```

[House Report 106-622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-622

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

 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  2001

                                _______
                                

  May 17, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4475]

    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, 2001.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action......................
                                                                      2
Program, project, and activity.............................
                                                                      4
Title I--Department of Transportation:
        Office of the Secretary............................     2
                                                                      5
        Coast Guard........................................     6
                                                                     16
        Federal Aviation Administration....................    10
                                                                     27
        Federal Highway Administration.....................    16
                                                                     55
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration........    18
                                                                     75
        Federal Railroad Administration....................    21
                                                                     87
        Federal Transit Administration.....................    24
                                                                     97
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.....    19
                                                                     80
        Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation......    34
                                                                    160
        Research and Special Programs Administration.......    35
                                                                    161
        Office of Inspector General........................    37
                                                                    165
        Surface Transportation Board.......................    38
                                                                    167
Title II--Related Agencies:
        Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
            Compliance Board...............................    38
                                                                    168
        National Transportation Safety Board...............    39
                                                                    169
Title III--General Provisions..............................    39
                                                                    170
House Report Requirements:
        Appropriations not authorized by law...............
                                                                    180
        Changes in existing law............................
                                                                    173
        Comparison with budget resolution..................
                                                                    180
        Constitutional authority...........................
                                                                    172
        Financial assistance to state and local governments
                                                                    181
        Five-year projections of outlays...................
                                                                    180
        Ramseyer...........................................
                                                                    173
        Rescissions........................................
                                                                    181
        Transfers of funds.................................
                                                                    172
Tabular summary of the bill................................
                                                                    182

             Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill

    The accompanying bill would provide $15,764,474,000 in new 
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies, $389,263,000 
less than the $16,153,737,000 requested in the budget. In 
total, the bill includes obligational authority (new budget 
authority, guaranteed obligations contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and the 
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century (AIR21), limitations on obligations, and exempt 
obligations) of $55,236,650,000. This is $5,209,010,000 more 
than the comparable fiscal year 2000 enacted level and 
$605,737,000 more than the budget request.
    Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill 
are:
          (1) An appropriation of $12,585,366,000 for the 
        Federal Aviation Administration, consistent with 
        provisions of AIR21, an increase of $2,503,871,000, or 
        25 percent, above fiscal year 2000;
          (2) A limitation of $3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid 
        for airports, as required by provisions of AIR21, and 
        an increase of $1,250,000,000, or 64 percent, above the 
        fiscal year 2000 level and the budget request;
          (3) An appropriation of $3,192,000,000 for operating 
        expenses of the Coast Guard, including $557,963,000 for 
        drug interdiction activities, a 14 percent increase 
        over last year's level;
          (4) An appropriation of $521,476,000 for grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), 
        to cover capital expenses;
          (5) A total of $62,109,000 for the office of the 
        secretary, $7,077,000 below the budget request;
          (6) Highway program obligation limitations of 
        $29,661,806,000, consistent with provisions of TEA21, 
        and $1,960,456,000 over fiscal year 2000;
          (7) Transit program obligations of $6,271,000,000, 
        consistent with provisions of TEA21, and $485,647,000 
        over fiscal year 2000; and
          (8) A total of $269,194,000 for the recently 
        established Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
        Administration, including $177,000,000 for the national 
        motor carrier safety program, an increase of 
        $164,194,000 above fiscal year 2000.

                   The Effect of Guaranteed Spending

    Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget 
Committees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide 
two new additional spending categories or ``firewalls'', the 
highway category and the mass transit category. Earlier this 
year, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act 
for the 21st Century (AIR21) provided a similar treatment for 
certain aviation programs. Although using different procedures, 
each of these Acts produced the same results: they 
significantly raised spending, and they effectively prohibited 
the Appropriations Committee from reducing those spending 
levels in the annual appropriations process. As the Committee 
noted during deliberations on these bills, the Acts essentially 
created mandatory spending programs within the discretionary 
caps. This undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other 
equally important programs, including non-guaranteed 
transportation programs such as FAA Operations, the Coast 
Guard, and Amtrak. As a result of these Acts, $46.7 billion of 
the $55.2 billion in budgetary resources addressed by this 
bill--or 85 percent of the bill's total resources--are either 
``guaranteed'' by federal legislation and/or protected by 
unprecedented legislated points of order passed into law at the 
initiative of the authorization committees.
    The Committee will continue to do all it can in this 
environment to produce a balanced bill which provides 
adequately for all modes of transportation. However, clearly 
the expanding use of spending guarantees to ``wall-off'' parts 
of the discretionary budget for particular constituencies will 
cause both transportation and non-transportation programs all 
across the government to be under more severe budget pressure, 
in order to keep the overall budget in balance. The effect of 
the guarantees will especially leave its mark on non-covered 
transportation programs and activities, since they must compete 
within this bill for leftover funding. The Committee continues 
to be concerned that bills such as TEA21 and AIR21 skew 
transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a 
banquet of increases to highway, transit, and airport spending 
while leaving safety-related operations in the FAA, Coast 
Guard, and FRA to scramble for the remaining crumbs. The 
Committee continues to believe that safety--not concrete--
should remain the Federal Government's highest responsibility 
in the transportation area.

                            Tabular Summary

    A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 
2000 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 
2001 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 2001. These hearings are contained in seven 
published volumes. The Committee received testimony from 
officials of the executive branch, Members of Congress, 
officials of the General Accounting Office, officials of state 
and local governments, and private citizens.
    The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2001 have been 
developed after careful consideration of all the information 
available to the Committee.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2001, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions 
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or 
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory 
statements of the committee of conference. This definition 
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) 
authority is provided, as well as to capital investment grants, 
Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage 
reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds 
appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and 
improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each 
``budget item'' that is listed under said accounts in the 
budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent 
appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, 
conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the 
committee of conference.

                            Safety Programs

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

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 \1\....................    ($60,852,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \2\...................      69,186,000
Recommended in the bill \1\............................     (62,109,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................      +1,257,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................     -7,077,000

\1\ Total amount appropriated in separate accounts.
\2\ Amount requested in this consolidated account.

    The bill provides a total of $62,109,000 for the salaries 
and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of 
the Secretary. The Committee has not approved the consolidated 
appropriations request for the various offices within the 
office of the secretary and has continued to provide 
appropriations for each office within the office of the 
secretary. Specific program recommendations are discussed in 
this report under the individual appropriations accounts.
    Congressional justifications and supporting materials.--The 
Committee appreciates the timely submission of the department's 
fiscal year 2001 Congressional justifications. The Committee 
again directs the department to submit all of the department's 
fiscal year Congressional justifications on the first Monday in 
February, concurrent with official submission of the 
President's budget to Congress.
    While the Committee was pleased that the Congressional 
justifications were submitted to the Committee concurrent with 
the official budget of the President, the Committee was not 
satisfied with the timeliness of the submission of responses to 
questions for the record and the editing of the transcript. 
These materials are as--if not more--important than the 
Congressional justifications and the Committee cannot fully 
review the budget requests of the department in the absence of 
these materials. The Committee expects that the department will 
take actions to ensure that the materials submitted to the 
Committee for review are completed and submitted on a far more 
timely basis.
    The department is also directed to submit its fiscal year 
2002 Congressional justification materials for the salaries and 
expenses of the office of the secretary at the same level of 
detail provided in the Congressional justifications presented 
in fiscal year 2001.
    In addition, the justification materials for the individual 
modal administrations for fiscal year 2002 and thereafter shall 
include tables detailing a ten-year history of appropriations.
    Staffing levels.--The offices comprising the offices of the 
secretary are directed not to fill any positions in fiscal year 
2000 that are currently vacant if such vacancies are proposed 
in this Act for elimination in fiscal year 2001.
    Assessments.--The Committee directs that assessments 
charged by the office of the secretary to the modal 
administrations shall be for administrative activities, not 
policy initiatives.

                           General Provision

    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 2001 is 104 
personnel, which is four more than the level enacted in fiscal 
year 2000. This increase reflects the additional political 
appointees associated with the creation of the new Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The bill specifies that no 
political or Presidential appointee may be detailed outside the 
Department of Transportation or any other agency funded in this 
bill.

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........................     $1,867,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................     (2,031,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................      1,756,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.....................       -111,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................      -275,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary 
responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 
control of departmental affairs. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $1,756,000 for expenses of the immediate 
office of the secretary, which represents a decrease of 
$111,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $275,000 
below the level assumed in the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes the following staffing reductions:

Eliminate second deputy chief of staff....................     -$200,000
Eliminate one scheduling and advance assistant............       -75,000

    Staffing reductions.--The Committee recommendation assumes 
the elimination of a second deputy chief of staff and a 
scheduling and advance assistant in fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee believes that a second deputy chief of staff is 
unnecessary and that current staffing levels in the immediate 
office of the secretary and the resources provided in the bill 
are sufficient to enable the secretary to carry out his 
legislative agenda, formulate national transportation policy, 
and to promote an intermodal transportation system, economic 
growth and trade. The positions proposed in the bill for 
elimination in fiscal year 2001 are currently vacant.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................    $600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.......................    (587,000)
Recommended in the bill....................................     587,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................     -13,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001.......................  ...........

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the 
primary responsibility to assist the Secretary in the overall 
planning, direction and control of the departmental affairs. 
The Committee recommends $587,000 for expenses of the immediate 
office of the deputy secretary, which is a decrease of $13,000 
from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same level 
assumed in the budget request.

                     Office of the General Counsel

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........................     $9,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................    (11,172,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................      9,760,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.....................       +760,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................    -1,412,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services 
to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the 
legal work of the chief counsels' offices of the operating 
administrations. The bill provides an appropriation of 
$9,760,000 for expenses of the office of general counsel, which 
represents an increase of $760,000 from the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level, and $1,412,000 less than the level assumed in 
the budget request.
    Due to budget constraints, the bill provides limited 
resources, $300,000, for the department's ``Accessibility for 
all America'' initiative and exclusionary pricing activities. 
These resources are expected to support three new positions. 
There are several vacancies currently in the office of the 
general counsel which may be filled to augment the new staffing 
and resources provided by the Committee in this Act.

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...........................   $2,824,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\......................   (3,131,500)
Recommended in the bill...................................    3,131,500
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................     +308,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................  ............

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Assistant Secretary for Policy is the chief domestic 
policy officer of the department and is responsible to the 
Secretary for analysis, development, communication and review 
of policies and plans for domestic transportation issues. For 
fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$3,131,500 for the office of the assistant secretary for 
policy, which represents an increase of $308,000 over the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and the same level as assumed 
in the budget request.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........................     $7,650,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................     (7,702,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................      7,182,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.....................       -468,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................      -520,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs is responsible for administering economic regulatory 
functions regarding the airline industry and provides 
departmental leadership and coordination on international 
transportation policy issues relating to maritime, trade, 
technical assistance and cooperative programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,182,000 for 
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for aviation 
and international affairs, which represents a reduction of 
$468,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $520,000 
below the level assumed in the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes the elimination of four transportation 
industry specialists (-$400,000) and disallows a proposed new 
position of special assistant to the Assistant Secretary for 
Aviation and International Affairs (-$120,000). The bill 
includes a provision that permits the collection and crediting 
to this appropriation of up to $1,250,000 received in user 
fees, as requested in the budget.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........................     $6,870,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................     (7,241,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................      7,241,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.....................       +371,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................  ..............

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is 
responsible for developing, reviewing and presenting budget 
resource requirements for the department to the Secretary, 
Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,241,000 for 
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for budget 
and programs, which represents an increase of $371,000 over the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and the same level assumed in 
the budget request.
    Reception and representation expenses.--The Committee has 
approved the request to increase to $60,000 the amount to be 
available for costs related to reception and representation 
expenses.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...........................   $2,039,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\......................   (2,176,000)
Recommended in the bill...................................    2,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................      -39,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................    -176,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental 
Affairs is responsible for coordinating all Congressional, 
intergovernmental, and consumer activities of the department.
    The bill provides an appropriation of $2,000,000 for 
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for 
governmental affairs, which represents a decrease of $39,000 
from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $176,000 below the 
level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes 
the elimination of one congressional affairs specialist 
(-$76,000) and a general reduction due to budget constraints 
(-$100,000).
    The bill continues a provision (sec. 329) that has been 
carried in previous appropriations Acts that requires the 
department to notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations not less than three business days before any 
discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding 
grant agreement in excess of $1,000,000 is announced by the 
department or its modal administrations from: (1) any 
discretionary program of the Federal Highway Administration 
other than the emergency relief program; (2) the airport 
improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; and 
(3) any program of the Federal Transit Administration program 
other than the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization 
programs. Such notification shall include the date on which the 
official announcement of the grant is to be made and no such 
announcement shall involve funds that are not available for 
obligation.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........................    $17,767,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................    (20,139,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................     18,359,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.....................       +592,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................    -1,780,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is 
responsible for coordinating, overseeing and conducting various 
accounting, procurement, personnel management, and ADP 
operations of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,359,000 
for expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for 
administration, which represents an increase of $592,000 from 
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $1,780,000 below the 
level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes 
the following reductions:

Eliminate proposed increases for employee development...     -$1,160,000
General reduction due to budget constraints.............        -500,000
Eliminate 1 personnel management specialist.............        -120,000

    Personnel reductions.--The Committee recommendation deletes 
funding requested for one personnel management specialist. This 
position is currently vacant.
    General reduction.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee recommendation reduces the budget request for the 
office of administration by $500,000. The Committee directs 
that such reductions be taken from non-personnel activities, 
such as contractor support, overhead and other related 
activities, to avoid personnel reductions not otherwise 
directed by the Committee.

                        Office of Public Affairs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...........................   $1,800,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\......................   (1,714,000)
Recommended in the bill...................................    1,454,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................     -346,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................    -260,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of Public Affairs is responsible for news 
releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, 
publications, and audio-visual materials of the department.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,454,000 for 
expenses of the office of public affairs, which represents a 
decrease of $346,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level 
and $260,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The 
recommendation assumes the elimination of 2 public affairs 
specialists (-$160,000), which are currently vacant, and a 
proposed new position of special assistant to the associate 
director for speech writing (-$100,000).

                         Executive Secretariat

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...........................   $1,102,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\......................   (1,181,000)
Recommended in the bill...................................    1,181,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................      +79,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................  ............

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary in carrying out their management functions and 
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and 
external written materials.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,181,000 for 
expenses of the executive secretariat, which is $79,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same level 
assumed in the budget request.

                       Board of Contract Appeals

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................    $520,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.......................    (496,000)
Recommended in the bill....................................     496,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................     -24,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001.......................  ...........

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Board of Contract Appeals provides an independent forum 
for considering all contract-related claims by or against a 
contractor involving any element of the department.
    The bill provides an appropriation of $496,000 for expenses 
of the Board of Contract Appeals, which is a reduction of 
$24,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same 
level assumed in the budget request.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...........................   $1,222,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\......................   (1,192,000)
Recommended in the bill...................................    1,192,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................      -30,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................  ............

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
is responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business 
participation in the department's procurement and grants 
programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$1,192,000 for expenses of the office of small and 
disadvantaged business utilization, which is a decrease of 
$30,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same 
level assumed in the budget request.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........................     $1,454,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................     (3,494,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................      1,490,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.....................        +36,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................    -2,004,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of Intelligence and Security was created during 
fiscal year 1990 to address transportation intelligence and 
security issues. The primary purposes of the office are to 
provide intelligence and security oversight of the operating 
administrations to increase the safety and security of the 
traveling public, and to provide the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary with current intelligence and security information, 
with special emphasis on potential or actual terrorist threats 
to transportation interests.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,490,000 for 
expenses of the office of intelligence and security, which is 
an increase of $36,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level 
and $2,004,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. 
The recommendation disallows funding requested in this account 
for infrastructure protection activities (-$2,000,000). These 
activities are funded, albeit at lower levels, within amounts 
provided to the Research and Special Programs Administration. 
In addition, funding is provided within the model 
administration's budgets for these activities.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........................     $5,075,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................     (6,929,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................      6,279,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.....................     +1,204,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................      -650,000

\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) serves as 
the principal advisor to the Secretary on matters involving 
information resources and information systems management.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,279,000 for 
expenses of the office of the chief information officer, which 
is an increase of $1,204,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level and $650,000 below the level assumed in the budget 
request. The recommendation disallows funding requested to 
implement in fiscal year 2002 a pilot project that has yet to 
be defined or determined by the department's architecture 
working group.
    The Committee directs that no major Information Technology 
(IT) procurement within the department occur until after a 
review by the CIO has been conducted to determine system 
deficiencies, vulnerabilities, compatibility with, and relative 
need of such systems compared to other departmental systems 
requirements. The CIO must direct and approve all IT and 
telecommunications infrastructure items and expenditures for 
all systems that are non-mode specific (e.g., common grants 
systems). The CIO review and concurrence, however, shall not 
apply to real-time air traffic control data. In addition, the 
Committee expects that each agency of the department shall 
appoint a person to carry out that agency's CIO function, who 
shall report to the administrator or deputy administrator of 
each agency and shall be in control of both implementing IT 
policy and running operations. The agency CIO contact shall 
report both to the agency and the departmental CIO, where the 
agency head and the department CIO shall agree on the 
performance plan and performance evaluations.

                        Office of Intermodalism

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.........................     $1,062,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001........................           (\1\)
Recommended in the bill.................................           (\1\)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.....................     -1,062,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................  ..............

\1\ Included within the Federal Highway Administration's limitation on
  administrative expenses.

    Funding for the office of intermodalism is recommended 
within the Federal Highway Administration's limitation on 
administrative expenses, consistent with the budget request.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...........................    $7,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001..........................     8,726,000
Recommended in the bill...................................     8,140,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................      +940,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................      -586,000

    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and 
ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity 
precepts in all of the department's official actions and 
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and 
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated 
and federally assisted transportation programs. This office 
also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of 
Transportation employees.
    The recommendation provides a total of $8,140,000 for the 
office of civil rights, which represents an increase of 
$940,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and $586,000 
less than the budget request. The recommendation includes 
$300,000 for alternative dispute resolution and three 
additional FTEs, as requested in the budget. The recommendation 
assumes the following reductions from the budget request due to 
budget constraints:

Hold automated tracking system to current level............    -$314,000
Hold section 504 studies and evaluations to $80,000........      -80,000
Hold web site development to current level.................      -70,000
Hold reimbursable agreements to current level..............      -44,000
Hold travel to $200,000....................................      -78,000

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................   $3,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...........................    5,258,000
Recommended in the bill....................................    3,300,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................  ...........
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001.......................   -1,958,000

    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 an appropriation of $3,300,000 for 
transportation planning, research and development, which is the 
same level as provided in fiscal year 2000 and $1,958,000 below 
the budget request. Adjustments to the budget request include 
the following:

Disallow funding for airline profitability modeling and      -$1,148,000
 associated staffing increases............................
Disallow funding for the dockets management system and          -600,000
 electronic grant making standards activities.............
Defer lower priority studies and evaluations due to budget      -210,000
 constraints..............................................

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, fiscal year 2000 \1\.....................     ($148,673,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \2\.................      (163,811,000)
Recommended in the bill \3\..........................      (119,387,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2000.....................      (-29,286,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................      (-44,424,000) 

\1\ In fiscal year 2000, the limitation on transportation administrative
  service center expenses was reduced by $15,000,000.
\2\ Proposed without limitation. Amount reflected is the estimated
  program level for non-DOT activities anticipated in fiscal year 2001.
\3\ In fiscal year 2001, the limitation on transportation administrative
  service center expenses is also reduced in a general provision (-
  $4,000,000).

    The transportation administrative service center was 
created in fiscal year 1997 to provide common administrative 
services to the various modes and outside entities that desire 
those services for economy and efficiency. The fund is financed 
through negotiated agreements with the department's operating 
administrations and other governmental elements requiring the 
center's capabilities.
    The Committee agreed to create the transportation 
administrative service center in fiscal year 1997 at the 
department's request. In agreeing to that request, the 
Committee limited: (1) the activities that can be transferred 
to the transportation administrative service center to only 
those approved by the agency administrator, and (2) special 
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those 
assessments or reimbursable agreements and the basis for them 
are presented to and approved by the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are continued 
in fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $119,387,000 be 
imposed on the transportation administrative service center. 
This is a decrease of $29,286,000 from the fiscal year 2000 
obligations of $148,673,000 and a reduction of $44,424,000 from 
the level anticipated in the budget request. The recommended 
reductions from the budget request reflect the following 
adjustments:

Disallow proposed transfer of the National Oceanic and      -$43,963,000
 Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical
 Charting and Cartography to the TASC...................
Disallow request for additional staffing increases......        -461,000

    Disallow proposed transfer of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting 
and Cartography to the TASC.--The budget proposed that the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of 
Aeronautical Charting and Cartography (AC&C) be transferred 
from the Department of Commerce and placed within the TASC. 
While the department believes that the AC&C product offerings 
are closely aligned with the services provided by TASC, the 
Committee asserts that the aeronautical charting services 
ultimately support aviation safety missions within the FAA, and 
it is more logical that these services be performed within the 
FAA. Moreover, the recent reauthorization for the Federal 
Aviation Administration places the AC&C within the FAA. 
Consequently, the Committee recommendation includes funding for 
this activity within the FAA's appropriation for fiscal year 
2001. Accordingly, the TASC obligation limitation has been 
reduced by $43,963,000 and staffing reduced by 379 FTE.
    General provision.--The Committee has included a general 
provision (sec. 323) which provides that amounts budgeted for 
the transportation administrative service center in this bill 
are reduced, on a pro-rata basis, to a limitation of 
$115,387,000. These reductions should be borne by TASC, through 
administrative efficiencies, such as reducing its significant 
carry-over balances, and not by the modal administrations. The 
Committee has included other reductions in the modal 
administrations' operating budgets.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

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

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

                                                          Limitation on
                                         Appropriation      guaranteed
                                                              loans

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000\1\....       $1,900,000    ($13,775,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001\2\...        1,900,000     (13,775,000)
Recommended in the bill\2\............        1,900,000     (13,775,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...  ...............  ...............
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..  ...............  ...............

\1\ The fiscal year 2000 limitation on loan authority applies to direct
  loans.
\2\ The fiscal year 2001 budget request and Committee recommendation
  converts this loan program into guaranteed loans.

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

                       Minority Business Outreach

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................   $2,900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...........................    3,000,000
Recommended in the bill....................................    3,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................     +100,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001.......................  ...........

    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 OST 
purposes. The Committee has provided $3,000,000, $100,000 more 
than provided in fiscal year 2000 and the same level as 
requested in the budget.

                              COAST GUARD

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on 
January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter 
Service and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by 
transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse 
Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and 
Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary 
responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the 
high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding 
navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining 
a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of 
the Navy in time of war.
    Including funds for national security activities and 
retired pay accounts, the Committee recommends a total program 
level of $4,616,506,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in 
fiscal year 2001. This is $594,453,000 (14.8 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2000 program level.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program 
levels, the fiscal year 2001 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                          Program                          ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                              2000 enacted      2001 estimate      recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses........................................    $2,781,000,000    $3,199,000,000    $3,192,000,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements...............       389,326,000       520,200,000       515,000,000
Environmental compliance and restoration..................        17,000,000        16,700,000        16,700,000
Alteration of bridges.....................................        15,000,000  ................        14,740,000
Retired pay...............................................       730,327,000       778,000,000       778,000,000
Reserve training..........................................        72,000,000        73,371,000        80,375,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation...............        19,000,000        21,320,000        19,691,000
Across the board rescission...............................        -1,600,000  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................     4,022,053,000     4,608,591,000     4,616,506,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Operating Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000\1\....................    $2,781,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001\2\..................     3,199,000,000
Recommended in the bill\2\............................     3,192,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................      +411,000,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.................       -7,000,000

\1\ Includes $300,000,000 in funds for national security activities in
  budget function 050.
\2\ Includes $341,000,000 in funds for national security activities in
  budget function 050.

    This appropriation provides funding for the operation and 
maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units 
strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of 
the United States and in selected areas overseas.
    Including $341,000,000 for national security activities, 
the Committee recommends a total of $3,192,000,000 for 
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2001, an 
increase of $411,000,000 (14.8 percent) above the fiscal year 
2000 appropriation and $7,000,000 below the budget request. The 
following table compares the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, 
the fiscal year 2001 estimate, and the recommended level by 
program, project and activity:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                Program, Project & Activity                ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                              2000 enacted      2001 estimate      recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Personnel Resources....................................    $1,779,842,000    $2,069,719,000    $2,068,187,000
    A. Military pay & allowances..........................     1,264,852,000     1,471,495,000     1,470,976,000
    B. Civilian pay & benefits............................       220,631,000       243,119,000       242,946,000
    C. Military health care...............................       139,070,000       174,769,000       174,718,000
    D. Permanent Change of station........................        63,528,000        78,103,000        77,734,000
    E. Training & education...............................        71,793,000        85,557,000        85,137,000
    F. Recruiting.........................................         8,877,000         5,585,000         5,585,000
    G. FECA/UCX...........................................        11,091,000        11,091,000        11,091,000
II. Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance............       635,972,000       700,795,000       703,100,000
    A. Atlantic area command..............................       103,366,000       125,702,000       125,702,000
    B. Pacific area command...............................       111,740,000       118,891,000       122,691,000
    C. District commands..................................
        1. 1st district (Boston)..........................        40,429,000        36,566,000        36,566,000
        2. 7th district (Miami)...........................        45,454,000        49,043,000        49,043,000
        3. 8th district (New Orleans).....................        28,483,000        28,674,000        28,674,000
        4. 9th district (Cleveland).......................        17,418,000        17,775,000        17,775,000
        5. 13th district (Seattle)........................        13,721,000        13,030,000        13,030,000
        6. 14th district (Honolulu).......................         7,332,000         9,734,000         9,734,000
        7. 17th district (Juneau).........................        20,174,000        20,972,000        20,972,000
    D. Headquarters offices...............................       198,871,000       223,413,000       222,972,000
    E. Headquarters-managed units.........................        42,096,000        55,342,000        54,288,000
    F. Other activities...................................         6,888,000         1,653,000         1,653,000
III. Depot-Level Maintenance..............................       405,186,000       428,486,000       426,981,000
    A. Aircraft maintenance...............................       156,862,000       170,101,000       168,596,000
    B. Electronic maintenance.............................        38,079,000        42,395,000        42,395,000
    C. Shore maintenance..................................       101,792,000       105,785,000       105,785,000
    D. Vessel maintenance.................................       108,453,000       110,205,000       110,205,000
IV. Account-Wide Adjustments..............................       -40,000,000  ................        -6,268,000
    A. Funding previously provided........................       -40,000,000  ................  ................
    B. Nonpay COLA........................................  ................  ................        -6,268,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation.................................     2,781,000,000     3,199,000,000     3,192,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed 
below:
    Repricing of civilian personnel compensation and 
benefits.--The President's budget proposed to reduce civilian 
full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing by 40 based upon analysis 
showing a higher than anticipated lapse rate due to unused FTE. 
The reduction in the President's budget would revise upward the 
civilian lapse rate assumption, effectively resulting in less 
civilian staffing. The Committee believes this is unnecessary, 
and undermines the foundation of a strong civilian manpower 
base within the Coast Guard just at the time the GAO has 
determined the Coast Guard should have more civilian personnel. 
A stronger recruiting effort could address any issues over the 
lapse rate.
    Polar icebreaker reimbursement.--The Committee 
recommendation restores $3,800,000 of the $7,800,000 proposed 
reduction in polar icebreaking. In hearings this year, the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard advised the Committee that he did 
not support this proposal.
    International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS).--
The International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS) is 
a voluntary, non-attribution system which collects data from 
the maritime industry, and analyzes it through a commercially-
operated data center to allow the industry to take necessary 
steps to prevent marine accidents. While this appears to be a 
worthwhile effort of value to ship owners, marine insurers, 
shippers, and employee organizations, it appears more 
appropriately funded by industry, and not by the Coast Guard. 
This results in a reduction of $398,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    Maritime transportation system leadership and 
coordination.--The Committee defers the $801,000 requested for 
this new activity due to lack of justification.
    Coast Guard workstation support.--The Committee defers the 
$750,000 requested for this activity, without prejudice, due to 
higher budget priorities.
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA) fees.--The Committee deletes the additional $426,000 in 
user fees intended for reimbursement of NTIA operations costs 
due to lack of justification. The Coast Guard has presented no 
information explaining why its frequency spectrum use will need 
to rise to the extent indicated by this proposed increase. 
Given budget constraints, the Committee believes the Coast 
Guard can manage its spectrum usage to maintain within the 
current funding level.
    ``One DOT'' initiatives.--The Committee defers the $304,000 
requested due to lack of justification.
    Aviation detachment support.--The Committee defers the 
$3,904,000 requested for personnel, fuel, and maintenance to 
operate 3 additional HH-65 helicopters as a detachment to the 
new polar icebreaker during fiscal year 2001. Since initial 
funding for the manufacture of these new helicopters is also in 
the 2001 budget, the Committee finds it highly unlikely that 
the Coast Guard will be ready to operate these assets next 
year. Since the service will need time to complete the 
contracting, manufacturing, and testing process, the Committee 
believes these funds can be deferred.
    Non-pay cost of living adjustment (COLA).--The 
recommendation allows a non-pay cost of living adjustment of 
1.0 percent versus the 1.5 percent in the budget estimate, due 
to higher priority needs. This provides funding to cover 
general inflation for items other than personnel compensation. 
This results in a reduction of $6,268,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    Drug interdiction funding.--The bill provides $565,168,000 
for drug interdiction activities. This is an increase of 
$46,240,000 (8.9 percent) over the estimated expenses for 
fiscal year 2000.

                Status of Search and Rescue Capabilities

    The recent report of the National Transportation Safety 
Board into the sinking of the sailboat Morning Dew, considered 
with other relevant reports and information, convinces the 
Committee that the Coast Guard has not placed adequate 
management or budgetary priority on maintaining and improving 
the performance of the nationwide network of small boat 
stations. In many coastal communities, these stations are the 
backbone of the Coast Guard's rescue capability, yet most of 
them are understaffed and plagued by inadequate training and 
obsolete equipment. While the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2001 
budget requests an 11.6 percent increase in search and rescue 
activities, even this increase will not restore the budget to 
the level reached in fiscal year 1999. Combined with these 
budgetary pressures, the current economy has resulted in large 
percentage increases in the number of new boaters, and 
experienced boaters purchasing more complex vessels with which 
they have minimal familiarity. It is critical that the Coast 
Guard provide an effective safety net to catch those boaters 
when distress calls come in. Today that safety net has too many 
holes which need to be repaired. The Committee bill makes a 
number of initiatives to help address this problem. The 
Committee encourages the Coast Guard to allocate to search and 
rescue activities at least the level of $383,026,000 included 
in the President's budget, and more if possible, during the 
coming fiscal year. Furthermore, the Committee expects the 
Coast Guard to make whatever personnel and organizational 
changes are necessary to ensure that the small boat stations 
have an effective voice in resource allocation and staffing 
decisions.
    Nokomis, FL.--The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard's 
important effort to increase its presence on the West Coast of 
Florida and urges the Coast Guard to continue those efforts. In 
addition, the Committee would not agree with any decision to 
vacate the Nokomis site. The Committee is pleased with the 
Coast Guard's plan to use existing operating funds to improve 
the existing infrastructure at the Nokomis facility, including 
upgrades to the bulkhead and electrical systems. The Committee 
is also supportive of the service's plan to increase Auxiliary 
presence at this facility. The Committee directs the Coast 
Guard to report on the adequacy of coverage by Coast Guard 
assets for search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, drug and 
alien interdiction and specifically address whether there is 
sufficient criminal deterrent for marine crime between Fort 
Myers and St. Petersburg, Florida. The Coast Guard is directed 
to submit this report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than sixty days after enactment of this 
Act.
    Garrett Morgan Transportation Futures Program.--Consistent 
with recommendations elsewhere in the bill, no funding is 
provided to continue the Garrett Morgan Transportation Futures 
Program.
    National ballast water management program.--Of the funds 
provided, $3,500,000 is only to continue the national ballast 
water management program. This is the same level of funding as 
provided for fiscal year 2000.
    Southern Lake Michigan air facility.--The Committee bill 
fully funds continued operation of the new Coast Guard air 
facility to support Southern Lake Michigan in fiscal year 2001.
    Oil spill geographic information system.--Of the funds 
provided, $2,000,000 is only for development of an oil spill 
geographic information system for oil spill planning, response, 
and damage assessment in Alabama and Mississippi, including the 
state waters within the Gulf of Mexico. A similar system 
already developed for the State of Louisiana provides oil spill 
managers with timely base maps and related database information 
to be used before, during, and after the occurrence of oil 
spills.

                             Bill Language

    Defense-related activities.--The bill specifies that 
$341,000,000 of the total amount provided is for defense-
related activities, $41,000,000 above the level enacted for 
fiscal year 2000, and the same as the budget estimate.
    User fees.--The Committee continues the provision, first 
enacted in fiscal year 2000, precluding the Coast Guard from 
using funds to plan, finalize, or implement any new user fees 
unless legislation signed into law after the date of enactment 
of this Act specifically authorizes them.

                           General Provision

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

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................      $389,326,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.....................       520,200,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       515,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................      +125,674,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.................        -5,200,000

    The bill includes $515,000,000 for the capital acquisition, 
construction, and improvement programs of the Coast Guard for 
vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and 
related administrative expenses, of which $20,000,000 is to be 
derived from the oil spill liability trust fund.
    Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes 
language distributing the total appropriation by budget 
activity and providing separate obligation availabilities 
appropriate for the type of activity being performed. The 
Committee continues to believe that these obligation 
availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term 
unobligated balances.

                         budget justifications

    The Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit, with the 
fiscal year 2002 budget submission, a three-year funding 
profile for each AC&I project requested in the budget. The 
current budget justification listing includes only the budget 
year.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The following table compares the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 2001 estimate, and the recommended level 
by program, project and activity:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                         Program Name                         ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2000 enacted    2001 estimate     recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels......................................................     $134,560,000     $257,180,000     $252,640,000
    Survey and design--cutters and boats.....................          500,000          500,000          500,000
    Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement...................       77,000,000      123,730,000      120,990,000
    47-foot motor lifeboat (MLB) replacement project.........       24,360,000  ...............  ...............
    Buoy boat replacement project (BUSL).....................        5,000,000  ...............  ...............
    Polar icebreaker--USCGC Healy............................        1,900,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
    Configuration management.................................        3,700,000        3,600,000        3,600,000
    Surface search radar replacement project.................        4,000,000        1.150,000        1,150,000
    Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program...        4,100,000        4,500,000        4,500,000
    Barracuda coastal patrol boat (CPB)......................        1,000,000  ...............  ...............
    Mackinaw replacement.....................................       13,000,000      110,000,000      110,000,000
    87-Foot Patrol Boat (WPB) replacement....................  ...............        7,000,000        7,000,000
    Alex Haley Conversion Project--Phase II..................  ...............        3,200,000        1,400,000
    Over-The-Horizon Cutter Boats............................  ...............        1,500,000        1,500,000
    Coast Guard Patrol Craft (WPC) Conversion Project........  ...............        1,000,000        1,000,000
Integrated deepwater systems program.........................       44,200,000       42,300,000       42,300,000
Aircraft.....................................................       44,210,000       43,650,000        43,650,00
    HC-130 engine conversion.................................        1,100,000  ...............  ...............
    HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring........................        3,360,000  ...............  ...............
    HH-65A helicopter mission computer replacement...........        3,650,000        3,650,000        3,650,000
    HH-65A engine control program............................        7,000,000  ...............  ...............
    HH-65 conversion, AIRFAC Southern Lake Michigan..........        8,000,000  ...............  ...............
    Long range search aircraft capability preservation.......        5,900,000  ...............  ...............
    HU-25 A avionics improvements............................        2,900,000  ...............  ...............
    HH-60J navigation upgrade................................        3,800,000  ...............  ...............
    SLAR upgrade.............................................        2,500,000  ...............  ...............
    C-130H oil debris detection/burnoff technology...........  ...............  ...............  ...............
    HU-25 re-engining........................................        6,000,000  ...............  ...............
    HH-65 LTS-101 Engine Life Cycle Cost Reduction...........  ...............        1,000,000        1,000,000
    Aviation Simulator Modernization Project.................  ...............        3,000,000        3,000,000
    Coast Guard Cutter Healy Aviation Support................  ...............       36,000,000       36,000,000
Other Equipment..............................................       51,626,000       60,313,000       60,113,000
    Fleet logistics system...................................        6,000,000        5,500,000        5,500,000
    Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS)................        4,500,000        8,100,000        6,100,000
    Marine information for safety and law enforcement (MISLE)       10,500,000        8,500,000        8,500,000
    Aviation logistics management information system (ALMIS).        2,700,000        1,100,000        1,100,000
    National distress system modernization...................       16,000,000       22,000,000       23,800,000
    Personnel MIS/Jt uniform military pay system.............        4,400,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
    Local notice to mariners automation......................  ...............          600,000          600,000
    Defense message system implementation....................        3,477,000        2,471,000        2,471,000
    Commercial satellite communications......................        4,049,000        5,459,000        5,459,000
    Human resources information system.......................  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Loran-C continuation.....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).......  ...............        3,083,000        3,083,000
    Search and Rescue Capabilities Enhancement Project.......  ...............        1,500,000        1,500,000
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation......................       63,800,000       61,606,000       61,606,000
    Survey and design--shore projects........................        6,000,000        7,000,000        7,000,000
    Minor AC&I shore construction projects...................        6,000,000        8,000,000        8,000,000
    Housing..................................................        7,800,000       12,400,000       12,400,000
    Waterways ATON projects..................................        5,000,000        4,706,000        4,706,000
    Air Station Kodiak, AK--renovate hangar..................        8,300,000        8,200,000        8,200,000
    Air Station Elizabeth City, NC--ramp improvements........        3,800,000  ...............  ...............
    Air Station Miami, FL--renovate fixed wing hangar........        3,500,000  ...............  ...............
    Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT--educ. Facilities....        5,000,000  ...............  ...............
    Base San Juan, PR--patrol boat maintenance facility......        3,100,000  ...............  ...............
    Station Shinnecock, NY--modernize........................        3,500,000  ...............  ...............
    MOS/Station Cleveland OH--relocate.......................        1,000,000  ...............  ...............
    Drug interdiction assets--homeporting....................        2,800,000  ...............  ...............
    Unalaska, AK--pier.......................................        8,000,000  ...............  ...............
    Transportation improvements--Coast Guard Island, Alameda,  ...............        8,000,000        8,000,000
     CA......................................................
    Coast Guard MEC Waterfront Improvements--Portsmouth, VA..  ...............        2,400,000        2,400,000
    Modernize Coast Guard Facilities--Phase 1--Cape May, NJ..  ...............        5,800,000        5,800,000
    Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI--Phase 1.....  ...............        1,300,000        1,300,000
    Modernize Air Station Port Angeles Hangar, Port Angeles,   ...............        3,800,000        3,800,000
     WA......................................................
Personnel and Related Support................................       50,930,000       55,151,000       54,691,000
    Direct personnel costs...................................       50,180,000       54,151,000       53,691,000
    Core acquisition costs...................................          750,000        1,000,000        1,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation....................................      389,326,000      520,200,000      515,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Vessels

    The Committee recommends $252,640,000 for vessels, an 
increase of $118,080,000 above the amount provided for fiscal 
year 2000 and $4,540,000 below the administration's request. 
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained 
below.
    Seagoing buoy tender replacement.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $120,990,000 for the seagoing buoy 
tender (WLB) replacement program, an increase of $43,990,000 
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $2,740,000 below 
the budget estimate. The Committee bill anticipates that this 
funding level will be sufficient to acquire three WLBs, as 
proposed in the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget 
constraints.
    Alex Haley conversion project, phase II.--The Committee 
recommends $1,400,000 for this project, a reduction of 
$1,800,000 below the budget estimate. The reduction is due to 
budget constraints and the need to fund other high priority 
initiatives.

                  Integrated deepwater systems program

    The Committee recommends $42,300,000 for the integrated 
deepwater systems program, the same as the budget estimate and 
$1,900,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

                                aircraft

    The Committee recommends $43,650,000 for aircraft, the same 
as the budget estimate and $560,000 less than the amount 
provided for fiscal year 2000.

                            other equipment

    The Committee recommends $60,113,000 for other equipment, a 
reduction of $200,000 below the budget estimate and $8,487,000 
above the amount provided for fiscal year 2000. Specific 
adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below.
    Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS).--The Committee 
recommendation allows a 35.5 percent increase in this program 
instead of the 80 percent increase requested. The Committee 
believes the expansion of this program to other ports can 
proceed at a slower pace given other high priority needs.
    National distress and response system (ND&RS) 
modernization.--The Committee recommends $23,800,000 for this 
program, an increase of $1,800,000 above the budget estimate 
and 48.8 percent above the level appropriated for fiscal year 
2000. The increased funding is specifically for the Coast Guard 
to conduct a test of digital selective calling (DSC) technology 
and its impact on ND&RS system requirements. The Coast Guard 
should conduct this test expeditiously, in order to consider 
these important requirements without impacting the overall 
ND&RS program schedule.

                shore facilities and aids to navigation

    The Committee recommends $61,606,000 for shore facilities 
and aids to navigation, the same as the budget estimate and 
$2,194,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. 
This amount includes $12,400,000 for construction of Coast 
Guard family and unaccompanied personnel housing, an increase 
of almost 60 percent above fiscal year 2000.

                     personnel and related support

    The Committee recommends $54,691,000 for personnel and 
related support, an increase of $3,761,000 (7.4 percent) above 
the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 and $460,000 below the 
administration's request. The reduction is due to higher 
budgetary priorities.

                             Bill Language

    Capital investment plan.--The Committee is disappointed 
that the administration flagrantly violated a provision in the 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2000 which called for submission of a five-
year capital investment plan no later than the date of initial 
submission of the President's fiscal year 2001 budget. The 
President's budget was initially submitted on February 7, 2000. 
As of the date of this report--three months later--the report 
has not been submitted. This has severely inhibited the 
Committee's review of Coast Guard capital programs during the 
budget process. The Committee does not request reports lightly, 
and this particular report should pose no unusual difficulties 
in research or administration. To provide a more effective 
mechanism for timely completion of this report next year, the 
bill includes a provision rescinding this appropriation by 
$100,000 per day for each day the report has not been submitted 
to the Congress after initial submission of the fiscal year 
2002 President's budget. If this is not sufficient to compel 
adherence to the law, the Committee will consider taking 
stronger actions next year. A similar provision has been 
provided in the Federal Aviation Administration section of the 
bill.
    Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision 
crediting to this appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease 
of the Coast Guard's surplus real property, and provides that 
up to $10,000,000 of such receipts are available for obligation 
in fiscal year 2001, only for the national distress and 
response system (ND&RS) modernization project. The bill does 
not include proposed language which would have reduced the 
appropriation as asset sale receipts were credited. The 
Committee believes such language would provide a disincentive 
for timely disposal of unneeded assets.
    Navigation user fees.--The bill does not include proposed 
bill language regarding offsetting collections from new 
navigation user fees, contingent upon authorization by the 
Congress. These fees have not been authorized.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...........................   $17,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.........................    16,700,000
Recommended in the bill...................................    16,700,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................      -300,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.....................  ............

    This appropriation assists in bringing Coast Guard 
facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and 
environmental regulations; conducting facilities response 
plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization 
strategies; conducting environmental assessments; and 
conducting necessary program support. These funds permit the 
continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental 
problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks 
containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program 
focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes 
third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed 
to environmental problems.
    The recommended funding level of $16,700,000 is the same as 
the budget estimate and $300,000 below the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level.
    Of the funds provided, $200,000 is only for asbestos 
removal activities at a former Coast Guard facility in Traverse 
City, Michigan.

                         Alteration of Bridges

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................       $15,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.....................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................        14,740,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................          -260,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.................       +14,740,000

    The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed 
a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. 
The Committee does not agree with the approach of the 
administration that obstructive highway bridges and combination 
rail/highway bridges should be funded out of the Federal 
Highway Administration's discretionary bridge account, and 
notes that this proposal was not included in the TEA21 
conference report. The purpose of altering these bridges is to 
improve the safety of marine navigation under the bridge, not 
to improve surface transportation on the bridge itself. Since 
in some cases, there are unsafe conditions on the waterway 
beneath a bridge which has an adequate surface or structural 
condition, Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to 
address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program.
    The Committee recommends $14,740,000 for four bridges. The 
Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $5,740,000 shall 
be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, 
Georgia; $1,000,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile 
Bridge over the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $3,000,000 
shall be allocated to the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Bridge in 
Morris, Illinois; and $5,000,000 shall be allocated to the 
Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New 
Orleans, Louisiana. These bridges have each received funding in 
prior years.

                              Retired Pay

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................      $730,327,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.....................       778,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       778,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................       +47,673,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.................  ................

    This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military 
personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also 
included are payments to members of the former Lighthouse 
Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman's 
family protection plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as 
payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act and 15 year 
career status bonus payments under the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000.
    The bill provides $778,000,000, the same as the budget 
estimate and $47,673,000 (6.5 percent) above the fiscal year 
2000 enacted level. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation 
in the Congressional budget process.

                            Reserve Training

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................       $72,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.....................        73,371,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        80,375,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................        +8,375,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.................        +7,004,000

    This appropriation provides for the training of qualified 
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or 
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in 
the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall 
into the following categories:
    1. Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training 
for three categories of non-prior service trainees.
    2. Continued training.--The training of officer and 
enlisted personnel.
    3. Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The 
day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training 
facilities.
    4. Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve 
forces program.
    The bill includes $80,375,000 for reserve training. This 
will support a Selected Reserve level of 8,000, which is 
approximately the current level. The President's budget 
proposed to reduce the reserves to a level of 7,300. However, 
in this year's hearing, the Commandant stated, ``One of the 
concerns that I have, sir, is that the RT [Reserve Training] 
appropriation appears to fund only 7,300 reserves for the year. 
We have recruited to an 8,000 point, and I would like very much 
to stay there. So my concern is that there is about a 
$7,000,000 shortfall in the reserve training appropriation, and 
I would ask you to take note of that.'' The Committee has taken 
note, and agrees with the Commandant that the reserves should 
not be reduced.
    Reimbursement to ``Operating expenses''.--The 
recommendation continues a provision which limits to 
$21,500,000 the amount of ``Reserve training'' funds which may 
be transferred to ``Operating expenses''. Given the small size 
of the reserve training appropriation, the Committee wants to 
ensure the reserves are not assessed excessive charge-backs to 
the Coast Guard operating budget. The bill also maintains the 
provision relating to the assessment of ``direct charges'' 
which were not in effect during fiscal year 1997.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................       $19,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.....................        21,320,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        19,691,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................          +691,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.................        -1,629,000

    The bill includes $19,691,000 for applied scientific 
research and development, test and evaluation projects 
necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for 
the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this 
amount, $3,500,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund, as requested in the budget estimate. This 
is $691,000 (3.6 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal 
year 2000. The reduction is due to budget constraints. The 
Committee believes that some of this work can be appropriately 
conducted under the operating account.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 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 2001. The grants-in-aid for airports program, 
however, will be financed under contract authority with the 
program level established by a limitation on obligations 
contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes 
continuation of the aviation ticket tax and other related 
aviation excise taxes throughout fiscal year 2001 and assumes 
no new user fees.
    The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 
2001 totals $12,585,366,000, including a $3,200,000,000 
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is 
$2,503,871,000 (24.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level and $1,363,765,000 (12.2 percent) above the 
President's request. Since submission of the President's budget 
estimate, Public Law 106-181 was enacted, authorizing and 
guaranteeing higher appropriations than contemplated in the 
President's budget. This bill complies with the guaranteed 
funding levels of P.L. 106-181.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program 
levels, the fiscal year 2001 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                        Program                         --------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2000 enacted \1\    2001 estimate     2001 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................     $5,900,000,000     $6,592,235,000     $6,544,235,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      2,075,000,000      2,495,000,000      2,656,765,000
Research, engineering and development..................        156,495,000        184,366,000        184,366,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) \2\...................      1,950,000,000      1,950,000,000      3,200,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     10,081,495,000     11,221,601,000    12,585,366,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $84,362,000 in rescissions and across-the-board reductions.
\2\ Limitation on obligations from contract authority.

                               Operations

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................    $5,900,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.....................     6,592,235,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     6,544,235,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................      +644,235,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.................       -48,000,000

    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 acquisition, research and development 
programs; (6) administration of the civil aviation security 
program; (7) headquarters, administration and other staff 
offices; and (8) development, printing, and distribution of 
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $6,544,235,000 for FAA operations, 
an increase of $644,235,000 (10.9 percent) above the level 
provided for fiscal year 2000. The recommended level compares 
to $6,592,235,000 in the President's budget request.
    A breakdown of the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2001 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                    Budget Activity                     --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2000 enacted      2001 estimate     2001 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services...................................     $4,666,766,000     $5,210,434,000     $5,183,177,000
Aviation regulation & certification....................        667,416,000        691,979,000        694,979,000
Civil aviation security................................        138,642,000        144,328,000        144,328,000
Research and acquisition...............................        168,305,000        196,497,000        189,988,000
Commercial space transportation........................          6,838,000         12,607,000         12,607,000
Financial Services.....................................         42,054,000  .................         48,707,000
Human Resources........................................         48,736,000  .................         58,364,000
Regional Coordination..................................         97,831,000  .................         99,347,000
Staff offices..........................................         78,789,000        336,390,000        112,738,000
Account-wide adjustments...............................        -15,377,000  .................  .................
      Total............................................      5,900,000,000      6,592,235,000      6,544,235,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               User Fees

    The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees 
in fiscal year 2001 that were not Congressionally authorized 
for collection during fiscal year 2000. The FAA estimates that 
$22,100,000 in overflight user fees will be collected during 
fiscal year 2001. However, these funds will not be available to 
augment the FAA's budget, since under current law, these 
receipts must be transferred to the Office of the Secretary for 
the Essential Air Service and Rural Airports program. Should 
the FAA experience a shortfall in overflight fee collections 
necessitating a transfer of FAA budgetary resources to the EAS 
program during fiscal year 2001, the Committee directs that 
those transfer resources be derived from unobligated balances 
of the F&E appropriation.

                     trust fund share of faa budget

    The bill derives $4,403,869,000 of the total appropriation 
from the airport and airway trust fund, consistent with current 
law. The balance of the appropriation ($2,140,366,000) will be 
drawn from the general fund of the Treasury.
    The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity 
are discussed below.

                          Air Traffic Services

    The Committee recommends $5,183,177,000 for air traffic 
services, an increase of $516,411,000 (11.1 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. As the following chart 
indicates, this is well above the estimated increase in FAA's 
air traffic workload for fiscal year 2001.

    Changes to the budget estimate are as follows:
Contract security guard services........................     -$1,725,000
ADTN 2000 (telecommunications)..........................      -5,000,000
NADIN (telecommunications)..............................      -1,750,000
FTS 2001 (telecommunications)...........................      -3,550,000
LINCS (telecommunications)..............................      -6,295,000
PCS maintenance personnel...............................      -1,000,000
Regional administrative telecommunications..............      -7,948,000
Infrastructure maintenance..............................      -7,739,000
Centennial of Flight Commission.........................        +750,000
Contract tower cost sharing.............................      +5,000,000
MARC....................................................      +2,000,000

    RTCA support.--The Radio Technical Commission for 
Aeronautics (RTCA, Inc.) serves as a ``utilized'' federal 
advisory committee subject to the legal requirements and 
oversight of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Many years 
ago, Congress enacted the Advisory Committee Act to bring about 
more oversight, openness, and accountability for advisory 
committees. RTCA is unusual among federal advisory committees, 
since it is one of only two ``utilized'' advisory committees, 
and since a primary source of funding is the dues paid largely 
by industry members. Last year, Congress directed the Office of 
Inspector General to conduct a review of the FAA's arrangement 
with RTCA, to determine whether procedures were adequate to 
ensure openness, a balance of viewpoints, and an ``arms 
length'' relationship with industry. The Inspector General's 
review, recently completed, raises a number of serious concerns 
which require attention of the FAA. The Inspector General found 
that FAA's presence at RTCA meetings is so extensive that there 
is an appearance the agency is providing advice to itself. The 
Committee agrees with the IG that FAA must take steps to reduce 
its participation in the RTCA Policy Board, the Free Flight 
Steering Committee, and related working groups and task forces. 
Secondly, FAA needs to establish procedures to ensure that 
potential conflicts of interest are identified, as recommended 
by the IG. Thirdly, FAA needs to take steps to open the 
activities of the Free Flight committees and working groups, to 
provide more open and documented information on the 
deliberations of these important groups and to reduce the 
perception that companies represented on Free Flight panels are 
gaining a competitive advantage over those not represented. 
Fourthly, the FAA should discontinue using RTCA for 
coordination or review of safety and certification issues, 
which are inherently governmental. The Committee is pleased 
that the OIG affirmed the valuable contribution of RTCA to air 
traffic control modernization, and believes that these 
necessary changes in the FAA-RTCA advisory committee 
relationship will make that contribution even more valuable.
    Reductions to growth.--The President's budget requested 
$268,363,000 for new program initiatives or expanded programs 
in air traffic services. While providing the full amount of 
base funding, the Committee bill provides $233,256,000 for new 
initiatives, a reduction of $35,007,000 from the budget 
estimate. Even with the reduction, in each of these cases more 
funding is provided than is available for the current year, and 
in some cases, very significant increases are provided. The 
Committee believes such a high rate of growth in these 
administrative programs and activities can be deferred without 
impacting the agency's ability to meet its critical missions. A 
comparison of the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the 
President's budget request, and the Committee recommendation 
for those programs reduced is shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                         Activity                              2000                                  Change to
                                                             enacted        2001         2001         budget
                                                              level       estimate   recommended     estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract security guard services.........................  ...........   $6,725,000   $5,000,000     -$1,725,000
ADTN 2000................................................  $13,510,000   24,248,000   19,248,000      -5,000,000
NADIN....................................................    1,334,000    4,715,000    2,965,000      -1,750,000
FTS 2001.................................................  ...........    8,550,000    5,000,000      -3,550,000
LINCS....................................................   75,846,000   84,641,000   78,346,000      -6,295,000
Permanent change of station--maintenance personnel.......    6,650,000   10,650,000    9,650,000      -1,000,000
Regional administrative telecommunications...............   10,900,000   22,848,000   14,900,000      -7,948,000
Infrastructure maintenance...............................    8,843,000   26,843,000   19,104,000      -7,739,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MARC.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue operating 
support for the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) 
in Minnesota. This program has been funded for many years.
    Inclusion of Boca Raton, Florida in the contract tower 
program.--The Committee bill recommends $5,000,000 above the 
budget estimate for the contract tower cost-sharing program. 
The Committee understands that, based on FAA analysis, the Boca 
Raton Airport in Florida is eligible, and should receive 
consideration, for inclusion in the contract tower program in 
fiscal year 2001.
    Centennial of Flight Commission.--The bill includes 
$750,000 for continued activities of the Centennial of Flight 
Commission.
    Runway incursions.--The Committee continues to be disturbed 
over the excessive number of runway incursions at our nation's 
airports. At the Committee's urging, the FAA this year 
announced a National Summit on Runway Incursions, to be held 
this summer. The summit is being preceded by a series of 
workshops, in each FAA region, where experts focus on the 
unique characteristics of airports and air traffic to come up 
with individualized plans of action. The summit will integrate 
these local plans into a unified plan of national action. The 
Committee is also pleased that FAA has requested increased 
funding for runway incursion prevention systems in the fiscal 
year 2001 budget. The Committee bill goes even further by 
including the following initiatives: (1) providing additional 
funding for production of low-cost ASDE systems and directing 
FAA to accelerate the program; and (2) making AIP funds 
eligible for runway prevention systems and devices, and 
directing FAA to give such grant requests the highest priority 
for discretionary funding.
    The Committee also believes that FAA has not adequately 
utilized the runway incursion expertise and services of the 
NASA Langley Research Center, and directs the FAA to more fully 
utilize that center in addressing the runway incursion problem.
    Airspace redesign.--The Committee directs the FAA to spend 
$5,800,000 to further the redesign of the New Jersey/New York 
metropolitan airspace. Further, the Committee directs the FAA 
to complete the New Jersey/New York airspace redesign in an 
expeditious manner.

                 Aviation Regulation And Certification

    The Committee recommends $694,979,000 for aviation 
regulation and certification, $3,000,000 above the budget 
request and an increase of $27,563,000 (4.1 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
    Training initiative.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for 
implementation of the safety and security training program 
developed by the George Washington University/Virginia Campus 
Aviation Institute and the George Mason University Institute 
for Public Policy. This program, recommended for funding last 
year by the Committee, will prepare the workforce for careers 
in aviation safety and security management and will train civil 
aviation personnel in category II and category III countries, 
as rated by FAA's International Aviation Safety Assessment 
(IASA) program, to assist in raising the country's safety level 
to category I.
    Aviation safety program.--FAA's flight standards service 
conducts a program known as the aviation safety program (ASP), 
which produces and distributes safety educational programs and 
materials for general aviation pilots. Since the large majority 
of aviation accidents in this country are general aviation 
accidents, the Committee believes this is a valuable program 
and should not be reduced in funding below the fiscal year 2000 
level.

                        Civil Aviation Security

    The Committee recommends $144,328,000 for civil aviation 
security, the same as the budget estimate and an increase of 
$5,686,000 (4.1 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level.
    The Committee is extremely disappointed over management 
issues which continue to plague the civil aviation security 
program. Many of these issues have been unresolved for some 
time. For example:
        --Although FAA has paid for, and assisted in, the 
        deployment of advanced security technologies such as 
        explosive detection systems (EDS) and computer-based 
        training aids, the agency continues to allow industry 
        to underutilize these systems with impunity. Even 
        though Congress required air carriers to certify in 
        fiscal year 1999 that usage rates were being increased, 
        the IG found that the increases in that year were 
        largely insignificant, and that bulk EDS systems are 
        still taking a full day to screen as many bags as these 
        machines are capable of screening in an hour. This low 
        utilization rate affects the proficiency of screeners, 
        who continue to have high failure rates in FAA tests.
        --In response to Congressional and departmental 
        criticism that EDS systems were underutilized, FAA 
        agreed in 1998 to conduct a study to determine the 
        minimum utilization rates needed to maintain operator 
        proficiency. However, the study was never conducted.
        --Although recommended by the Gore Commission and 
        mandated by Congress in 1996, FAA has still not 
        promulgated a rule requiring the certification of 
        baggage screening companies.
        --FAA has not modified its background investigation 
        requirements for access to secure airport areas, even 
        though access control has been a major problem at our 
        nation's airports; and FAA has failed to develop a 
        strategic plan for pursuit of its civil aviation 
        security program, even though the Inspector General 
        recommended such a plan in 1998.
    The Committee has provided substantial budgetary increases 
for FAA's civil aviation security program over the past few 
years, and is unsure whether these additional resources are 
paying off in significantly improved security. The Committee is 
reluctant to reduce these appropriations, but expects the FAA 
to address the recommendations of the Inspector General and the 
General Accounting Office expeditiously.
    Certification of baggage screening firms.--The Committee 
reiterates to the FAA that improvements in the performance of 
baggage screening personnel are seriously needed at our 
nation's airports. The agency's continued delay in promulgation 
of a final rule requiring the certification of baggage 
screening companies allows these serious security weaknesses to 
continue. This rule was recommended by the Gore Commission over 
3\1/2\ years ago and subsequently mandated by Congress in 
Public Law 104-264. Testimony over many years has discussed the 
high turnover rates, low pay, and inadequate training which 
lead to the inadequate performance all too often seen. Although 
Congress directed FAA to expedite this rulemaking last year, to 
the Committee's disappointment, the agency did not do so. A 
final rule is now expected during fiscal year 2001.

                        Research And Acquisition

    The Committee recommends $189,988,000 for research and 
acquisition, a reduction of $6,509,000 below the budget request 
and $21,683,000 (12.9 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level. This activity finances the planning, management, 
and coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs.
    Next generation e-mail.--The Committee recommends 
$6,082,000 for upgrades to the FAA's e-mail systems, an 
increase of $5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level, but $5,000,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee 
believes a smaller rate of growth for administrative activities 
will be sufficient for next year.
    Telecommunications bandwidth.--The Committee defers the 
$1,509,000 requested for upgrades to the bandwidth of certain 
telecommunications systems. The Committee believes this can be 
deferred without substantial impact on the agency's mission.

                    Commercial Space Transportation

    The Committee recommends $12,607,000 for the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), the same as the budget 
request and $5,769,000 (84.4 percent) above the fiscal year 
2000 enacted level.

                           Financial Services

    The Committee recommends $48,707,000 for financial 
services, an increase of $6,653,000 (15.8 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $14,556,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    Reductions to growth.--The President's budget requested 
significant funding for new program initiatives or expanded 
programs in financial services under ``staff offices''. While 
providing the full amount of base funding, the Committee bill 
provides a lesser amount for new initiatives. These reductions 
are due to budget constraints. Even with the reduction, in all 
but one of these cases significantly more funding is provided 
than is available for the current year. The Committee believes 
a higher rate of growth in these administrative programs and 
activities can be deferred without impacting the agency's 
ability to meet its critical missions. A comparison of the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the President's budget request, 
and the Committee recommendation for those programs reduced is 
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                    Activity                                                                         Change to
                                                   2000 enacted    2001 estimate       2001           budget
                                                       level                        recommended      estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DELPHI implementation...........................        $100,000     $10,800,000      $3,800,000     -$7,000,000
Cost accounting system..........................       1,296,000       8,296,000       6,296,000      -2,000,000
Asset management................................       2,516,000       8,072,000       2,516,000      -5,556,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Human Resources

    The Committee recommends $58,364,000 for human resources, 
$2,000,000 below the budget estimate and $9,628,000 (19.8 
percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2000. The 
recommendation provides $4,314,000 for replacement of the 
integrated personnel and payroll system (IPPS), a reduction of 
$2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The amount provided is 
still a large increase above the $50,000 provided for this 
activity in fiscal year 2000. The Committee believes a smaller 
rate of growth will be sufficient, given the need to fund other 
priorities. The President's budget requested these funds under 
``Staff offices''. The Committee bill maintains the budgeting 
approach enacted in fiscal year 2000. Consistent with other 
recommendations in the bill, none of the funding under this 
appropriation may be used to continue the Garrett Morgan 
Transportation Futures Program.

                         Regional Coordination

    The Committee recommends $99,347,000 for regional 
coordination, the same as the budget estimate and $1,516,000 
(1.5 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2000. 
The President's budget requested these funds under ``Staff 
offices''. The Committee bill maintains the budgeting approach 
enacted in fiscal year 2000.

                             Staff Offices

    The Committee recommends $112,738,000 for staff offices, 
which is $678,000 below the level requested for comparable 
activities, and $33,949,000 (43.1 percent) above the level 
enacted for fiscal year 2000.
    Office of chief counsel.--The Committee deletes the 
$453,000 requested to increase staffing in this office. The 
Committee believes the existing staffing level is sufficient to 
handle high priority activities.
    Employee development.--The Committee deletes the $225,000 
requested for additional employee development activities. The 
Committee believes the existing level of funding is adequate.
    English language proficiency.--The Committee continues to 
strongly support the activities of FAA, the Department of 
State, and the International Civil Aviation Organization at 
improving the English language proficiency of foreign 
flightcrews and air traffic controllers around the globe. The 
FAA is encouraged to advise the Committee promptly if funding 
concerns arise in this program during fiscal year 2001.
    International Civil Aviation Organization support.--Section 
103(a) of Public Law 106-181 authorizes $9,100,000 in FAA 
payments for U.S. membership obligations in the International 
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). While the Committee is 
unable to provide a specific appropriation for this purpose, 
the Committee continues to support FAA's involvement and 
participation in ICAO activities, and encourages the agency to 
identify additional resources for ICAO during the coming fiscal 
year.

                             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 2001.
    Second career training program.--Once again this year, the 
Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for 
the second career training program. This prohibition has been 
in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included 
in the President's budget request.
    Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in 
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday 
premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually 
worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5 
U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work 
during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is 
not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a 
part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * 
premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic 
pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and 
previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v. 
United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that 
employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive 
premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back 
pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually 
worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this 
provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded 
liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating 
budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for 
fiscal years 1995 through 2000, and as requested by the 
administration in the fiscal year 2001 President's budget.
    O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill does not include 
the general provision enacted beginning in fiscal year 1995 
related to slot allocations for international operations at 
O'Hare Airport. The comprehensive amendments to the slot rules 
in Public Law 106-181 supercede this limitation.
    Restriction on multiyear leases.--The bill maintains a 
restriction on multiyear leases as enacted in fiscal year 2000.
    Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill includes a 
provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used to 
conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities 
through the transportation administrative services center 
(TASC). Public Law 106-181 authorizes the transfer of these 
activities from the Department of Commerce to the FAA, a move 
which the Committee supports. The Committee believes this work 
should be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively 
delegated to the TASC.

                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................    $2,075,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.....................     2,495,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,656,765,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................      +581,765,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.................      +161,765,000

    The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal 
means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and 
airway facilities. The appropriation also finances major 
capital investments required by other agency programs, 
experimental research and development facilities, and other 
improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace 
system.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,656,765,000 
for this program, an increase of $581,765,000 (28 percent) 
above the level provided for fiscal year 2000 and $161,765,000 
above the budget estimate. The amount proposed is required by 
Public Law 106-181. The bill provides that of the total amount 
recommended, $2,334,112,400 is available for obligation until 
September 30, 2003, and $322,652,600 (the amount for personnel 
and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2001. 
These obligation availabilities are consistent with past 
appropriations Acts and the same as the budget request. The 
bill does not include the requested advance appropriations, 
because the administration has done little to justify the 
requirement and because many of the systems are still in 
development, where advance appropriations are inappropriate.
    The following table shows the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this 
appropriation:

             Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation

    The Committee recommends $655,833,500 for engineering, 
development, test and evaluation. Adjustments to the budget 
request are explained below.
    Free flight phase one.--The Committee recommends 
$173,800,000 for continued development of free flight phase one 
technologies. This is $3,000,000 above the budget estimate. The 
bill includes $3,000,000 to implement the departure spacing 
program (DSP) in support of Dulles International Airport, 
Virginia. Last year, $2,000,000 was provided for DSP under this 
program. A comparison of the fiscal year 2000 enacted, the 
President's budget, and the recommended levels is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Fiscal year
                             Project                                Fiscal year     Fiscal year        2001
                                                                   2000 enacted     2001 budget     recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User request evaluation tool (URET).............................     $79,000,000     $87,600,000     $87,600,000
Center/tracon automation system (CTAS)..........................  ..............      57,900,000      57,900,000
Traffic management advisor (TMA)/passive final approach spacing       59,825,000  ..............  ..............
 tool (pFAST)...................................................
Collaborative decision-making...................................      29,400,000      13,800,000      13,800,000
Surface movement advisor........................................       4,000,000       2,000,000       2,000,000
Free flight phase one integration...............................       5,400,000       8,600,000       8,600,000
Departure spacing program.......................................       2,000,000  ..............       3,000,000
Independent operational test and evaluation.....................  ..............         900,000         900,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     179,625,000     170,800,000     173,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Free flight phase two.--While remaining strongly supportive 
of free flight phase one, the Committee cannot support such a 
large expansion of this program to additional sites in fiscal 
year 2001. FAA budget justifications indicate that several 
critical development milestones are yet to be reached in this 
program. A program expansion of the magnitude proposed would 
result in unnecessary technical and cost risk, jeopardizing the 
successful completion of program milestones. The Committee 
notes that the agency has had problems in past years with 
excessive concurrency between development and implementation, 
and recommends that the expansion proceed at a slower pace. The 
Committee recommends $25,000,000 for this program.
    Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The 
Committee recommendation of $50,000,000 includes $40,620,000 
for items in the President's budget request a reduction of 
$228,000, $7,380,000 for airport-related research which was 
proposed for funding under the ``Grants-in-aid for airports'' 
program, and $2,000,000 for the airfield pavement improvement 
program authorized under section 905 of Public Law 106-181.
    Oceanic automation program.--The bill provides $75,000,000 
for this program, which is $23,030,000 above the budget 
estimate. The additional funding is necessary to accelerate 
this important program, which has already experienced 
significant delay.
    Local area augmentation system (LAAS).--The Committee 
recommends $31,000,000 for continued development of the local 
area augmentation system (LAAS). This is $21,700,000 above the 
budget estimate. The Committee believes this is a critical new 
technology and should be accelerated.
    Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).--The Committee 
recommends total funding of $75,000,000 for continued research 
into, and development of, the wide area augmentation system 
(WAAS). The FAA requested $111,000,000 for this program. 
However, since submission of the budget request, this program 
experienced additional technical difficulties. While no formal 
budget amendment has been submitted, the FAA has acknowledged 
that a lower level of funding will be adequate. The Committee 
believes the FAA will require no more than $75,000,000 for this 
program next year, and has provided that amount in the bill. 
Evidence to date indicates that much of this funding will be 
used by university researchers and personnel at national 
laboratories to conduct research into the basic principles of 
this technology and to help determine what ultimate 
requirements are possible.

      Procurement of Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

    The bill includes $1,172,796,294 for the procurement of air 
traffic control facilities and equipment.
    En route communications and control facilities 
improvement.--The Committee recommends $7,631,000 for this 
program, compared to the budget estimate of $5,031,606. Of the 
amount provided, $3,200,000 is only for relocation of RTR-A and 
RTR-D systems at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in 
Missouri.
    Airport surface detection equipment.--The Committee 
recommends $4,000,000, an increase of $2,500,000 above the 
budget estimate. Of the additional funding, $500,000 is only 
for FAA to conduct a test and evaluation of roll ring 
technology for the current ASDE radar system. The Committee is 
aware of the unique capabilities and qualities of new roll ring 
technology for ASDE radar systems. The current ASDE antenna 
system uses slip rings--rotating bearings through which 
electrical current passes. This technology requires periodic 
maintenance, during which time the radar system is out of 
service. New technology roll rings, by contrast, are virtually 
maintenance free, which would reduce FAA operating costs and 
allow for uninterrupted usage of ASDE and AMASS. The Committee 
directs FAA to use these additional funds to conduct a side-by-
side evaluation of roll rings and slip rings. Evaluation 
testing shall be conducted in an apparatus with an accelerated 
rotation rate, in order to verify specified operating life 
within a test period of five months. The tests shall apply full 
electrical current and voltage of the ASDE-3 specifications to 
all channels of the slip ring and roll ring continuously and 
provide measurements of performance, including torque and 
electrical resistance and noise of each circuit. No maintenance 
or parts replacement of the slip ring or roll ring shall be 
performed during the test period. The FAA shall provide the 
results of this testing to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than March 1, 2001. The remaining 
$2,000,000 of the increase is for ASDE-3 issues at Washington 
Reagan National Airport, as discussed below.
    Runway incursion technology, Washington Reagan National 
Airport, VA.--The Committee is very concerned to learn of 
potentially lengthy delays in commissioning of the ASDE-3 and 
AMASS runway safety systems at Washington Reagan National 
Airport in Virginia. Last year, the FAA expected to commission 
the ASDE-3 in November 1999 and the AMASS in March 2000 at this 
airport. Currently, the agency has no schedule estimate due to 
recently-discovered radar difficulties. Especially given the 
high volume and complexity of traffic at this airport, the 
prevention of runway incursions must remain a high priority. 
The FAA is directed to address this situation as soon as 
possible, and to submit a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations no later than August 31, 2000 
detailing the problem, the proposed resolution, and a 
corresponding program schedule leading to system commissioning 
at the earliest possible date. The bill includes $2,000,000 to 
address this problem.
    Airport surface detection equipment-X (ASDE-X).--The 
Committee recommends $15,000,000 for this program, an increase 
of $6,600,000 above the budget estimate and $7,400,000 above 
the level provided last year. The Committee directs that these 
funds be used only for one or more contracts, on a firm fixed-
price basis, to procure at least 10 systems involving 
multilateration technology which can be delivered, installed, 
and commissioned by September 30, 2002. The Committee believes 
FAA's proposed schedule is excessive, especially given the 
seriousness of the runway incursion problem in the United 
States.
    Terminal voice switch replacement.--The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the 
budget estimate and $4,100,000 above the level provided for 
fiscal year 2000. The Committee believes this is a critically 
needed upgrade worthy of acceleration.
    Potomac metroplex.--The Committee recommends $32,100,000 
for this program.
    Airport surveillance radar.--The Committee recommends 
$11,122,000, an increase of $6,400,000 above the budget 
estimate. Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 is specifically for 
a transportable/shelterized ASR-9 radar system with a co-
mounted integrated monopulse secondary surveillance radar for 
Palm Springs Regional Airport, California. The Committee notes 
the serious radar coverage problems which have been experienced 
at Palm Springs, and the unacceptably long schedule of FAA's 
current proposal to resolve the issue. The Committee believes 
the ASR-9/MSSR system, as proposed by the prime contractor, 
will provide the best near-term solution to this critical 
problem.
    Cherry Capital Airport, Michigan.--The Committee is 
concerned about the effect of ``lake effect'' weather on the 
ability of air traffic controllers to manage air traffic at the 
Cherry Capital Airport in Traverse City, Michigan, and urges 
the FAA administrator to reassess the airport's air traffic 
control needs with regard to an upgraded radar system.
    Control tower/Tracon facilities improvement.--The 
$1,500,000 added to this program is to continue the cable loop 
relocation project at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport 
in Missouri. In addition, $2,400,000 of the funding is provided 
only for removal and relocation of the existing ASR-9 radar at 
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
    Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The 
Committee recommends $140,000,000 for this program, an increase 
of $61,100,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2000 and 
$35,000,000 above the budget estimate. These funds are to be 
distributed as follows:
        Location                                                  Amount
Vero Beach, FL..........................................      $5,200,000
Albert Whitted, FL......................................          75,000
Dayton International, OH................................       4,725,000
WK Kellogg, MI..........................................       3,000,000
Sky Harbor, AZ..........................................      10,000,000
Cleveland, OH...........................................       4,000,000
Richmond, VA............................................       5,767,500
Martin State, MD........................................       2,000,000
Stewart Airport, Newburgh, NY...........................       1,000,000
Oakland, CA.............................................      25,912,347
LaGuardia, NY...........................................      25,440,000
Boston, MA..............................................      24,944,308
Savannah, GA............................................       7,741,015
Topeka, KS..............................................       4,361,840
St. Louis, MO...........................................       3,317,000
Newark, NJ..............................................       2,407,500
Roanoke, VA.............................................       2,140,000
Birmingham, AL..........................................       1,359,540
Pt. Columbus, OH........................................       1,000,000
Wilkes Barre, PA........................................         959,200
Houston Hobby, TX.......................................         818,550
Champaign, IL...........................................         749,000
Little Rock, AR.........................................         642,000
Bedford, MA.............................................         535,000
Merrill Field, AK.......................................         321,000
Wilmington, DE..........................................         305,000
Salina, KS..............................................         267,500
N. Las Vegas, NV........................................         214,000
Orlando, FL.............................................         177,900
Atlanta, GA.............................................         167,900
Chantilly, VA...........................................          75,000
Gulfport, MS............................................          75,000
Kalamazoo, MI...........................................          75,000
Deer Valley, AZ.........................................          75,000
Broomfield, CO..........................................          75,000
Miami, FL...............................................          51,900
Seattle, WA.............................................          25,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     140,000,000

    Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends 
$69,690,000 for continued production of the digital airport 
surveillance radar system (ASR-11). This is a reduction of 
$38,560,000 from the budget estimate. Through fiscal year 2000, 
FAA has financed the procurement of 18 radars, and the fiscal 
year 2001 budget requested funds for an additional 16 systems. 
Air Force operational tests completed in February 2000 
indicated several serious development problems with the ASR-11 
system. Problems included generation of false weather cells, 
loss of aircraft detection capability close to the airport, and 
a shortfall in computer processor capability which would limit 
the system's ability to handle future requirements. The Air 
Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center recommended that 
these deficiencies be corrected prior to the fielding of low 
initial production units. Congress appropriated $76,100,000 for 
the production of 13 systems in fiscal year 2000. The delivery, 
testing, and commissioning of these systems is likely to 
experience significant delay because of the current problems. 
The Committee does not believe that further low rate production 
is justified until the development issues are resolved.
    Automated observation of visibility for cloud height and 
cloud coverage (AOVCC).--To address the issues of weather-
related accidents at airports, the Committee believes it is 
critical to upgrade the existing automated weather information 
programs. Therefore, the conferees expect FAA to implement 
product improvements and upgrades to the current systems and to 
report to Congress on the agency's plans to accelerate the 
deployment of upgrade technology upon successful demonstration 
of the automated observation of visibility for cloud height and 
cloud coverage (AOVCC) system.
    Instrument landing systems establishment.--The Committee 
recommends $62,000,000, to be distributed as follows:

        Location                                                  Amount
Items included in budget................................     $16,000,000
National replacement program (I/II/III).................      25,000,000
Lonesome Pine Airport, VA...............................       1,000,000
Jimmy Stewart Airport, PA...............................         855,000
Lafayette Regional Airport, LA..........................       1,000,000
Statesboro-Bulloch County Airport, GA...................       1,797,000
Buffalo Niagara International, NY (ILS/MALSR)...........       3,848,000
Searcy Airport, AR......................................       2,000,000
Dulles International, VA (DME)..........................         300,000
Wichita MidContinent Airport, KS........................       1,100,000
Colonel James Jabara Airport, KS........................       1,100,000
Cleveland Hopkins International, OH.....................       6,000,000
Orlando International, FL (install category III)........       2,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      62,000,000

    Transponder landing system.--The Committee recommends 
$3,000,000 for acquisition and installation of transponder 
landing systems at Leesburg Executive Airport, Virginia; 
Hayward Municipal Airport, Wisconsin; Ely Municipal Airport, 
Minnesota; and Grand Marais Municipal Airport in Minnesota.
    Runway visual range (RVR).--The Committee recommends 
$9,000,000, including $6,000,000 for continued acquisition of a 
next generation runway visual range system. The budget request 
included $3,000,000 for RVR installations.
    Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).--
    The Committee recommends $26,100,000, to be distributed as 
follows:
        Location                                                  Amount
Items included in budget................................      $1,040,000
ALSF-2 acquisition......................................       9,575,000
MALSR acquisition.......................................       3,500,000
ALSIP Newport & North Bend, OR..........................       4,000,000
ALSF-2 Cleveland International, OH......................       3,000,000
MALSR Starkville, MS....................................         560,000
MALSR, Millington Airport, TN...........................         425,000
MALS Salt Lake City, UT (installation runway 34L).......       3,000,000
MALSR/REIL, Monroe Municipal, Union County, NC..........       1,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      26,100,000

    Precision approach path indicators (PAPI).--The Committee 
recommends $6,000,000 for acquisition of additional precision 
approach path indicators (PAPI), including $600,000 for a PAPI 
system at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in Ohio.
    Loran-C upgrade and modernization.--The Committee 
recommends $25,000,000 for this program, an increase of 
$5,000,000 above the budget estimate. In recent years, the 
Committee has taken numerous actions and provided sustantial 
new resources for Loran-C system improvements. The Committee 
continues to believe that Loran is a well-proven, cost-
effective technology.
    ANICS.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for 
continuation of the Alaskan NAS interfacility communication 
system (ANICS), which is $2,500,000 above the budget estimate.

            Procurement of Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment

    The Committee recommends $240,852,606 for the acquisition 
of non-air traffic control facilities and equipment.
    Explosive detection systems.--The Committee recommends 
$136,417,606 for this program. A comparison of the Committee 
recommendation to the budget estimate is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       FY 2001 budget       Committee
              Activity                    estimate         recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk EDS systems....................       $31,200,000       $57,100,000
Trace detection systems.............        15,200,000        20,000,000
Threat image projection (TIP)               25,320,000        25,320,000
 systems............................
Threat containment units............           750,000  ................
Computer-based training (CBT)         ................         8,000,000
 systems............................
System integration..................        25,030,000        25,997,606
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................        97,500,000       136,417,606
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee is very disappointed at FAA's lack of 
progress in improving airport security through the utilization 
of advanced technology. Since fiscal year 1997, Congress has 
appropriated over $550,000,000 in research and acquisition 
funds for advanced explosive detection systems. Despite the 
abundance of funding, recent testimony of the DOT Inspector 
General highlighted a number of weaknesses in FAA's management 
of this effort. FAA is directed to address expeditiously the 
recommendations of the Inspector General.
    In addition, the Committee is concerned that FAA has not 
been successful at developing a viable second source for the 
acquisition of bulk EDS systems, several years after the 
program was initiated. The Committee believes that competition 
among vendors is critical for minimizing government costs and 
lowering technical risk. FAA's lack of enthusiasm for second 
source development continues to be disappointing to the 
Committee. If the air carrier industry continues to 
underutilize these systems, and costs remain high due to lack 
of a second source, the continued viability of this program may 
be threatened.

                            Mission Support

    The recommendation provides $264,630,000 for mission 
support activities. Funding of $222,500,000 was provided in 
fiscal year 2000. Adjustments to the budget estimate are 
explained below.
    FAA systems architecture.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for this program, the same level as enacted for 
fiscal year 2000, and a reduction of $2,534,000 from the budget 
estimate. The Committee does not believe this program is 
sufficiently justified or of high enough priority to merit 
expansion.
    Center for advanced aviation system development.--The 
Committee recommends $67,000,000 for the center for advanced 
aviation system development (CAASD) at the Mitre Corporation. 
This is a 10 percent increase above the level provided for 
fiscal year 2001. CAASD provides valuable and broad-based 
support for the F&E program. Since the F&E appropriation 
increases 28.6 percent in this bill, the Committee believes 
additional resources are required for CAASD as well. The 
President's budget proposed $63,400,000, an increase of 3.8 
percent.

                     Personnel and Related Expenses

    The recommendation provides $322,652,600, an increase of 
$27,652,600 (9.4 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level and the same as the budget estimate. This appropriation 
finances the installation and commissioning of new equipment 
and modernization of FAA facilities.

                        Capital Investment Plan

    The Committee is disappointed that the administration 
flagrantly violated a provision in the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 
which called for submission of a five-year capital investment 
plan no later than the date of initial submission of the 
President's fiscal year 2001 budget. The President's budget was 
initially submitted on February 7, 2000. As of the date of this 
report--three months later--the report has not been submitted. 
This has severely inhibited the Committee's review of FAA 
capital programs during the budget process. The Committee does 
not request reports lightly, and this particular report should 
pose no unusual difficulties in research or administration. To 
provide a more effective mechanism for timely completion of 
this report next year, the bill includes a provision rescinding 
this appropriation by $100,000 per day for each day the report 
has not been submitted to the Congress after initial submission 
of the fiscal year 2002 President's budget. If this is not 
sufficient to compel adherence to the law, the Committee will 
consider taking stronger actions next year. A similar provision 
has been provided in the Coast Guard section of the bill.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (Airport And Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................      $156,495,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.....................       184,366,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       184,366,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................       +27,871,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001.................  ................

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

     national center of excellence in aviation operations research

    Under the authority of Public Law 101-508, the FAA awarded 
a long-term cooperative agreement to a consortium consisting of 
the University of California at Berkeley, the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, the University of Maryland, the 
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and 12 
affiliated institutions, for the National Center of Excellence 
in Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR). FAA has not proposed 
a specific budget line item for this center, but made the 
agreement available for any FAA program that needs NEXTOR's 
capabilities and can provide the needed funding. The Committee 
is advised that some FAA programs would like to use NEXTOR to 
perform research, but the agency has suspended such action 
until Congressional intent is clarified. The agency is not 
clear whether Congress intends for RE&D appropriations to be 
used for purposes such as NEXTOR, since similar activities were 
transferred to the F&E appropriation a few years ago. The 
Committee clarifies its intent that either F&E (budget activity 
one) or RE&D appropriations may be used for the NEXTOR 
cooperative agreement. When the Committee recommended transfer 
of these activities, the Committee did not intend that any 
activity be terminated or blocked as a result. According to the 
agency, NEXTOR is the only center of excellence for which the 
FAA has found significant difficulty in locating an appropriate 
funding source.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $184,366,000, an increase of 
$27,871,000 (17.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level and the same as the President's budget request.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2001 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                 System Development and Infrastructure

    The Committee recommends $17,425,000 for system development 
and infrastructure, an increase of $286,000 (1.7 percent) above 
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
    Technical laboratory facility.--The recommendation holds 
funding to the fiscal year 2000 level due to budget 
constraints, a reduction of $2,356,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    Information security.--The Committee recommendation deletes 
this new initiative due to budget constraints, a reduction of 
$5,500,000 below the budget estimate. Significantly increased 
funding for information security initiatives has been provided 
in the operating and capital appropriations.

                                Weather

    The Committee recommends $27,789,000 to address the effects 
of hazardous weather on aviation, an increase of $8,489,000 (44 
percent) above the level enacted for fiscal year 2000 and the 
same as the budget estimate.

                       Aircraft Safety Technology

    The Committee recommends $58,880,000 for aircraft safety 
technology, $9,500,000 above the budget estimate and 
$14,423,000 above the level provided last year.
    Propulsion and fuel systems.--Although the United States 
has been very successful in reducing airborne lead pollution, 
general aviation aircraft still rely heavily on leaded fuel. 
The FAA has an ongoing research program to develop a minimum 
octane benchmark for the U.S. piston aircraft fleet; however, 
this research is currently limited by a lack of appropriate 
testing facilities. The Committee recommends an additional 
$2,500,000 to advance this program and provide the necessary 
facilities.
    Aging aircraft.--Of the funds provided, $5,000,000 is only 
for equipment upgrades at the National Institute for Aviation 
Research and $2,000,000 is only for upgrades to wind tunnels at 
Langley Research Center for the furtherance of aeronautical and 
aircraft research and testing.

                       System Security Technology

    The Committee recommendation provides $49,374,000 for 
system security technology, the same as the budget estimate.

                  Human Factors and Aviation Medicine

    The Committee recommendation provides $26,050,000, an 
increase of $951,000 (3.8 percent) above the budget request and 
$4,079,000 (18.6 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level. The additional funding provides a 24 percent increase 
for research at the Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) instead 
of the 4.6 percent increase requested. The Committee continues 
to value the work performed by CAMI and believes a greater 
level of effort is justified.

                         Environment and Energy

    The recommendation provides $4,848,000, an increase of 
$1,367,000 (39.2 percent) above the level provided last year 
and a reduction of $2,595,000 from the budget estimate. This 
program researches ways to mitigate the impact of airport noise 
around the country. The Committee believes a 39 percent 
increase is adequate to further this area of research.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

                                    (Liquidation of
                                       contract         (Limitation on
                                    authorization)       obligations)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.      $1,750,000,000    ($1,950,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year           1,960,000,000     (1,950,000,000)
 2001...........................
Recommended in the bill.........       3,200,000,000     (3,200,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year        +1,450,000,000    (+1,250,000,000)
 2000...........................
    Budget estimate, fiscal year      +1,240,000,000    (+1,250,000,000)
 2001...........................

    The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 
$3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by 
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. 
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred 
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on 
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military 
airport program, reliever airports, airport program 
administration, and other authorized activities. This is 
$1,240,000,000 above the level requested in the President's 
budget, and is necessary to support the $1,250,000,000 in 
additional obligation authority supported by this bill.

                       Limitation On Obligations

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$3,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. This is $1,250,000,000 
(64.1 percent) above the President's budget request and the 
same amount above the fiscal year 2000 level. This level of 
funding is required by Public Law 106-181 and protected by 
points of order in the House.
    A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to 
the fiscal year 2000 levels and the President's budget request 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2000  Fiscal year 2001   Recommended in
                                                                 enacted          estimate          the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements..............................................    $1,100,434,505    $1,127,704,636    $1,943,417,033
    Primary airports......................................       556,348,911       566,769,374     1,056,383,909
    Cargo airports (3%)...................................        55,519,140        55,850,610        93,350,610
    Alaska supplemental...................................        10,672,557        10,672,557        21,345,114
    States (20%)..........................................       342,368,030       344,412,095       622,337,400
    Carryover entitlement.................................       135,525,867       150,000,000       150,000,000
Small Airport Fund........................................       142,204,990       146,461,513       274,936,625
    Non hub...............................................        81,259,994        83,692,293       157,106,643
    Non commercial service................................        40,629,997        41,846,147        78,553,321
    Small hub.............................................        20,314,999        20,923,073        39,276,661
Discretionary Set Asides..................................       231,039,432       223,257,924       345,362,670
    Noise (34% of discretionary)..........................       206,719,492       199,757,089       303,733,336
    Reliever (0.66% of discretionary).....................  ................  ................         5,896,000
    Military airport program (4% of discretionary)........        24,319,940        23,500,835        35,733,334
Other Discretionary.......................................       376,959,073       364,262,927       583,280,672
    Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise........................       282,719,305       273,197,195       410,978,004
    Remaining discretionary...............................        94,239,768        91,065,732       172,302,671
Administration............................................        45,000,000        53,003,000        53,000,000
Airport Research..........................................  ................         7,380,000  ................
Essential Air Service.....................................  ................        27,900,000  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total limitation on obligations.....................     1,895,638,000     1,950,000,000     3,200,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                third chicago airport, chicago, illinois

    The Committee urges FAA to expeditiously conclude its 
negotiations with state and local officials regarding aviation 
forecasts for a proposed Chicago third airport, and initiate 
promptly the environmental impact statement.

                          Discretionary Grants

    Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, 
$900,743,342 is available for discretionary grants to airports. 
This is approximately $293,000,000 (48 percent) more than 
provided for fiscal year 2000. Within this obligation 
limitation, the Committee directs that priority be given to 
grant applications involving further development of the 
following airports:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                  Location            Project description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK...................  Atka Airport............  Upgrade airport and
                                                  expand.
AL...................  Dothan Regional Airport.  Acquire rescue
                                                  firefighting vehicle;
                                                  rehab lighting control
                                                  cables to ATCT;
                                                  replace electronic
                                                  vault equipment.
AL...................  Huntsville Airport......  Taxiway, runway
                                                  extension, noise
                                                  mitigation/land
                                                  acquisition.
AL...................  Mobile Regional and       Construct parallel
                        Mobile Downtown           runway, international
                        Airports.                 concourse according to
                                                  master plan.
AL...................  Monroe County Airport...  Reseal runway, restripe
                                                  markings and legends,
                                                  install AWOS, other
                                                  improvements.
AL...................  Bay Minette Municipal     Extend runway,
                        Airport.                  construct aircraft
                                                  turnaround, construct
                                                  apron area, install
                                                  AWOS, funding for
                                                  airport master plan,
                                                  other improvements.
AL...................  Decatur Pryor Field.....  New terminal.
AL...................  Dothan Regional Airport.  Repave and repair
                                                  taxiways A, B, and E;
                                                  demolition/disposal of
                                                  existing terminal and
                                                  apron; new apron,
                                                  safety fencing;
                                                  vehicle access/
                                                  construction.
AL...................  Birmingham International  Purchase approximately
                                                  208 properties within
                                                  the expansion
                                                  corridor.
AL...................  Montgomery Regional       Extend runway, widen
                        Airport.                  taxiway, extend
                                                  taxiway, and sealcoat;
                                                  new passenger terminal/
                                                  cargo facilities.
AL...................  Gadsen Airport            Resurfacing and
                        Industrial Park.          lighting.
AL...................  Walker County Airport...  Automated observation
                                                  system and runway
                                                  extension.
AR...................  Benton Airport..........  Airport relocation.
AR...................  Searcy Airport..........  Runway extension.
AR...................  Dexter Memorial Field...  Provide AWOS III
                                                  system.
AZ...................  Williams AFB............  Support conversion from
                                                  military to civilian
                                                  airport.
CA...................  San Bernardino            Various improvement
                        International Airport.    projects.
CA...................  Napa County Airport.....  Runway, taxiway, and
                                                  ramp maintenance;
                                                  master plan; taxiway
                                                  project.
CA...................  Jack McNamara Field, Del  Resurface runways.
                        Norte County.
CA...................  Fresno Yosemite           Design and construct
                        International Airport.    midfield air cargo
                                                  taxiways, design and
                                                  construct midfield air
                                                  cargo apron, design
                                                  and construct airfield
                                                  drainage imrpovements,
                                                  design and construct
                                                  midfield air cargo
                                                  access road.
CA...................  General William J. Fox    Extend the existing
                        Field Airport,            county airport runway.
                        Lancaster.
CA...................  Stockton Metropolitian    Lengthen runway.
                        Airport.
CA...................  Bishop Airport, Inyo      Facility, utility and
                        County.                   infrastructure
                                                  improvements.
CA...................  Ontario International     Grove Corridor
                        Airport.                  improvements;
                                                  structure and ramp
                                                  improvements; right-of-
                                                  way acquisition; cargo
                                                  demand study.
CA...................  Mammoth/Yosemite          Upgrade airport to
                        Airport, Mammoth Lakes.   handle jets.
CA...................  Meadows Field Airport,    New terminal, ramp and
                        Bakersfield.              access road.
CA...................  Gnoss Field Airport,      Runway extension.
                        Marin County.
CA...................  Sacramento Mather         Runway, taxiway, and
                        Airport.                  apron pavement
                                                  rehabilitation and
                                                  runway/taxiway
                                                  lighting.
CA...................  March Air Reserve Base..  Civilian refueling
                                                  system.
CA...................  Southern California       Runway extension.
                        Logistics Airport.
CNMI.................  Rota International        Resurface main runway.
                        Airport, CNMI.
CT...................  Greater Rockford Airport  Reimbursement for costs
                                                  associated with runway
                                                  extension and
                                                  adjustments to the
                                                  belt line road.
CT...................  Freeport Albertus         Runway construction and
                        Airport.                  safety area.
FL...................  Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood  Mega-zone transport
                        International.            study.
FL...................  St. Petersburg-           Runway expansion and
                        Clearwater                other improvements.
                        International.
FL...................  Orlando International     Runway construction.
                        Airport.
IN...................  Monroe County Airport,    Land acquisition.
                        Bloomington.
IN...................  Freeman Municipal         Runway and taxiway
                        Airport, Seymour.         reconstruction.
IN...................  Perry County Municipal    Runway extension.
                        Airport, Tell City.
IN...................  Gary Regional Airport...  Maintenance facility.
KS...................  Lawrence Municipal        Various improvements.
                        Airport.
KS...................  Newton City-County        Various improvements.
                        Airport.
KY...................  Louisville International  Noise mitigation.
KY...................  Caldwell County Airport.  Runway extension and
                                                  overlay.
KY...................  Madisonville Municipal    Various improvements.
                        Airport.
KY...................  Marion/Crittenden County  Master plan development
                        Airport.                  and engineering.
KY...................  Cynthiana Airport,        Apron overlay and
                        Harrison County.          taxiway; runway
                                                  extension.
KY...................  Estill County Airport...  Feasibility study for
                                                  new airport.
LA...................  Lakefront Airport, New    Repair and restoration
                        Orleans.                  Airport/Lake
                                                  Pontchartrain
                                                  retaining wall.
LA...................  Baton Rouge               Noise mitigation;
                        Metropolitian.            taxiway and runway
                                                  reconstruction;
                                                  overlay and construct
                                                  runways; perimeter
                                                  road; ARFF vehicle.
LA...................  Lafayette Airport.......  Rubber removal, seal
                                                  coating, grooving, and
                                                  mark and strip the
                                                  runway. Construct
                                                  bridge over Bayou,
                                                  correct grade
                                                  differential, and
                                                  extend the runway
                                                  safety area.
MI...................  Southwest Michigan        Runway extension.
                        Regional Airport,
                        Benton Harbor.
MI...................  Lenawee County Airport..  Extend the runway and
                                                  shift the threshold;
                                                  airport expansion.
MI...................  Cherry Capital Airport,   New passenger terminal.
                        Traverse City.
MI...................  Oakland Pontiac           Various improvements.
                        International.
MI...................  Detroit City Airport....  Land acquisition for
                                                  expansion.
MO...................  Lee's Summit Municipal,   Land acquisition to
                        Kansas City.              extend runway and
                                                  creation of required
                                                  runway protection
                                                  zone.
MS...................  Starkville Airport......  Runway extension.
MS...................  Jackson International     Design and construction
                        Airport.                  of air cargo apron.
MS...................  Olive Branch Airport....  Various improvements.
MS...................  Iuka Airport............  Various improvements.
MS...................  Ackerman Airport........  Various improvements.
MT...................  Helena Regional Airport.  Taxiway construction.
NC...................  Piedmont Triad            Runway construction and
                        International Airport.    related improvements.
NC...................  Concord Regional          Runway extension,
                        Airport, Cabarrus         runway protection zone
                        County.                   completion, ramp/ILS
                                                  zone, Construction to
                                                  lower a road.
NC...................  Stanly County Airport...  Perimeter security
                                                  fencing, airfield
                                                  lighting, access
                                                  roads.
NC...................  Rockingham-Hamlet         Parallel taxiway,
                        Airport, Richmond         eastern half; apron
                        County.                   expansion.
NC...................  Monroe Municipal          Terminal area apron
                        Airport, Union County.    expansion; land
                                                  acquisition.
ND...................  Minot Municipal Airport.  Safety and security
                                                  needs.
NY...................  Niagara Falls             Rehabilitation of
                        International Airport.    taxiway D.
NY...................  Buffalo Niagara           Runway improvements and
                        International Airport.    extension; east access
                                                  improvements;
                                                  expansion of east
                                                  terminal apron phase
                                                  II; acquisition and
                                                  demolition.
NY...................  LaGuardia International.  Noise mitigation.
OH...................  Port Columbus             Terminal apron
                        International Airport.    reconstruction and
                                                  glycol retention/
                                                  treatment facility.
OH...................  Fairfield County Airport  Airport master plan.
OH...................  Ohio University Airport,  Extend runway.
                        Athens.
OH...................  Toledo Express Airport..  Expansion of taxiway
                                                  and apron capacity.
OH...................  Rickenbacker Airport....  Various infrastructure
                                                  needs.
OH...................  Akron-Canton Regional     Expansion of runway 1/
                        Airport.                  19 safety upgrade.
OH...................  Pickaway County Airport.  Runway and taxiway
                                                  extension.
OK...................  Stillwater Airport......  Runway lengthening.
OK...................  McAlester Airport.......  Runway extension and
                                                  strengthening.
OK...................  Will Rogers World         Extension of runway
                        Airport, Oklahoma City.   protection zone;
                                                  relocation of
                                                  MacArthur Boulevard.
OR...................  Roberts Field/Redmond     Expand commercial
                        Municipal.                terminal ramp.
PA...................  Erie International        Extend main runway
                        Airport.                  1,000 ft.
PA...................  Jimmy Stewart Airport,    Runway expansion and
                        Indiana County.           related improvements.
RI...................  T.F. Green Airport,       Various improvements.
                        Providence.
TN...................  Memphis Shelby County     Extend taxiway;
                        Airport.                  construct aircraft
                                                  apron; reconstruct
                                                  taxiways; and
                                                  reconstruct runway.
TN...................  Millington Airport......  Infrastructure
                                                  improvements.
TN...................  Chattanooga Metropolitan  Shift taxiway to meet
                        Airport.                  design standards.
TX...................  Abilene Regional........  Terminal expansion/
                                                  taxiway upgrade.
TX...................  George Bush               New runway and
                        International, Houston.   associated projects.
TX...................  Alliance Airport........  Runway extension; cargo
                                                  apron; noise
                                                  compatibility program.
TX...................  Sugar Land Municipal      Property acquisition
                        Airport.                  and taxiway
                                                  construction.
TX...................  Laredo Airport..........  Noise compatibility
                                                  program.
TX...................  Robert Gray Army          Support joint use
                        Airfield, Fort Hood.      development.
USVI.................  Henry E. Rohlsen          Runway extension and
                        Airport, St. Croix.       terminal expansion.
UT...................  Wendover Airport........  Expansion of commercial
                                                  service ramp.
UT...................  Salt Lake City            Expand cargo facilities
                        International.            to handle Olympic
                                                  demand; expand and
                                                  modernize terminals.
VA...................  Danville Regional         Apron expansion, fillet
                        Airport.                  widening, taxiway
                                                  lighting, apron
                                                  overlay.
VA...................  Lee County Airport......  Replace airport.
VA...................  Lonesome Pine Airport,    Construct parallel
                        Wise County.              taxiway.
VA...................  Mountain Empire Airport,  Construct security
                        Smyth County.             fence, parallel
                                                  taxiway, move fuel
                                                  farm, relocate
                                                  windsock, and install
                                                  beacon.
VA...................  Virginia Highlands        Construct apron.
                        Airport, Abingdon.
VA...................  Charlottesville-          Extend runway safety
                        Albemarle Airport.        area.
VA...................  New River Valley          Environmental review of
                        Airport, Dublin.          an overlay.
WI...................  Rock County Airport.....  Reconstruction and
                                                  extension of runway
                                                  facilities.
WI...................  Chippewa Valley Regional  Runway and taxiway.
                        Airport.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jackson International Airport, MS.--The Committee is aware 
that the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority has undertaken the 
phased construction of a new air cargo park at the Jackson 
International Airport, for which $7,000,000 in FAA, EDA and 
local funding has already been committed. Consistent with the 
priority designation of this project in the House and Senate 
committee reports and the conference report last year, and in 
order to meet the schedule requirements for final design and 
construction of segment 1 of the project, the Committee 
encourages FAA to give priority consideration to requests by 
the Jackson International Airport for discretionary funding to 
complete construction of the air cargo apron and related 
improvements, including the paving of the taxiway connection to 
Runway 16R/34L.
    Alliance Airport, TX.--The Committee encourages the FAA to 
give full and immediate consideration to the City of Fort 
Worth's application for a letter of intent for a runway 
extension project at Alliance Airport in Texas. The Committee 
believes that FAA's review of grant and LOI applications should 
not discriminate against cargo airport projects by relying too 
heavily on formal benefit-cost analyses. The FAA's benefit-cost 
procedures rely heavily on passenger air service. While 
appropriate in many instances, if used inflexibly to make award 
decisions, such a process could unfairly place a low priority 
on a balanced national aviation system, which includes general 
aviation and cargo aviation requirements.
    Abilene Regional Airport, TX.--The Committee is aware of 
plans for essential infrastructure improvements to enhance 
competition, capacity and safety at the Abilene Regional 
Airport. Given the economic potential and immediate needs of 
this regional facility, the Committee encourages FAA to give 
priority consideration to requests for discretionary funding 
that will assist the Abilene Regional Airport with various 
capital improvements such as a terminal expansion, taxiway 
extension and emergency response vehicle procurement.
    St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, FL.--The 
Committee encourages the FAA to give full and immediate 
consideration to a letter of intent for runway expansion and 
other improvements at the St. Petersburg-Clearwater 
International Airport in Florida.
    Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC.--The Committee 
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to 
the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's application for a letter 
of intent for construction of a parallel runway (5L-23R), and 
related improvements described in the authority's application, 
which are necessary to integrate this new runway into existing 
facilities. The Committee is informed that substantial safety, 
capacity and economic benefits will accrue from the completion 
of this project.
    DeKalb Taylor Municipal Airport, IL.--The Committee 
encourages FAA to give priority consideration to a request for 
discretionary funding for reconstruction of the east-west 
taxiway, replacement of airfield lighting, and acquisition of 
land for placement of an ODAL system.
    Akron-Canton Regional Airport, OH.--The Committee urges the 
FAA to give priority consideration to requests for 
discretionary funding for the safety upgrades and extension of 
runway 1/19 at Akron-Canton Regional Airport in Ohio.
    Louisville International Airport, Kentucky.--The Committee 
is aware of Louisville International Airport's ambitious 
relocation program associated with a major expansion of the 
airport. Currently, Louisville is limited to receiving 
$5,000,000 per year in noise mitigation funds due to an 
administrative policy of the FAA. Under this bill, funds for 
noise mitigation activities will increase from $206 million in 
fiscal year 2000 to $347 million in fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee understands that, given the substantially higher 
funding level next year, the FAA intends to discontinue the 
administrative cap and review each case on its merits. The 
Committee believes the FAA should review each airport's need 
without regard to an administrative cap, and should give strong 
consideration to Louisville International's noise mitigation 
needs for fiscal year 2001.

                             administration

    The bill provides that, within the overall obligation 
limitation, $53,000,000 is available for administration of the 
airports program by the FAA. Prior to fiscal year 2000, these 
expenses were included in the FAA's operating budget. The 
recommended amount is $8,000,000 (17.8 percent) above the level 
provided for fiscal year 2000 and essentially the same as the 
budget estimate. Since overall AIP program funding is raised by 
64.1 percent pursuant to Public Law 106-81, it is imperative 
that administrative costs be raised also, so that grant 
requests can be reviewed thoroughly and executed in a timely 
manner. In addition, the airports office must review and 
approve requests for letters of intent and for additional 
passenger facility charges, both of which are expected to 
increase in the coming year. Airport-related research remains 
funded under ``Facilities and equipment.''

                             bill language

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

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

                 (Rescission of Contract Authorization)

    The bill includes a rescission of $579,000,000 in contract 
authority. This budget authority was made available in P.L. 
106-181 for obligation during fiscal year 2000. However, since 
such funds are above the obligation limitation for that year, 
they are not available for obligation and are therefore 
available for rescission. This recommendation will have no 
programmatic impact, since the funding is not currently 
available for use in the AIP program. Furthermore, since AIP 
authorized funding for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 is 
guaranteed by law and cannot be reduced in the appropriations 
process, the fiscal year 2000 funds will also not be needed to 
address any shortfalls in those years.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides 
financial assistance to the states to construct and improve 
roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other 
agencies and organizations involved in road building 
activities. Title 23 and other supporting legislation provide 
authority for the various activities of the Federal Highway 
Administration. Funding is provided by contract authority, with 
program levels established by annual limitations on obligations 
in appropriations Acts.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) 
amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional 
discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway 
category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid 
highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's motor carrier safety funding, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) highway safety grants 
funding and NHTSA highway safety research and development 
funding. The highway category obligations are capped at 
$27,158,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. If appropriations action 
forces highway obligations or outlays to exceed this level, the 
difference and the resulting outlays are charged to the non-
defense discretionary spending category. In addition, if 
highway account receipts exceed levels specified in TEA21, 
automatic adjustments are made to increase or decrease 
obligations and outlays for the highway category accordingly.
    The Committee's recommendation fully comports with and does 
not exceed the levels guaranteed by TEA21. The following table 
summarizes the program levels within the Federal Highway 
Administration for fiscal year 2000 enacted, the fiscal year 
2001 budget request and the Committee's recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal Year--
                          Program                          ------------------------------------  Recommended in
                                                            2000 enacted \1\    2001 request        the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways......................................   $26,245,000,000   $26,603,806,000   $26,603,806,000
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)...................     1,456,350,000     3,058,000,000     3,058,000,000
RABA transfer.............................................  ................      -598,000,000  ................
Adjustment................................................  ................       255,000,000  ................
Exempt obligations........................................     1,206,702,000     1,039,576,000     1,039,576,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................    28,908,052,000    30,358,382,000   30,701,382,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $105,260,000 in across-the-board rescissions, but includes $76,058,000 in administrative expenses
  for motor carriers.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Limitation, fiscal year 2000 \1\......................    ($376,072,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................     (315,834,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................     (290,115,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2000......................     (-85,957,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..................    (-25,719,000)

\1\ Includes $76,058,000 for administrative expenses of the office of
  motor carriers. In fiscal year 2001, funding for motor carrier
  administrative expenses is included as a separate limitation in the
  Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Comparable amounts for
  FHWA administrative expenses for fiscal year 2000 total $300,014,000.

    This limitation controls spending for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to 
conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and 
most other federal highway programs. In the past, this 
limitation included a number of contract programs, such as 
highway research, development and technology; however, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) created 
a separate limitation for transportation research. Accordingly, 
in fiscal year 2001 costs related to highway research, 
development and technology are included under a separate 
limitation.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $290,115,000. This 
level is sufficient to fund 2,437 FTEs. This limitation 
excludes funding for the operations of the office of motor 
carriers, which is now provided in the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration, consistent with the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999.
    Legislated set-asides.--The budget request included a 
number of legislated set-asides within this limitation. The 
Committee has not included these items in the bill, but has 
instead addressed them in this accompanying report.
    The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to 
the budget request:

Undistributed reduction in GOE administrative expenses..     -$6,004,000
Defer information technology increases pending CIO 
    review..............................................      -2,400,000
Defer increases for workforce development...............      -4,330,000
Delete funding requested for rural transportation 
    planning initiatives................................      -1,000,000
Eliminate funding for climate change center.............      -1,000,000
Deny funding for national rural development partnership 
    program.............................................        -500,000
Delete funding for the Garrett A. Morgan program........        -688,000
Delete funding for 2 new FTE for small and disadvantaged 
    business activities.................................        -230,000
Deny funding for development of regional transportation 
    plan for the Mississippi River Delta Initiative.....      -1,000,000
Delete funding for ``working better together'' 
    activities..........................................        -500,000
Provide $1,000,000 for the office of intermodalism......        -317,000
Deny increases for technology transfer and sharing 
    activities..........................................      -5,000,000
Disallow funds for the national personal transportation 
    survey..............................................      -4,750,000
Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake 
    Winter Olympic Games (Section 1223 of TEA21)........      +2,000,000

    Undistributed reduction in administrative expenses.--The 
Committee recommendation includes a reduction of $6,004,000 in 
administrative expenses and provides FHWA the flexibility to 
allocate that reduction among such expenses as ADP, permanent 
change of station, travel, transportation and non-mandatory 
bonuses and incentives. The Committee notes that the FHWA is 
now approximately 200 FTE below the fiscal year 2000 authorized 
employment level, and therefore should be able to accommodate 
this reduction with little, if any, disruption.
    Information technology activities.--The Committee has 
deferred increases in information technology activities 
totaling $2,400,000 in fiscal year 2001 pending a review of the 
need and compatibility by the department's chief information 
officer of the proposed new systems and enhancements and a 
determination of outyear costs.
    Workforce development.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has denied the request for increases of $4,330,000 
for workforce development activities.
    Rural transportation planning initiative.--The Committee 
has not provided the $1,000,000 requested to establish an 
entity in two universities to support transportation planning 
in rural areas. This proposed activity is redundant of those 
activities funded within the local and rural technical 
assistance programs of the Federal Highway Administration and 
the Federal Transit Administration, respectively.
    Climate change center.--The Committee has denied the 
administration's request to establish a climate change center, 
which would conduct and coordinate the department's research on 
environmental strategies (-$1,000,000). The Committee has 
provided sufficient funds within the FHWA's research and 
technology program to conduct environmental research and does 
not believe such a center to be necessary.
    National rural development program support.--The Committee 
has deleted funding requested for the department's share of the 
national rural development program (-$500,000). This program is 
a government-wide initiative/partnership, led by the Department 
of Agriculture, and is a network of rural development leaders 
and officials committed to the vitality of rural areas. The 
Committee has deleted funds for this activity the last several 
years.
    Garrett A. Morgan program.--The Committee has deleted funds 
requested within this account for the Garrett A. Morgan 
transportation futures program (-$688,000), consistent with 
recommendations elsewhere in the bill.
    Small and disadvantaged business.--The Committee has 
deleted funds requested to support two new full time equivalent 
employees related to small and disadvantaged business 
activities due to budget constraints (-$230,000). Additional 
staff may be allocated for these activities within the current 
FTE authorization ceiling.
    Delta initiative.--The Committee has deleted funding 
requested to develop a regional transportation plan related to 
the delta initiative (-$1,000,000). This activity is 
unauthorized and includes plans to develop a tourism marketing 
strategy which will highlight the region's cultural and 
historical significance. This is an activity more appropriate 
for the Department of Commerce than the Department of 
Transportation.
    ``Working better together'' activities.--The Committee has 
deleted $500,000 for ``working better together'' activities due 
to a lack of justification.
    Technology sharing and transfer activities.--The Committee 
has not provided the $5,000,000 requested to encourage greater 
sharing among the department's modal administrations and their 
constituencies of research and technology. Sufficient funding 
of $14,000,000 is provided for training and education 
activities in fiscal year 2001 in the highway research and 
technology programs to support these activities.
    National personal transportation survey.--The Committee has 
not provided the $4,750,000 under this heading for activities 
related to the national personal transportation survey. The 
Committee recognizes the need for such data and has included 
limited funds for this activity within funds provided for 
policy research and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
    Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake Winter 
Olympic Games.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 for transportation management planning for the Salt 
Lake Winter Olympic Games, as authorized by section 1223(c) of 
TEA21. These funds shall be available for planning activities 
and transportation projects based on the transportation 
management plan approved by the Secretary.
    International trade data systems.--The Committee has 
provided $1,620,000, as requested, for an international trade 
data system, which is intended to create a single federal 
database and information system to process international trade 
and transportation transactions. Funding is included to upgrade 
the current tag/reader system for trucks and to include a 
railroad electronic notification and clearance process. The 
Committee directs, however, that the Department of 
Transportation provide the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by February 1, 2001 a detailed cost estimate for 
the development and deployment of the complete system, 
including cost sharing by other participating federal, state 
and local agencies, and a schedule for full deployment.
    Research and development administrative expenses.--The 
Committee's recommendation for general operating expenses 
includes funding to support various administrative activities 
related to research and development activities that were 
requested within the research and technology programs. 
Specifically, $400,000 is provided to support innovative 
financing administration; $200,000 for strategic planning; 
$400,000 for research and technology activities conducted by 
the resource centers; $645,000 for computer support for 
research and development activities; and $200,000 for the 
development of improved performance measures.
    Four Bears Bridge, North Dakota.--The bill does not provide 
$5,000,000 requested from funds made available under section 
104(a) of TEA21 for the design and preliminary engineering of 
the Four Bears Bridge in North Dakota.
    Child passenger protection grants.--Of the funds available 
pursuant to section 104(a) of TEA21, the Committee has included 
$7,500,000 for child passenger protection grants.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research

Limitation, fiscal year 2000\1\.......................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2001\1\...................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................    ($437,250,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2000......................    (+437,250,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..................   (+437,250,000)

\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2000 and requested in fiscal year
  2001 are assumed within the federal-aid highways obligation
  limitation.

    This limitation controls spending for the transportation 
research and technology contract programs of the Federal 
Highway Administration. This limitation includes a number of 
contract programs including intelligent transportation systems, 
surface transportation research, technology deployment, 
training and education, and university transportation research. 
In the past, funding under this limitation was provided in part 
from the limitation on general operating expenses and from 
contract authority provided in permanent law. The 
recommendation includes an obligation limitation for 
transportation research of $437,250,000. This limitation is 
consistent with the provisions of TEA21 and mirrors the House-
passed fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies appropriations bill. The Committee 
recommendation does not provide an additional $221,500,000 for 
research and technology programs requested in the budget to be 
funded from an increase in contract authority.
    TEA21 authorizes $437,250,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the 
following transportation research programs:

Surface transportation research.........................     $98,000,000
Technology deployment program...........................      45,000,000
Training and education..................................      18,000,000
Bureau of transportation statistics.....................      31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests, and 
    development.........................................     100,000,000
ITS deployment..........................................     118,000,000
University transportation research......................      27,250,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Subtotal............................................     437,250,000

    Within the funds provided for surface transportation 
research, the accompanying bill provides funding for the 
following activities in the specified amounts, consistent with 
the provisions of TEA21:

Technology assessment and deployment....................     $14,000,000
International activities................................         500,000
Research and technology support.........................       7,500,000
Highway research and development........................      66,000,000
Long term pavement performance..........................      10,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      98,000,000

    Within the funds provided for surface transportation 
research, the Committee recommends that $66,000,000 be 
allocated for highway research and development for the 
following activities in the specified amounts:

Highway research and development:
    Safety..............................................     $15,000,000
    Pavements...........................................      15,000,000
    Structures..........................................      15,000,000
    Environment.........................................       6,200,000
    Policy..............................................       4,600,000
    Planning and real estate............................       4,100,000
    Advanced research...................................         900,000
    Highway operations asset management.................       5,200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      66,000,000

    The Committee has allocated the surface transportation 
research and development account in the same manner as it has 
historically, rather than in the new configuration proposed by 
FHWA. This allocation will not interfere with the performance-
based approach required under GPRA, but will ensure that the 
flow of federal investments can be monitored easily. The 
Committee's allocation concentrates funds in the three 
foundations of FHWA's research and development program: safety, 
pavements, and structures. To respond to the pressing 
challenges of today's highway environment, increased funds also 
have been made available for highway operations and asset 
management.
    The Committee also seeks to ensure that FHWA continues to 
focus on research and development, and therefore does not 
approve the use of any funds specified under highway research 
and development to support technology deployment, assessment, 
or other programmatic purposes as proposed by FHWA. Instead, 
under the surface transportation research and development 
subaccount, the Committee directs that $14,000,000 be allocated 
for technology deployment and assessment activities to expedite 
the transfer of advanced technologies to state and local 
governments. Next year, FHWA should be prepared to show how 
funds to advance research and development were tracked 
separately from funds spent on technology deployment and 
assessment functions.
    In the fiscal year 2002 budget justification, the Committee 
expects FHWA to delineate the proposed allocation of surface 
transportation research and development funds using the same 
categorical basis displayed in this report. The FHWA also is 
expected to document how it proposes to allocate the technology 
assessment and deployment funds by specific projects or 
activities to be conducted by the core business units, state 
division offices, or resource centers. The justification will 
include a separate discussion of how the technology deployment 
program funds will be integrated with the surface 
transportation R&D funds.
    Safety.--The safety research and technology program 
develops engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment, 
roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information 
materials that will significantly contribute to the reduction 
of highway fatalities and injuries. The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000 for safety research and development activities. 
FHWA is required to implement a comprehensive research and 
technology program that will ensure safety R&D and deployment 
activities receive at least the same total amount of funds that 
were provided in fiscal year 2000. The Committee commends FHWA 
for the development of various safety-oriented technologies and 
its assistance to states to reduce run-off-the road crashes, 
increase pedestrian and bicycle safety, improve roadside design 
and hardware, reduce hazards in work zones, advance safety and 
speed management systems, and further highway safety 
information systems.
    The Committee has increased funds above the requested 
amount to allow FHWA to expand its efforts to improve traffic 
safety at various types of intersections. Almost 25 percent of 
all fatal motor vehicle crashes are intersection-related. 
Intersection safety is a concern in both urban and rural 
areas--44 percent of intersection-related fatal crashes occur 
in rural areas and 56 percent in urban areas. Providing 
increased funds for this area of research is consistent with 
the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which identifies 
improving the design and operation of highway intersections as 
one of its 22 strategies to reduce highway deaths and injuries. 
FHWA should identify the most common and severe safety problems 
at intersections and compile information on effective 
applications and design of innovative infrastructure 
configurations and treatments at both signalized and 
unsignalized intersections and interchanges.
    Pavements research.--The pavements research and technology 
program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools, 
equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public 
information that will significantly contribute to the reduction 
of highway fatalities and injuries. For fiscal year 2001, the 
Committee recommends $15,000,000 for pavements research and 
development, including work on asphalt, cement concrete 
pavements, and recycled materials. This increase in funding 
above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, along with the funds 
provided for long term pavement performance, will allow FHWA to 
undertake research projects to improve the nation's 
infrastructure. Within the funds provided, the FHWA is 
encouraged to support research into aggregates production and 
utilization, polymer additives, and the production of asphalt 
modifiers using rubber and waste oil.
    Structures.--The structures research and technology program 
develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to 
maintain efficiently and renew the aging transportation 
infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance, 
and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery 
after major disasters. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee 
recommends $15,000,000 for structures research and development. 
These funds will help FHWA make progress towards its 
performance goal to reduce deficiencies on national highway 
system bridges from 25% to 20% and reduce deficiencies on all 
bridges from 31.4% to 25% by 2007. This funding will ensure 
continued progress on high performance materials and 
engineering applications to design, repair, rehabilitate, and 
retrofit bridges. Within the funds provided, the FHWA is 
encouraged to support research into advanced wood composites, 
research into the use of lithium technologies to mitigate 
damage from alkali silica reactions, and research into the use 
of high resolution imaging in non-destructive evaluations.
    Environment research.--The environment research and 
technology program develops improved tools for assessing 
highway impacts on the environment; techniques for the 
avoidance, detection, and mitigation of those impacts and for 
the enhancement of the environment; and expertise on 
environmental concerns within FHWA and state and local 
transportation agencies. The Committee recommends $6,200,000 
for research on environmental issues affecting highway 
operations and construction. Further, within the funds provided 
for highway research and development, the department shall make 
available $250,000 for furtherance of the PM-10 study.
    Policy research.--The policy research and technology 
program supports FHWA policy analysis and development, 
strategic planning, and technology development through research 
in data collection, management and dissemination; highway 
financing, investment analysis, and performance measurement; 
and enhancements to highway program contributions to economic 
productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. For fiscal 
year 2001, the Committee recommends $4,600,000 for policy 
research. For several years, the Committee has provided funds 
for the department's truck size and weight study, which has 
been financed primarily from FHWA's policy research budget. 
This study has been in draft format for several years and has 
received considerable criticism. The Committee's allowance does 
not include any funds to continue or revise this study. The 
Committee will reconsider the need for updating this study when 
debate over highway reauthorization legislation draws closer. 
This savings of $450,000 and the additional funds recommended 
above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will allow continued 
work on the National Personal Transportation Survey, which is 
funded under this category and not under the limitation on 
administrative expense as requested by the FHWA. Because of 
budgetary constraints, the Committee has deleted funds for 
research cooperation with various international organizations 
and expects to be consulted before future international 
agreements that are likely to require financial support are 
consummated.
    Planning and real estate research.--The planning and real 
estate research and technology program advances cost effective 
methods to evaluate transportation strategies and investments; 
develops and disseminates improved planning methods; develops 
more effective planning and data collection techniques for 
intermodal passenger and freight planning and programming; 
improves financial planning tools for use in developing 
transportation plans and programs; evaluates the 
characteristics of the National Highway System; and develops 
improved analytical tools to support metropolitan and statewide 
planning and for information and data sharing with state and 
local governments. The Committee recommends $4,100,000 for 
planning and real estate research, including an increase of 
$100,000 in the real estate services portion of the planning 
R&D budget above the amount specified last year. These 
additional funds will help FHWA respond to requests from AASHTO 
and other groups for increased research in the real estate 
service area.
    Advanced research.--The advanced research program addresses 
longer-term, higher risk research that shows potential benefits 
for improving the durability, efficiency, environmental impact, 
productivity and safety of highway systems. The Committee 
provides $900,000 for advanced research.
    Highway operations and asset management.--The highway 
operations research program is designed to develop, deliver and 
deploy advanced technologies and administrative methods to 
provide pavement and bridge durability, and to reduce 
construction and maintenance-related user delays. The Committee 
recommends $5,200,000 for highway operations and asset 
management. Funds provided under this category support a 
variety of research projects seeking to improve highway 
operations, including work to improve the manual on uniform 
traffic control devices, work zone operations, technologies 
that facilitate operational responses to changes in weather 
conditions, and freight management operations. Of the $600,000 
provided for asset management, the Committee has not included 
any funds for statistical analysis of the National Quality 
Initiative. Such analysis shall be performed by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics.
    R&T technical support.--The Committee has limited funds for 
R&T technical support to $7,500,000. Funding for other agency-
wide initiatives requested under the category ``Agency R&T 
Programs'' have not been approved, unless otherwise specified 
under the limitation on general operating expenses.
    R&T partnership initiative.--The Committee continues to 
support FHWA's participation in the national R&T partnership 
initiative. As part of this partnership, five working groups 
have been formed to advance a national research agenda in the 
areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and 
mobility, planning and environment, and policy analysis and 
systems monitoring. Key partners and stakeholders, including, 
state DOTs, academia, local governmental officials, and private 
sector representatives are participating along with FHWA as 
part of this effort. The products of this initiative will 
provide input to the FHWA and other participants in shaping R&D 
directions and priorities, and increase opportunities for 
collaborative approaches to conducting high-priority R&T 
activities. The Committee notes that the Transportation 
Research Board (TRB) has taken a significant role in 
facilitating this effort, and that the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has voiced 
strong support and participates actively in this effort. The 
Committee encourages FHWA's continued support of this 
partnership initiative and appreciates the involvement of TRB, 
AASHTO, and others to advance the overall highway R&T program.
    Advanced vehicle consortia program.--The Committee has not 
included funds for the advanced vehicle consortia program. The 
budget request had proposed to provide $20,000,000 for the 
program by diverting revenue aligned budget authority for this 
purpose. Last year the Committee directed the department to 
include with the fiscal year 2001 budget request a report that: 
delineates a detailed strategic spending plan outlining the 
scope and direction of each of the planned research, 
development, demonstration, and deployment projects expected to 
be funded as part of the program during the next five years; 
demonstrates that the activities to be conducted by the 
participating consortia will be coordinated and integrated into 
a cohesive program; provides documentation that the projects to 
be funded do not in any way overlap with other FTA, FRA, or 
Department of Energy activities; and demonstrates a financial 
participation of other federal departments. At the time of the 
writing of this report, the Committee had yet to receive the 
report. The Committee, therefore, has deferred future funding 
requests for this program until the reporting requirement is 
satisfied, the department is able to indicate how the disparate 
array of projects will be joined together to form a 
strategically designed program, and the Committee has had an 
opportunity to review the report fully.
    Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) distribution.--The 
Committee directs that any RABA funds distributed under current 
law for surface transportation research and development be 
allocated only among the core research programs for pavements, 
structures or safety. None of the distributed RABA funds are to 
be used for activities originally requested under agency-wide 
R&T initiatives.
    ITS standards, research, operational tests and 
development.--The Committee recommends the $100,000,000 
provided in TEA21 for ITS research be allocated in the 
following manner:

Research and development................................     $48,680,000
Operational tests.......................................      11,820,000
Evaluation..............................................       7,750,000
Architecture and standards..............................      13,750,000
Integration.............................................       9,000,000
Program support.........................................       9,000,000

    CVO research.--The Committee's allowance includes 
$7,300,000 for commercial vehicle research. The additional 
funds provided above the request shall be used to develop and 
test advanced technology for roadside identification. This 
technology is needed to identify commercial carriers and 
vehicles without transponders in advance of their approach to 
an inspection site. This technology will ensure that maximum 
use of the SAFER, ASPEN, Mailbox data system, PIQ, PRISM target 
file, and ISS2 systems is facilitated. Advancement of 
technology to promote the transfer of information from NLETS to 
MCSAP officers, including improved communications between the 
NLETS bridge and the PRISM target file and other information 
systems, should also be supported with the additional funds 
provided.
    IVI research.--The Committee's allowance includes 
$30,000,000 for the intelligent vehicle program. No less than 
$5,000,000 of those funds shall be used for the initial phase 
of an operational test to advance collision avoidance 
technologies in the light vehicle platform. This project should 
be designed so that it is completed before the end of fiscal 
year 2003. The solicitation shall encourage the participation 
of at least one light vehicle manufacturer or a tier I 
supplier. The department shall solicit projects that will 
address run-off-the road crashes and unsafe lane or 
intersection movements. Because of the importance of this 
initiative, the department is encouraged to employ innovative 
mechanisms, (such as cooperative agreements or other funding 
arrangements) that would facilitate an appropriately-sized test 
for the purpose of evaluating safety benefits and costs, while 
protecting proprietary technology.
    Specified ITS deployment projects.--It is the intent of the 
Committee that the following projects contribute to the 
integration and interoperability of intelligent transportation 
systems in metropolitan and rural areas as provided under 
section 5208 of TEA21 and promote deployment of the commercial 
vehicle intelligent transportation system infrastructure as 
provided under section 5209 of TEA 21. These projects shall 
conform to the requirements set forth in these sections, 
including the project selection criteria contained in section 
5208(b) and the priority areas outlined in section 5209(c), 
respectively. Projects selected for funding shall use all 
applicable, published ITS standards. This requirement may be 
waived if the Secretary determines that the use of a published 
ITS standard would be counterproductive to achievement of the 
program objectives. Funding for ITS deployment activities are 
to be available as follows:

                                                                  Amount
Alameda-Contra Costa, California........................      $1,000,000
Baton Rouge, Louisiana..................................       2,000,000
Bay County, Florida.....................................       2,000,000
Bloomingdale Township, Illinois.........................         400,000
Calhoun County, Michigan................................         500,000
Carbondale, Pennsylvania................................       2,000,000
Charlotte, North Carolina...............................       1,000,000
College Station, Texas..................................       1,000,000
Corpus Christi, Texas...................................       1,000,000
DuPage County, Illinois.................................         850,000
Houston, Texas..........................................       2,000,000
Huntington Beach, California............................       2,500,000
Inglewood, California...................................       1,000,000
Jackson, Mississippi....................................       1,000,000
Jefferson County, Colorado..............................       5,400,000
Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania...............................       2,000,000
Lake County, Illinois...................................         450,000
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.........................       4,000,000
North Las Vegas, Nevada.................................       2,000,000
Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, California................       1,000,000
Oakland and Wayne counties, Michigan....................       2,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..............................       1,000,000
Puget Sound, Washington.................................       3,000,000
Rensselaer County, New York.............................       1,000,000
Rochester, New York.....................................       1,500,000
Sacramento County, California...........................       1,750,000
Sacramento, California..................................       1,000,000
Shreveport, Louisiana...................................       2,000,000
Southhaven, Mississippi.................................         150,000
Spokane County, Washington..............................       1,000,000
St. Louis, Missouri.....................................       1,000,000
State of Arizona........................................       1,000,000
State of Delaware.......................................       1,500,000
State of Iowa...........................................       2,000,000
State of Maryland.......................................       2,000,000
State of Minnesota......................................      10,000,000
State of Nebraska.......................................       1,500,000
State of North Carolina.................................       2,000,000
State of North Dakota...................................       1,000,000
State of Ohio...........................................       3,000,000
State of South Carolina.................................       4,000,000
State of Utah...........................................       5,000,000
Commonwealth of Virginia................................       8,000,000
Washington, DC area.....................................       2,500,000
Wayne County, Michigan..................................       8,000,000

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................        ($26,000,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...............         (28,000,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........................         (28,000,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............           +2,000,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001...........  .......................

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $28,000,000,000. This is an increase of $2,000,000,000 over 
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and is needed to pay the 
outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at 
levels provided in TEA21. This appropriation is mandatory and 
has no scoring effect.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

    Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a 
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain 
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new 
construction of roads. State highway departments have the 
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA 
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The 
federal government provides financial support for construction 
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary 
with the type of road.
    There are almost four million miles of public roads in the 
United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The Federal 
Government provides grants to states to assist in financing the 
construction and preservation of about 945,000 miles (24 
percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive 
interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes. 
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of 
total U.S. highway traffic.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) 
reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other 
surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. TEA21 
builds on programs and other initiatives established in the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 
1991, the previous major authorizing legislation for surface 
transportation programs.
    Under TEA21, Federal-aid highways funds are made available 
through the following major programs:
    National highway system.--The ISTEA of 1991 authorized--and 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS). 
This 163,000-mile road system serving major population centers, 
international border crossings, intermodal transportation 
facilities and major travel destinations, is the culmination of 
years of effort by many organizations, both public and private, 
to identify routes of national significance. It includes all 
Interstate routes, other urban and rural principal arterials, 
the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic 
highway connectors, and is estimated to carry up to 75 percent 
of commercial truck traffic and 40 percent of all vehicular 
traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its 
NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If 
the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The 
federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability 
period of 4 years.
    Interstate maintenance.--The 46,000-mile Dwight D. 
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program 
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and 
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges, 
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate 
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity 
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
    All remaining federal funding to complete the initial 
construction of the interstate system has been provided through 
previous highway legislation. The TEA21 provides flexibility to 
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of 
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no 
remaining work to complete the interstate system may transfer 
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their interstate 
maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on 
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish 
interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and 
transfer the federal share of the cost to their interstate 
maintenance program.
    Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation 
program (STP) is a very flexible program that may be used by 
the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that 
are not functionally classified as local or rural minor 
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as 
Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are 
not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public 
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this 
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the 
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee 
funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds. 
Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used 
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety 
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50 
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and 
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of 
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an 
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts 
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor 
collectors. The federal share for the STP program is 80 percent 
with a 4-year availability period.
    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This 
program is continued by the TEA21 to provide assistance for 
bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for 
high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges. 
Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to 
the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is 
deducted from the national bridge needs used in the program's 
apportionment formula for the following year.
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air 
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range 
of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT, 
after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help 
meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides 
greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and 
expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to 
reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate 
matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state 
has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be 
used as if they were STP funds.
    On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be 
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both 
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ 
program, including regional emissions and verifying new mobile 
source control techniques.
    Federal lands highways.--This program provides 
authorizations through three major categories--Indian 
reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands 
highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways 
category)--as well as a new category for Federally-owned public 
roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife 
Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for 
improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.
    Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year 
2001 shall be available for the following activities:

                                                                  Amount
14th Street bridge, Washington DC/Virginia..............      $5,000,000
Acadia National Park....................................       1,000,000
Broughton Bridge, Clay County, Kansas...................         100,000
Clark Fork River bridge replacement, phase 2, Idaho.....       3,000,000
Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge access road, 
    Nebraska............................................       1,000,000
Cumberland Gap, Kentucky................................         900,000
Daniel Boone Parkway, Kentucky..........................       1,000,000
Historic Kelso depot, Mojave National Preservation, 
    California..........................................       5,400,000
Hoover Dam bypass, Arizona..............................      10,000,000
Lake Tahoe Binwall repair and drainage improvement......       1,000,000
Lowell National Historic Park, western canal walkway 
    improvements........................................         500,000
Manassas Battlefield access.............................         500,000
Mongaup Visitor Center--Upper Delaware Scenic and 
    Recreational River..................................         900,000
Mount Saint Helen's National Park access from Coldwater 
    visitor's Center to US 12, Randall, Washington......         100,000
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge visitor's center, 
    Clark County, Washington............................         400,000
Route 600, Virginia.....................................       3,100,000
SD 240 loop, Badlands National Monument.................       1,700,000
Second Access road for Fort Eustis, Virginia............       3,500,000
Soldier Hallow, Utah....................................       2,400,000
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Florida......         900,000
Traffic circle at Mount Vernon, Virginia................         500,000
Upgrade US Hwy 26, Oregon...............................       3,000,000
Utah Trail, Joshua Tree National Park, California.......       1,500,000
Widen US 95, Nevada.....................................       2,000,000

    The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to 
be derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, 
and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service's 
regions.
    Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, after the computation of 
funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are 
distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional 
amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee 
provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5 
percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of 
the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each 
fiscal year, $2.8 billion nationally is available to the States 
as though they are STP funds (except that requirements related 
to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, and sub-
State allocations do not apply), and any remaining amounts are 
distributed among core highway programs.
    Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and 
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned 
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of 
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA21 restates the 
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds 
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential 
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting 
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect 
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds 
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds 
from other highway programs.
    High priority projects.--TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority 
projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects 
totals $9.5 billion over the 6 year period with a specified 
percentage of the project funds made available each year. 
Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA21 
high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid 
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated 
with the projects does not expire.
    Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes 
funds available to construct highways and access roads under 
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
1965. Under TEA21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 1999-2003; is available until expended and 
distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete 
estimate.
    National corridor planning and border infrastructure 
programs.--TEA21 established a new national corridor planning 
and development program that provides funds for the coordinated 
planning, design, and construction of corridors of national 
significance, economic growth, and international or 
interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors 
identified in section 1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors 
using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated 
border infrastructure program is established to improve the 
safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./
Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders.
    Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of 
TEA21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats 
and ferry terminal facilities. TEA21 also included a new 
requirement that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal years 1999 
through 2003 be set aside for marine highway systems that are 
part of the National Highway System for use by the states of 
Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2001, TEA21 
provides $38,000,000.
    Transportation and community and system preservation pilot 
program.--TEA21 established a new transportation and community 
and system preservation program that provides grants to states 
and local governments for planning, developing, and 
implementing strategies to integrate transportation and 
community and system preservation plans and practices. These 
grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the 
transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on 
the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments 
in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, 
services, and centers of trade.
    Funds provided for the transportation and community and 
system preservation pilot program in fiscal year 2001 shall be 
available for the following activities:
        Project                                                   Amount
Arkansas River, Wichita, Kansas pedestrian 
    transportation facility.............................      $1,000,000
Boca Raton, Florida traffic calming measures............         500,000
Buckeye Greenbelt parkway beautification, Toledo, Ohio..         250,000
Central Florida commuter rail...........................       1,000,000
City of Bedminister, New Jersey bike path...............         500,000
City of Ferndale, Michigan traffic signals..............          50,000
City of Sulphur Springs, Texas mobility improvements....         750,000
Clark County, Indiana mobility improvement project......         750,000
Community and environmental transportation acceptability 
    process.............................................       1,000,000
Decatur, Illinois mobility improvements.................         750,000
Development of Mitchell Marina, Greenport, New York.....         250,000
El Segundo, California intermodal facility improvements.       1,000,000
Ellenboro and Harrisville, West Virginia mobility 
    improvements........................................         250,000
Elwood bicycle/pedestrian bridge, County of Santa 
    Barbara, California.................................         250,000
Fort Worth, Texas trolley study.........................         750,000
High capacity transportation system study, Albuquerque, 
    New Mexico..........................................         500,000
Humboldt Greenway project, Hennepin County, Minnesota...       1,000,000
Lafayette Street access improvement project, Norristown, 
    Pennsylvania........................................         500,000
Lodge freeway pedestrian overpass, Detroit, Michigan....         900,000
Madison County, Kentucky................................         400,000
Mercer County, Illinois mobility improvements...........         750,000
Mobility improvement study, Fayette, Lamar, Tuscaloosa, 
    Marion and Franklin Counties, Alabama...............         500,000
New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania rail corridor study...       1,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana intermodal transportation 
    research............................................         750,000
North Metro region improvement project, Minnesota.......         750,000
North Spokane, Washington trade corridor improvements 
    and enhancements....................................         500,000
NW 7th Avenue corridor improvement project, Miami, 
    Florida.............................................         100,000
Ohio and Erie Canal corridor trail development..........       1,000,000
Pedestrian and bicycle route projects, Henderson, Nevada         250,000
Pedestrian improvements, Lake Cumberland Trail, Kentucky         100,000
Revitalization project, Fitchburg, Massachusetts........       1,000,000
Rockville, Maryland Town Center accessibility 
    improvement plan....................................         250,000
Soundview Greenway in the Bronx, New York, New York.....       1,000,000
South Kingshighway business district pilot program, St. 
    Louis, Missouri.....................................         100,000
Street revitalization, Clovis, New Mexico...............         750,000
Town of South Brunswick, New Jersey.....................         250,000
Traffic calming and mitigation, South Pasadena, 
    Pasedena, El Serano, California.....................       1,000,000
Uptown transportation management program, New Mexico....         500,000
Van Buren and Russelville, Arkansas environmental 
    assessments and improvements........................       1,000,000
Walkable edgewater initiative, Chicago, Illinois........         100,000
West Baden Springs preservation project, Indiana........       1,000,000

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, fiscal year 2000......................     ($27,701,350,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\..............      (29,318,806,000)
Recommended in the bill \2\.......................      (29,661,806,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2000..................      (+1,960,456,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..............       (+343,000,000)

\1\ The budget request includes new obligations of $3,058,000,000
  associated with revenue aligned budget authority, of which
  $598,000,000 is transferred to other modal administrations. The
  request also includes $255,000,000 in additional obligation authority.

\2\ The Committee recommendation includes $26,603,806,000 in guaranteed
  obligations, and $3,058,000,000 in obligations resulting from revenue
  aligned budget authority, consistent with current law.

    The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 2001 federal-aid highways obligations to $29,661,806,000, 
an increase of $1,960,456,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level and $343,000,000 over the budget request. The recommended 
level is the level assumed in TEA21. These funds are guaranteed 
under the highway category and protected by points of order in 
the House.
    The obligation limitation for the federal-aid highways 
program included in this bill includes $3,058,000,000 in 
obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority. 
TEA21 provides for an automatic increase in the federal-aid 
highways program budget authority and obligation authority in 
any budget year in which projected income to the highway 
account of the highway trust fund exceeds estimates of income 
to the trust fund that were made at the time TEA21 was enacted. 
Under law, a determination of the size of this increase in so-
called ``firewall'' spending levels is made in the President's 
budget submission. TEA21 calls for any such increases in budget 
authority to be distributed proportionately among federal-aid 
highways apportioned and allocated programs, and for the 
overall federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an 
equal amount, and certain amounts to be distributed to the 
motor carrier safety grants program of the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration. In total, the estimate of 
increased income, and therefore, budget authority and 
obligations for fiscal year 2001 is $3,058,000,000.
    The budget request--in contravention of provisions of 
TEA21--proposed to allocate this additional obligation 
authority in fiscal year 2001 to other programs, including 
NHTSA's operations and research program; FTA's job access and 
reverse commute program; high speed rail activities; and the 
commercial drivers license program. The accompanying bill 
allocates the additional obligation authority consistent with 
the provisions of TEA21.
    In addition, the budget request included several proposals 
which are not included in the Committee's recommendation. These 
proposals included: (1) a set aside of $1,200,000 from funds 
made available for administrative expenses for training on 
Indian reservations; (2) an additional $25,000,000 for the 
transportation and community and system preservation program; 
(3) an additional $140,000,000 for the national corridor 
planning and border infrastructure program; (4) an additional 
$221,500,000 for transportation research programs; and (5) 
$398,000,000 to implement an emergency relief reserve fund. 
These proposals have not been approved by the Committee as they 
are unauthorized and if adopted would have required 
corresponding reductions in the states' apportionments and 
their obligation authority in fiscal year 2001.
    Although the following table reflects an estimated 
distribution of obligations by program category, the bill 
includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain 
federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated 
obligations by program within the $29,661,806,000 provided by 
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent 
law:

               FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 1999      FY 2000      FY 2001
             Programs                 actual      estimate     estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
    Surface transportation          $6,226,536   $6,216,069   $6,731,321
     program.....................
    National highway system......    4,888,225    5,318,526    5,761,790
    Interstate maintenance.......    3,357,000    4,419,470    4,788,822
    Bridge program...............    2,565,202    3,784,695    4,105,706
    Congestion mitigation and air    1,145,000    1,509,389    1,636,014
     quality improvement.........
    Minimum guarantee............    2,167,156    1,762,941    2,000,000
    Safety incentive grants for         54,137       80,148       98,758
     use of seat belts...........
    Safety incentive to prevent         43,029       69,680       78,833
     operation of motor carrier
     by intoxicated persons......
    ITS standards, research and         75,122       98,068       96,821
     development.................
    ITS deployment...............       70,938      124,315      114,249
    Transportation research......      208,076      220,214      216,127
    Federal lands highways.......      339,287      652,820      673,305
    National corridor planning         118,307      121,964      135,550
     and coordinated border
     infrastructure..............
    Administration...............      330,657      304,355      290,115
    Other programs...............    2,162,020      432,209      589,212
    High priority projects.......      581,338    1,560,397    1,631,221
    Woodrow Wilson memorial              1,064      138,650      193,642
     bridge......................
    Transportation infrastructure       48,006      100,583      106,503
     finance and innovation......
    Appalachian development            318,658      393,950      388,253
     highway system..............
    Emergency Relief.............  ...........  ...........        9,229
    Motor Carrier Administration.  ...........  ...........       16,335
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total subject to obligation   24,699,758  \1\ 27,308,  \2\ 29,661,
       limitation................                       443          806
                                  ======================================
Emergency relief program.........      128,866      111,151      100,000
Minimum allocation/guarantee.....      857,868      702,364      664,345
Demonstration projects...........      247,570      393,188      275,231
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total exempt programs......    1,234,304    1,206,703    1,039,576
Emergency relief supplemental....       97,074       14,668  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
      Grand Total, Federal-aid      26,031,136   28,529,814   30,701,382
       highways (direct).........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects estimated obligation which is less than the obligation
  limitation ($27.520 billion) adjusted for RABA, enacted transfers to
  the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and enacted reduction
  in fiscal year 2000.
\2\ At this level of obligation limitation, an estimated $29.677 billion
  will be obligated in fiscal year 2001.

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

                                          ESTIMATED FY 2001 OBLIGATIONS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Estimated
                                           FY 2001      FY 2001    Appalachian                    Change from FY
                 State                     formula      minimum    development       Total             2000
                                          limitation   guarantee     highways
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................     $421,012      $35,455      $42,749         $499,216         +$39,101
Alaska.................................      230,277       64,220  ...........          294,497          +23,460
Arizona................................      378,708       43,559  ...........          422,268          +33,924
Arkansas...............................      296,154       26,842  ...........          322,996          +25,435
California.............................    2,171,962      149,017  ...........        2,320,978         +183,462
Colorado...............................      282,577       13,662  ...........          296,239          +23,695
Connecticut............................      325,049       48,080  ...........          373,129          +29,519
Delaware...............................      106,679        7,772  ...........          114,541           +9,252
Dist. of Col...........................       99,053          292  ...........           99,345           +7,892
Florida................................    1,047,364      159,429  ...........        1,206,792          +96,253
Georgia................................      766,647       96,200       17,084          881,931          +69,778
Hawaii.................................      116,161       10,601  ...........          126,762           +9,990
Idaho..................................      163,274       18,931  ...........          182,205          +14,121
Illinois...............................      778,026       46,500  ...........          824,526          +64,769
Indiana................................      527,367       57,447  ...........          584,814          +46,226
Iowa...................................      286,598       11,172  ...........          297,769          +23,546
Kansas.................................      282,037        7,839  ...........          289,876          +22,896
Kentucky...............................      375,794       32,240       39,216          447,249          +35,129
Louisiana..............................      362,538       27,771  ...........          390,309          +30,646
Maine..................................      121,892        9,683  ...........          131,575          +10,466
Maryland...............................      375,212       27,701        6,685          409,598          +32,441
Massachusetts..........................      419,046       35,486  ...........          454,533          +35,747
Michigan...............................      737,157       71,202  ...........          808,359          +63,806
Minnesota..............................      343,656       19,628  ...........          363,284          +28,449
Mississippi............................      286,918       18,581        4,794          310,293          +24,485
Missouri...............................      570,885       39,297  ...........          610,182          +48,096
Montana................................      223,135       31,859  ...........          254,995          +20,580
Nebraska...............................      193,224        6,921  ...........          200,145          +16,109
Nevada.................................      163,714       18,647  ...........          182,362          +14,588
New Hampshire..........................      114,570        9,838  ...........          124,408           +9,728
New Jersey.............................      614,547       42,281  ...........          656,828          +51,625
New Mexico.............................      222,845       21,952  ...........          244,796          +19,402
New York...............................    1,152,626       89,349        9,214        1,251,189          +98,004
North Carolina.........................      609,668       67,217       25,169          702,054          +55,488
North Dakota...........................      157,838       10,617  ...........          168,455          +13,562
Ohio...................................      789,757       53,858       19,278          862,893          +67,952
Oklahoma...............................      367,971       19,332  ...........          387,303          +30,787
Oregon.................................      283,192       12,755  ...........          295,947          +23,192
Pennsylvania...........................    1,016,899       69,324      104,528        1,190,751          +91,783
Rhode Island...........................      137,343       14,296  ...........          151,639          +12,172
South Carolina.........................      373,501       46,298        2,094          421,894          +33,720
South Dakota...........................      164,077       13,093  ...........          177,170          +14,036
Tennessee..............................      485,985       37,823       47,927          571,735          +44,810
Texas..................................    1,711,357      201,194  ...........        1,912,551         +152,417
Utah...................................      187,408       11,779  ...........          199,187          +15,700
Vermont................................      109,720        6,767  ...........          116,487           +9,338
Virginia...............................      590,566       52,352       10,074          652,992          +51,789
Washington.............................      422,504       14,356  ...........          436,859          +34,318
West Virginia..........................      199,319        8,714       59,441          267,475          +20,210
Wisconsin..............................      442,536       49,535  ...........          492,071          +38,978
Wyoming................................      167,114       11,239  ...........          178,353          +14,347
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.........................   22,775,551    2,000,000      388,253       25,163,805       +1,987,198
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Limitation:
    High Priority Projects.............  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,631,219          +73,782
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge..............  ...........  ...........  ...........          193,643          +54,993
    Allocation Reserves................  ...........  ...........  ...........        2,673,139          +25,801
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Limitation.................  ...........  ...........  ...........       29,661,806       +2,141,774
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston, 
Massachusetts.--For more than five years, this Committee has 
been concerned about the management and ever increasing cost of 
Boston's Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. Originally 
estimated to cost $2,500,000,000 in 1985, the Project is now 
estimated to top over $13,100,000,000. As part of its 
continuing oversight of this Project, the Committee asked both 
the General Accounting Office and the Department of 
Transportation's office of inspector general to review and 
report on the status of the Project.
    In May 1999, the Inspector General (IG) questioned the 
Project's use of an $826,000,000 credit that it planned to 
obtain by overpaying for insurance and investing the excess 
until 2017. The Project was carrying the credit as an offset to 
current costs. In October 1999, the IG issued a draft report 
which identified $142,000,000 of cost overruns and suggested 
that the cost could increase by another $942,000,000. The IG 
also identified that the Project's finance plans did not 
adequately disclose costs on the Project. Both FHWA and Project 
management officials vehemently disagreed with the IG's warning 
that Project's costs could rise.
    In January 2000, Project officials submitted a revised 
finance plan to the FHWA. Ignoring the IG's earlier warnings 
that costs could rise and finance plans were incomplete, FHWA 
approved the revised finance plan on February 1, 2000. Later 
that same day, the Project surprised FHWA by announcing a 
$1,400,000,000 cost increase. Project officials have since 
acknowledged that they were well aware of cost escalation when 
they replied to the IG. Project management deliberately 
withheld that information from the federal government.
    The withholding of information by Project officials, 
however egregious, does not excuse FHWA. FHWA had not performed 
its oversight duties and was unaware of the cost increases 
until they were announced by the Project. The Secretary of 
Transportation later termed the actions ``unconscionable'' and 
promised to reform FHWA's major project oversight. The 
Committee accepts the conclusions and recommendations of the 
department's task force but remains skeptical that they will be 
implemented effectively. FHWA's long established approach to 
``partnering'' on all large highway projects must include 
strong and effective verification mechanisms to prevent the 
recurrence of situations similar to those on the Central 
Artery.
    In order to ensure that changes are made, the Committee 
directs the following actions:
          (1) The Secretary of Transportation is to submit to 
        the Committee a quarterly report showing the progress 
        and status of all recommendations in the task force 
        report. The IG is to validate the accuracy of all 
        actions reported as complete.
          (2) The FHWA has initiated a ``major projects team'' 
        to improve headquarters administration and oversight of 
        large construction projects. The Secretary is to 
        provide the Committee with information on the specific 
        responsibilities of the team and to whom it reports.
          (3) The Committee also directs that an annual summary 
        of the reports and assessments issued by the major 
        projects team. This submission is to include a listing 
        of all highway projects costing over $1,000,000,000. 
        For each project listed, the current cost estimate, a 
        summary of the finding sources available to complete 
        the project, and a description of significant cost 
        trends in the last year shall be submitted.
          (4) By December 31, the Secretary is to provide the 
        Committee with a listing of all highway projects 
        totaling over $10,000,000, for which the estimated cost 
        has increased over the original estimate by 25 percent 
        of more. For each project, please provide the original 
        cost estimate and the current cost estimate. Also for 
        each project, provide a short description of the 
        reasons for the cost increases.
    At the time of consideration of this bill by the Committee, 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had yet to submit an 
acceptable finance plan detailing the costs to complete the 
Project and the manner in which the state proposed to pay for 
it. Specifically, the finance plan:
         (1) failed to identify new funding sources to cover 
        cost increases on the project. The state legislature 
        has not acted to make funding sources available to 
        cover the cost of the project, including the cost 
        increase and adequate contingencies, nor has the 
        governor signed such actions into law;
         (2) failed to provide specific actions on establishing 
        and demonstrating a statewide program funding 
        commitment and identification of appropriate funding 
        resources for a statewide road and bridge program;
         (3) failed to provide adequate information on the 
        insurance program; and
         (4) failed to include funding resources to cover 
        additional shortfalls totaling between $300,000,000 to 
        $400,000,000 identified by FHWA in excess of the 
        state's announced $1,400,000,000 increase.
    In the absence of an acceptable finance plan and continuing 
mismanagement of the Project, the Committee had no alternative 
other than to include in the bill a provision (sec. 338) that 
prohibits any federal official from authorizing any project 
approvals or advance construction authorities for the Central 
Artery project during fiscal year 2001.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

    In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act (P.L. 106-159), which established the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within the 
Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation, motor 
carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the Federal 
Highway Administration. For the two years prior to the passage 
of this legislation, the office of motor carriers was severely 
criticized for not doing enough to prevent trucking accidents 
and fatalities, and being too close to the industry that it 
regulated. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) 
sought to address these criticisms by forming a new 
administration that placed truck and bus safety on par with 
other modes of transportation and by strengthening the 
commercial driver's license program.
    The primary mission of FMCSA is to improve safety of 
commercial vehicle operations on our nation's highways. To 
accomplish this mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the 
number and severity of large truck crashes. Agency resources 
and activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial 
vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of 
stronger enforcement measures against safety violators, 
expedited safety regulation, technology innovation, 
improvements in information systems, training, and improvements 
to the commercial driver's license testing, record keeping, and 
sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely 
in partnership with federal, state, and local enforcement 
agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety 
organizations, and individual citizens.
    MCSIA and TEA21 provide funding authorizations for FMCSA, 
including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and 
technology, the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) 
and the information systems and strategic safety initiatives 
(ISSSI).

                          Motor Carrier Safety

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

    The office of motor carrier safety provides for most of the 
salaries, expenses and research funding for the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended Section 104(a)(1) of 
title 23 to provide one-third of one percent to be made 
available to administer motor carrier safety programs and motor 
carrier research.

                                                          Limitation on
                                                         administrative
                                                            expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 \1\...................     ($76,058,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................      (92,194,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................      (92,194,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................       +16,136,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..................  ................

\1\ Provided under FHWA's limitation on administrative expenses in
  fiscal year 2000. This amount includes funding for administrative
  expenses and research and technology initiatives.

    The Committee has provided a total of $92,194,000 for 
operating expenses and research for the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration. This is the same amount as requested and 
$16,136,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Of this 
total, $83,525,000 is for operating expenses and $8,669,000 is 
for research. The following adjustments are recommended to the 
budget request:

High-risk, intrastate carrier information.............         -$500,000
Contract for vision exemption program.................          -638,000
Personnel adjustments.................................          +144,000
Crash collection data.................................        +1,500,000
Operation Respond.....................................          +375,000
Research and technology...............................          -881,000

    High-risk, intrastate carrier information.--The Committee 
has deleted funding for the high-risk intrastate carrier 
information program under the operating expense account and 
recommends funding for this activity under the MCSAP program 
because of its direct relevance to state motor carrier safety 
(-$500,000).
    Contract vision exemption program.--FMCSA requested 
$638,000 to administer a new contract for a vision exemption 
program. Typically it is more expensive to hire contractors 
than to have in-house employees administer the program. For 
example, RSPA recently converted three contract positions to 
in-house positions and realized cost savings of almost $150,000 
without impacting the quality of the program. The Committee has 
denied funding for this new contract program. Instead, funding 
has been provided to hire three employees to perform this work 
in-house. Processing vision exemption applications should be 
conducted by federal officials trained in motor carrier safety 
regulations associated with the exemption program. The three 
new positions should be sufficient to monitor and review the 50 
to 55 applications that FMCSA receives each month and assist 
the agency in developing improved regulations that set the 
minimum medical standards for commercial drivers.
    Personnel adjustments.--A total of 120 new full-time 
employees has been approved for fiscal year 2001, two more than 
requested. The Committee has added four FTEs: three vision 
exemption specialists and one additional information systems 
analyst. The additional information systems analyst is 
necessary because, over the past three years, the office of 
motor carriers has decreased the number of computer specialists 
from 11 to 4; however the administration has been given 
additional information systems responsibilities. This new 
position should be used to assist in the development of 
improved information systems and to provide technical 
assistance to field operations on new computer systems. The 
Committee has denied two of the new positions requested: one 
international specialist because of the delays in implementing 
the trucking provisions contained in NAFTA and one technology 
specialist. The Committee has approved the other three 
technology specialists contained in the budget request and 
notes that FMCSA has ample employees currently working to 
advance the CVO and PRISM programs.
    Crash collection data.--The Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999 provides $5,000,000 for crash data 
collection (section 225e); however, FMCSA has requested 
$2,750,000 for these efforts. The Committee has provided 
$1,500,000 above the request to ensure that FMCSA improves data 
collection on motor carrier crashes; strengthens data analysis; 
links driver citation information with other information 
databases; helps train state employees and motor carrier safety 
enforcement officials; and ensures an increased focus on 
problem drivers through the integration of driver and crash 
data.
    Operation Respond.--Consistent with actions in previous 
years, $375,000 shall be made available for Operation Respond.
    Motor carrier research.--A total of $8,669,000 has been 
provided for motor carrier research. This is an increase of 55 
percent above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Within this 
total, the Committee denies funding for the highway watch 
program. This activity is not research-oriented and its need 
for federal support has been substantially reduced given the 
rise in cellular communications.
    School transportation study.--FMCSA shall continue funding 
the school transportation study required by section 4030 of 
TEA21 at the same level as provided in fiscal year 2000.

                 National Motor Carrier Safety Program

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                                     (Liquidation of
                                         contract        (Limitation on
                                      authorization)      obligations)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...     ($105,000,000)     ($105,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001..      (187,000,000)      (187,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...........      (177,000,000)      (177,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year          (+72,000,000)      (+72,000,000)
 2000.............................
    Budget request, fiscal year         (-10,000,000)      (-10,000,000)
 2001.............................

    The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program was 
authorized by TEA21 and amended by the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two major 
areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and 
the information systems and strategic safety initiatives 
(ISSSI). MCSAP provides grants and project funding to states to 
develop and implement national programs for the uniform 
enforcement of federal and state rules and regulations 
concerning motor safety. The major objective of this program is 
to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving 
commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified states 
for the development of programs to enforce the federal motor 
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the 
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program 
is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both 
interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic. 
ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor 
carrier programs.
    The Committee recommends $177,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for this program. This is an increase of $72,000,000 above the 
level enacted in fiscal year 2000.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    The Committee recommends a $177,000,000 limitation on 
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level 
authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999, which amended TEA21. None of this funding is derived from 
revenue aligned budget authority due to lack of authorization.
    The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as 
follows:

Motor carrier safety assistance program:                    $160,000,000
    Basic motor carrier safety grants................      (130,684,375)
    Performance based incentive grant program........        (6,878,125)
    Border assistance................................        (7,750,000)
    High priority activities.........................        (7,750,000)
    State training and administration................        (1,937,500)
    Crash causation database (section 224f)..........        (5,000,000)
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives:         17,000,000
    Information systems..............................        (3,700,000)
    Motor carrier analysis...........................        (2,300,000)
    Implementation of PRISM..........................        (5,000,000)
    Driver programs..................................        (1,000,000)
    Data collection and analysis (section 225f)......        (5,000,000)

    Commercial driver's license program (CDL).--The Committee 
has denied diverting $10,000,000 from revenue aligned budget 
authority to the commercial driver's license program. These 
funds were to be awarded to states to enhance their driver 
records information systems to speed the entry of convictions 
onto driving record and ensure that driver records are 
complete. The Committee does not believe this denial will have 
a negative impact on the CDL program because the new motor 
carrier legislation insured that if more highway gas tax is 
collected than anticipated by TEA21, the motor carrier safety 
grants program would receive a portion of this increase. 
According to FHWA, if Congress does not divert any RABA funds 
to other programs, the motor carrier safety program will 
receive $16,335,000. This funding will more than amply fund the 
agency's commercial driver's license program in fiscal year 
2001.
    Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should 
work with the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead 
MCSAP agencies and licensing agencies to establish a working 
group to improve all aspects of the CDL program. In addition, 
FMCSA should consider sponsoring one or two pilot projects 
involving law enforcement and driver licensing agencies to 
explore new and innovative ways to ensure that drivers who have 
been convicted of a disqualifying offense do not operate during 
the period of suspension or revocation. Finally, FMCSA should 
continue to support the judicial and prosecutorial outreach 
effort. FMCSA shall submit a letter to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by April 1, 2001 summarizing 
efforts to increase quality control in the CDL program and 
efforts taken to provide technical and training assistance to 
the states.
    High risk, intrastate carrier information.--Within the base 
program or the RABA allocation, $500,000 shall be provided for 
the high-risk, intrastate carrier information program. Funding 
for this program had been deleted from the operating budget 
because this activity is of direct relevance to state motor 
carrier safety.
    Automated brake testing equipment.--According to 1999 data, 
the most common out-of-service violations were brake related 
(37 percent). Virginia has been researching and exploring 
opportunities to use infrared brake inspection equipment and 
has found one new technology that could significantly help to 
identify brake deficiencies in a timely manner. Within the high 
priority allocation, sufficient funding should be provided for 
the commonwealth to install and test infrared brake inspection 
equipment (both fixed and hand held) at several weigh stations.
    Covert operations.--Within funding provided to the high 
priority activities, $500,000 shall be used to conduct covert 
operations and survey the extent to which commercial vehicle 
operators violate their out-of-service notices by getting back 
on the road without fixing their vehicle or before completing 
an eight-hour rest period. The Committee expects a report on 
the survey results by May 1, 2001, outlining the extent to 
which out-of-service notices are being violated. This survey 
should be conducted on a sufficiently large sample size so the 
Committee can fully appreciate the scope and nature of the 
challenge.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program

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

                         Traffic Safety Trends

    In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest number of 
highway fatalities since 1962--39,250--despite an increasing 
amount of travel on the roadways. This trend reversed itself 
since then. However, the annual number of fatalities have been 
decreasing slightly over the past three years. The latest NHTSA 
data indicate fatalities in 1999 were 41,345, which is similar 
to the 41,471 fatalities in 1998. However, not all highway 
fatalities are decreasing. Motorcycle fatalities increased 8 
percent between 1997 and 1998, and this trend is continuing in 
1999, with an additional 11 percent increase. In comparing 1999 
to 1998, the number of police-reported crashes and the number 
of injured persons related to those crashes have remained 
fairly constant at an estimated 6,289,000 and 3,200,000 
respectively, for 1999.
    The fatality rate has decreased to 1.5 deaths per 100 
million vehicles miles traveled (VMT). This compares to a rate 
of 1.6 in 1998. During this time period, the VMT increased 
about 2 percent. The following graphs show these safety trends:

    The number of fatalities in traffic crashes involving 
alcohol decreased slightly in 1999 to an estimated 15,794 
people. In comparison, 15,936 people were killed in alcohol-
related crashes in 1998.

                        Operations and Research

                                         Appropriation    (Highway Trust
                                         (General Fund)       Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......      $87,400,000      $74,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......  ...............      286,475,000
Recommended in the bill...............      107,876,000       74,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...      +20,476,000  ...............
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..     +107,876,000     -212,475,000

    TEA21, as amended, authorized a total appropriation level 
of $181,876,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities 
in fiscal year 2001. This total consists of three separate 
authorizations. First, the bill includes $72,000,000 of 
contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to finance 
NHTSA's operations and research activities from title 23 U.S.C. 
403. This funding is included within the firewall guarantee for 
highway spending and is not subject to an appropriation. 
Second, TEA21, as amended, includes an authorization, subject 
to appropriation, of $107,876,000 for operations and research 
activities under chapter 301 of title 49 U.S.C. and part C of 
subtitle VI of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the bill includes an 
authorization from the Highway Trust Fund of $2,000,000 for the 
National Driver Register. This funding is subject to 
appropriations.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Administration requested a total 
of $286,475,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities. 
Funding was to be allocated as follows: $72,000,000 in 
guaranteed funds for activities eligible under title 23 U.S.C. 
403; $2,000,000 for the National Driver Register; $142,475,000 
from the highway trust fund; and $70,000,000 from revenue 
aligned budget authority (RABA).
    The Committee is extremely disappointed with this budget 
request. First, it is 58 percent higher than the amended 
authorized funding, which was approved less than one year ago. 
At that time, Congress approved a $20,476,000 increase in 
NHTSA's authorized level to assure that motor vehicle and 
highway safety issues were adequately funded. Since enactment 
of this legislation, there has been no major program or 
rulemaking that would justify an additional 58 percent increase 
in funding. In fact, some of NHTSA's key programs, such as air 
bag rulemakings, are winding down. Second, under this budget 
request, 24 percent of NHTSA's funding would be derived from 
excess gasoline taxes (RABA). Doing so places critical safety 
programs in jeopardy because RABA increases cannot be assured 
in future years.
    The Committee recommends new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for a total program level of 
$181,876,000, a 13 percent increase above fiscal year 2000. 
None of this funding is from revenue aligned budget authority.
    The Committee has worked with NHTSA to revise its 2001 
budget request to comply with the levels authorized and 
recommends that the full amount be distributed as follows:

Salaries and benefits.................................       $55,880,000
Travel................................................         1,176,000
Operating expenses....................................        20,810,000
Contract programs:
    Safety performance................................         7,347,000
    Safety assurance..................................        11,482,000
    Highway safety programs...........................        40,236,000
    Research and analysis.............................        54,950,000
    General administration............................           645,000
Grant administration reimbursements...................       -10,650,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................      $181,876,000

    Within the increased funding, priority should be given to 
the following NHTSA programs: safety standards, new car 
assessment programs, vehicle safety compliance, biomechanics, 
the crash injury research and engineering network, statistical 
programs (i.e. FARS, NASS, data, state data), and simulator 
research on driver distractions and blood alcohol levels. 
Within thirty days, NHTSA shall provide its recommendations to 
the House Committee on Appropriations as to how reductions from 
the budget request shall be distributed.
    New staff positions.--The Committee has denied half-year 
funding for 29 new positions requested in the budget. Because 
the Committee has held NHTSA to the authorized level and has 
not approved the transfer of RABA funding, funding for these 
new positions and the new programs they would support is not 
available.
    Operating expenses.--Due to budget constraints, operating 
expenses have been held at $20,810,000, or $3,454,000 less than 
requested. Within this amount, computer support is funded at 
the fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee believes this level 
of funding is adequate and urges NHTSA to adopt a more cost 
effective approach to managing computer support expenses. The 
Committee also requests that NHTSA provide a detailed report of 
fiscal year 2000 computer support expenditures by the end of 
December 2000.
    National driver register.--Within the $2,000,000 provided 
for the national driver register, up to $250,000 may be used 
for the technology assessment authorized under section 2006 of 
TEA21.
    New car assessment program.--The Committee has fully funded 
the 2001 budget request for the new car assessment program, 
including some funding for consumer information. Consistent 
with prior years, the Committee has deleted funding for a 
separate consumer information program.
    Hotline.--Funding for the hotline has been held at last 
year's level because of concerns with the management of this 
program.
    Safe/livable communities.--Consistent with actions taken 
for the past two years, the Committee has not provided funding 
for the safe/livable communities program.
    Emergency medical services.--Within the funding for highway 
safety, a total of $2,250,000 has been provided for emergency 
medical services. Within this funding, $750,000 should be 
provided for the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) to continue 
phase three of the guidelines for pre-hospital management of 
traumatic brain injury. BTF should continue to use Inova 
Fairfax Hospital as a center of excellence for data collection.
    Crash injury research and engineering network (CIREN).--
Funding for the CIREN program should not be reduced below the 
fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee is very supportive of the 
work done by these centers and is encouraged that private 
sector interests have agreed to fund two additional centers. 
Because of this commitment, no federal funding should be 
provided to expand the number of federally funded centers in 
fiscal year 2001.
    Special crash investigations.--The Committee is pleased to 
learn that the private sector has agreed to fund 300 special 
crash investigations per year, to collect and analyze real 
world crash data as proposed by the NTSB. This will double the 
number of investigations conducted in 2000. However, it is 
critical that, because of contributions from the private sector 
for this work, the results be treated as public data and no 
conditions be attached to their release.
    Aggressive driving research.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned about the frequent occurrence of aggressive driving, 
especially in the Washington capital region. To address this 
issue the Committee again has included $1,000,000 for the 
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MD MVA) to continue 
their regional aggressive driving program on behalf of 
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. So that other 
communities may benefit from this innovative program, it is 
important that the various components of the program (public 
education, enforcement, and driver modification) be carefully 
evaluated to determine their relative effects on crash 
reduction. Thus, the Committee directs that these funds be used 
for program evaluation efforts. In addition, the Committee 
directs NHTSA to work with the MD MVA to ensure that methods 
are developed to measure and track the incidence of aggressive 
driving and to determine the impact of the regional program on 
its occurrence.
    Bill language.--The Committee continues to carry two 
provisions in the bill, consistent with prior year actions. 
First is 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. Second is a general provision (sec. 
318) that prohibits funds to be used to prepare, prescribe, or 
promulgate corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for 
automobiles that differ from those previously enacted. The 
limitation does not preclude the Secretary of Transportation, 
in order to meet lead time requirements of the law, from 
preparing, proposing, and issuing a CAFE standard for model 
year 2003 automobiles that is identical to the CAFE standard 
established for such automobiles for model year 2002.
    The Committee has deleted language requested by the 
administration that sets aside $1,000,000 for Native American 
programs due to budgetary constraints.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                                                         (Liquidation of
                                         (Limitation on      contract
                                          obligations)    authorization)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......     $206,800,000     $206,800,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......      213,000,000      213,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............      213,000,000      213,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...       +6,200,000       +6,200,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..  ...............  ...............

    TEA21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway 
safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 
grant program, the occupant protection incentive grant program, 
and the state highway safety data improvement grant program. 
The Committee recommends $213,000,000 for the liquidation of 
contract authorization, which is a 3 percent increase above the 
2000 enacted level. This funding is mandatory and has no 
scoring implications.

                       Limitation on Obligations

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

Highway safety programs...............................      $155,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants..................        13,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures..............        36,000,000
State highway safety data grants......................         9,000,000

    Highway safety grants.--These grants are awarded to states 
for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and 
injuries. The states may use the grants to implement programs 
to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed 
limits; encourage proper use of occupant protection devices; 
reduce alcohol- and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes 
between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce school bus 
crashes; improve police traffic services; improve emergency 
medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian 
and bicyclist safety; increase safety among older and younger 
drivers; and improve roadway safety. The grants also provide 
additional support for state data collection and reporting of 
traffic deaths and injuries.
    An obligation limitation of $155,000,000 is included in the 
bill, which is the same amount as requested. The national 
occupant protection survey shall be funded within this total. 
Also, language is included in the bill that limits funding 
available for federal grants administration from this program 
to $7,750,000 for NHTSA.
    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 of structures.
    Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has 
fully funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at 
$13,000,000. States may qualify for this new grant program by 
implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law 
requiring safety belt use by all front seat passengers, and 
beginning in fiscal year 2001, in any seat in the vehicle; (2) 
a safety belt use law providing for primary enforcement; (3) 
minimum fines or penalty points for seat belt and child seat 
use law violations; (4) special traffic enforcement programs 
for occupant protection; (5) a child passenger protection 
education program; and (6) a child passenger protection law 
which requires minors to be properly secured. Language is 
included in the bill that limits funding available for federal 
grants administration from this program to $650,000.
    In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant 
program, TEA21 established a safety incentive grant program 
(section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage. 
The grant program totals $500,000,000 over six years. 
Allocations of federal grants require determinations of (1) 
seat belt use rates and improvements and (2) federal medical 
cost savings attributable to increased seat belt use. States 
that meet the section 157 requirements can use funds for any 
purpose under title 23, including highway construction, highway 
safety, and intelligent transportation systems. NHTSA and FHWA 
are jointly administering this program. NHTSA will collect the 
state data and determine the allocation of funds.
    Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.--These grants 
will offer two-tiered basic and supplemental grants to reward 
states that pass new laws and start more effective programs to 
attack drunk and impaired driving. States may qualify for basic 
grants in two ways. First, they can implement 5 of the 
following 7 laws and programs: (1) administrative license 
revocation; (2) programs to prevent drivers under age 21 from 
obtaining alcoholic beverages; (3) intensive impaired driving 
law enforcement; (4) graduated licensing law with nighttime 
driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) drivers with high 
blood alcohol-content (BAC); (6) young adult programs to reduce 
impaired driving by individuals ages 21-34; (7) an effective 
system for increasing the rate of testing for BAC of drivers in 
fatal crashes. Second, they can demonstrate a reduction in 
alcohol-involved fatality rates in each of the last three years 
for which FARS data is available and demonstrate rates lower 
than the national average for each of the last three years. 
Supplemental grants are provided to states that adopt 
additional measures, including videotaping of drunk drivers by 
police; self-sustaining impaired driving programs; laws to 
reduce driving with suspended licenses; use of passive alcohol 
sensors by police; a system for tracking information on drunk 
drivers; and other innovative programs. The Committee has 
provided $36,000,000 for these grants in fiscal year 2001. 
Language is included in the bill that limits funding available 
for federal grants administration from this program to 
$1,800,000.
    In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant 
program, TEA21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six years 
for states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC law 
(section 163). For each fiscal year a state meets this 
criterion, it will receive a grant in the same ratio in which 
they receive section 402 funds. The states may use these funds 
for any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g. 
highway construction, bridge repair, highway safety, etc.). 
This grant program encourages states to adopt and enforce 
significant anti-drunk driving legislation.
    State highway safety data improvements.--The Committee has 
provided $9,000,000 for the state highway safety data 
improvement grants program. To receive first year grants, a 
state has three options: (1) establish a multi-disciplinary 
highway safety data and traffic records coordinating committee; 
complete a highway safety data and traffic records assessment 
or audit within the last five years; and initiate development 
of a multi-year highway safety data and traffic records 
strategic plan; (2) certify that it has met the first two 
criteria in option 1, submit a data and traffic records multi-
year plan, and certify that the coordinating committee 
continues to operate and support the plan; (3) the Secretary 
may award grants of up to $25,000 for one year to any state 
that does not meet the criteria for option 1. States that 
receive first year grants then would be eligible for subsequent 
grants by: submitting or updating a data and traffic multi-year 
plan; certifying that the coordinating committee continues to 
support the multi-year plan; and reporting annually on the 
progress made to implement the plan. Language is included in 
the bill that limits funding available for federal grants 
administration from this program to $450,000.
    Child passenger protection education grants.--TEA21 
authorized $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to 
implement a new child passenger protection program under 
section 2003(b). This program is designed to prevent deaths and 
injuries to children, educate the public concerning the proper 
installation of child restraints, and train safety personnel on 
child restraint use. Last year, this program was funded by the 
Federal Highway Administration, and administered by NHTSA. 
Consistent with last year's action, the Committee has provided 
$7,500,000 for these grants within funds available to the 
Federal Highway Administration.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 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 2001 is $689,263,000, which is $366,424,000 less than 
requested. In large part, this reduction results from the 
Committee not approving the use of revenue aligned budget 
authority for a new intercity passenger rail program. The 
following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels, 
the fiscal year 2001 program requests and the Committee's 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year
                           Program                               2000 enacted     Fiscal year     Recommended in
                                                                  level \1\       2001 request       the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations........................................      $94,288,000     $103,211,000     $102,487,000
Safety and operations user fees..............................  ...............      -77,300,000  ...............
Railroad research and development............................       22,464,000       26,800,000       26,300,000
Railroad research and development user fees..................  ...............      -25,500,000  ...............
Rhode Island rail development................................       10,000,000       17,000,000       17,000,000
Next generation high speed rail..............................       27,200,000       22,000,000       22,000,000
Alaska railroad..............................................       10,000,000  ...............  ...............
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation............      571,000,000      521,476,000      521,476,000
Expanded intercity rail passenger service fund (limitation on  ...............    (468,000,000)  ...............
 obligations)................................................
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total                                                       $734,952,000   $1,055,687,000    $689,263,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $179,000 in across-the-board rescissions and $436,000 in TASC reductions.

                         Safety and Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................       $94,288,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\..................       103,211,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       102,487,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................        +8,199,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..................          -724,000

 \1\ Of this total, $77,300,000 was to be offset from new railroad
  safety user fees.

    The safety and operations account provides support for 
FRA's rail safety, passenger and freight program activities. 
Funding also supports all salaries and expenses and other 
operating costs related to FRA staff and programs.
    A total of $102,487,000 has been allocated to safety and 
operations, which is almost 9 percent above the 2000 enacted 
level. The following adjustments have been made to the budget 
request:

Approve 7 new positions instead of 10.................         -$170,000
Decrease new employee development funding.............          -360,000
Slight reduction in information technology initiative.          -294,000
Reduce funding for travel.............................          -250,000
Deny new outreach initiative..........................          -500,000
Operation Lifesaver...................................          +350,000
Valley trains and tours...............................          +500,000

    New positions.--The Committee has funded seven of the ten 
new positions requested (-$170,000). Over the past three years, 
Congress has approved 24 new positions; however, FRA currently 
has 34 vacancies. It is premature to continue increasing staff 
at the level the Committee has done in the past because of the 
large number of unfilled positions.
    Employee development.--FRA has requested $660,000 for 
employee development. Because of budget constraints, this new 
budget item has been reduced to $300,000.
    Information technology initiative.--The Committee has 
denied funding for two components under FRA's information 
technology initiative--the data mart and the legal web site. 
The web site should be developed as part of FRA's broader 
internet site enhancements, not separately. Funding for the 
data mart should be postponed until 2002 because this activity 
is in its infancy. FRA should do more planning in fiscal year 
2001 and identify what data sets it plans to put into the data 
mart. This additional work should prevent catastrophies that 
other agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, had in 
procuring new, cutting edge information technologies.
    Travel.--Due to budget constraints, only half of the 
requested travel increase has been approved.
    New outreach program.--Funding for the new outreach program 
has been denied. This funding was to be used to develop new 
grade crossing safety messages. This duplicates federal funding 
for Operation Lifesaver, which is in the process of developing 
a number of new grade crossing safety and trespasser prevention 
announcements.
    Operation Lifesaver.--An additional $350,000 has been 
provided for Operation Lifesaver to continue developing and 
disseminating new grade crossing safety and trespasser 
prevention programs. This work has been highly successful in 
the past. With this supplement, a total of $950,000 has been 
provided to Operation Lifesaver for fiscal year 2001.
    Valley trains and tours.--A total of $500,000 has been 
provided to support scenic passenger rail service in Shenandoah 
County, Virginia. This funding is contingent upon an agreement 
with Norfolk Southern Railway on track usage and support by the 
Commonwealth of Virginia.
    User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's 
request to collect $77,300,000 in user fees for railroad safety 
activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such 
authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund 
railroad safety activities in the traditional manner.
    Bill language.--The Committee has rescinded a total of 
$60,000,000 in advanced appropriations for the Pennsylvania 
Station redevelopment project, of which $20,000,000 was to be 
available in fiscal year 2001. These advance appropriations 
were provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2000. The Inspector General recently released a report on 
this project and found that: (1) the project design is only 15 
percent complete, although it has been in the planning stages 
since 1992; (2) costs continue to escalate from $315,000,000 in 
1992 to $788,400,000 currently; and (3) the project's current 
completion date of 2005 could be delayed substantially because 
Amtrak and the United States Postal Service have not yet 
approved project design or agreed on the sequence of work to be 
performed. The Inspector General has questioned the 
corporation's ability to contain the redevelopment costs, 
particularly without detailed design work completed yet. The 
report also identified $295,000,000 in unsecured funding 
necessary to complete the project that will not be available 
until after lease agreements have been finalized and signed 
with the principal tenants. Without a more complete project 
design and signed lease agreements, the Committee believes that 
it is premature to expend $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 on 
this project. For future consideration of this project, the 
Committee directs the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment 
Corporation (PSRC) to submit annually to FRA a comprehensive 
finance plan for this project, which establishes cost-
containment strategies and realistic project milestones, 
identifies how PSRC will secure sufficient funding to meet 
expected costs, and provide contingency plans to resolve any 
funding shortfalls. In addition, FRA should closely monitor 
PSRC's progress in implementing its cost containment strategies 
and achieving its project completion date.
    Other programs.--A total of $3,500,000 is provided within 
the maglev program for FRA to administer the magnetic 
levitation program, Operation Lifesaver, Alaska Railroad 
liabilities, and track inspection activities, as requested.

                   Railroad Research and Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................       $22,464,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\..................        26,800,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        26,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................        +3,836,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................         -500,000

\1\ Of this total, $25,500,000 was to be offset from new railroad
  research and development user fees.

    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 $26,300,000, 
which is $500,000 less than requested. Funding to evaluate 
methods for developing performance-based regulations has been 
denied.
    Higher capacity rail cars on light density tracks.--Within 
the funds provided, FRA should continue to conduct a study on 
track and bridge requirements for the handling of 286,000-pound 
rail cars. As these higher capacity rail cars are phased into 
the industry to increase productivity and improve equipment 
utilization, there is a need for additional information on the 
effects that heavier axle loads are currently having on main 
line tracks, the current condition of the short line railroads, 
and the economic impact of handling heavier axle loads on light 
density tracks. Recognizing that the investments needed to 
upgrade a line to handle heavier axle loads are very site 
specific, the study should develop unit costs that would enable 
such calculations to be made. FRA should work with the American 
Short Line and Regional Railroad Association on this analysis 
because it will provide substantial benefit to the short line 
industry.
    User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's 
request to collect $25,500,000 in user fees for railroad 
research and development activities. These fees are not 
authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will 
fund railroad research and development activities in the 
traditional manner.

       Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program

    TEA21 establishes a railroad rehabilitation and improvement 
financing loan and loan guarantee program. The aggregate unpaid 
principal amounts of the obligations may not exceed $3.5 
billion at any one time. Not less than $1 billion is reserved 
for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads other than 
Class I carriers. The funding may be used: (1) to acquire, 
improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or 
facilities, including track, components of track bridges, 
yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or 
(3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad 
facilities. No federal appropriation is required since a non-
federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy 
amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of 
a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established 
investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals 
and necessary determinations and findings.
    The Committee has included bill language specifying that no 
new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made 
using federal funds for the payment of any credit premium 
amount during fiscal year 2001, as requested.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................       $10,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................        17,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        17,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................        +7,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..................  ................

    The Rhode Island rail development project will construct a 
third track along portions of the Northeast Corridor between 
Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island. This third track 
will prevent mixing freight and high-speed passenger rail 
service and will provide sufficient clearance to accommodate 
double-stack freight cars.
    The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the Rhode Island 
rail development project, as requested. This funding is matched 
on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the state. Since fiscal year 
1995, a total of $38,000,000 has been appropriated in federal 
funds to construct a third track. With this appropriation, the 
federal commitment to this project will be completed.

                Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................       $27,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................        22,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        22,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................        -5,200,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..................  ................

    The next generation high-speed rail program funds the 
development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed 
rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the 
program authorized in TEA21.
    The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the next 
generation high-speed rail program, the amount requested. Total 
program funding is allocated as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                 2000 enacted     2001 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train control systems........................................      $15,000,000      $10,000,000      $10,000,000
    Illinois project.........................................      (6,500,000)      (7,000,000)      (7,000,000)
    Alaska railroad..........................................      (5,000,000)             (--)             (--)
    Michigan project.........................................      (3,000,000)      (3,000,000)      (3,000,000)
    Transportation safety research alliance..................        (500,000)             (--)             (--)
Non-electric locomotives.....................................        7,000,000        6,800,000        6,800,000
    ALPS.....................................................      (4,000,000)      (3,800,000)      (3,800,000)
    Prototype locomotive.....................................      (3,000,000)      (3,000,000)      (3,000,000)
Grade crossings & Innovative technologies:                           4,000,000        4,000,000        4,000,000
    N.C. sealed corridor.....................................        (400,000)        (400,000)        (400,000)
    Mitigating hazards.......................................      (2,500,000)      (2,500,000)      (2,500,000)
    Low-cost technologies....................................      (1,100,000)      (1,100,000)      (1,100,000)
Track and structures.........................................        1,200,000        1,200,000        1,200,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................       27,200,000       22,000,000       22,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rail-highway crossings hazard eliminations.--Under section 
1103 of TEA21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is 
made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing 
hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are eligible for 
these funds. Of these set-aside funds, $1,000,000 shall be used 
to mitigate grade crossing hazards between Washington D.C. and 
Richmond, Virginia; $1,000,000 shall be used between Mobile, 
Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana; $1,000,000 shall be used in 
Salem, Oregon; $1,000,000 shall be used in Portage, Indiana; 
$750,000 shall be available for the Minneapolis/St. Paul to 
Chicago corridor; $250,000 shall be used between Atlanta and 
Macon, Georgia; and $250,000 shall be used along the eastern 
San Fernando Valley in California.
    Grade crossing program.--A general provision (sec. 333) is 
included in the bill that would remove the requirement for 
state or local governments to provide matching funds on rail-
highway hazard elimination projects funded from the surface 
transportation program. Many states have difficulty expending 
these funds, and as a result, some states have several years of 
unobligated balances. For example, the State of Georgia has an 
unobligated balance of $9,630,879, which is approximately two 
years of apportionments. Similarly, the State of North Carolina 
has an unobligated balance of $7,451,146, or two years of 
apportionments. Tragic accidents like the one that occurred 
recently on the Tennessee-Georgia border do not have to occur 
if states are more willing--and able--to spend their grade 
crossing funds. The Committee anticipates that by deleting the 
non-federal match, states should be able to reduce these 
unobligated balances and eliminate a greater number of grade 
crossing hazards than previously planned. The table below 
indicates the current unobligated balances by state and the 
anticipated fiscal year 2001 apportionments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Rail-highway crossing
                                       ---------------------------------
                                           Estimated
                 State                    fiscal year     Unobligated as
                                              2001          of 9/30/99
                                         apportionment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...............................       $3,220,384       $4,093,347
Alaska................................        2,439,186        4,483,688
Arizona...............................        1,576,081        4,610,050
Arkansas..............................        2,457,429        2,882,097
California............................       10,182,716          576,532
Colorado..............................        2,202,728        2,921,334
Connecticut...........................        1,047,610          648,685
Delaware..............................          504,776          578,887
District of Columbia..................          210,728          842,912
Florida...............................        4,686,707        5,549,668
Georgia...............................        4,696,264        9,630,879
Hawaii................................          391,793          783,586
Idaho.................................        1,429,320          996,436
Illinois..............................        7,926,261        5,980,632
Indiana...............................        4,962,375        4,170,266
Iowa..................................        3,795,673        3,227,419
Kansas................................        4,870,650          557,685
Kentucky..............................        2,535,034        5,201,538
Louisiana.............................        3,176,113          512,253
Maine.................................          938,057        2,686,174
Maryland..............................        1,427,286        3,826,624
Massachusetts.........................        2,011,267        4,795,022
Michigan..............................        5,352,187        5,048,102
Minnesota.............................        4,041,936        3,233,347
Mississippi...........................        2,240,007        1,401,195
Missouri..............................        3,998,022          153,512
Montana...............................        1,613,567        3,384,540
Nebraska..............................        2,661,323        1,879,034
Nevada................................          783,990          850,394
New Hampshire.........................          612,960          435,493
New Jersey............................        2,691,259        3,233,825
New Mexico............................        1,205,846        1,437,350
New York..............................        6,020,444          651,458
North Carolina........................        3,981,325        7,451,146
North Dakota..........................        2,769,040        2,123,231
Ohio..................................        6,301,744          424,607
Oklahoma..............................        3,300,832          481,040
Oregon................................        2,194,099        5,237,851
Pennsylvania..........................        5,804,391          731,201
Rhode Island..........................          445,013          963,418
South Carolina........................        2,584,926          388,042
South Dakota..........................        1,654,832        2,981,778
Tennessee.............................        3,267,384        2,429,896
Texas.................................       10,906,280        5,059,100
Utah..................................        1,152,999          403,252
Vermont...............................          618,631        3,137,370
Virginia..............................        2,731,204        6,131,344
Washington............................        2,717,360        6,883,435
West Virginia.........................        1,708,309        1,326,238
Wisconsin.............................        3,929,021        3,607,523
Wyoming...............................          912,318          477,472
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................      154,889,487      141,501,908
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

                                (Amtrak)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......................      $571,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......................       521,476,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       521,476,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...................       -49,524,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..................  ................

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

                            Status of Amtrak

    In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act, which among other things, required Amtrak 
to reach operating self-sufficiency by the end of 2002. Three 
years into this mandate, Amtrak has achieved some savings; 
however, a significant amount of work needs to be done in the 
next two years to reach this goal. On the positive side, Amtrak 
has topped $1 billion in revenue, has achieved record 
ridership, is continuing to grow its mail and express 
opportunities, and has completed its market-based network 
analysis that identified a number of new revenue opportunities. 
On the negative side, the railroad has delayed its highly 
touted high-speed rail service between New York and Boston by 
at least 7 months, has continued to experience growing cash 
losses, will not be able to implement a number of its growth 
strategies until at least fiscal year 2001, and only then if 
the freight railroads agree, and are involved in another round 
of labor negotiations that could be quite costly.
    In March, the Committee heard testimony from Amtrak, the 
Department of Transportation Inspector General, and the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) about Amtrak's ability to meet this 
mandate. Amtrak was quite positive that it would meet or exceed 
this goal. However, the Inspector General and the GAO were more 
cautious. The Inspector General testified that, while it is 
possible to achieve operating self-sufficiency by 2003, Amtrak 
still needs to make major improvements to achieve this mandate. 
GAO testified, ``Amtrak has made only modest progress in its 
quest towards reducing its need for federal operating 
subsidies. During the past five years, Amtrak reduced its need 
for operating subsidies by $78,000,000. During the next two and 
a half years, Amtrak must make further reductions totaling over 
$290,000,000. This is nearly four times as much as it has 
achieved in the past four years.''
    However, even if Amtrak meets the self-sufficiency mandate, 
it will have difficulty maintaining this status without a 
significant infusion of federal funding each year, for Amtrak 
has substantial capital needs. For example, Amtrak recently 
estimated that approximately $12,500,000,000 will be needed 
over the next 25 years to modernize the infrastructure on the 
Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C. and New York City. 
In addition, Amtrak requires about $300,000,000 per year to 
replace its capital assets, such as its facilities and 
equipment.
    At the Committee hearing, the Inspector General and the GAO 
testified that even if Amtrak reaches operational self-
sufficiency Congress will need to appropriate between 
$500,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 per year to keep Amtrak 
operating. However, the GAO testified that funding would need 
to be above $1,000,000,000 per year if Amtrak wanted to expand 
and make significant improvements to its current 
infrastructure. This is well above any funding level Congress 
has provided Amtrak since 1982.

                        Committee Recommendation

    As a result of the 1997 mandate, appropriations for Amtrak 
have been decreasing. In fiscal year 2000, Amtrak received 
$571,000,000 in capital grants. For fiscal year 2001, the 
administration requested $521,476,000 for capital needs and an 
additional $468,000,000 for intercity passenger rail services. 
The intercity passenger rail services funding would be used to 
improve rail service throughout the United States by shortening 
rail travel times. Since Amtrak is the only intercity rail 
provider in the United States at this time, these additional 
funds should be viewed as an additional federal subsidy to 
Amtrak. In comparison, Amtrak requested $989,000,000 for 
capital needs.
    The Committee recommendation fully funds the 
administration's capital request of $521,476,000. This is the 
fourth installment of a five year, $5 billion plan to re-
energize and recapitalize Amtrak. However, the Committee has 
disapproved funding for the intercity passenger rail service 
fund financing, which was to be derived from higher than 
anticipated receipts in the highway trust fund. Instead, the 
Committee has included a general provision (sec. 334) that 
allows the states the opportunity to flex any additional RABA 
revenue allocated to the state's congestion mitigation and air 
quality program and surface transportation program for 
intercity rail services. This proposal would allow states to 
spend additional funds on rail, such as upgrading track or 
installing grade crossing devices, that could directly affect 
Amtrak.
    Bill language.--Consistent with actions taken last year, 
the Committee has included bill language that prohibits Amtrak 
from obligating more than $208,590,000 prior to September 30, 
2001.
    Fire and life safety needs.--The Committee is greatly 
concerned about the pressing fire and life safety improvements 
needed in six tunnels beneath the Hudson and East Rivers and 
the areas beneath the existing Pennsylvania Station and Farley 
buildings. Amtrak, the Long Island Railroad, and the New Jersey 
Transit Corporation have identified $804,000,000 in fire and 
life safety needs, of which $654,000,000 is unfunded. Amtrak 
has testified that, due to the age of the infrastructure (circa 
1910) and the number of riders traveling through these tunnels 
(more than half a million per year), the potential for a 
catastrophic accident exists at Pennsylvania Station unless 
critical life safety improvements are made. These improvements 
include new ventilation shafts to improve airflow within the 
tunnels, new emergency access and egress, and improved 
communications and lighting in the tunnels. The Committee 
understands that Amtrak is having difficulty placing its new 
ventilation shafts and that the tunnels and station areas are 
heavily used, which reduces the times available to conduct 
needed improvements. However, fire and life safety repairs must 
be expedited. A fire in the tunnels, as currently configured, 
would be devastating and would likely result in a tragic loss 
of life.
    Fencing along the Northeast Corridor.--The Committee 
recognizes that Amtrak continues to make progress in enhancing 
safety along the tracks where high-speed rail will be 
operating. However, it is possible that installation of 
perimeter fencing in some areas that have been identified by 
municipal governments as potentially dangerous may not be 
complete before the high speed trains are fully operational. 
Amtrak should continue to work closely with affected Northeast 
Corridor communities, including the towns of Mansfield and 
Foxboro, Massachusetts, where the need for additional perimeter 
fencing has been identified, to ensure that the fencing is 
installed as rapidly as possible. The Committee notes that on 
March 15, 2000, the President of Amtrak made a commitment to 
complete the installation of the fencing that has been 
requested by Mansfield and Foxboro before high-speed rail is 
operational. It is our understanding that once the fencing is 
in place, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority will maintain 
it.
    Rail service in western Virginia.--Amtrak shall provide the 
Commonwealth of Virginia with equipment necessary to provide 
regularly scheduled service between Washington, D.C., Bristol, 
and Richmond, Virginia. Such equipment will be made available 
for this service once an agreement is signed between Amtrak, 
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the appropriate freight 
railroads.
    Trenton train station.--Amtrak should work closely with New 
Jersey Transit to assure that improvements made to the Trenton 
train station satisfy the needs of Amtrak's one million riders 
who use this station each year. Initial funding for this 
rehabilitation has been allocated from funds provided under 
section 5309 in the Federal Transit Administration.

             Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund

                                                         (Liquidation of
                                         (Limitation on      contract
                                          obligations)    authorization)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......  ...............  ...............
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......     $468,000,000     $468,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............  ...............  ...............
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...  ...............  ...............
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..     -468,000,000     -468,000,000

    The budget proposes a new grant program to improve 
intercity rail service nationwide. Under the proposed program, 
the Secretary of Transportation would award fifty percent 
matching grants to Amtrak and/or a partner state or state 
consortium to implement capital projects to enhance intercity 
passenger rail service. Eligible projects must generate a 
positive financial contribution for Amtrak and public benefits 
in excess of public costs. Amtrak must recover from the project 
all variable and attributable fixed/overhead costs associated 
with the new service. Funding for this program is to be derived 
from higher than anticipated receipts to the highway trust 
fund.
    Funding for the intercity rail passenger service fund has 
been denied. The Committee opposes altering the distribution of 
revenue-aligned budget authority to any program outside of 
those authorized under TEA21. The rail fund is one of many 
diversions proposed by the administration.
    Bill language.--The Committee has included bill language 
that would make revenue aligned budget authority available from 
the congestion mitigation and air quality program (CMAQ) and 
the surface transportation program (STP) available for rail 
service. This provision allows states the option to flex their 
CMAQ and STP funds, if they chose to do so, for intercity 
passenger rail service. In fiscal year 2001, approximately 
$186,000,000 would be available in CMAQ funding and 
$785,000,000 in STP funding. The Committee has included this 
language for two purposes: (1) to provide states with more 
flexibility to fund newly proposed high-speed rail programs 
outside of the Northeast Corridor; and (2) to provide states 
with additional funding for grade crossing activities outside 
of the designated high-speed rail corridors. The Committee has 
received $210,000,000 in requests for funding grade crossing 
closures, realignments, and other activities. The increased 
flexibility is intended to provide additional revenues to the 
states to mitigate safety hazards in rail corridors. Given 
these needs, the states should utilize this flexibility 
provision and provide sufficient funding to immediately address 
these serious hazards.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 PROGRAM

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as 
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal 
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were 
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation 
Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit 
Administration administers federal financial assistance 
programs for planning, developing and improving comprehensive 
mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
    Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration 
is provided by annual limitations on obligations provided in 
appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are 
required for portions of other accounts.
    The current authorization for the programs funded by the 
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). TEA21 
also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two 
additional discretionary spending categories, the highway 
category and the mass transit category. The mass transit 
category is comprised of transit formula grants, transit 
capital funding, Federal Transit Administration administrative 
expenses, transit planning and research and university 
transportation center funding. The mass transit category 
obligations are capped at $6,271,000,000 and outlays are capped 
at $4,994,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. Any additional 
appropriated funding above the levels specified as guaranteed 
for each transit program in TEA21 (that which could be 
appropriated from general funds authorized under section 
5338(h)) is scored against the non-defense discretionary 
category.
    The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 2001 is 
$6,271,000,000, including $1,254,400,000 direct appropriations 
and $5,016,600,000 limitations on contract authority. The total 
recommended is $485,647,000 over the 2000 enacted level, 
$50,000,000 below the fiscal year 2000 budget request, and the 
same level as guaranteed in TEA21. The following table 
summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels, the fiscal year 
2001 budget request, and the fiscal year 2001 program levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Recommended in
                           Program                               2000 enacted     2001 request       the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses......................................      $60,000,000      $64,000,000      $64,000,000
Formula grants...............................................    3,098,000,000    3,345,000,000    3,345,000,000
University transportation research...........................        6,000,000        6,000,000        6,000,000
Transit planning and research................................      107,000,000      110,000,000      110,000,000
Capital investment grants....................................    2,457,000,000    2,646,000,000    2,646,000,000
Job access and reverse commute grants \1\....................       75,000,000      150,000,000      100,000,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................  \2\ 5,803,000,0    6,321,000,000   6,271,000,000
                                                                            00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The budget request included a proposal to transfer $50,000,000 in obligation authority resulting from
  revenue aligned budget authority.
\2\ Excludes reduction of $483,000 for TASC and $17,647,000 in across-the-board rescissions pursuant to section
  301 of P.L. 106-113.

                        Administrative Expenses

                                                          Limitation on
                                         Appropriation     obligations
                                         (General fund)    (Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.......      $12,000,000      $48,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001......       12,800,000       51,200,000
Recommended in the bill...............       12,800,000       51,200,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000...         +800,000       +3,200,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001..  ...............  ...............

    The bill provides a total appropriation of $64,000,000 for 
FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $4,000,000 
above the 2000 enacted level and the same level as the budget 
request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit 
funding category. The recommended appropriation of $64,000,000 
is comprised of an appropriation of $12,800,000 from the 
general fund and $51,200,000 from limitations on obligations 
from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
    Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee has 
not provided an increase in 10 FTE in fiscal year 2001, noting 
that similar FTE increases approved and anticipated for fiscal 
year 2000 have not occurred. Therefore, the Committee's 
recommendation provides for an FTE level of 495 in fiscal year 
2001. New hires expected to meet the current FTE authorized 
level of 495 shall include general engineers and financial 
auditors who are capable of reviewing and analyzing in-house 
financial data of proposed projects and financial management 
oversight reports submitted to the FTA.
    Information technology and other administrative 
activities.--The Committee recommendation deletes funds 
requested for several information technology programs pending 
the office of the Secretary's chief information officer review 
and full identification of out-year costs (-$650,000) and 
provides half of the requested increases for workforce planning 
and training (+$250,000) and equipment and office renovation 
activities (+$90,000).
    National Transit Database.--The Committee's recommendation 
includes funding for the continued operation of the National 
Transit Database within this account, rather the transit 
planning and research account. The activities associated with 
the operation of the National Transit Database are 
administrative in nature and should be budgeted here rather 
than in the agency's research and development account. 
Moreover, the Committee has not approved the use of project 
management oversight funds for redesign of the National Transit 
Database. Funds for such activity may be derived from funds 
made available for the transit cooperative research program.
    Project management oversight activities.--The Committee 
directs that funding made available for the project management 
oversight function, section 23, shall include at least 
$21,900,000 for project management oversight reviews and 
$4,500,000 for financial management oversight reviews. The 
Committee believes it is imperative that the FTA understand 
more fully the financing proposals of major transit projects 
authorized in TEA21 before entering into full funding grant 
agreements and to identify critical funding deficiencies or 
inadequate financing plans before such funding shortfalls 
materialize. The experience to date with several projects in 
FTA's current portfolio suggests that a more aggressive 
approach is warranted by the FTA. The Committee further directs 
that the FTA submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, the Inspector General and the General 
Accounting Office the quarterly financial management oversight 
and project management oversight reports for each project with 
a full funding grant agreement.
    The Committee has included bill language requiring the FTA 
to transfer $1,000,000 from funds made available for project 
management oversight to the Inspector General for reimbursement 
of audits and reviews of major transit projects. Over the past 
several years, the IG has provided critical oversight of 
several major transit projects, which the Committee has found 
invaluable. The Committee anticipates that such oversight 
activities will be continued by the Inspector General in fiscal 
year 2001.
    Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--The FTA is directed 
to notify in writing the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations not later than 60 days before issuing a new full 
funding grant agreement or executing a scope change in existing 
full funding grant agreements. Correspondence regarding new 
full funding grant agreements shall include: (1) a copy of the 
proposed FFGA; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations 
required for that particular project; (3) yearly and total 
federal appropriations that can be reasonably planned or 
anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2003; 
and (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current 
and anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization. The 
Committee further directs that such correspondence include a 
financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability 
to finance, which shall be conducted by an independent 
examiner. This independent evaluation shall contain pertinent 
information, including an assessment of the capital cost 
estimate and the finance plan; the source and security of all 
public- and private-sector financial instruments; the project's 
operating plan which enumerates the project's future revenue 
and ridership forecasts; and planned contingencies and risks 
associated with the project. Correspondence relating to scope 
changes shall include any budget revisions or program changes 
that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in 
the full funding grant agreement, and shall include any 
proposed change in rail car procurements.

                             Formula Grants

                                                          Limitation on
                                        Appropriation      obligations
                                       (General fund)     (Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.....      $619,600,000    $2,478,400,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001....       669,000,000     2,676,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............       669,000,000     2,676,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.       +49,400,000      +197,600,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2001  ................  ................

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,345,000,000 
for transit formula grants. This level is $247,000,000 above 
the 2000 enacted level of $3,098,000,000 and is guaranteed 
under the transit category.
    The recommended program level of $3,345,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $669,000,000 from the general 
fund and $2,676,000,000 from limitations on obligations from 
the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Formula 
grants to states and local agencies funded under this heading 
fall into four categories: urbanized area formula grants 
(U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 
5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of elderly 
individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. sec. 
5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized areas 
(U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds 
are directed to a grant program for intercity bus operators to 
finance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility 
costs and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger 
operations.
    Within the total funding level of $3,345,000,000, the 
Committee's recommendation includes the following distribution:

Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307).........................    $2,946,019,961
Oversight.............................................        15,837,796
Clean fuels (sec. 5308)...............................        50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)......................        77,890,801
Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311).......................       205,701,492
Rural transportation accessibility incentive program..         4,700,000
Alaska railroad.......................................         4,849,950
Salt Lake City loaned Olympic bus program.............        40,000,000

    Section 3007 of the TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized 
formula grants by striking the authorization to utilize these 
funds for operating costs, but includes a specific provision 
allowing the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized 
areas with a population of less than 200,000. Generally, these 
grants may be used to fund capital projects, and to finance 
planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and 
associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All 
urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are 
statutorily required to use one percent of their annual formula 
grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art, 
bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
    Major project preliminary engineering and design (PE&D).--
The accompanying bill provides appreciable increases in formula 
funds allocated to transit authorities. These funds can be 
used, among other activities, for preliminary engineering and 
design of new rail extensions or busways. The Committee asserts 
that local project sponsors of new rail extensions or busways 
should use these funds for PE&D activities rather than seek 
section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Moreover, the Committee 
expects the FTA, when evaluating the local financial commitment 
of a given project, to consider the extent to which the 
project's sponsors have used the appreciable increases in the 
formula grants apportionments for preliminary engineering and 
design activities of proposed new systems.
    Clean fuels program.--TEA21 requires that $50,000,000 be 
set aside from funds made available under the formula grants 
program to fund a new clean fuels program. The clean fuels 
program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the 
major capital investment's bus program and provides grants for 
the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for eligible 
recipients in areas that are not in compliance with air quality 
attainment standards. The Committee has identified designated 
recipients of these funds within the projects listed under the 
bus program of the capital investment grants account.
    Salt Lake City loaned Olympic bus program.--The Committee 
recommends that $40,000,000 be set-aside from the formula 
grants program to fund the Salt Lake City loaned Olympic bus 
program. Funds shall be available for grants for the costs of 
planning, delivery and temporary use of transit vehicles for 
special transportation needs and construction of temporary 
transportation facilities for the XIX Winter Olympiad and the 
VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled, to be held in Salt Lake 
City, Utah. In allocating the funds, the Secretary shall make 
grants only to the Utah Department of Transportation, and such 
grants shall not be subject to any local share requirement or 
limitation on operating assistance under this Act or the 
Federal Transit Act, as amended. This appropriation is similar 
to one provided in support of the Summer Olympic Games in 
Atlanta in the fiscal year 1995 Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
    Over-the-road bus accessibility program.--The Committee has 
included bill language that increases the federal share of the 
incremental capital and training costs for the over-the-road 
bus accessibility program from the current level of 50 percent 
to 90 percent. A similar change in the federal share was 
enacted last year. Section 3038(g) of TEA21 provides a total of 
$4,700,000 for the incremental capital and training costs in 
fiscal year 2001.
    Operating expenses.--The bill contains a provision (sec. 
339) that increases to $1,444,000 the limitation on operating 
assistance relating to service for elderly individuals and 
individuals with disabilities which was established in 
accordance with provisions of section 360 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. FTA has interpreted 
section 3027(c)(3) of TEA21 to be limited to certain transit 
services that received section 5307 operating funds in the 
past. It was the intent of Congress in creating section 
3027(c)(3), however, also to include NorthEast Transportation 
Services (NETS), a transit service that has been serving 
elderly and handicapped in Tarrant County, Texas, although that 
service had not received FTA operating funds in the past. The 
additional provided in section 3027(c)(3) are to provide 
$260,000 in operating funds and to cover operating expenses of 
other current eligible participants.
    Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.--In the 
wake of a recent fire and evacuation of the Foggy Bottom Metro 
station in Washington, D.C., the Committee is deeply troubled 
by reports

                             --ALL--
```