Mobile River. * * * * * * * [St. Thomas,] Virgin Islands Feasibility study of constructing a second road to the 1.7 west end of the island of St. Thomas and improvements to the VIPA Molasses Dock intermodal port facility on the island of St. Croix to make the facility capable of handling multiple cargo tasks. * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION 5328 OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 5328. Project review (a) * * * * * * * * * * (c) Program of Interrelated Projects.--(1) In this subsection, a program of interrelated projects includes the following: (A) * * * * * * * * * * (E) the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon [Westside] Light Rail Program, consisting of the locally preferred alternative for the Westside Light Rail Project, including system related costs, contained in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991 (Public Law 101-516, 104 Stat. 2155), and defined in House Report 101-584, [and] the Hillsboro extension to the Westside Light Rail Project contained in that Act, and the locally preferred alternative for the South/North Corridor Project. * * * * * * * ---------- ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1987 AN ACT Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1988, and for other purposes. * * * * * * * Traffic Improvement Demonstration Project For 80 percent of the expenses necessary to carry out a highway bypass project or upgrade existing local roads in the vicinity of Petoskey, Michigan, that demonstrates methods of improving economic development and regional transportation, there is authorized to be appropriated $28,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which $475,000 is hereby appropriated, to remain available until expended: Provided, That all funds appropriated under this head shall be exempt from any limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs. * * * * * * * Changes in Existing Law Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effects of provisions in the accompanying bill which might be construed, under some circumstances, as directly or indirectly changing the application of existing law. The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for more than one year for a number of programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended availability. The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board. Similar provisions have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts. The bill provides for transfer of funds which might be construed as changing the application of existing law. Similar provisions have appeared in previous appropriations Acts. These items are discussed under the appropriate heading in the report. The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts. Several limitations on obligations are contained in Title I. Although these provisions are strict limitations, they do have the effect of reducing obligations below the levels that otherwise would be available. Language is included in several instances permitting certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended. Language is included that does not permit the Department of Transportation to maintain duplicate physical copies of airline tariffs. Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ``Salaries and Expenses,'' which would allow crediting the account with up to $1,000,000 in user fees to support the electronic tariff filings system. Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays of the Transportation Administrative Service Center of the Department of Transportation and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Language is included under ``Payments to air carriers'' limiting the liquidating cash under the program, stipulating that no claims may be paid except in accordance with the limitation and provides certain criteria for distribution of the limitation. Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating expenses'' which specifies that the number of aircraft on hand at any one time cannot exceed two hundred and eighteen. Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating expenses'' which specifies that none of the funds appropriated shall be available for pay or administrative expenses in connection with shipping commissioners. Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating expenses'' that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation to the amount of fees collected from yacht owners. Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating expenses'' that specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both military and civilian employment levels to comply with Executive Order No. 12839. Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' that credits funds received from the sale of the VC-11A and HU-25 aircraft to this account to purchase new aircraft. Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' that credits funds from the disposal of surplus property by sale or lease to be credited to this appropriation and allows $20 million in offsetting collections from the sale of Coast Guard property in Wildwood, New Jersey. Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Research, development, test, and evaluation'' that credits funds received from state and local governments and other entities for expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and evaluation. Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Boat Safety'' account that establishes a discretionary boat safety grant program. Language is included under FAA, ``Operations'' that allows the collection of $30,000,000 in additional user fees and allows the fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and reduces the general fund appropriation on a dollar for dollar basis as the fees are received and credited. Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop safety standards. Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ``Operations,'' that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of the second career training program. Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' that prohibits the use of funds for premium pay unless an employee actually performed work during the time corresponding to the premium pay. Language is included under the FAA, ``Facilities and equipment,'' that allows certain funds received for expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of air navigation facilities to be credited to the account Language is included under the FAA, ``Research, engineering, and development,'' that allows certain funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and development to be credited to the account. Language is included prohibiting funds for aircraft loan guarantees. The bill includes a limitation on general operating expenses of the Federal Highway Administration. The bill includes language prohibiting obligations for right-of-way acquisition. Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``Operations and research'' prohibiting the planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires for low rolling resistance. Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting obligations for certain safety grant programs. Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ``Office of the administrator,'' authorizing the Secretary to receive payments from the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, credit them to the appropriation charged with the first deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of trust. Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ``Railroad safety'' that allows reimbursement of states' employees travel and per diem costs when directly supporting federal railroad safety programs. Language is included authorizing the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ``Rhode Island railroad development'' that specifies that the federal contribution shall be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis and that the Providence and Worcester railroad shall reimburse Amtrak and/or the Federal Railroad Administration up to the first $8,000,000 in legal damages if damages occur resulting from provision of vertical clearances in excess of those required for present freight operations. Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ``Direct loan financing program'' that provides $58,680,000 for direct loans not to exceed $400,000,000 for the Alameda corridor under section 505 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976; provides that such loans shall not exceed certain amounts specified for fiscal years 1997 through 1999; provides that such loans be structured with a maximum 30-year repayment after completion of construction at an annual rate of not to exceed the 30-year U.S. Treasury rate; waives section 505(a) (b) and (d); and deems the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority as a financially responsible person. Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,'' that prohibits capital improvement funds until July 1, 1997. Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,'' regarding the use of funds for lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles. Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ``Formula grants,'' limiting mass transit operating assistance. Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ``Discretionary grants,'' reprogramming funds previously provided for projects specified in this Act. Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ``Discretionary grants,'' specifying the distribution of funds for new fixed guideway systems in this Act. Language is included under the Federal Transit Administration, ``Discretionary grants,'' allowing Salt Lake City light rail transit project funds to be used for high occupancy vehicle lane and corridor design costs. Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' which would allow up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts. Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' that credits certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and other activities. Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that allows up to $1,000,000 for one-call notification systems to be funded from amounts previously collected and held in a reserve account. Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants,'' specifying the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate funds provided under this head. Language is included under Office of Inspector General, ``Salaries and expenses'' prohibiting funds for the conduct of contract audits. Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, ``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $3,000,000 in fees and providing that fees collected in excess of $3,000,000 shall not be available until October 1, 1997. Language is included under ``Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, ``Salaries and expenses,'' that provides that funds received for publications and training may be credited to the appropriation. Language is included in several instances rescinding budget authority previously provided. Section 301 through 337 of the bill contains a number of general provisions that place limitations or funding prohibitions on the use of funds in the bill and which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing the application of existing law. Sections 301 through 337 of the bill contain a number of general provisions that allow for the redistribution of previously appropriated funds. The bill includes language regarding the administration of the federal-aid highway obligation limitation. Section 314 allows airports to transfer to the Federal Aviation Administration instrument landing systems which conform with FAA specifications and the purchase of such equipment was assisted by a federal airport aid program. Section 321 reduced funding for activities of the transportation administrative service center of the Department of Transportation and limits obligational authority of the center to $114,812,000. Section 323 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, or promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles. Section 324 prohibits funds for the sixth runway at the new Denver International Airport unless the Administrator or the Federal Aviation Administration determines, in writing, that safety conditions warrant obligation of such funds. Section 326 allows the Secretary to transfer from other office of the secretary accounts for rental payments in excess of the amounts provided in the bill. Section 327 prohibits funds for any type of training which: (a) is personally offensive to students; (b) discusses or teaches religious concepts or ideas; (c) attempts to teach or modify one's personal values or lifestyle; (d) is for AIDS awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights of employees; or (e) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly on the performance of official duties. Section 329 requires Federal Transit Administration oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to be based in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Section 332 allows the Secretary of Transportation to exempt any class of vehicle deemed appropriate under 49 CFR part 580.6. Also, the bill includes several new or modified provisions that could be construed as changing existing law as follows: Section 321 reduced funding for activities of the transportation administrative service center of the Department of Transportation and limits obligational authority of the center to $114,812,000. Section 325 allows funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products be credited to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses and provides $3,100,000 in user fees for the aviation statistics program. Section 337 allows funds provided under section 3035(kk) of Public Law 102-240 to the State of Michigan for the purchase of buses and bus-related equipment and facilities. Section 339 enacts section 423 of H.R. 1361, as passed the House of Representatives on May 9, 1995, in regards to the conveyance of Light Station Montauk Point, located in Montauk, New York. The bill also includes a new title IV, ``Miscellaneous Highway Provisions'', that amends the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; restricts the operations of tandem and other large vehicles in Virginia; authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to provide an additional line of credit for construction of Orange County toll roads; and extends the authorization relating to the traffic improvement demonstration project. Appropriations Not Authorized by Law Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: United States Coast Guard Federal Aviation Administration National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Operations and Research National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Highway traffic safety grants Federal Railroad Administration (except office of the administrator and rail safety) Research and Special Programs Administration, Pipeline Safety Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Aviation Statistics National Civil Aviation Review Commission Comparison With Budget Resolution Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the new authority compares with the reports submitted under section 602(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 602(b) allocation This bill --------------------------------------------------- Budget Budget authority Outlays authority Outlays ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary............................................... $12,190 $35,453 $11,852 $35,453 Mandatory................................................... 605 602 608 602 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The bill provides new spending authority as defined under section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, as follows: Under Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing funds, authority is provided to issue notes necessary to pay obligations under section 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. This provision has been included at the request of the administration because the government's financial obligations under this program are difficult to determine in advance and may require immediate expenditures of funds. The Committee has received no indication to date that this authority will be used in fiscal year 1995. Similar provisions have been included in many previous appropriations Acts. Five-Year Outlay Projects In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office: Budget authority.................................... $12,460,000,000 Outlays: 1997............................................ 12,270,000,000 1998............................................ 12,970,000,000 1999............................................ 5,928,000,000 2000............................................ 2,105,000,000 2001............................................ 1,525,000,000 Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of Public Law 93- 344, the Congressional Budget Office has provided the following estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and local governments: Budget authority........................................ $737,000,000 Fiscal year 1997 outlays................................ 3,729,000,000 <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> RAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>